home  |  book  |  blogs  |   RSS  |  contact  |

2016: Obama's America or Romney's

print view

"Mittens" or Monster?

by Christopher Chantrill
September 04, 2012 at 12:00 am

|

YOU TELL ME what happened last week. Did Governor Romney and Rep. Ryan fail the test of audacity, by playing it safe, as the Wall Street Journal complained?

If they can’t confidently and aggressively win the argument for tax reform and spending restraint and why they promote faster growth and more jobs, they will give Mr. Obama an opening to win an election he should lose.

Or did they make a fearless case for ending the welfare state as we know it, as Janet Daley argues?

What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time.

Well, what do you think? Are we dealing here with harmless little “Mittens,” as Mitt Romney’s friends on the left like to call him? Or is he the monster of Bain that closes a couple dozen unionized steel plants every day before breakfast?

How about “all of the above?”

On the one hand, Mitt Romney is clearly trying to present himself as mild, inoffensive Mittens. He must be, or those attack dogs on the left would be trying out another insult.

On the other hand, as George Gilder and Fortune make clear, Bain & Company and Bain Capital achieved nothing less than “creative destruction” on steroids. In Wealth and Poverty George Gilder thought he had described the essence of capitalism with supply-side economics. Then he got a call from Bill Bain.

He invited me to speak to his team of Bain & Company partners, and also, if he might...no Offense...he wanted to impart some ideas of his own, some points I might have missed on supply-side economics.“We’ve done some research,” he said, “that shows the theory is much more general and powerful than even you believe.”

Bain believed in the “experience curve,” i.e., on-the-job learning, broadly considered. He believed that you can obtain unit cost reductions of about 20 percent every time you double production.

“We have discovered,” Bain said, “that aggressive price cuts can trigger a cascade of strategic benefits, not just expanding market share, building asset values, and increasing revenues and profits, but also gaining more knowledge of the strategic environment and provoking overreactions and blunders by rivals.”

You can see what this means. Bain’s people believed in smashing into an industry and upsetting the apple cart by aggressively expanding production and cutting prices: “creative destruction” on steroids. You can see who gets hurt by this. It is old-established, cartelized corporations with inflexible cost structures, i.e., unionized employees.

No wonder liberals look at Bain and see Bane, the cartoon villain. Bain was a search-and-destroy mission targeted on everything that liberals hold dear, starting with their nostalgic 1950s dream of good union jobs at good wages. (Reality was, of course, that only a few workers in the right place at the right time got those good jobs and good wages).

Meanwhile we are stuck in stagnation as tame Fed economists argue over how many quantitative easings can fit on the head of a pin. The truth is that the liberal welfare state is toast. Janet Daley again:

The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect.

Moses Mittens, Prince of Bain, has a plan to lead us to the Promised Land, but he is understandably vague about the forty years in the wilderness that will start with a pretty strong dose of Bain-style “creative destruction” right after the parting of the Red Sea.

But why are liberals so darned angry, you ask? I learned all about that just this week from Brit anthropologist Mary Douglas and her minor classic Purity and Danger. You see, we humans push back the dangers and uncertainties of the universe by imagining order, a system that makes a “unity of experience.” Anything that cuts against the grain of our precious system is a seed of disorder, a pollution that threatens our existence.

Think what life is like for liberals right now. They confidently pressed all the Keynesian buttons three years ago, and nothing happened. Then anomalies and strange portents appeared: Tea Parties sprang unbidden out of the ground; angry voters refused the sacrament of Obamacare. Millions of green jobs ended up as monstrous births. Paul Ryan profaned the sacred shrine of Medicare-as-we-know-it. Now you know why liberals are finding racists everywhere they look.

Note to liberals: Lose that “Mittens” moniker. You chaps need something with “vinegar and pepper in’t.” I know! How about Mittler?

Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.

Buy his Road to the Middle Class.

print view

To comment on this article at American Thinker click here.

To email the author, click here.

 

 TAGS


Chappies

“But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.”  —Freddy Arbuthnot
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison


Civil Society

“Civil Society”—a complex welter of intermediate institutions, including businesses, voluntary associations, educational institutions, clubs, unions, media, charities, and churches—builds, in turn, on the family, the primary instrument by which people are socialized into their culture and given the skills that allow them to live in broader society and through which the values and knowledge of that society are transmitted across the generations.
Francis Fukuyama, Trust


Hugo on Genius

“Tear down theory, poetic systems... No more rules, no more models... Genius conjures up rather than learns... ” —Victor Hugo
César Graña, Bohemian versus Bourgeois


Education

“We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.”
E. G. West, Education and the State


Faith & Purpose

“When we began first to preach these things, the people appeared as awakened from the sleep of ages—they seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings, and that a refusal to use the means appointed was a damning sin.”
Finke, Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990


Conversion

“When we received Christ,” Phil added, “all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.”
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh


Postmodernism

A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ’merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.
Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy


Faith and Politics

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable... [1.] protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; [2.] recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family... [3.] the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
Pope Benedict XVI, Speech to European Peoples Party, 2006


China and Christianity

At first, we thought [the power of the West] was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity.
David Aikman, Jesus in Beijing


Religion, Property, and Family

But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family. Thus the outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family, (and also anti-religion), is not promising.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit


Conservatism

Conservatism is the philosophy of society. Its ethic is fraternity and its characteristic is authority — the non-coercive social persuasion which operates in a family or a community. It says ‘we should...’.
Danny Kruger, On Fraternity


US Life in 1842

Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism


mysql close

 

©2015 Christopher Chantrill