All I Really Need to Know About Antitrust I Learned in 1912

I. INTRODUCTIONHerbert Hovenkamp has indisputably earned the deanship of contemporary antitrust scholarship. One could point to many different attributes by which he has earned his laurels: fantastic scholarly productivity; clarity and precision in the craftof writing; analytical depth in both law and economics; moderation in a field apt to polarization; and custodianship of the influential Areeda treatise.1 In this Essay, I hope to honor another quality that has contributed significantly to Herb's tremendous success as an antitrust scholar-his engagement with history.Much contemporary antitrust scholarship bursts with excitement at the discovery of new phenomena or theories that in all actuality have long shelf lives in earlier epochs in the antitrust cycle. Though antitrust scholars often speak as though economic analysis began with the structuralist school of the 1950s, Herb has frequently reminded everyone that antitrust proponents and opponents have never faced a shortage of economic theories.2 Through his insights as a legal historian, Herb has helped make the antitrust community aware of the resonances of current debates with the debates and resolutions of earlier generations.Two years ago, Herb and I tried unsuccessfully to organize a symposium on the centennial anniversary of the 1912 United States presidential election. In this Essay, I hope to share some of the insights that we planned to explore in the centennial year of that momentous campaign. The 1912 election was, by far, the most consequential for U.S. competition policy to date. As I shall argue, with apologies to Robert Fulghum3 and some degree of dramatic overstatement, all that we really need to know about antitrust was debated at length, by strong expositors, in 1912. Through their speeches, correspondence, and writings, the candidates laid out a broad range of positions available on the three historically persistent questions about antitrust policy: (1) Do we want a competitive economy or a managed one?; (2) Is antitrust necessary to a competitive economy?; and (3) What sort of institutional arrangements produce the best antitrust enforcement?II. 1912: A BRIEF RETROSPECTIVEThe four-way presidential race of 1912 between Woodrow Wilson, William Taft, Theodore Roosevelt, and Eugene Debs was arguably the most melodramatic in American history. Framed around the unraveling friendship of Roosevelt and Taft-with Roosevelt calling Tafta "fathead" and "puzzlewit" and Taftcalling Roosevelt a "dangerous egoist" and "demagogue"4-the race involved a momentous succession of dramatic and perilous interludes: Roosevelt was shot in the chest in Milwaukee and then brushed offhis friends and doctors to continue giving a political speech before collapsing and nearly dying; Taftlost one of his closest advisers, Archie Butt, in the sinking of the Titanic, and then Taft's running mate, James Sherman, died of illness only days before the election; and just two days before the election, Wilson received a four-inch scalp cut in a motor vehicle accident.5But the election was significant for far more than its oversized characters and personal narratives. The race was momentous because of the vital domestic and foreign policies at stake, contestation over the role of state in economic and social regulation, and the fracturing of the two-party political system which opened the door to a far wider range of ideological expression than usual in the general election. Further, the fact that Roosevelt and Wilson (and to a lesser extent Taft) were public intellectuals whose rhetorical contributions came not merely in campaign speeches but in articles, tracts, and books makes 1912 rich fodder for examination of political, ideological, and legal contestations during the rise of Progressivism; America's entry onto the world stage;6 and the economic, social, and political upheavals that would mark the 20th century.Antitrust policy played a critical role in the 1912 election-arguably for the last time. …