Legal Commentary

Obama: Pro-Business?

A liberal friend just sent me an article arguing that it?s a ?myth? that Obama is anti-business. I thought others might be interested in my reply.

Thanks for calling my attention to ?The Biggest Myth of the Midterms,? which I found one of the most encouraging and hope-inducing pieces I?ve read lately. If it is a myth that Obama is anti-business, then Republicans and conservatives are much more persuasive and influential than I had thought.

There is no surprise, of course, that Neanderthalic, Knuckle-Dragging Tea Party Know-Nothings can be persuaded of anything from the flatness of the earth to the greenness of the moon (you know of course that most Tea Partiers no doubt already believe that without persuasion), but I never would have thought Republicans/conservatives persuasive enough to convince ?[m]ore than three-quarters of U.S. investors [who] view Obama as anti-business and are pessimistic about his policies,? according to a new Bloomberg survey.

True, it doesn?t take much to persuade right-wingers or even the general public of investors and voters that they don?t understand what?s going on and don?t even know what?s good for themselves. As no less an authority on public gullibility than the president himself said a week or so ago, people are often oblivious to facts, science, and even his arguments:

Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we?re hardwired not to always think clearly when we?re scared.

Being able to lead individuals ? even large numbers of individuals ? astray, to avoid medicine that is good for them in favor of sugary treats that will leave them only with rotten teeth, is no big deal. Political parties do that in every election. But what is truly impressive about the current Republican/conservative myth-mongering as described in the US News article is that so many hard-headed business people from main street through entrepreneurial innovators to Wall Street moguls have been so badly hoodwinked that they have been blinded to what?s in their own interest.

The article quoted one such dupe, former GE chief executive Jack Welch, claiming that Obama has an ?anti-business bias? that, he said on CNBC, ?manifests itself through intimidation, trade, taxes and regulation,? but many, many other similar sufferers from this myth-induced false consciousness could have been trotted out.

For example, there?s Ken Langone, founder of Home Depot but now apparently clueless, who began a Wall Street Journal OpEd two weeks ago as follows:

Although I was glad that you answered a question of mine at the Sept. 20 town-hall meeting you hosted in Washington, D.C., Mr. President, I must say that the event seemed more like a lecture than a dialogue. For more than two years the country has listened to your sharp rhetoric about how American businesses are short-changing workers, fleecing customers, cheating borrowers, and generally ?driving the economy into a ditch,? to borrow your oft-repeated phrase.

My question to you was why, during a time when investment and dynamism are so critical to our country, was it necessary to vilify the very people who deliver that growth? Instead of offering a straight answer, you informed me that I was part of a ?reckless? group that had made ?bad decisions? and now required your guidance, if only I?d stop ?resisting? it.

I?m sure that kind of argument draws cheers from the partisan faithful. But to my ears it sounded patronizing. Of course, one of the chief conceits of centralized economic planning is that the planners know better than everybody else.

Or John Mackey, founder and CEO of Whole Foods (for 12 straight years voted one of the 100 best companies to work for), a company that prides itself on practicing ?socially responsible trade? and promoting foods produced in a way that encourages ?biodiversity and healthy soils.? And yet Mackey, who donates 5% of company profits every year to charity and has been a prominent critic of Wall Street greed and who thus is hardly your typical corporate stooge, wrote a widely-quoted Wall Street Journal OpEd ?the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us closer to a complete government takeover of our health-care system.?

I could go on, but what?s the point? Guys like this obviously don?t understand business and what?s good for it. As it happens, however, investors and business leaders aren?t the only dupes who?ve failed to see what is so plain to our US News reporter. It has just been reported, for example, that the biggest spender in the current election cycle is not, despite what you may have heard from Democrats, the Chamber of Commerce or corporate shil groups like the one organized by Karl Rove but the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Now cynics might say that?s because the primary effect of the Obama stimulus was to launder money through state and local governments as a bail-out of public employee unions, but our writer must believe that this massive union support for Obama is either a) that they?re shrewd enough to recognize his pro-business policies and far-sighted enough to understand that?s what good for big business is good for public employee and other unions, or b) that just like those deluded business leaders, they mistakenly think that Obama is anti-business and pro-union.

Apparently even administration ?insiders? are misinformed, since they recognize that the president has not worked well with business and wants ?a detente.?

The President?s sometime adversarial relationship with business wasn?t helped by the departures of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and National Economic Council Chairman Lawrence H. Summers. Exasperated executives often consulted the two aides, even if the lines of communication weren?t always clear. ?The fundamental problem,? says Steve Reinemund, former PepsiCo CEO and now dean of the Wake Forest University School of Business, ?is the sense the President doesn?t consider business a noble profession.?

Democrats close to the Administration say the White House wants to make amends and will make its relationship with business a priority after the midterm elections.

Amends? What does pro-business Obama have to make amends for? But why would you expect White House ?insiders? to know any more about Obama?s intentions than investors or corporate leaders or large unions?

Finally, I apologize for taking up so much of your time on an article that clearly isn?t worth it. If I took it seriously, I would point out a fatal flaw that is clear in the very first sentence: ?You?ve probably heard: The Obama administration is trying to drive business out of business.?

Actually, that?s not what I?ve heard or what I think, but let that pass. The rest of the article presents evidence that purports to refute the ?myth? that that is Obama?s intention, but it actually does no such thing. Even if one were impressed by all the evidence of continuing profits etc., one could conclude just as reasonably, and with even more evidence, that Obama was simply unsuccessful in achieving what he set out to do. After all, it was his intention (or at least his stated intention)

• for the stimulus to keep unemployment below 8%;

• to induce foreign despots to be nicer and talk to us;

• to post every bill on the Internet for 5 days before signing;

• to allow everyone who likes their current health insurance to keep it;

• not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000 a year;

• to reform health care in a way that would lower both overall and individual costs;

• to introduce a post-racial, post-partisan era of good feelings;

• etc.
  

In short, based on his record to date, it is not reasonable to assume that the results of Obamian policies reflect his intention rather than his failure (even assuming that any given collection of facts is in fact a result of his policies).

Full post as published by Discriminations on October 30, 2010 (boomark / email).