Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Deranged Conservative

No, I am not talking about that 'severely conservative' politician campaigning for White House in Nov 2012 election. Barack Obama's campaign should be able to make appropriate 'toast' of him (if Obama Campaign is not able to exploit the ongoing 'swift boating'; then Obama does not deserve any new term anyways).

I am talking conservative folks like David Brooks who are reacting like 'deranged minds' and missing to grasp what is the crux of the matter in this debate about outsourcing and Bain Capitalism. Here is Ezra Klein doing this job for Brooks:

"The best-world version of Mitt Romney is running a campaign that embraces creative destruction and outsourcing and buyouts and all the rest of it because these things help our economy become more dynamic. That’s where his business experience at Bain might actually help him understand the economy...

The problem is that the candidate running that campaign needs to have a real answer for the workers who are hurt by that dynamism. Part of that answer would need to be a larger safety net — something akin to Denmark’s “flexicurity” system. But the modern GOP won’t permit Romney to run a campaign that embraces a larger safety net. And so he can’t embrace his own economic experience without appearing cruel....

As the first governor to successfully pass and implement a universal health care program in the United States, he would have been credible on the safety net in a way most Republicans simply aren’t. But rather than merging Bain and Massachusetts into one campaign, he’s running from both."


However blinded Brooks is unable to see through the mental fog of ideology and is wrongly criticizing Obama Campaign for pursuing this attack line. Here are few glaring flights of fancy from Brooks:

- He claims Obama is not defending his policies, but what about Obama defense of ObamaCare? Why ignore this?

- Brooks continues "the campaign has begun a series of attacks on the things people don’t like about modern capitalism." Then what should one do? Is it wrong for a Politician to garner support to change what is wrong in our Capitalism? Even after all of Barack's Socialism, has Wall Street been really constrained

- Brooks quotes "As Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute has said again and again, it’s not enough to say that capitalism will make you money. " Of course, the question is 'is American Capitalism' making enough money for enough Americans? Are there no other alternatives to think here? 

- Brooks laments "Let’s face it, he’s [Romney] not a heroic entrepreneur. He’s an efficiency expert." What kind of 'understatement' is that? Is it very hard to distinguish between entrepreneurship of Romney and Google Founders or Alan Musk? Can we not make a simple judgement of which one of that is more beneficial? Can we not understand the simple point of how strength of 'safety net' is all that makes 'destruction of Capitalism' bearable for a society years in, years out? Is it so hard for us to realize that the vaunted ability of America to 'rejuvenate' has been all made possible because of that 'bottom catcher' safety net? You remove that and bottom of society falls out. That is what is so wrong with America's Capitalism and that is what Romney refuses to accept nor offers his vision to restore those foundations of 'societal contracts among different classes' which can make it possible for 'engines of economy' to fire people as they want with much less dramatic consequences.

We get it, we are in a capitalistic society. We are not dumb not to realize that 'property rights and rights of Capitalists to hire and fire Labor are needed'. Those rights are pre-requisites of generating wealth. However what we are arguing is to make all this happen, the out side container of 'public safety' net is needed. It cannot be 'you are on your own'. That  is what Obama tried to fix over years and want to do going forward. Not to see these efforts is 'pure ideological' blindness and in a sense tell tale sign of a deranged mind.


No comments: