Magazine | August 13, 2012, Issue

What Can Capitalism Do for Me?

It’s the voter question Romney must answer

The presidential campaign has become, almost by accident, a debate about the future of capitalism. What it is not yet, and may not become, is an honest, intelligent, or productive debate.

Perhaps one should not expect more, given that the debate was set off by cheap shots and a gaffe. Both were President Obama’s, and they dominated the political conversation of mid-July. The president has been hammering Mitt Romney for enriching himself by immiserating other Americans: closing plants, laying people off, sending jobs overseas, all while putting his own money in a Swiss bank account. The Obama campaign is demanding that Romney release more tax returns, and suggesting that his refusal to do so means they would reveal something nefarious.

Almost none of these shots is sincere. People with business histories nearly identical to Romney’s but different political views have been more than welcome in the Obama White House. It is impossible to believe that Obama really thinks there is anything wrong with a businessman’s decision to site operations overseas. He has no proposals to stop or seriously impede the practice. He has called for changing the tax code to advertise his notional opposition to it, an idea that will be discarded as soon as it no longer helps him politically.

Governor Romney refuses to defend himself by arguing for the legitimacy of the common business practices that Obama has attacked. His campaign spokesmen have repeatedly dodged when asked to comment on outsourcing. Hence the unsatisfactory nature of the debate: Obama is saying things he knows to be false, but Romney will not say things he knows to be true.

Instead the Romney campaign has made responses that avoid engaging with any point of principle. It says that Romney’s critics have the details of his career wrong, that Obama has outsourced jobs himself, and that Obama has manufactured a controversy about Romney’s past in order to distract attention from the president’s responsibility for a dismal present. Romney and many of his allies also say that Obama’s failure is the result of his not understanding business.

Obama made that line of attack much easier for Romney on July 13, when he riffed, without a teleprompter, about successful people who believe they made it because they are smart and hard-working. No, said Obama: Many people who are smart and hard-working do not succeed. “If you were successful,” he continued, “somebody along the line gave you some help.” He then offered examples of this helpful “somebody,” who turned out to be the government in each case. It provided a “great teacher,” “this unbelievable American system,” and “roads and bridges.” “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen.”

Romney suggested that Obama was denigrating business owners. Obama’s supporters responded that the Republicans were taking his remark out of context: The “that” in “somebody else made that happen” referred to the “roads and bridges” and the “system,” not to “a business.” Sensing political weakness, Obama retreated even further a week later: “What I said was together we build roads and we build bridges. That’s the point I’ve made millions of times, and by the way, that’s a point Mr. Romney has made as well, so this is just a bogus issue.”

#page#If Obama’s clarification were true, it would raise the question of why he thinks it worthwhile to make a non-controversial point “millions of times.” He finished his July 13 riff thus: “We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president, because I still believe in that idea: You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.” Since by the president’s admission Romney agrees with him on the point he was making, it would seem to follow that Obama can now stand down.

Obviously Obama was saying more than that. The remarks about rich people, bridges, and togetherness came right after, and were meant to support, his plan to let the top tax rates rise. Here then is Obama’s argument, with all the context his supporters could wish: Rich people are rich in important part because the government has done a lot for them, and therefore they should pay more to the government.

That summary is more than fair to Obama. His actual remarks ignore entirely the fact that rich people have been paying taxes to the government, and make it sound as though government help does more to account for their success than do their own intelligence and drive. He points out that a lot of smart, hard-working people aren’t rich; he doesn’t note that a lot of people who have had good teachers and roads aren’t either.

Even when patched up, Obama’s argument is weak. A heart surgeon may save many people’s lives and thus enable them to make any future income they earn. It does not follow that he is entitled to any share of that income he might want. There remains a point at which the patient can say, reasonably, No, that’s mine and even No, I earned that. It is also the case that much of what the government does — and especially what the federal government does — has no plausible role in making businesses successful. Medicare does not make the Waltons wealthier; neither does Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

What’s most troubling about Obama’s argument is that it contains no limiting principle. Impose a 95 percent tax rate on all of Bill Gates’s income, and it will still be true that his remaining income is partly the result of the facts that he learned to read and add, his products can be shipped over roads, and so on. Nor does it apply only to high earners, even if they are the only people Obama currently expresses interest in taxing more. Microsoft employees are dependent on the roads to make their living, too.

Nobody within the mainstream of American political life denies that people, including rich people, have an obligation to pay taxes to the government so that it can do things that need doing and no other institution can do. Nobody explicitly denies, either, that people have a claim on their own money that has to be defeated by good reasons to justify their being taxed. The purpose of President Obama’s argument was and is to lower the bar of justification: to weaken the presumption that people should keep their own money.

President Obama, then, is running as a man who is against features of capitalism usually perceived as its downsides, somewhat critical of the entrepreneurs at its heart, supportive of government activism to soften its effects, and unwilling to spell out any principled limits to that activism. His rhetorical stance toward business is more hostile than that of the previous Democratic president, Bill Clinton. This is not surprising: Clinton never described working for a business as being “behind enemy lines,” as Obama famously did in his first memoir. On the other hand, Obama’s rhetoric falls well short of FDR’s attack on “economic royalists” whom he intended to “master.” Obama’s campaign marks him as a run-of-the-mill welfare-state liberal. It is what welfare-state liberalism looks like when presiding over a weak economy.

#page#Americans do not especially like the idea of a larger government, and they are suspicious of Democrats who seem enthusiastic about taxation. Criticizing these unattractive elements of Obama’s politics is an indispensable part of a campaign to unseat him. Romney is delivering this critique with increasing force and even deftness.

What the campaign lacks is a complement to this attack: a set of policies that address the public concerns that Obama is exploiting in his attack on Romney but build on the virtues of free markets. Romney needs, in other words, to advance capitalist solutions to the disappointments of capitalism.

Obamacare rests on the premise that markets cannot work in health care, or at least that they cannot work without quite a bit of central direction. They will leave too many people without insurance. A lot of people, even if they are not liberals, share that worry. They do not believe that increased initiative by individuals will solve the problem. There are conservative ideas about how to make health insurance more accessible by reducing its costs. Romney has, however, been reticent about what he would do.

Conservatives can respond to public anxiety about trade, too, without succumbing to protectionism. A lot of that anxiety is based on voters’ worries about an economy that has not produced wage gains for most people for more than a decade. They may not approve of Obama’s economic record, but they know that this problem precedes his presidency — and again they have reason to doubt that individual initiative alone can fix it. Romney rarely alludes to this concern, let alone suggests in any sustained way that his reforms of monetary, tax, budget, and regulatory policy would allay it.

Many friendly observers of the Romney campaign will at this point have two responses. The first is that Romney has offered many policy specifics. That’s true — no previous presidential candidate has talked about entitlement reform in as much detail as Romney — but it’s also true that on a wide range of voter concerns he has left the rhetorical and policy field to Obama. People are more likely to give Medicare reform a hearing if the person advancing it seems to care about making sure people have affordable health care.

Which brings us to the second response, this one usually offered with self-conscious sophistication: Most voters are not policy wonks, and offering ten-point plans on six issues will not win any votes. The premise is sound, but the conclusion does not follow from it. The political point of offering an agenda, beyond making it easier to govern if the candidate wins, is to affect the way people perceive him. In all kinds of indirect ways, it makes him look like someone who will be appropriately active in office, who cares about voters and understands their concerns, who has solutions.

To respond to Obama’s attacks on outsourcing and Bain, Romney ought to unveil something more compelling than another tax return.

Ramesh Ponnuru — Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg View, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

In This Issue

Articles

Politics & Policy

Calling Cal

Republicans often ask what Reagan would do, but it is hard to answer that question about our current budgetary situation. When Reagan won the presidency in 1980, the federal debt ...
Politics & Policy

The Enemy of My Friend

Presidents who believe in the greatness of America project that greatness in their foreign policy. They cultivate alliances with countries that share American values, confront adversaries that oppose them, and ...

Features

Politics & Policy

Unleash the Mind

America’s wealth is not an inventory of goods; it is an organic entity, a fragile pulsing fabric of ideas, expectations, loyalties, moral commitments, visions. To vivisect it for redistribution is ...
Politics & Policy

Who Gave Us Obamacare?

‘We can no longer afford to put health-care reform on hold.”             It was on February 24, 2009, a little over a month after he assumed office, that President Obama spoke ...

Books, Arts & Manners

Politics & Policy

Green Shift

This review should begin with a confession: I badly underestimated Roger Scruton. When I heard two years ago that Scruton was coming to the American Enterprise Institute to write a book ...
Politics & Policy

The Obama Failure

The political timing for Debacle is not coincidental, and Grover Norquist and John Lott’s book may well become the most important arrow striking President Obama’s economic policy. They have written ...
Politics & Policy

A Knight to Remember

Where the Batman movies are concerned, I tend toward the contrarian. I’m one of the few people who prefer Tim Burton’s garish Art Deco caricatures to Christopher Nolan’s broody, self-serious ...
Country Life

Flash of Light

During Jack Kerouac’s lifetime, haiku went from being a countercultural affectation to a staple of high-school literary magazines. Kerouac wrote good ones, partly because he loosened the 5-7-5 syllable corset, ...

Sections

Politics & Policy

Letters

Must We Think of the Author to Read? I admired Ryan T. Anderson’s review of Natural Law and the Antislavery Constitutional Tradition (“Written on the Mind,” June 25), but I found ...
Politics & Policy

The Week

‐ They’ll stop at nothing, those Republicans — even quoting the president’s words. ‐ At the moment, the Obama campaign’s major message appears to be that Mitt Romney is an outsourcer ...
Athwart

Funeral Audit

Wandered through a few European museums last month. You find yourself looking at the 435th Annunciation, this time by Giovanni Battisti Garbonzo DiLavatrini, and the eyes start to glaze. If ...
Politics & Policy

Poetry

IMAGINE THE UNFALLEN If this old fallen world can look so great, If even fallen birds can have such state They land their narrow fingers on a tree, And make a stem a stage ...
Happy Warrior

In Search of ‘Why’

The media conventions are pretty much chiseled in concrete by now. If a guy guns down large numbers of people while shouting “Allahu akbar!” don’t worry, it’s a one-off, part ...

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More
Elections

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More
U.S.

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More