In the political world, it seems like everyone — no matter which side of the aisle they reside on — loves small business. And they truly seem to want small businesses to succeed. Just not too much, apparently.

If a business grows, innovates, excels at serving consumers and rises to become a global leader, the political winds often blow against such enterprises. Specifically, when progressivism and populism push onto the political stage, businesses that rank as global leaders suddenly attract political attacks.

While progressivism is a viewpoint from the left and populism tends to be on the right, they often differ more in tone and emphasis rather than actual policymaking. Consider the current situation in which various Democrats and Republicans attack so-called “Big Tech,” namely Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google. One might think U.S. Sens Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.,  and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., disagree on everything. But they both have books out attacking “big” business.

In the case of tech leaders, Democrats follow a long tradition of being suspect of and opposed to large businesses. As for Republicans, attacks appear primarily rooted in political disagreements with these firms. In either case, various Democrats and Republicans are, to varying degrees, calling for more antitrust regulation.

Five antitrust bills targeting “Big Tech” were released by the House Subcommittee on Antitrust. Among other things, these bills propose to limit mergers and acquisitions, restrict lines of business technology companies could enter, dictate business models and operations and increase the budgets of antitrust regulators.

In the fall of 2020 and early in 2021, Democrats and Republicans on the subcommittee produced their own reports advocating increased antitrust regulatory activism, only disagreeing on how far to go. Unfortunately, and sadly, the five bills dropped by Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline, D-R.I., have the support of the ranking Republican member, Ken Buck, R-Colo.

These bills represent a vast expansion of government power and intrusion into the market. To believe this type of meddling will begin and end with “Big Tech” is naive. But even if lawmakers could somehow manage to simply focus on the tech sector, the effects on innovation, investment, competition and the startup ecosystem would be severe.  Indeed, antitrust regulation is a tricky business, to say the least.

In effect, antitrust regulation is about politicians and their appointees overruling decisions made by consumers and assuming they know how industries and markets will develop. These are outrageous assumptions given how dynamic and innovative markets are. Elected officials and their appointees are governed by political incentives and lack the knowledge to make such judgments.

The unforeseen — or more aptly, foreseen — consequences of regulatory activism include limiting investment, innovation, entrepreneurship and efficiency, with direct and indirect costs imposed far beyond “Big Tech” and onto consumers and new, emerging and future competitors.

Whether or not you buy into the latest anti-big-business trend, the question is: What’s the most beneficial path for keeping large businesses focused on serving consumers well?

First, companies like Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google earned their market leadership by serving consumers well. Given the dynamism of technology markets, these firms can’t afford to act as if they’re monopolists and get fat and sloppy.

If large firms fail to serve and innovate, they’re just as vulnerable as any other businesses. History is strewn with market leaders who either no longer exist or rank as mere shadows of what they once were — Atari, Blockbuster, Borders, Kodak, Pan Am and Sears among them.

Rather than go down the path of antitrust regulatory activism and dictates — along with the considerable and varied costs — the most beneficial actions elected officials can take if they’re truly concerned about big business is to establish the best possible environment in which new competitors can emerge.
If you’re worried about big business, make sure entrepreneurship flourishes.

There’s no mystery as to what a pro-entrepreneurship policy agenda looks like. It includes low personal and corporate income tax rates, no capital gains taxes, a light regulatory touch, free trade, a welcoming immigration agenda, government spending restraint and a Federal Reserve focused on maintaining sound money.

Get that right, and entrepreneurship, investment and innovation flourish. In the end, so-called “Big Tech” shouldn’t have to worry about dealing with overwrought politicians and regulators, but instead about entrepreneurs who relentlessly push to advance innovation and dynamism.

To put it succinctly, we should all want entrepreneurs — not politicians — gunning for the big guys. That’s how today’s big guys became, well, big guys.