Why Ayn Rand Still Matters and Still Irritates

What unites Allan Bloom, Alexander Cockburn, Gore Vidal, Jeyamohan and Ka.Na.Subramaniam? An unmitigated contempt of Ayn Rand, her philosophy and a puzzlement over why she enthralls millions across generations.

Angered by how the idea of 'relativism' was spreading across the academia Allan Bloom burst forth in 'Closing of the American mind'. Bloom is scandalized by the idea that students, out of political correctness, would ask "who am I to judge?" In the chapter 'Books' he narrates how he used to ask every new student about books that influenced them. Snidely he says 'every now and then a girl student would cite Ayn Rand'. Gore Vidal wrote "this odd little woman is attempting to give moral sanction to greed and selfishness". Jeyamohan wrote a series of blogs laced with slander, misunderstandings and indignation about Ayn Rand the writer and philosopher. He hated both the parts equally vehemently.

A poll quoted by two recent and acclaimed biographies said that Americans had cited her writings as most influential after the Bible. Ted Turner, founder of CNN, read Atlas Shrugged and erected 200 billboards throughout US asking "who is John Galt". She addressed throngs of students in overflowing auditoriums across universities where the professors taught their students to despise her. Her appearance, twice in a year, in the Johnny Carson show drew 50 million. Her last public address was in April 1981 at the Ford hall where, Anne Heller writes, she railed against 'creationism', 'family values' and other bogies of the Reagan revolution. She died less than a year in March 1982, sound of mind, unlike what Jeyamohan and rumor mongers have always insisted.

                                                          (From Wikipedia)

Ayn Rand and Arthur Koestler were both born in 1905 in worlds apart. Rand and Koestler were both born into wealth. Both of their parents lost their wealth in the aftermath of the First World War. Rand's father's business was confiscated and they were refugees in the country they were born into. Koestler's father lost his wealth but was not pauperized or exiled. Boris Pasternak would create a scene in his book where Dr Zhivago comes to his palatial home only to see it occupied by peasants who indignantly  ask "why do you need such a big home". That was reality to Rand.

Koestler wrote 'Darkness at noon', a book that laid bare the monstrosity of Soviet state, in 1940. Orwell followed with his classic 'Animal farm' in 1945. Later Arthur Koestler, Louis Fischer, Stephen Spender, Andre Gide and others wrote a collection of essays that was published as 'The God that failed' in 1949about their disillusionment with Soviet Russia, not necessarily communism itself or of Marxist ideals. Koestler would narrate how he got drawn into communism. Guilt. Guilty of his riches while many suffered around him. But it was Ayn Rand who published her first major novel 'We the living' in 1936. It was path breaking as a work of fiction in that it was stridently anti-communist, not just anti-Soviet.

To understand a writer one has to travel to the socio-political climate of the era in which the writer lived. Ayn Rand's first major novel 'We the living' was stridently anti-Communist. Published in 1936 it went against not just the grain but a wall of public opinion. Crawling out of the great depression US was a fertile breeding ground for communists and communist sympathizers. The intellectuals were in the van guard of the pink thirties. It was also the era of FDR when liberalism was triumphant. A conservative, let alone, an anti-Communist was a pariah in those days.

Ayn Rand went where not even Orwell could bring himself to go. Orwell remained a socialist. Many who were disillusioned by communism were more disillusioned by Soviet Russia than of communism itself. Till today only Ayn Rand connected the dots from Marxism to USSR. Only Rand insisted that totalitarianism is inherent to the Marxist philosophy and not an accidental aberration. Tina Rosenberg, a left sympathizer, in her 1995 Pulitzer and National Book Award winning book "The Haunted Land" underscores that, almost without fail, communist countries have been totalitarian and hesitatingly adds maybe there is more than a coincidence.

Koestler details in 'God that failed' how communists would target the mind first and thereafter always. Truth was malleable. Facts were discarded as 'mechanistic'. It is against this totalitarian vision that Ayn Rand rebelled and burst forth in a paean to individualism in 'Fountainhead'.

To understand Howard Roark we have to learn about how only in America 'construction' became a national avocation to shape a destiny. Transcontinental railroad, Empire State building, the skyscrapers of New York, the bridges of New York City, the New York subway were all engineering marvels unprecedented in human history. The Mayan temples, Angkor Wat, CN tower in Canada etc are all nothing compared to the Empire State Building of NYC. It is one thing to construct an observatory tower at hundreds of feet or a pile of rocks to a deity but it is another to construct a living space where thousands have to live and work. Just the disposal of trash from a skyscraper is a science. The Empire State Building was possible because of new techniques in building that newer materials made possible and thats why it could be built taller than the Woolworth building. The ESB is not a building of vanity to boast of just height, its not built to make man feel small. ESB has a function and the form follows the function.

Ayn Rand modeled Roark after the famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright. But Roark, as any fictional character should be, is more than Wright. Later both Wright and Rand denied Roark was modeled after Wright. The character of the second hander, Peter Keating, was inspired by a chance encounter of Ayn Rand. Rand asked a woman, by chance, what she desires in life. The woman answered in terms of everything people around her had. A second hander. A moocher. Ellsworth Toohey was modeled on the smooth talking leftist intellectual Harold Laski.

The 'individual' was a recent idea. Across civilizations man lived in 'relation' to others until recent times. Stephen Greeenblatt in his Pulitzer and Nationall Book AWard winning 'Swerve' writes compellingly on 15th century Europe "The household, the kinship network, the guild, the corporation-these were the building blocks of personhood. Independence and self reliance had no cultural purchase; indeed, they could be scarcely conceived, let alone prized. Identity came with a precise, well understood place in a chain of command and obedience".

To Ayn Rand and her readers like me there is only one form of government that is compatible with individualism, liberal democracy. There is only one economic system that makes democracy what it is: Capitalism. Choosing rulers, choosing how we live and choosing how we earn, what we earn are all an inseparable whole.

Krushchev taunted Eisenhower that for all the prosperity of the western economic system it is nothing but a system that caters to man's selfishness. Eisenhower told his aides that he was left speechless to counter that. Ayn Rand was livid. To her and me capitalism is a moral good that is to be pursued not just because it tames man's vices best but because it is the only proper expression of all that man is.

It took a nineteenth century American businessman, Henry Ford, to say "make money and be happy. Make more money and be happier". Liberal economist and thinker A.O.Hirschman in "The passions and the interests:Political argument for capitalism before its triumph" quotes sociologist Max Weber "now, how could an activity, which was at best ethically tolerated, turn into a calling in the sense of Benjamin Franklin?" The activity that Weber referred to was 'making money'. Naturally Ayn Rand wrote that only in America was the phrase 'to make money' was invented.

When American economy crumbled in 2008 Ayn Rand was unfairly tarnished. The greed of Wall Street CEO's is not what she wrote or epitomized. Rand's heroes and heroine 'created' and put their wealth at stake to prove their vision was correct. Her heroes did not have golden parachutes. Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart not only pledge their wealth in pursuit of their dream they also place their own lives at stake when they ride the first train over a bridge made of Rearden steel.

A factory in 'Atlas Shrugged' puts into practice Marx's maxim 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need'. The factory goes bust and a participant from that dream project narrates the story to Dagny Taggart. It was not parody. Robert Owen is credited with coining the word 'socialism' and he carried out a similar experiment, in reality, where else but America, in 1825. Four decades before Marx's tract 'communist manifesto' was published. It was utter disaster.

V.P.Singh exulted when a boy enrolled in the prestigious AIIMS under the Mandal scheme. Later when Singh was diagnosed with leukemia he promptly came to USA. It is this 'altruism' that Rand deplored and instead spoke of the 'virtue of selfishness'. In her definition selfishness is NOT grabbing what is not one's but being true to one's own self. One's own conviction and independence. In a way I can say every freedom fighter, including Gandhi, was fighting for their own independence first. It was not altruism. Refusal to cooperate with a colonizer, however materially rewarding it maybe, is a perfectly Randian thing to do. Being rewarded materially by cooperating with totalitarianism is the kind of money making that would not give one joy about being rich.

Rand was not against charity but she did not consider, rightly, charity a pre-requisite to be called 'good'. Corporate Social Responsibility is the greatest modern con. A corporation owes only one thing and that is profits to its investors. It is unto investors, as individuals, to be charitable if the choose to be charitable. Take away the charity related tax deduction in USA and lets see US philanthropy plummet. Charity is not free.

When Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren rail that an individual owes his or her success to the community then one is reminded of Ayn Rand. This is why she still matters to people like me and this is why, nearly 60 years since its publication, 'Atlas Shrugged' still irritates many others.

Exxon Mobil the oil giant was kicked out of Venezuela by communist firebrand Hugo Chavez, a brainless thug. Exxon then deftly maneuvered in court to have all the money, in an escrow account, that Chavez was eyeing, to be frozen. The story is narrated with racy details in Steve Coll's 'Private Empire'. One cannot but think of Ellis Wyatt in 'Atlas Shrugged', who, when his oil fields are nationalized, torches them all leaving behind a note "you asked for it". Yes Exxon had the Valdez oil spill disaster. But they learned. Later Exxon, Steve Coll writes, made a fetish out of safety and safety procedures with absolute zero tolerance for negligence. After Chavez's thugs took over the oil fields of Exxon all safety notices were ripped off. Accidents in Chavez's state owned refineries spiked and production tanked. Thank you Ayn Rand.

Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek became the apostles of capitalism and won Nobel prizes. In Friedman's lectures and books capitalism is presented as the most pragmatic choice that delivers effectively as an economic system. To Ayn Rand capitalism was a moral good because man, to be true to his self, has to be capitalist.

To E.O.Wilson man is biologically altruist because lower organisms show altruism. Richard Dawkins's 'Selfish gene' was promoted by the right wing to say that man was selfish because its in his genes. Ayn Rand would have violently disagreed with both and with biological determinism as an idea because man is not just a sum total of biology. Man has a mind. Man exercises volitional choice. Choice means living with consequences too. It is insulting  to reduce man to his biology.

Warren Buffet was Barack Obama's bogeyman in arguing for the rich to be taxed more. In a telling oped in NYT he wrote that it is sham propaganda that when the rich are taxed more they will reduce their investments in order to reduce their tax bill. He correctly argued that nobody refrains from doing what they do best, including choosing investments that will give high yields, just to reduce a tax bill. But therein lies the rub. He expects Atlas to carry the world with blood streaking on his face. Giving the intellectual clarity to spot Orren Boyle's of the world is why I am thankful to Ayn Rand and 'Atllas Shrugged'.

Ayn Rand asked Oppenheimer, whom she held in regard, if she can say that the Atom Bomb was invented in America because its a free country unlike USSR and Germany. Oppenheimer agreed. There is lot of truth to this profound observation. The USSR beat US on every space mission in the space race but eventually fell behind and finally became a technological dinosaur simply because there was no freedom in USSR. It is true of China today. China may overtake US on GDP but it will never overtake US on per capita income and more importantly on innovation. China can be called Ayn Rand's laboratory. In China one is free to make money but one is not free to speak or think freely. Can it produce Nobel Laureates? Can China produce a Steve Jobs even? China will only be Jobs's factory but never produce its own Jobs. David Hoffman in his Pulitzer winning 'Dead Hand: The cold war and the arms race" narrates an interesting incident. When Gorbachev visited Canada a Russian diplomat showed him an Apple computer and this is a wonder of the world. A French analyst wrote in Washington Post that France can never produce a Steve Jobs.

The Silicon Valley is a distinct American creation that is impossible in any other country on earth. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Zuckerman, Gates, Jobs, J.P.Morgan are all American creations. Only in America is their story possible. One cannot appreciate Steve Jobs without understanding Ayn Rand.

George Orwell wanted salary caps for CEO's. In East Germany a chemistry professor and a brick layer earned almost same. No wonder they could not produce a single chemical worth talking about. Elizabeth Warren who taught part time in Harvard had a take home pay of $300,000. Yes. I wish she thanked capitalism.

For all her love and preaching of capitalism Ayn Rand was hated and loathed by the nascent conservative movement led by William Buckley. Rand's atheism and strident individualism were the chief turn offs. Rand supported abortion because a fetus, a cellular organism with no brain, is not an 'individual'. Rand joined Barry Goldwater in opposing the civil rights bill, though both loathed segregation, because they saw it as a power grab by the federal government. Goldwater ran desegregated offices in his business even before the bill. Buckley had one time communist spy and now reformed republican Whittaker Chambers eviscerate 'Atlas Shrugged' in his magazine.

So what of her philosophy itself? What about 'objectivism'? Do readers hold on to 'Galt's speech', that runs into 60 pages which she wrote over 2 years, as gospel? Her books sell by the hundreds of thousands every year. A large majority take only vignettes from her book as lessons for life. Nobody lives according to every word in the bible much less according to Rand's book. The power of her fiction lies in the fact that it leaves behind images that people can relate to in everyday life. Obama, Warren, Chavez, Exxon, Jamie Dimon, Ted Turner, Steve Jobs bring to mind images of her characters and the situations etc. It is silly to think, as Jeyamohan does, that Ayn Rand readers are mentally sick like her. Neither are true. As much as reading Gita or Bible does not make every reader a saint so also reading Ayn Rand does not make every reader go about thinking they are John Galt.

Did Ayn Rand live like she preached? If she failed what does it say of her philosophy itself?  What is her place in the history of ideas? I'll weave those answers in my rebuttal to Jeyamohan.


References:

1. Goddess of the market: Ayn Rand and the American right -- Jennifer Burns.
2. Ayn Rand and the world she made -- Anne C Heller
3. The God that failed - Edited by Richard Crossman. Essays by Arthur Koestler, Stephen Spender, Louis Fischer, Andre Gide.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_that_Failed
4. Gore Vidal on Ayn Rand - http://www.gorevidalnow.com/2011/06/gore-vidal-on-ayn-rand-in-1961-she-has-a-great-attraction-for-simple-people/

5. Alexander Cockburn on Ayn Rand "He banged away relentlessly against what he called “the criminal tendencies of the executive class,” writing in 2002: “The finest schools in America produced a criminal elite that stole the store in less than a decade. Was it all the fault of Ayn Rand, of Carter and Kennedy, of the Chicago School, of Hollywood, of God’s demise? You’d think there’s at least a Time cover in it.”  --- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/books/a-colossal-wreck-is-alexander-cockburns-take-on-america.html?ref=books&_r=0

6. Closing of the American mind -- Allan Bloom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Closing_of_the_American_Mind

7. Darkness at noon -- Arthur Koestler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness_at_Noon

Romney is Kerry redux and 2012 is 2004

Its beginning to look a lot like 2004. Democrats are famous for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The GOP is doing its best to outdo the democrats and return the favor in 2012. Lets rewind to 2004 to relive how Kerry helped Bush get re-elected.

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" a political documentary that made no pretensions of the filmmakers bias grossed $100 Million at the box office. The documentary had more satire than facts, its a Moore documentary, enough said. At the theater I watched the audience gave it standing ovation. The country was in turmoil over the Iraq war. Iraq was front, left and center in the election. The Orlando Sentinel, a key newspaper in a key battleground state, endorsed John Kerry. It was the first endorsement by that paper of a democrat pin 40 years. The Economist endorsed Kerry over Bush in its cover story titled "Incomprehensible Vs Incompetent". The Sentinel's endorsement of Kerry was a resounding snub to Bush detailing Bush's policy failures beyond just Iraq. So how did Kerry lose?

Kerry, like Hillary Clinton, had voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq but facing a stridently anti-war party he tried to do amends that earned him the sobriquet "flip-flop". Kerry did his best to strengthen the narrative and his worst moment was when he voted down an appropriations bill to pay for military in Iraq. He had earlier voted for it and reversed his vote in the final amendment. When criticized for voting against the armed forces in harms way Kerry responded, very famously, "I voted for it before I voted against it". Eager to lure gun owners, a traditional GOP bloc, Kerry went duck hunting and had a photo that made him look ludicrous. Having earned the "flip-flop" label Kerry provided Bush with the perfect photo to go with it. Against the advise of his consultants Kerry went wind surfing and the photo promptly went into GOP ads. Also a millionaire candidate going wind surfing did not help while his VP candidate, John Edwards (a millionaire trial lawyer) was screaming about "two Americas, one for the rich and another for the poor". Kerry, born rich and married rich, was criticized for being 'out of touch'. John Edwards before he made millions was poor and used to go to Wendys to celebrate his wedding anniversary. During the campaign Edwards took Kerry to Wendy's, Kerry could not eat there.

Given the Iraq war backdrop Kerry staked out his candidacy on just one issue, that he could be better commander-in-chief. Kerry is a genuine war hero, unlike Bush whose dodging of draft was laughed about. Kerry served in Vietnam and earned three Purple Hearts and was discharged. He was in-charge of the 'swift boat' division. Out of nowhere sprang Vietnam vets who criticized Kerry as 'unfit to lead' (an eponymous book also was helpfully published) based on nothing but lies. Disillusioned by America's fate in Vietnam Kerry became anti-war, testified in the congress, threw his medals. At the convention when he came on stage Kerry said "I am John Kerry and I am reporting for duty" with a salute. The next day New York Times cribbed that his almost hour long speech had just 3-4 lines about his decades long service in the senate.

While Obama is not as hated as Bush was in 2004 there is lot of disgruntlement and after the drubbing that democrats got in 2010 2012 was supposed to be the year of GOP candidates. Kerry was not the best Democrat to contest in 2004. The best, especially Hillary Clinton, decided to sit out thinking they would have a better chance in 2008 when the electorate would be thirsting for a change from 8 years of a Republican President. Likewise the most looked up to GOP candidates decided to sit out 2012. Out of a weak field emerged Mitt Romney.

Just like Kerry Romney too is staking his claim to the Presidency on just one agenda. Romney makes the economy as the only criteria to elect him. After Bill Clinton's legendary thumping of Bush Sr in 1992 based on "it's the economy stupid" it has become customary, especially with soaring unemployment, to cite that. Conservative columnist William Kristol acidly wrote "its not only the economy, stupid". Romney will learn that when he watches Obama coast to an easy victory.

Romney like Kerry has a penchant for landing his foot in his mouth. Like Kerry Romney is now labeled a flip flop. Like Kerry Romney is mocked for not having a "core". Romney and Kerry both hail from Massachusetts, a very liberal state. Romney is now mocked by his GOP detractors as being a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Only a RINO can get elected as GOP governor in Massachusetts. No Texan or Georgian republican can ever get elected in MA. GOP senate candidate Scott Brown shook the political world by winning what was called 'Ted Kennedy's seat' and he is pretty much a RINO too though he was once a tea party darling.

Kerry was fully heroic in his service in Vietnam and even more heroic in his denunciation of that war later. But the GOP slander machine worked over time to discredit him. Bob Dole, 1996 GOP Presidential candidate, archly said "three Purple Hearts and no injury" (Dole has a permanent injury from his service and Kerry had none). Romney has not done a single illegal dealing as businessman and by all accounts was a good boss, made money for his investors and helped create some good iconic American companies. Yet the Democrat slander machine is now working overtime (and including his GOP rivals) in circulating highly debunked documentary "Romney: King of Bain". Kerry was inarticulate in defending his anti-Vietnam protests, Romney is completely incapable of defending his work at Bain. Kerry had his duckshoot, Romney has his gaffe on being afraid of pink slips and more gaffes on how his earnings from speeches, $340K, was 'not much', '$10,000 bet' etc.

Romney has been compared to past presidential contenders, always the comparisons were with losers. When Kerry staked his candidacy on being a better commander-in-chief the Iraq war was raging hot. Seeing the unemployment drop in January a commentator mused on this danger of Romney talking like the only reason people need to elect him is his ability to fix the economy, "if the economy fixes itself by November, what is Romney's rationale for asking people to vote".

Romney will lose to Obama. If, and this is a very big if, Romney wins it would be ranked a more thrilling win than what Truman had over Dewey.

2012: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs and Jobs

Amidst the euphoria following the killing of Osama I told a friend that when it comes to 2012 elections this will be a blip in the radar for Obama. My friend, an Obama supporter, grumpily said "oh you are just voicing your wish". Today Washington Post released an opinion poll that has landed with a thud. 59% of Americans disapprove of Obama's handling of economy. Mitt Romney, the lead republican candidate, is in a statistical dead heat with Obama. To rub it in, amongst registered voters, Romney leads Obama. Romney is a candidate with many vulnerabilities.

Team Obama is very well aware that George Bush Sr lost to Clinton after winning a war only because of the economy. James Carville, Clinton's strategist, famously said 'Its the economy, stupid". When asked if he had felt the effect of recession, Bush, floundered and appeared out of touch. Bill Clinton, the master empathic politician gave a warm answer and rode to a landslide victory glossing over his numerous sexual affairs. Only starry eyed ill-informed supporters felt that killing Osama will guarantee a win for Obama. Within a month what changed?

The manufacturing index fell 6.9 points  in May compared to April. At an anemic 53.5 manufacturing while nominally expanding its barely about 50 the point at which it would be 'contracting'. Last month employment figures were a pathetic addition of 54,000 jobs, the lowest in a year. Unemployment is stuck at 9.1%. Underemployment is at a staggering 8.5%. People who have stopped looking for a job and hence NOT counted in the unemployment figures is a whopping 2.2 million. Reading the Bureau of Labor Statistics report its grim.

As if all that did not sound grim enough comes the housing report. US housing is measured by the Case-Shiller-S&P-Index. Robert Shiller one of the developers of that index is reputed economist and author of bestseller "Irrational Exuberance" which foretold the 2001 dot com crash. The housing index delivered a massive blow to the recovery. US home prices have dropped 4.2% in first quarter of 2011 AFTER declining 3.6% in last quarter of 2010. The index report delivers a jaw dropper, "Nationally home prices are back to their mid 2002 levels". I bought my home in 2003. After 8 years its worth is exactly the same as it was 8 years ago, possibly less. Today's WSJ had a lead article citing a major report by Corelogic, leading provider of mortgage data, amongst US households that have a second mortgage on their homes 40% are underwater.New home sales is at record low . Consumer Confidence index is down 5.2%.

Today Obama hosted a joint press conference with visiting German Chancellor. An ominous question was "are you worried about a double dip recession". Obama in his professorial manner opined "I am not worried about a double dip recession" (watch for republicans to recycle that video) and proceeded to give a long winded answer that was anything but an answer.

Barack Obama won the presidency purely by blaming Bush and promising the skies. In 2012 he will have to defend his record. Liberal economists gleefully pointed out that Bush was presiding over the worst job creation since Herbert Hoover. Barack Obama will win that prize handily.

To be sure Obama is only partly responsible for the unemployment situation. Technology and globalization have wiped out many jobs that, as Biden openly said, will never come back. Some parts of this unemployment is "structural". There is no way to see the dotcom era level unemployment. The financial crises that Obama inherited was unprecedented in scope or kind. The usual playbook responses were highly insufficient.

Life is not fair. Obama was not fair to Bush when he conveniently blamed everything on Bush glossing over the fact that the financial crises had seeds sown during Clinton era. Repealing Glass-Steagall act, failure to regulate derivatives, long term easy credit, later democrat controlled congress using Fannie and Freddie to further social engineering etc. Such inconvenient truths were all buried and a trope of Bush, the Texas oilman, is responsible emerged. The presidency is a job that Obama applied for knowing the crises thats engulfing hence he has to take ownership for what has happened under his watch.

Closely allied with economic worries a serious debate is emerging on role of government. US debt is staggering and every economist of every hue is crying for reform. In the backdrop of Euro zone crises Americans are seriously questioning the role of public sector. Federal employees and state employees unions are under a sharp focus for their generous benefits and unsustainable pension guarantees. Obama has presided over expansion of government unlike any before.

A republican candidate's success will depend on how convincingly they can portray the economic quagmire as the 'result' of Obama policies AND what alternatives they can provide. Just blaming Obama is not going to help. The economic uncertainties that are being spun out of Obama's and democrat controlled (until recently) congress to regulate business punitively is doing serious harm. The Dodd-Frank legislation that regulates financial institutions has become a legal nightmare spawning agencies that are sending big banks into a tizzy. Chuck Schumer, ranking Senate democrat, who voted and championed it is now decrying its effect. WSJ ripped into his hypocrisy . Schumer now says that the that new derivatives rules "will inevitably result in significant competitive disadvantages for U.S. firms operating globally."


WSJ had a wonderful article on how complex and Frankenstein like Dodd-Frank has become. The article says that the growing paper trail is 20 times taller than Liberty Statue. Many rules set forth in the legislation are yet to become laws. The federal agencies like SEC are simply crushed by the burden. Its a classic case of a panacea becoming an infection. The uncertainties and complexities have severely affected the profit making of financial institutions with a direct effect on hiring.


Obama, one time community organizer and an instinctive hater of capitalism, ranted against "fat cat bankers" endlessly. The administration and its minions pilloried Wall Street. It was populist in 2008. Obama repeatedly exhorts business to hire and spend their profits. Businesses are balking, not out any malice, but merely out of a hesitation due to uncertainties surrounding hiring costs. The regulations that fly out of capitol hill added to the gargantuan health care bill has created a very uncertain climate for hiring. All of this is justified criticism against Obama. 

The tax battle is looming ahead. Obama, an open socialist, is committed to playing Robin Hood. The Bush tax cuts that Obama extended, much to his supporters' anger, is due to expire in 2012. Obama has made it clear that he will make that issue for the elections. Obama wants to raise taxes on homes making $250,000 and above. In his opinion those making $250,000 (as couple) are rich and should pay their 'fair share'. Of course what he labels as 'fair share' is from his vote-bank angle. In 2008 he could get a pass on that. In 2012 there is voter fury against Unions and benefits finagled by arm-twisting Unions. Obama's class warfare rhetoric will not fly easy in 2012. Unions, taxing the rich deserves a blog of its own.

Mitt Romney, to be sure is not a shoo in. He has to survive primaries and convince republicans of his conservative credentials. I'll reserve discussing the candidates themselves for another time.

Obama Pivots Towards Re-Election

The Obama administration has a profound sense of irony. Obama announced his formal re-election bid on Monday. The same day his administration reversed its position to prosecute 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) in a civil US court. KSM will now face a military tribunal in Guantanamo.  In a very revealing comment Tom Daschle, mentor to freshman senator Obama, said in a documentary that he advised Obama to run for presidency despite being a freshman senator. Daschle said he told Obama "since you are new you will not have any votes to defend". Yes, that's how Obama started, emboldened that he had nothing to answer for. After 4 years Obama will have a lot to answer for.

When Obama delivered his, barely noteworthy, inaugural address he chided Bush for undermining the image of America with military tribunals and Guantanamo. Bush was wistfully looking away into the heavens while the pompous lotus eater delivered platitude after platitude after all never having had the need to shoulder any governing responsibility Obama had sailed into office powered by bromides.. Actually for all those who liked some parts of Bush's presidency especially the clarity on the necessity of wire tapping, Guantanamo, military tribunals, advocating a surge strategy to shore up a sagging war, tax cuts etc Obama is our candidate. On every one of those President Obama brazenly overturned candidate Obama. At least he is not ideologically beholden.

The problem for his beloved left wing is that he is not ideologically beholden. When Obama and Pelosi presided over the worst drubbing Democrats had received in a generation the chatterati were busy lecturing how he should learn from Bill Clinton but everyone wondered would he learn. Learn, he did, in lightning speed. Obama replaced his outgoing chief of staff with a dyed in the wool Wall Street veteran sending his worshippers into an apoplexy. To add insult to that injury, in what he dressed up as pragmatic politics, he shook hands with republicans extending the much reviled Bush tax cuts. Does anybody remember how every democrat shrieked from every available roof top how those tax cuts were for the rich and how they HAVE to be rolled back? Obama was its cheer leader only to abandon it with zero concessions from the republicans infuriating the left.

Obama's constituency is less than glassy eyed now. Many independents have deserted him by the droves. Republicans who voted for him are no longer in his camp. The left is mostly bitter. When he named abrasive foul mouthed Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff the 'Change' candidates sheen started dimming. When he appointed one ex-Clinton official after another the 'change' devotees started scratching their heads as to why they did not vote for Clinton herself. Finally he capped it off by appointing Hillary as secretary of state. The real rub was re-appointing key Bush appointee Defense secretary Robert Gates. Of course his spin masters went overdrive calling him a Lincoln for our ages. If appointing ones electoral foes is all it takes to become a Lincoln then one could argue that any cigar smoking politician is a Churchill re-incarnated.

Obama, to his credit, also has several signal achievements. Health care reform is still a battle that is far from complete. He completely muddled the reform then regained the initiative  but failed to sell it as an achievement. Ending 'dont ask don't tell' for the military making it possible for Gays and Lesbians to serve openly corrected a long standing sore point in the last bastion of moral conservatism, the US military.

All the rest pale into insignificance before the gargantuan task of steady the US economy that was staring into the abyss. Though Bush took the key unpopular decisions Obama continued them (yet another reason for those like Bush's leadership on crises t o support Obama). He again angered the left appointing as Secretary of treasury a typical Wall Street guy, Tim Geithner. He continued to anger the left by re-appointing Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman. Now the left was wondering if the Obama Presidency is nothing but soaring (as they call it) oratory papered over Bush+Clinton appointees.

The economy, no credit to Obama, is doing better. That its not doing better is entirely due to Obama and democratic congress muddling over the so called Financial regulation. Unemployment while edging down is still at 8.9%. Under-employment is much higher. Housing is stuck. Home prices fell appreciatively last year and continues to fall.

So, can Obama be defeated? Yes. Is his defeat to be taken for granted? Not at all. In the post-world-war-II presidency only three times have sitting Presidents been defeated. Gerard Ford lost due to the shadow of Watergate and his pardoning of Nixon. Carter was defeated for his defeatist attitude. Despite winning a war and despite the economy starting to rebound an increasingly out of touch George H.W.Bush lost. Reagan and Clinton won the presidency by convincing Americans that they need to change their president and that they are better off with a new comer.

A republican candidate has to convince average Americans that they would fare better under a new president. Name calling, whining about Obama, scaremongering etc will not win the presidency. A candidate has to articulate an alternate vision, convince voters that he/she would deliver it.

While Obama has fired the first salvo, Republicans are still sitting out. Obama is now setting the agenda. Obama's money machine is now going into overdrive. Obama is widely expected to become history first $1 Billion candidate shattering all spending records. Of course he will decline public funding. In 2008 he broke his handwritten pledge to take public funding. Of course a few editorials bemoaned that hypocrisy his spin masters won the day saying he needed to unshackle himself to face the republican message machine and thinly disguised corporate donors. Today the same reasons are offered. It was a blatant lie in 2008, its a blatant lie in 2012.

While many names are doing the rounds amongst republicans no one is a clear front runner. This is a first for the GOP which believes in anointing a candidate unlike the raucous Democrats. Any republican candidate has to raise money for a lengthy primary and then raise more money to face Obama the money machine. Note that any money Obama raises is reserved exclusively for the general election.

A sitting President has some formidable advantages. He owns the bully pulpit. He is still the President anything he says or does is effortlessly afforded important news cycle. His constituency is out there to propagate and defend his positions free of cost.

The challengers are not without advantages either. In debate after debate during lengthy primary season Obama will have to endure partisan criticism on prime TV with no way to offer defensive repartees. An entire year would go by before he could offer face-to-face rebuttal. While Obama's cash advantage is forbidding, that alone cannot guarantee an electoral win else Rockefeller would be president. Obama himself learnt that lesson during the Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio primaries. Despite being the presumptive nominee he outspent Hillary 3-to-1 only to lose. Despite his cash advantage over McCain his win, while solid, was not a landslide and was not an easy one.

In a final ironical twist Obama enters his election year having invaded a Muslim country. I intend to blog separately on the Libya War. Suffice it to say yet again President Obama conveniently overruled candidate Obama. As candidate Obama had said US President can send armed forces into a conflict, without express approval from Congress, ONLY when there was imminent threat to national security. At all other times, then candidate opined, the President has to seek congressional approval. As President he gladly sent US armed forces into combat, in a situation that has no imminent threat to US security, without even meeting congressional leaders let alone getting Congress' approval. Coming to think of it I wonder is there any position of his that he has not repudiated.