Conservatism is a word I’ve heard a lot since moving here to take the position as CEO of Mississippi’s conservative think tank, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. It seems almost everyone considers himself a conservative. I’m discovering the word has lost some of its meaning, though. It has become interchangeable with the GOP or with one’s views on the Second Amendment or on being pro-life. But those definitions of conservative are not wholly accurate. More importantly, they’re not enough. A conservative is also willing to stand up to encroaching power of all forms of government, to the growing corporatism that seeks to govern us from the boardroom, and to the menace to our society that is a progressive culture.

To make Mississippi a leader in economic growth, entrepreneurship, job creation, and prosperity, we have to make progress on the issue of our long-standing dependence on government. We have to change our public policy. We need to value work, remove barriers to risk-taking, free parents to choose the education path that works for their own children, and leverage the power of the private enterprises of faith, family, non-profits, and private organizations. The faith-based and philanthropic generosity of Mississippians is amazing. It can create so much good, but we have to prevent government from competing with this philanthropy. The best solutions in civil society come from local, efficient, effective, temporary actions where a personal relationship ensures mutual accountability. This is how we used to solve the problems in our civil society.

There are far too many Mississippians who seek to petition government to do this work. Worse, too many individuals and companies are looking to the government for a contract, a job, a partner, or protection from competition. When we allow government to become the Holy Grail in this way, we weaken the free market. We create a disincentive to the formation and deployment of capital. We thwart the opportunity for all Mississippians to prosper. What’s more, such reliance on government ensures only those with power have significant influence on Mississippi, including determining who represents us in the legislative and executive branches of our government.

What makes a “conservative” is not a party or allegiance to a particular leader or political campaign, but the power of ideas. As conservatives, our ideas are based on bedrock values and fundamental truths. Freedom is a policy that works. A limited and restrained government is the essence of our system. And the principle of ordered liberty holds it all together. Our goal at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy is to play a leadership role in building a Mississippi where individual liberty, opportunity, and responsibility reign because government is limited. We believe this is the only way nations, states, and cities have ever enjoyed durable prosperity.

If we remain committed to these ideas and work hard to convince others of their value, we can all experience a Magnolia renaissance. And we can say conservatism made it possible. Real conservatism. The kind of which Bill Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and Milton Friedman spoke. The kind where we are free to pursue our individual liberty and speak our minds. The kind where we encourage people to take action and take risks in pursuit of their happiness. The kind where we take personal responsibility for our futures and stop looking for government to solve all of our problems.

There is an important role for government but it must be limited. Government functions best when it is closest to the people and when it is open and transparent. And the states are the best avenue for getting things done. Although our national government continues to grow into an unwieldy and bureaucratic swamp, our country is still federalist. We are a collection of semi-sovereign states. Federalism is a conservative idea. As Reagan stated in his first inaugural address, “The federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.” Thanks to our founding fathers, the real political and policy power is supposed to belong to the states.

Though I’ve lived in Mississippi for only a few months now, I’ve come to learn that y’all are not very fond of people telling you what to do, especially not people in Washington, D.C. I admire that. That’s a conservative thing, too. That independence goes to the heart of the conservative movement. It was present at our founding. It was what compelled Bill Buckley to start National Review. It was what gave us Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. And if we harness it, conservatism will lead us to a prosperous Mississippi—a Mississippi where individual liberty, opportunity, and responsibility reign because government is limited.

Mississippi has a recidivism problem that’s jeopardizing public safety and burdening taxpayers. As of 2013, the Magnolia State had the nation’s third-highest incarceration rate per capita. What’s more, research suggests that around 95 percent of Mississippi’s enormous prison population will eventually be freed. And, unfortunately, around three quarters of those released will likely reoffend within five years.

There are policies, however, that can be implemented to help reverse this trend. Researchers have demonstrated that the formerly incarcerated are more likely to return to crime if they cannot find stable employment upon release. But many employers will not hire or even interview someone with a criminal record regardless of their crime, which often leads to long-term unemployment for these individuals. In fact, surveys suggest that 60-75 percent of the formerly incarcerated are jobless up to a year after their release.

Consequently, several states have enacted “second chance” legislation to better these individuals’ odds of landing decent jobs. “Second chance” measures aim to address the unemployment issue by enabling the formerly incarcerated to expunge their records of petty, first-time offenses. Mississippi should similarly strive to remove barriers to employment for these individuals.

Mississippi already has a program that allows certain first-time offenders to petition the court to seal their criminal records. However, these individuals aren’t permitted to have their records expunged under this program if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor traffic offense, such as a DUI. Considering that at least 1 percent of drivers are arrested for DUIs each year, an inordinate number of people are struggling to find gainful employment due to a one-time DUI offense.

DUIs and similar low-level traffic offenses ought to be treated the same as other misdemeanors for the purposes of the first-offender program. Mississippi could follow Texas’ lead in this regard by allowing first-time DUI offenders who registered a 0.14 blood alcohol content or lower to petition for expungement.

Individuals are also ineligible for first-time offender-status — and therefore cannot have their criminal records sealed — if they have been convicted of specific, nonviolent felonies, including many drug crimes. Nationally, 16 percent of inmates are imprisoned due to drug-related crimes. While it isn’t entirely clear how many of these are first-time-offenders, this statistic shows that a large number of individuals could benefit from a fresh start. Mississippi should therefore append more non-violent drug crimes to the list of expungement-eligible offenses.

Also, in many cases, Mississippians who were over 21 years old at the time of their offense are precluded from having their records sealed. Like juveniles, adults over the age of 21 make mistakes and deserve a second chance after their first violation. As a result, Mississippi ought to include more of those who were over 21 years old at the time of their crime into its first-time-offender program.

Even when offenders actually qualify to have their records sealed, they can’t request an expungement until five years after they have completed their sentence. By that point, many of the formerly incarcerated have already been dealing with criminal background-related joblessness. Like Texas, Mississippi ought to avail the first-time-offender program to individuals immediately upon their completion of court requirements to enable them to quickly obtain work.

Mississippi’s occupational licensing system also impacts formerly-incarcerated individuals’ ability to find employment. Like most states, Mississippi requires state licenses for myriad jobs. While most licenses don’t have strict criminal background requirements, many boards can reject applications based on prior convictions, thereby preventing people from working. Rather than allowing this, the state ought to permit boards to only consider convictions directly related to their industry and allow prospective employers to decide whether they wish to hire someone with a record.

Finally, each of these reforms should be applied retroactively in order to provide past offenders the same second chance as present ones.

Mississippi’s current law is clearly fraught with limitations and desperately needs updating. These proposed measures should not be misinterpreted as being soft on crime. Rather, they are about giving first-time offenders an opportunity to become productive citizens after they’ve been prosecuted and punished for their crimes. These reforms are simply smart public policies. They can decrease the number of formerly-incarcerated people whom Mississippians financially support through various entitlement programs. Further, these reforms would reduce recidivism rates, benefiting the general public with a safer society and reduced tax burden.

Work gives people purpose and contributes to a stronger economy and civil society.

A prospering Mississippi requires putting as many individuals to work as possible. Let’s give the formerly incarcerated the chance to become employed, productive members of society.

This column appeared in the Clarion Ledger on June 24, 2018.

The Tupelo city council is considering regulating food trucks in the city but not for reasons you may suspect.

It is not because the food trucks are unclean. It is not because they are unsafe. There hasn’t been any report of a massive wave of citizens becoming ill after enjoying a meal from a local food truck.

And the food trucks aren’t operating illegally. They still go through the same health and safety regulations of a traditional restaurant.

According to a recent article in The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, city leaders are looking to regulate food trucks as part of an effort to protect brick-and-mortar restaurants within the city limits.

Picking winners and losers

The food trucks are simply competition, and apparently the city of Tupelo is interested in favoring one type of industry over another.

We all agree that there are general standards than any business that is serving food must meet. That is already being done in Tupelo. No cities, however, should be in the business of saying you must be located a certain distance from an established restaurant. Or you can only have food trucks for certain special events or weekends.

City leaders should encourage food trucks. They should be proud that food trucks want to be in their city. A look around any growing or dynamic city across the country will show an emerging food truck sector. That should be celebrated, not overregulated.

This is about more than food trucks

We should be encouraging people to become entrepreneurs. To follow their passion. This extends beyond just food trucks and touches every area of our economy.

Too often government leaders just think about what already exists or what is already providing a tax revenue. And then we feel threatened if competition rises up. As anyone who has ever been part of the private sector will tell you, competition is a good thing. Businesses grow (or fail). And consumers win.

The reason taxis have fought Uber or Lyft is not because you or I can’t drive people to where they want to go. Picking someone up at the airport and driving them to a hotel is not some proprietary work that an untrained professional cannot do. Rather, it is monopoly one sector of an industry had. They lost that monopoly because, like all monopolies, innovation, risk taking, and customer service was absent from the taxi industry.

Rather than get better or more competitive, monopolies reach out to the government to protect them. We saw this when the ridesharing economy was born and expanded. We have seen it with the homesharing economy. We see it with food trucks. And I am certain we will see it in other areas of our economy in the future.

Unfortunately, as we have witnessed in almost every case, the government mindset has been to overregulate and protect what it is already there. To choose winners and losers.

That should not be the job of government. That should be the job of the individual citizens. Because if they don’t like what food trucks in Tupelo are providing, the market will decide who the winners and losers are. We don’t go to government websites to choose which restaurant or hotel we will visit. We go to peer review sites or apps.

Encouraging entrepreneurship and letting the market decide is the answer that Tupelo’s city council should be choosing. It works in cities all across America. And it will work in Tupelo if government leaders will just let the citizens decide for themselves.

Memo to activist CEOs: Dust off your notes, open your textbooks, and reread the basics of corporate finance taught at every credible university. The fiduciary responsibility of a CEO is to safeguard the company’s assets and acknowledge this overriding principle: “It’s not our money but that of the shareholders.”

In today’s heated political climate, some executives have rejected the fundamentals in favor of short-term publicity for themselves and their corporations. When several CEOs quickly resigned over the past few days from the now-disbanded White House Council on Manufacturing, they cited personal views or political disagreement as their reason for leaving. Those may be truthful reasons, but are they in the best interests of the companies they represent? Wouldn’t shareholders be better off with their interests represented in this powerful group of government officials who control regulatory policy?

Some might call Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier’s decision to resign from the council brave, but his company would have gained a significant competitive advantage from retaining its seat on the council. Shareholders may have legitimate questions about the risk of Mr. Frazier’s bravery. And if high-profile CEOs have the authority to take such risks, should they bear responsibility for any long-term damage to shareholder value? We say yes.

Target Corp. shareholders have watched helplessly since last year as another case of political posturing played out in North Carolina, where we work and live. Target’s activist CEO, Brian Cornell, responded to the state’s contentious House Bill 2, also known as the bathroom law, by announcing a new “inclusive” bathroom policy in April 2016. What were the results? Plummeting sales due to a widespread boycott, an erosion of market share and, most important, a 40% drop in Target’s stock price between April 2016 and July 2017. That devastation equated to a $20 billion loss of shareholder value while the market rose 15% in that same period.

For the owners of the company—the thousands of small shareholders and the millions of Americans whose pension plans own Target stock—this performance did not affect their annual incomes, but it affected their life savings and retirement. They got sucker-punched. They should punch back.

When shareholders suffer damages at the hands of corporate management, they can pursue one of two legal remedies: class-action suits, in which multiple plaintiffs belonging to a defined “class” join a suit seeking compensation, or shareholder derivative lawsuits, in which company managers are sued on behalf of all shareholders. Take your pick, Target shareholders. Willful and controversial CEO activism shouldn’t be viewed any differently from malfeasance or bad policies. They all reek of leadership malpractice.

In the landmark 1919 case Dodge v. Ford, the Michigan Supreme Court laid out the ruling that has guided corporate America ever since. Ford Motor Co. must make decisions in the interests of its shareholders, the court ruled, rather than in a charitable manner. The case is often cited as affirming the principle of “shareholder primacy.” The ruling affirmed a wide latitude in running a company, but also noted “a corporation should have as its objective the conduct of business activities with a view to enhancing corporate profit and shareholder gain.”

Did Mr. Cornell really see a rational link between shareholder gain and Target’s inclusive bathroom policy? When Howard Schultz of Starbucks decides to take away Christmas cups or hire refugees as a challenge to President Trump, and the stock fares miserably compared with its competition, do the coffee chain’s 24,000 small shareholders have the right to sue? Again, we say yes.

Justin Danhof, general counsel for the National Center for Public Policy Research, travels the country to attend shareholder meetings of public corporations. According to Mr. Danhof, “activism is driven by the CEOs’ belief that progressive ideas are popular among media and that good public relations follows those who espouse those views.” This might explain why 127 companies signed on to oppose Mr. Trump’s immigration executive order or why 68 companies opposed North Carolina’s HB2—even before enough information was available to understand either.

Our message to small shareholders of companies like Starbucks, Merck and Target: You can sue when a CEO decides to institute a corporate social-responsibility program that has no benefit to the business. If you want to ensure shareholder primacy is protected, keep your legal options open.

This column appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 18, 2017.

After watching "The Masters" recently, I realized how much professional golf is like the free market.

Think about it. Golfers compete in one of the only major sports that does not use a socialistic design to ensure outcomes. There are no salaries, just winnings. You cannot guarantee outcomes in golf, only opportunities. The pay in pro golf is in direct proportion to a player's willingness to practice, prepare, and compete. Win or make cuts and you earn; miss cuts and you find a new profession or become a teaching pro. A golfer can decide not to play in a particular tournament or to play in every one, but the decision and consequence belongs to the golfer. No team plane takes golfers to tournaments; no team hotel rooms and meals are arranged and paid for; no team trainer wakes the golfer up and tells him where to be and when.

Golf is the ultimate in personal responsibility. And you can probably already tell golfers are my favorite athletes.

Many people believe pro golfers were born with a silver spoon and have not really "worked" to earn their economic status. They just walk around and hit a ball, they say. And they had to be rich to learn the sport in the first place.

The critics are wrong, though. It’s kind of the way many on the Left believe most high-earners and achievers somehow found their success on the backs of others rather than through schooling, dedication, sacrifice, discipline, talent, and time.

If you want proof the Left is wrong on golf, look at Arnie and Tiger. They’re arguably two of the best players in the history of the game. They’re certainly two of the biggest earners. Both were raised in working class families, not posh neighborhoods. They took advantage of their opportunities. They proved that, in this country, you have the opportunity to do and be just about anything if you are willing to put in the work and take the risk.

You know what else? Pro golfers, The Masters, the PGA, and other professional golf organizations are the biggest contributors to charity in all of professional sports. It isn't even close. More evidence that private enterprise and private citizens can do valuable and measurable things without government assistance.

If only we could govern the nation in such a limited way.

Golf is a beautiful example of an efficient, free-market system. The players respect the game, they respect the players who came before them, and they respect the amateurs and fans who keep the sport healthy. They wear their shirts tucked in, their hats on straight, and they shake hands with their competitors at the conclusion of the match—win, lose, or draw. America's children (and more than a few adults) could learn a lot from the game of golf.

Jon L. Pritchett (@tobaccoroadguy) is president and CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, the state’s non-partisan, free-market think tank. Prior to joining MCPP, Jon was senior vice president of the John Locke Foundation. He also worked as an investment banker, executive, and entrepreneur over a 28-year career in private business. His opinions have been published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, the Foundation for Economic Education, and many local newspapers.

View the article

Many free-market think tanks believe it is counter-productive for think tanks to engage in the culture wars. They think our time should be focused exclusively on policy research, legislative outreach, and legal action. And while those activities are important for limiting government and encouraging individual flourishing, we should also be engaged in the war taking place in our culture.

The reason culture wars are important is, while policy, political, and legal actions tend to be lagging indicators of what is happening in our society, culture is a leading indicator. Culture signals what people believe and what they value. Want to know where our world is headed? Don't look to the halls of Congress or the Mississippi Legislature. Politicians follow the lead of the masses. Instead, look to the most popular TV shows, movies, and sports stars. They are shaping how people think about what is morally right and fair.

Presently, the progressives (opponents of free markets and limited government) dominate discussion in the culture wars. If conservatives and libertarians fail to engage on culture, we will lose when it comes to policymaking and litigation down the road. The fight begins in the culture.

Fighting progressives in the culture wars is akin to weeding your garden. If you want to grow a beautiful flower, you need to feed it sun, water, and nutrients, but you also need to remove weeds. If left unattended, invasive weeds can grow stronger. If not pulled early, they can take root in the soil and begin to compete with your flower. Over time, weeds can steal the water, sunlight, and nutrients. They can become bigger, taller, and stronger than your precious flower. While we focus on nurturing the fragile flower of liberty, we also must fight the weeds of collectivism, liberalism, and progressivism.

I'm encouraged by the culture debate that took place in NFL stadiums about national anthems last year. While progressives have infected the arts, higher education, Hollywood, and news, we still have a chance to keep sports inoculated from the disease. Until recently, sports have maintained their status as a great unifier of people from different backgrounds. No matter our race, color, sex, age, country of origin, or political interests, we share a love for our teams. As NFL owners, players, ESPN, and ESPN's parent company, Disney, learned the hard way, sports consumers want their sports delivered free of social commentary and political opinion. If a consumer wants political analysis, there are plenty of other channels.

The NFL controversy was just a small skirmish in the larger culture war. There will continue to be social justice warriors who are constantly in search of a victim to protect. There will still be virtue signalers who want to show how compassionate they are but ignore the broader consequences of their actions. Folks will continue to do things like sit for a national anthem, for instance, even if it erodes a unifying, patriotic gesture that should be used to bring us together. But the NFL skirmish showed those with traditional values could win. There is a time and a place for rigorous debate about social policies. That time is not during the national anthem of our nation's sporting events. If nothing else, perhaps we preserved the joy of watching live sports delivered to our devices without political interruption. It remains to be seen how long the defense will hold, though. We must keep fighting.

The sober realization is that socialism is still challenging freedom — even with the irrefutable mountain of evidence of its abject failure and toll on humans everywhere it has been tried. Thanks to John Locke, we have a roadmap for freedom and opportunity that any of us can follow.

Socialism has crippled nations and impoverished their citizens. The evidence is clear.  Yet despite this, lots of people in the United States, United Kingdom, and Europe want more of it. A recent survey of adults from the American Culture and Faith Institute found that four out of every 10 adults in America prefer socialism to capitalism. A 2016 Gallup poll found 35 percent of Americans viewed socialism favorably. Among voters younger than 30, that number was an eye-opening 55 percent. The Democratic Socialists of America, the largest Marxist organization since World War II, has 25,000 members — up from just 8,000 members in 2015, when it endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. The DSA has chapters in 49 states. As free-market capitalists and advocates for liberty, it’s clear we have work to do. 

The Legatum Institute, a London think tank, recently published a research report and poll finding widespread public support in the U.K. for renationalizing railroads, banks, and utilities. In the report, Legatum’s Matthew Elliott wrote this sobering summary: “We find that on almost every issue, the public tends to favor non-free-market ideals rather than those of the free market. Instead of an unregulated economy, the public favors regulation. Instead of companies striving for profit above all else, they want businesses to make less profit and be more socially responsible. The capitalism ‘brand’ is in crisis. It is seen as greedy, selfish, and corrupt.”  

The 35-year-old pro-free-market consensus among the U.K.’s three major political parties appears to have collapsed. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has called repeatedly for higher taxes, more regulation, and re-nationalization of major industry.  

In response to Corbyn, former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned his party against reverting to policies that failed so miserably. Few voters seem to know — or care —about the paralyzing malaise that Margaret Thatcher so completely reversed with her free-market policies in the late 1970s and 1980s. The ideological battle had seemed at an end when Blair rejected Labour’s historical program of socialism in the 1990s.  

But memories are short. In 2017, Blair warned Labour, “I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.” Understanding the dangerous and ill-founded allure of socialism, Blair went on to caution, “Anyone who supports Corbyn in their heart needs to have a heart transplant!” Blair’s admonition, coupled with Corbyn’s strong support among young voters, recalled Winston Churchill’s famous quote: “If you are not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative by age 30, you have no head.”  

As the data above indicate, this is not a European phenomenon. Consider the surprising candidacy of Sanders in 2016. A generation ago, it would have been the kiss of death for any American politician — no matter how liberal — to have been called a “socialist.” A liberal like Hubert Humphrey spent a lifetime vehemently denying he was a socialist. Suddenly, an elderly senator from the backwoods of New England mounted a viable national campaign as a self-proclaimed socialist. His support was especially strong among young voters. But there are older citizens and leaders throughout the world who should know better. 

Pope Francis recently joined a chorus of voices hostile to free markets and capitalism. In a speech at the Chartreux Institute, he warned a group of global finance students not to “blindly obey the invisible hand of the market” but rather to become “promoters and defenders of a growth in equality.” How sad and embarrassing that the dominant Western voice of Christianity is blind to the very mechanism that has proved to be the best way to lift humans from poverty and reduce inequality all over the world. 

In his famous treatise, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith showed us that government doesn’t need to attempt to manufacture a central plan to accomplish the greatest value to all because individuals, who are pursuing personal gain, will accomplish this on their own. In essence, Smith correctly viewed the “invisible hand” (individuals responding to market signals and pursuing mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges) as a powerful mechanism to provide benefits to the whole of society. Today, in our free-market system, the only way a person can create great wealth is to provide valuable products and services for which millions of people are willing to pay voluntarily.  

Thanks to John Locke and his brilliant ideas of a system of private property rights, which were codified in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, Americans have the equal opportunity to pursue their own interests and passions and to enjoy the fruits of such pursuit. This pursuit, rather than being a source of inequality, neglect, and exploitation as people like Corbyn, Pope Francis, and Sanders would have us believe, actually facilitates more common good, moral action, equality, opportunity, and prosperity than any economic or cultural system ever tried in the history of the world.  

A generation ago, Thatcher’s dismissal of socialism was well-known and generally accepted: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”  

The 20th century is littered with the failures of socialism. Millions have been either thrust into poverty or held captive to poverty by socialistic governments. As economist Thomas Sowell wrote, “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” China, Russia, Zimbabwe, India, Argentina, etc., have all flirted with socialism with uniformly disastrous results. The latest economic disaster is Venezuela. President Trump’s analysis is right on the mark: “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”

But do young people understand what Trump is saying? For those of us old enough to have witnessed the many failures of socialism or to have read about them, the words of Ronald Reagan ring true. “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,” the 40th president said. “We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

Somehow the next generation has to grasp the wisdom of Churchill’s warning: “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” Hopefully the U.S. — and every other nation — can heed the brilliant teachings of Adam Smith and John Locke and the overwhelming evidence of history without having to experience the painful failures of socialism firsthand.

This column appeared in FEE on January 7, 2018.