“He said he was duped by economists.”
To be a talk show host (or politician), you have to be able to talk to issues outside of your core areas of expertise - International affairs, military strategy, law, economics, religion, etc..
It is only natural to take the advice of subject matter experts, who are widely respected among your allies.
People like Hayek, Von Mises, Milton Friedman and Henry Hazlitt no doubt appreciated that nuts and bolts monitoring and enforcement was necessary to maintain free trade, but the main thrust of their writing was targeted at convincing people of the inherent advantages of private property and free exchange (capitalism), to counter the constant propaganda of lying leftists (socialism).
It is probably the norm that non-specialists come away from reading the popular works of such great thinkers with a more theoretical (ideological) grasp of policy positions, than the more practical understanding that great experts themselves have.
We all just have to be intellectually honest to be able to adapt our positions as we learn more - and real world experience is perhaps the best teacher. Competitors will always seek advantages - if reciprocity is not carefully enforced, we will lose industries, along with their jobs, tax revenues and their whole supply chains.
So which is it?
He was lying to appease his rich friends AKA party elites?
or
He's not as deep a thinker as he pretends to be.
Which one is the lie?