There is nothing remotely conservative, nor sensible, in Sen. Hawley's view that the 1A entitles him to a book. I am happy to see that view widely rejected. The same beliefs undergird his rejection of property rights in favor of bureaucratic control over firms and people. (1/x)

Antitrust law was never more than a convenient medium for the populists -at any cost- to get "revenge" against "big tech" and to create an economy of essential facilities shared under rules set by agencies and Congress. That view will also be widely rejected. (2/x)

When I penned "A Time for Choosing," w @jmrybnicek, the goal was to persuade fellow conservatives that the cost of weaponize AT for politics was too high in terms of the rule of law, institutional integrity, economic growth, and individual liberty.

https://nationalaffairs.com/time-choosing-conservative-case-against-weaponizing-antitrust (3/x)

It was Hawley (& Cruz) that held together the Hawley-Warren antitrust axis. My prediction is that a less appreciated (and way less important) outcome of his recent abysmal performance is the disintegration of bipartisan support for a new AT. Leadership matters. (4/x)

With the Ds controlling the WH & Congress - no doubt we will see some change: a presumption here, a merger filing fee bill there, increased funding, rulemaking, a spike in second request rate, & more litigation. These are important. Some are good ideas. Some not. (5/x)

But my prediction is that the prospects for a bipartisan antitrust revolution -- e.g., the rejection of the CW standard, overturning broad swaths of precedent, rules of per se illegality, or dramatic changes in policy -- have declined significantly. END (6/6).