Free trade is treated across The Bob Zadek Show as an economic baseline rather than a single doctrine: the condition that restrictions on exchange must justify, and the lens through which the Constitution, foreign policy, sanctions and even secession are examined. The excerpts span 2010 to 2022 and feature five guests, none of whom is presented as giving the topic a dedicated, full-hour treatment.
The constitutional purpose
In a 2010 episode, Anthony Sanders of the Institute for Justice told Bob Zadek that the original purpose of the Constitution, drafted in 1787, was not primarily the Bill of Rights with its protections for speech and religion, but the trade wars between the states. Sanders said the document created a national free trade zone so that people could earn an honest living by selling across different markets, and that two hundred years later the same fight continues because people still do not want others to be able to earn an honest living The Great Founding Fathers (2010).
Zadek responded that he is offended by any statute that denies somebody the right to sell their services or their goods to benefit their family, calling such a statute un-American, and invoking the image of the shining city on the hill over 234 years. He noted that the founders of Google were immigrants, and argued that if the country loses this, it becomes just another boring country and ceases to be the haven for free enterprise The Great Founding Fathers (2010).
Sanders framed the litigation he was describing as following the model of Kelo for eminent domain: what that case did for eminent domain, he said, the Institute for Justice hopes to do for economic liberty, so that the public will be outraged by licensing and land-use restrictions as it was by the abuses in Lake Elmo The Great Founding Fathers (2010).
Trade as the alternative to war
A 2019 episode with Christopher Preble of the Cato Institute placed trade at the center of the Founders’ foreign policy. Preble said the Founders saw the ideal U.S. foreign policy as one in which Americans were allowed and encouraged to interact with others around the world as much as possible through trade, while occasions for resorting to war would be quite rare. They put the war powers in the hands of Congress rather than the executive, he said, and maintained a small navy and really no permanent army, requiring forces to be raised for each war and stood down afterward On Foreign Policy, will Trump heed the Restraining Constituency or John Bolton? (2019).
Preble argued that the term “isolationism” is used deliberately as a pejorative, first deployed against critics of U.S. imperialism at the turn of the 20th century and in vogue after World War II. He said the 1930s featured restrictions on foreign trade and severe restrictions on immigration that tried to create a much more isolated America, and that privileging the military instrument over other instruments of American power ironically undermines America’s influence On Foreign Policy, will Trump heed the Restraining Constituency or John Bolton? (2019).
Preble also described the United States as eventually becoming an advocate of freer trade, though not in the early days, and said the country saw the benefits of trade both to enhance human prosperity and as an instrument of peace, because people who trade with one another build up trust and are therefore less likely to come into conflict. Zadek supplemented this with the observation that people are less likely to kill their customers or their suppliers than they are otherwise On Foreign Policy, will Trump heed the Restraining Constituency or John Bolton? (2019).
Sanctions as the opposite of free trade
In a 2022 episode on sanctions against Russia, Jonathan Bydlak of the R Street Institute said that if you generally believe free trade is a good thing, you are probably going to believe sanctions are a bad thing, because sanctions are the opposite: they make it more difficult for people in the private sector to trade and engage in economic transactions with one another. He made the point from the standpoint of an economist rather than someone concerned with international relations, and said the reasons countries impose sanctions go well beyond economic factors The Economic Consequences of Russian Sanctions (2022).
Bydlak said his feeling was that generally speaking the actions taken in response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis are warranted, but that it is important to think about the impacts not just on Russia in the short term but also on the United States, citing gas prices and roiled energy markets. He added that some of these measures may be difficult to unwind after the fact, so that even once Russia stops the invasion the economic situation will not simply be hunky-dory, and that sanctions do not stop at borders The Economic Consequences of Russian Sanctions (2022).
Free trade in a secession negotiation
A 2020 episode with Frank Buckley treated free trade as one item on the table if a state were to move toward independence. Buckley said an independence referendum would not really be binding and would only begin a process of negotiations, in which the division of federal debt and federal property would have to be discussed, and in which the votes of people in other states would matter as well as those of Californians Did California Just Declare Itself a Nation-State? (2020).
Among the things on the table, he said, would be free trade of goods and people: you do not just want sovereignty and independence, you want to couple it with interdependence and continued relations with the rest of the country and the rest of the world. He compared this to treaties with countries like Mexico and Canada, said California would not want to become an autarky and cut itself off from the rest of America, and noted that a large part of California’s wealth comes from trading with the rest of the United States. The most likely consequence of the bargain, he said, would be a return to the federalism of 200 years back, the federalism of the founders Did California Just Declare Itself a Nation-State? (2020).
Across episodes
The excerpts show no development in the treatment of free trade across the four episodes. The 2010 episode grounds it in the Constitution’s original purpose, the 2019 episode in the Founders’ foreign policy and the pejorative use of “isolationism,” the 2020 episode in the bargaining table of a hypothetical secession, and the 2022 episode in the economics of sanctions. Each guest — Sanders, Preble, Buckley and Bydlak — approaches the topic from a different angle, and no later episode revisits or revises an earlier argument.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not contain the substance of the 2017 episode with Richard Epstein on Trump versus free trade; only its title, topic list and speaker names are given, so its arguments about mutual gain, specialization and comparative advantage cannot be reported. No excerpt states what Kelo held, which amendment any case turned on, or the name of any bill or statute. The 2010 excerpt breaks off mid-sentence at the end of its section, and the 2019 excerpt ends mid-sentence as well, so the remainder of those exchanges is unavailable.