Rx for Capitalism

There were two significant ironies this week. The first was that I finished the last chapter of the biography of Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne C. Heller on the very same weekend that the Democrats stitched together the 60 votes in the Senate that were needed to pass President Obama’s Health Care Bill. Ayn Rand was the stalwart defender of capitalism, liberty and individualism in the 20th century and along with William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman ranks among the intellectual giants that fought against the evils of collectivism.
Rand was a Russian Jewish immigrant that saw firsthand the corruption of collectivism in Soviet Russia as she witnessed the destruction of her father’s livelihood at the hands of the Russians when they drove her father’s drugstore out of business twice. Today her seminal works, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem sell very well. Rand had her flaws and Heller fairly raises them in her book. She was given to black and white thinking. She could be irascible and cut off friends and relatives that rubbed her the wrong way. She did not stay faithful to her spouse. Still, her value as a backbone of capitalist thinking cannot be underestimated. And this biography comes at a time when capitalism is under the most severe full frontal assault since the 1930’s. The Health Care Bill threatens almost 20% of our economy with a government takeover. The EPA with its December 7 pronouncement to regulate carbon emissions and international bureaucrats in Copenhagen are threatening our economy with impossible burdens in the name of preventing climate change. Capitalists are being punished through higher taxes and a verbal assaults from the Obama Administration with bankers being labeled as “fat cats” and insurance companies accused using “smoke and mirrors” to stop reform. It is almost as if an Ayn Rand novel is unfolding in real time before our very eyes, with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi starring as the bad guys.
The second irony is that it was Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson that caved in to give the Democrats a filibuster proof majority. This is Nebraska, the epicenter of self reliance, the same state that gave us Willa Cather, author of Oh Pioneers! This is the land that epitomizes rugged individualism. If Nebraska is responsible for handing over such a large chunk of our economy to the feds, is there any hope left?
Yes, Ayn Rand could be insufferable and doctrinaire at times, but we sorely need someone of her fortitude and intellectual reach today to defend capitalism and freedom.

Obama a Man of Science or the New Religion?

It’s just not that long ago that the Left was ranting over conservative Republicans supposed assault on science. The claim was that the Republican party had largely been taken over by fundamentalists and creationists. Some school districts were required to teach Darwinism side by side with creationist theory. Other groups attempted to get the National Parks to carry creationist literature in their bookstores. The Left fanned fears that Intelligent Design proponents were undermining hard science and over the last few years, several dust-ups occurred in which we were re-fighting the Scopes Trial.

While I am a conservative Catholic, I am a strong believer in science, the scientific method, hard analysis, and hypothesis testing to explain phenomenon in the natural world. Conservatives have gone off the rails attempting to supplant scientific knowledge with a fundamental biblical explanation of the natural world and a literal interpretation of the Bible. These people undermine our credibility as conservatives and they muddle the notions of traditional conservative values embodied in scripture with explanations and models for how the natural world was created and evolved.

True science involves continuous hypothesis testing and challenge to conventional wisdom. It involves constant reassessment and reinterpretation of data as new data becomes available and as old data is reexamined. All good scientists challenge conventional wisdom. Truly great scientists are not afraid of the challenge of others—indeed, an intellectually pure scientist is passionate about finding one thing—the truth and great scientists sometimes “eat their own children” and revise their own view of the world as new knowledge is gained.

The Left is correct to be concerned about fundamentalism thinking attempting to fence in science. They occupy two different realms (not necessarily incompatible with one another in my view) and they should stay that way.

But now the Left has adopted a religion of its own that it has deemed beyond the challenge of science and it is just as pernicious as the Creationists—Global Warming.

The science of Global Warming is difficult and complex. It involves interpreting data of thousands of years of history in which even without man’s influence, global temperature changes were subject to wide fluctuations. It involves teasing apart natural and potentially man made environmental changes. The questions are large and complicated. Is the globe getting warmer? Is this a normal cycle? Is it bad for everyone or just for some? Even so, can we do anything about it that will have real impact?

Al Gore, the great messiah of this religion, famously proclaimed that “the debate is over” in promoting his movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” That should have been the tipoff—for in science, the debate is never truly over.

And now the great arbiters of Global Warming, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), have been caught suppressing the work of scientists that present a challenge to the religion of the Left, and further were caught enhancing the effect of temperature change. This is important because the IPCC is highly influential and is the group of scientists that policymakers have been relying on to make their case that governments should exert greater control over CO2 emissions. The emails system of the IPCC was hacked into and these rather startling emails were exposed. The UK Telegraph called this the “worst scientific scandal of our generation.” This scandal has powerful implications for the discussions of the upcoming Copenhagen summit and the “Cap and Trade” bill under which will be asked to make enormous economic sacrifices for the new religion.

And what is the response from our new administration? Largely silence, which is odd on the eve of the Copenhagen Summit. John (Mr. Population Control) Holdren dismissed it as something that affected a small number of scientists. Barbara Boxer attempted to turn it around and attacked the hackers, calling it “email theftgate”. The mainstream media has mostly delegated it to about page 25.

This is an issue that has profound implications for our country, our economy and the relative power between the private and public sector and relationships between nations. In the end, its resolution will have much more international import than the Iraq War. The Left caterwauled that Bush Administration manipulated evidence over WMD to justify the invasion of Iraq (although there was no direct evidence of this). But here we have a smoking gun that shows that the “scientists” – the high priests of this religion-- have manipulated and suppressed evidence and yet our scientific president is silent.

Mr. President, the debate is not over. With this much at stake and so many open questions, it cannot be. If you truly are a proponent of science, you must express your outrage over this scandal. But I suspect you, like the others on the Left, simply wish to supplant the religion of the fundamentalist right with your own.

Half a Loaf

After over 90 days of agonizing, President Obama finally made his decision on Afghanistan this week. Over 3 months after General McChrystal asked for 40,000 troops to support his strategy to reverse the gains made by the Taliban, President Obama agreed to send ¾ of the requested troop levels. This is the first major decision by Barack Obama for which he will be held accountable, and, coincidentally, was made in about the same amount of time it took to pick the Obama family dog. We’ll see how he does when real events force Obama to make a decision in less than 90 days.
Is this a good decision or not? I have no way of knowing, but I am skeptical. McChrystal is on the ground and in the best position to know whether 40,000 is the right number. It may very well be that the job simply cannot be accomplished with 30,000 and we might as well pack up and go home. Often, the outcomes of these types of decisions are more like step functions. 40,000 may be the minimum needed to be successful.
But leaving that aside for a moment, announcing to the world that you plan we plan to exit in 2011 risks negating much of the benefit of the surge. We are fighting an enemy whose very strength is the ability to ebb and flow, disappear for long periods of time and then re-emerge. They have more tolerance for a long, drawn out affair than we do. If I were a Taliban leader, my message would be, “Akhmed, take a sabbatical for awhile. Go find a little fishing hold in Western Pakistan. We’ll see you in about 14 months and we can shoot a few Americans in the back as they are packing up.” So, by setting a goal of leaving rather than winning, it is more likely that we will have wasted blood and treasure and much of Afghanistan will be back in Taliban hands within 36 months.
I also find it highly ironic that Obama and the Dems fought Bush tooth and nail against the surge in Iraq, declared Iraq lost and we are now employing precisely the same strategy in Afghanistan.
Still, I have to give him some credit. Nearly a year in and Obama has yet to make a decision that leans hard against the left wing faithful. This is as close as he has come so far. With the Democrats almost certain to take a thumping in the midterm elections, Obama will need to get more comfortable with governing from somewhere closer to the middle. This is almost a certain result, even if we have to drag him kicking and screaming.

Condoms and Chocolate Milk

Some random thoughts and observations on the absurdities of living under modern liberalism from past week's news:

The nutrition Nazis at various school districts are banning chocolate milk from our schools, citing its high sugar content. The ACLU has been successful in getting condom distribution programs in many school districts. So our kids cannot buy a carton of chocolate milk for lunch at school but they can get condoms.

I’m not sure why Eric Holder thought that bringing KSM to New York for a civilian trial was such a dandy idea. New Yorkers are concerned that it will highlight the city as a terrorist target. It provides KSM with a pulpit from which to spew his hateful view of the world, and will be a terrific recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Finally, this is a man whose life mission is to destroy the U.S. Why do we offer him the protections of our civilian legal system? Can Mr. Holder explain why this is the best possible option?

Last week, Obama implored us not to “rush to judgment” about Islamic fundamentalism’s role after Nidal Hasan brutally gunned down our soldier’s at Fort Hood. This is the same person that told us that he didn’t know what the facts were but that the Cambridge police acted stupidly when they arrested Henry Louis Gates. Again, Islamic terrorists get deferential treatment while the folks that are there to protect us are presumed guilty.

Months after General McChrystal asked for 40,000 more troops, we still don’t have an answer from our commander-in-chief on his troop request to prosecute the “necessary war.” In my business, not making a decision is making a decision. Is it me, or is there something inverted about an administration that is more decisive about limiting executive pay than winning a war?

Dick Durbin (D-IL) is tripping over himself trying to get the Gitmo detainees housed in Illinois because it will create jobs. That is about as crazy a rationale for exposing us to an increased security risk as I’ve ever heard.

The New York Times today carried the headline, “GM Shows Sign It Is Recovering Despite New Loss: White House is Pleased”. Doesn't the juxtaposition of those statements and the tone of them together sound weird to you? To my ear, it was eerily imperious. Perhaps the Times sees why the White House is pleased; we are ever closer to the Marxist utopia with the government owning the means of production.

Meanwhile, President Obama was caught on film bowing to Emporor Akihito in Japan. He was similarly seen bowing to the Saudi King last April. I’ve adjusted my expectations. At least he has not apologized for Hiroshima—yet.

The flu season is in full swing and we still don’t have enough H1N1 vaccine to go around. Just imagine the scathing editorials at the Times if this had been the case on George Bush’s watch.

Rocket Men

While it is true that liberty and limited government are values that are deeply ingrained in my being, there are problems that are appropriate for government to solve. Indeed, there are problems that only government can solve. The problem is that they are limited in scope and duration and there are so few models for success. In the current health care debate, for instance, an easy way to puncture the arguments of the left is simply to ask, “What is your model for success?” Amtrack? The US Postal Service? Public Housing? Public Education? The Department of Energy (founded by Jimmy Carter 30 years ago with the goal of getting us off oil)? If you use the terms and phrases “innovative, “creative,” “sense of urgency,” “results,” “dedicated professionals,” or “accountability” in connection with any of these endeavors, your friends will quietly sidle away from you at cocktail parties.

But one such resounding success was NASA’s Apollo project. I have just finished, the book “Rocket Men: The Epic Story of the First Men on the Moon” by Craig Nelson. It recounts the story of the first moonshot, one of the signature achievements of the United States and, really, of mankind in the 20th century. It represents one of the finest arguments against libertarians like me. The first moonwalk is perhaps the finest accomplishment of any government agency, ever, and will likely never be eclipsed.

The book takes us through the commitment of John F. Kennedy to land a man on the moon and safely return him by the end of the decade. This was a formidable goal, as the U.S. fell behind the Soviets as our Cold War adversaries successfully launched Sputnik and put the first man into space. Eventually, we scrambled to catch up and overcame numerous technological setbacks and the tragic fire of Apollo 1 to put Neil Armstrong on the moon in July of 1969. What struck me about the success of Apollo is that NASA behaved quite differently than most government bureaucracies—people worked with real passion and dedication, there was a real sense of urgency, problems were solved creatively, the entire program was fraught with risks. Yet, in many ways, NASA behaved more like a private, profit seeking enterprise than a lethargic leviathan that we see in most modern government agencies where risk taking and urgent problem solving and creativity give way to inflexible rules and procedures, indifferent staff, and the protection of certain select constituencies.

Take, for example, this quote from Rocket Men:

And that’s why they worked those sixteen hour days and eight day weeks…’those people were the reason that you could get almost anything done. There was never a paucity of ideas. Imagination was rampant, and most of it very good imagination on how to solve problems. And a group of people could get around the table, work together, and in a noncompetitive—it seemed noncompetitive, at least at the time—and the sum of the output of that table was far greater than just the individual parts that were there. It was really an exiting time to be involved. And that’s why Apollo 13 was saved. That’s why Apollo 11 landed at the time it did. It’s really why any of the in-flight emergencies were dealt with successfully, is because the people could get together and figure out how to solve the problem.’


When was the last time you heard those things said in connection with a government project? Sixteen hour days? Imagination? Ideas? Problem solving? The only time you typically see government workers or legislators working sixteen hour days is when they are attempting to jam through a big tax increase.

What made the Apollo program different and what lessons can be drawn from it?

First, there was a clear, measurable and unambiguous goal in mind-land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth. Goals such as ending poverty, advance the national, economic and energy security of the United States (DOE website) and other such goals are too broad, too quixotic, and, therefore, unachievable. Almost by definition, they perpetuate a bloated, aimless bureaucracy. Sometimes, it can be even worse. The Federal Reserve’s dual mission of creating maximum employment and stable prices is inherently conflictual. Apollo had a very discrete mission and it was easy to ascertain whether we had achieved it or not.

Second, the program involved technology and competition with an adversary that had at least some military aspects to it. The Apollo program had a sense of urgency to it because the Soviets were ahead of us in space exploration at the time. The Soviets launched a satellite first and put the first man in space. Our national pride was wounded, and indeed, some saw the Soviet conquest of space as the beginnings of an existential threat. We were powerfully motivated and directed to catch and surpass the Communist regime. In other words, as in the private sector, surpassing a competitor was an important aspect of the mission.

Third, and most importantly, the program did not involve a wealth transfer from one group to another. As a result, the program did not create a large constituency of entitlement holders and a large lobbying force. Sure, there were some direct and indirect financial beneficiaries, but it was not so large as to create an effort to grow an ever enlarging pool.

I highly recommend Rocket Men. It is a reminder of how rare it is that a government endeavor actually achieves what it sets out to accomplish.

Jack and Squat

As if almost on cue, the Nobel committee this week served up another softball for this blog. Just last week, Saturday Night Live skewered Obama with a parody on his lack of achievements [see Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT5Kl38fSVY or search SNL Obama Do Nothing skit]. A liberal politician should take heed when SNL, Jon Stewart and Conan O’Brien are taking potshots at you.

The Nobel Prize just rounds out a legacy of nonaccomplishment for Obama. Other than winning elections, his resume has been completely void of actual, tangible results. As a community organizer, no one has come forth with anything one can call an actual achievement. As both a State Senator and US Senator, he sponsored not a single piece of legislation. As a professor, no original published works carry his name. No one in recent history has attained as high of a station and gotten more accolades on such a flimsy record of concrete results. In the business world that I inhabit, any job candidate must credibly reel off a series of actual, quantifiable achievements if he or she wishes to be a serious candidate for the job. For the Nobel committee, however, aspirations and great speeches are apparently enough.

So, what exactly did Obama do to deserve this distinguished award? Let us look at the statements of the Nobel Prize committee itself for the answer. In its press release, the committee singled out Obama for, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” Again, maybe I’m missing something, but so far, the actual accomplishments of the Obama administration have been to (i) send the mullahs in Iran a holiday video greeting, (ii) paid our UN dues and joined the Human Rights Council (along with other zealous defenders of human rights such as Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China), (iii) kicked off his presidency with a European apology tour, telling them that “America has been arrogant and has even ridiculed” its European allies, and (iv) permitted the investigation of whether the CIA caused undue discomfort to Khalid Sheik Muhammed and his cronies in attempting to gain intelligence from them. One would think that to win a Nobel Prize, you would have to come up with at least one signature achievement of some import. However, we are no closer to a Middle East peace accord, no closer to a stringent verifiable nonproliferation regimen, no closer to defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, or advancing women’s rights (as an aside, I find it interesting that NOW found time to scold David Letterman for his “promotion of a hostile work environment” but they still have yet to utter a word about how women are treated in the Middle East). In fact, under the Obama administration, America has not entered into a new material accord with anyone, nor has America brokered a peace deal between any two parties in discord.

The committee singles out our president for his “vision of a world free from nuclear arms [and he] has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations”. This is almost a parody in itself. Obama made his high minded vision statement about a world free of nuclear weapons concurrent with the disclosure of the Iranian facility at Qom was made public. No actual steps were taken by Western leaders (other than to talk to the Iranians and give them time to hide things before the IAEA came to visit). Perhaps Barack will someday persuade the mullahs to give up their nukes, but so far, the centrifuges are still spinning. If actual tangible achievement counted, surely Ronald Reagan would have gotten a Nobel. Under Reagan, more verifiable arms control agreements involving the dismantling of more kilotonnage and throw weights than any other world leader. But this award is not about achievement. It’s about politics. It’s about the Norwegian committee blessing Obama’s vision for America as the semi-European nanny state, where all states, no matter how odious have equal standing, where democracy is only one of many equally plausible ways of organizing a state and governing peoples, where the state, not individuals are responsible for the well-being of its citizens, and where aggressive, hostile, and tyrannical regimes are faced with letters of disapproval, carefully crafted by large committees. It is a world in which two of the world’s leading democracies—the US and Israel are roundly condemned, while the world’s worst dictators are free to acquire weapons to threaten and destabilize the world. We have gone from Ronald Reagan’s vision of the “shining city on the hill” to the vision of Obama, “we’re sorry we’ve been so arrogant in our promotion of liberty, democracy and free enterprise.” This is why the European on the Nobel committee is so willing to overlook that nagging little detail about not having any achievements. They love his, well, European vision for America.

Games and Bombs

The rejection of Chicago as the site for the 2016 this week represents the latest setback for the Obama administration. With as many domestic and foreign challenges facing this administration, I was frankly surprised that the administration decided to spend political capital to attempt to snare the Olympics for Chicago. The city itself was divided as to whether it really wanted the games. After nine months on the job, Obama’s star power was beginning to show signs of wear and he needed a win at this juncture. It seemed to me that the Olympic push had only small upside potential and large downside risk for the president. And alas, after a personal plea by Obama, the Olympic committee promptly scratched Chicago after the first round.
On the surface, this doesn’t seem like a major blow to the administration, but on a closer look it is deeply symbolic of what is wrong with this administration and does not portend well for the immediate future of his administration. Here’s why.
Obama has come an astonishingly long way on rhetoric. His golden tongue was super b in rallying the faithful during the election. At a time when the country was in a state of fright over its fracturing financial system and exhausted from its war in Iraq, Obama’s cool demeanor and mantra of hope and change and high sounding ideals had pundits swooning. At the inauguration, they immediately began drawing analogies between Obama and FDR and Lincoln. We wanted to believe.
There is an ocean of difference, however, between giving a speech and spouting ideals and actually getting things done. The missing ingredient in Obama’s background is negotiating experience. He has none. No one has been able to tell me exactly what he accomplished as a community organizer. He had no legislative accomplishments to his credit. And certainly being a lecturer to a bunch of 20 somethings does not give you one iota of experience at negotiating. Making a case is one thing. Controlling events and negotiating for the support of other key players is another.
As a result, we are beginning to see this administration grind to a halt. It was naked and exposed for all to see during the UN meeting last week. In very lofty and idyllic terms, Obama spoke about the vision of a world without nuclear weapons, a high minded ideal about which there is little disagreement. Yet, the very next day, when faced with the actual, real concrete evidence of the crazed mullahs in Iran blatantly ignoring the West with incontrovertible evidence that their nuclear weapons program is humming along, Obama seemed disjointed and out of step with our European allies. Britain and France both spoke about “lines in the sand” and deadlines. Obama mumbled something about Iran “having to live up to its international obligations.”
This was the perfect forum to present a pre-negotiated orchestrated united front to Iran. After all, we had only the week before given the Russians a huge concession by scuttling our plans to put missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.
But the only concrete action we received from others was a commitment by Iran to talk about the program, and by Russia to consider sanctions (not commit to them, mind you, but to commit to consider them). Iran promptly fired off a bunch of missiles just to let us know what they think of all this.
This is all symptomatic of an individual and an administration that has no experience in getting things accomplished. Obama much prefers grandious speeches to the hard, grinding work of negotiating and making deals. In the health care reform push, Obama’s efforts have been to ramp up the speaking circuit. Obama believes that if he just says it often enough and in an eloquent enough fashion, people will see the sense in it. But the art of getting things done involves getting people to do things they don’t really want to do. It involves cajoling, bribing, threatening, pushing at many levels to get what needs to be done. And it needs to be done in a coordinated fashion with nothing left to chance.
The issues we face with Iran are deadly serious. We failed to stop North Korea from getting the bomb. And now we are arguably faced with the most odious regime since the Nazis on the brink of becoming a nuclear power. The actions of the West over the next twelve months could easily change the history of the world. It is time to stop campaigning and get to work.