"In some ways, with the security challenges this country has faced, we have had to put in rules and regulations for business to be able to sustain their growth and create jobs"
About this Quote
Wayne Allard points to a paradox at the heart of American economic life: markets sometimes need rules to stay free. Security threats can shatter the trust and predictability that commerce depends on, so when danger rises, the state sets guardrails that make everyday business possible. After 9/11, companies could not simply rely on voluntary measures to keep planes flying, ports open, or financial transactions clean. Uniform standards for cargo screening, know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering checks, chemical facility safeguards, and critical infrastructure protection created a baseline that reassured customers, investors, and trading partners. The immediate costs of compliance bought back the confidence without which growth and hiring would stall.
The phrasing matters. By saying "in some ways", Allard signals that this is a targeted, pragmatic case for regulation, not a blanket endorsement. The argument rests on the conservative idea that a chief role of government is to provide security. When the threat is terrorism, cyber intrusion, or supply chain sabotage, fragmented private action cannot coordinate at the necessary scale. Common rules solve a collective action problem and create a level field so that responsible firms are not punished for doing the right thing.
There is a political subtext as well. As a Republican known for limited-government leanings, Allard recasts certain regulations as enabling rather than restraining enterprise. The point is not to expand bureaucracy for its own sake, but to protect the conditions under which commerce thrives: predictable risk, resilient infrastructure, and public trust. He also nods to the danger of overreach. Regulations that are too heavy or poorly designed can smother innovation; those that are focused and adaptive can harden systems against shocks while leaving room to compete.
Read this way, the statement frames security-driven rules as a shield for the marketplace. In an era of asymmetric threats, the right guardrails do not choke growth; they are what keeps it going.
The phrasing matters. By saying "in some ways", Allard signals that this is a targeted, pragmatic case for regulation, not a blanket endorsement. The argument rests on the conservative idea that a chief role of government is to provide security. When the threat is terrorism, cyber intrusion, or supply chain sabotage, fragmented private action cannot coordinate at the necessary scale. Common rules solve a collective action problem and create a level field so that responsible firms are not punished for doing the right thing.
There is a political subtext as well. As a Republican known for limited-government leanings, Allard recasts certain regulations as enabling rather than restraining enterprise. The point is not to expand bureaucracy for its own sake, but to protect the conditions under which commerce thrives: predictable risk, resilient infrastructure, and public trust. He also nods to the danger of overreach. Regulations that are too heavy or poorly designed can smother innovation; those that are focused and adaptive can harden systems against shocks while leaving room to compete.
Read this way, the statement frames security-driven rules as a shield for the marketplace. In an era of asymmetric threats, the right guardrails do not choke growth; they are what keeps it going.
Quote Details
| Topic | Business |
|---|
More Quotes by Wayne
Add to List
