The trouble is that we live in an increasingly interconnected world, and more and more of our actions impact other people - the more contact we have, the more r

The trouble is that we live in an increasingly interconnected world, and more and more of our actions impact other people - the more contact we have, the more rules there's going to need to be. So "regulatory inflation" is not necessarily a bad thing. But I don't think any one on the left or right would argue that regulations couldn't be improved almost everywhere. What I think the left worries about is that the only regulations that ever seem to be removed are the ones that stop powerful organizations from causing negative externalities. To put it another way: would football be better with less or more rules? The answer can't be anything but "it depends". Every one of those rules is there for some reason, sometimes a very non-obvious reason, and sometimes to stop some rare but serious injury from happening. The "more or less" question isn't one that someone with a shallow understanding of the sport can have a reasonable opinion on. It takes a wise and historically-informed team of people to remove regulatory clutter without allowing the problem that the regulations were originally meant to address to re-occur (if, of course, it actually addressed it). My point is that it shouldn't be a left vs. right thing, it should be a question of who has the wisdom to fix problems thing. And just as importantly, it should be made from an empirical basis, not an ideological one. Trump strikes me as an ideologue, but I have to admit I haven't paid much attention to this US election.