I don't disagree with you that antitrust is nuanced and complicated and we should have smart, dedicated professionals handling the day-to-day enforcement. But

I don't disagree with you that antitrust is nuanced and complicated and we should have smart, dedicated professionals handling the day-to-day enforcement. But the dominant position for decades on antitrust, from academics, judges, and bureaucrats -- regardless of party -- has been that antitrust is not a big deal, and they've rubber-stamped a massive consolidation of American enterprise across vast swaths of the economy. It's not out-of-place for 'we the people' to express that something's wrong here. Farmers can feel it when John Deere prohibits them from repairing their own tractors, and there's not a good alternative they can buy. Homeowners can feel it when the price of 2 by 4s spikes because a few companies run all the sawmills and would rather charge higher prices than increase capacity to meet demand. Flyers feel it when all the major airlines decide to charge extra for checked bags within a few months of each other. Everyone feels it when they see how wealth is more concentrated at the top and how it feels harder for the average young person to have the same standard of living as their parents and grandparents. It's also not complicated to understand the root of the issue. That companies with monopoly power will charge more and produce less is a bedrock of economics taught in high school. It's also well understood that an industry dominated by a small number of firms will act somewhat like a monopoly because there's less competitive pressure. So yes, it's better to have experts enforce antitrust. But it's also incumbent upon "the people" to demand accountability and reform when the status quo is failing them.