"What America needs is not Robin Hood but Adam Smith."

Rand Paul delivers the SOTU response from the Tea Party.

Thomas Friedman calls on Obama to stress "the private side..., a lot more entrepreneurship, a lot more start-ups and a lot more individual risk-taking..."

"... things the president rarely speaks about."

Somehow, this column is called "It’s P.Q. and C.Q. as Much as I.Q." It's some lingo that replaces entrepreneurship and individualism:

The winners won’t just be those with more I.Q. It will also be those with more P.Q. (passion quotient) and C.Q. (curiosity quotient) to leverage all the new digital tools to not just find a job, but to invent one or reinvent one, and to not just learn but to relearn for a lifetime. Government can and must help, but the president needs to explain that this won’t just be an era of “Yes We Can.” It will also be an era of “Yes You Can” and “Yes You Must.”

Why did Friedman use the terms P.Q. and C.Q.?
	NYT readers are afraid of individualism and other ideas associated with the right.
	NYT readers pride themselves on their I.Q., so P.Q. And C.Q. resonate.
	Best-seller writers like Friedman need to brand themselves with unique terminology.
	It connects the idea to Obama, whom NYT readers stereotype as having a high I.Q.
	Passion and curiosity fit better with the way women feel about themselves.
	All of the above.
	More than one, but less than all of the above. (Explain in the comments.)
	None of the above. (Explain in the comments.)
pollcode.com free polls

At the Capitalism-Is-Doomed Café...

... hang out and talk about whatever you like, and if you'd like to show some affection for the blog called Althouse, please shop Amazon through the Althouse portal.

Century-old cartoon of the "class-conscious worker" handed out at Obama's Madison rally yesterday.

Not handed out by the official campaign, just by some guy there:


(Enlarge.)

The sturdy, manly worker in overalls is holding a scroll marked "Demands legislated in the Union hall." There is a sun marked "IWW" rising behind him. He's looking askance at "POLITICS/The Great HOCUS-POCUS GAME" behind which hides a short pot-bellied man in a top hat, spats, a big dollar sign on his shirt, and strings on his fingers connected to puppets who are saying "Vote your power into my hands"/"I'll do your fighting for you"/"Vote and be saved." The capitalist puppeteer is saying "I don't think he's wise to the game yet."

It's a 1916 cartoon from Solidarity, to which the caption is added: "How little things have changed."

It's a problem, making "political or philosophical" art when the market is "about hyper-capitalism" and the art is "poker chips for billionaires."

Nate Lowman is "bummed out" that "other people’s gambling habits change the meaning of paintings." Contemplate the pain of artistic success when the high prices paid "dictate how people perceive art."

Lowman’s work takes the shape of smiley faces, magnetized bullet holes, and Arbre Magique air fresheners. The images he gathers often come from the news cycle or the crime blotter (distressed blondes in general, among them Nicole Brown, murdered former wife of O. J. Simpson; “More or Less,” a 2003 show at Apex Art, featured bearded men such as John Walker Lindh, Jim Morrison, and Che Guevara), and he re-purposes “found” language that lies awkwardly between personal and impersonal, like the bumper sticker Jesus would use the turn signal, asshole.

ADDED: The linked Vanity Fair text is written by Edward Helmore, and he seems unaware of the political (and moral) incorrectness of referring to a murdered woman as a "distressed blonde."

Take this patriotism test.

First, watch this ad:



Now, here's the question:

At what point did you get chills?
	Within 4 seconds -- the sight of the flag.
	At 7 seconds -- "America is an idea."
	Around 12 seconds -- "Liberty! Freedom!"
	Around 15 seconds -- "Free enterprise!"
	Around 18 seconds, when the flag faded and the boy looked worried.
	Toward the end, on seeing "Romney/Ryan."
	Never.
pollcode.com free polls

Camille Paglia on our "strange and contradictory culture" where our "primary aesthetic experiences" — iPhones and such — have "no spiritual dimension."

In the Wall Street Journal:

The routine defamation of capitalism by armchair leftists in academe and the mainstream media has cut young artists and thinkers off from the authentic cultural energies of our time....

Young people today are avidly immersed in this hyper-technological environment, where their primary aesthetic experiences are derived from beautifully engineered industrial design.... But there is no spiritual dimension to an iPhone, as there is to great works of art.

Thus we live in a strange and contradictory culture, where the most talented college students are ideologically indoctrinated with contempt for the economic system that made their freedom, comforts and privileges possible. In the realm of arts and letters, religion is dismissed as reactionary and unhip. The spiritual language even of major abstract artists like Piet Mondrian, Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko is ignored or suppressed.

"It shouldn't surprise us that the role of American business is increasingly vilified or viewed with skepticism."

Writes the much-vilified businessman Charles Koch (in a WSJ op-ed):

Far too many businesses have been all too eager to lobby for maintaining and increasing subsidies and mandates paid by taxpayers and consumers. This growing partnership between business and government is a destructive force, undermining not just our economy and our political system, but the very foundations of our culture....

To end cronyism we must end government's ability to dole out favors and rig the market. Far too many well-connected businesses are feeding at the federal trough. By addressing corporate welfare as well as other forms of welfare, we would add a whole new level of understanding to the notion of entitlement reform.

"The Difference Between A $99 Suit And A $5,000 Suit..."

"... In One Graphic."

And here's an article about the rare skill involved in making a bespoke suit (and how it's not a profitable business, bereft of economies of scale).

The only way to make money in the perfectionist craftsperson industry, it seems, is to stop being a perfectionist craftsperson....

Just as Adam Smith described in “The Wealth of Nations,” there are huge efficiency gains when one complex process is broken down into constituent parts and each worker specializes in one thing.

Romney campaign expresses pride in Romneycare.

Surprising and good response to that powerful Obama ad that we've been talking about in this earlier post.

I really think that it's not enough for Romney supporters to say Romney wasn't personally responsible for the decision that led to this man's loss of his job. Romney's business was to do practical and efficient things that result in some people losing their jobs, and he needs us to be able to believe that's just fine — that the purpose of business is to make money, not to take care of people and that's what works out for the best in a system of capitalism.

But then what happens to people who lose their insurance, like this poor man whose wife learned too late that she had cancer? We feel empathy to him and he stimulates legitimate fears that we have about ourselves and people we love. It's not enough for the Romney campaign to fiddle around with the details about Romney's connection to this man's losing his job and when and why the cancer killed his wife.

We're looking at a specific man but a generic problem: People not seeking treatment because they don't have insurance and don't want to spend their own money going to the doctor until it's an emergency. Obamacare is one answer to this problem, and Romney's position is that he will end it. He needs to inspire confidence in what he would do instead. Today, we see Romney pointing proudly Romneycare, which the Obama campaign normally uses against him. It's a credential, not an embarrassment all of a sudden.

"Oakland, the Last Refuge of Radical America."

A long NYT Magazine article.

In a sense, Oakland is the last place you would expect to find the most stubbornly active outpost of the Occupy movement. It’s a city almost entirely devoid of financial or corporate institutions, a city that “capital” fled decades ago. The shimmering skyscrapers of downtown San Francisco, packed with Pacific Heights investment bankers and venture capitalists, are all of 12 minutes away. Silicon Valley, bursting at the seams with dot-com millionaires, isn’t much farther. Why not take the fight there, to a more plausible surrogate for Wall Street?...

Why are radicals so inexorably drawn to Oakland?

Good question. And I have another question, about that photograph of "Boots Riley... a rapper and activist who doesn't want to see capitalism reformed; he wants to see it toppled." Does he always sit on chairs like that, was that his idea how to pose for this article, or did the photographer position him like that? I don't know, but I'm nevertheless going to recommend that revolutionary-type Americans wedge their chair into a corner (so it won't topple, like capitalism) and then sit on the seat back with your shod feet on the arms. Your feet may be shod in sneakers if your name is "Boots" or in boots if your name is "Sneakers." Your choice.

"When you see the greed... did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism?"

Phil Donahue leans forward, prodding Milton Friedman (in 1979), and Friedman responds with startling cogency and articulateness:



Via Rush Limbaugh, yesterday, the 100th anniversary of Friedman's birth.

"Culture Does Matter," writes Mitt Romney.

In National Review, pushing back efforts to make it seem racist to say that nations prosper when their culture has certain qualities that Israel has and the Palestinians lack.

But what exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture? In the case of the United States, it is a particular kind of culture that has made us the greatest economic power in the history of the earth. Many significant features come to mind: our work ethic, our appreciation for education, our willingness to take risks, our commitment to honor and oath, our family orientation, our devotion to a purpose greater than ourselves, our patriotism. But one feature of our culture that propels the American economy stands out above all others: freedom. The American economy is fueled by freedom. Free people and their free enterprises are what drive our economic vitality.

But what exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture? is a clever question that provides leverage for arguing — not that he argues it — that if you don't think it's culture, you must think it's some inborn biological factor. That is: If you don't agree that it's culture, you could be a racist.

(And yes, I realize that inference will be resisted with the argument that the economically unsuccessful places are oppressed by other countries, Israel is oppressing the Palestinians, etc. etc.)

ADDED: This is related, from Stephen Moore's tribute to Milton Friedman (who was born 100 years ago yesterday):

Once in the early 1960s, Friedman wrote the then-U.S. ambassador to New Delhi, John Kenneth Galbraith, that he would be lecturing in India. By all means come, the witty but often wrong Galbraith replied: "I can think of nowhere your free-market ideas can do less harm than in India." As fate would have it, India did begin to embrace Friedmanism in the 1990s, and the economy began to soar. China finally caught on too.

"The Dark Knight Rises" "is a bold apologia for free-market capitalism..."

"... a graphic depiction of the tyranny and violence inherent in every radical leftist movement from the French Revolution to Occupy Wall Street; and a tribute to those who find redemption in the harsh circumstances of their lives rather than allow those circumstances to mire them in resentment."

Says Andrew Klavan (in the WSJ).

Let me restate an old theme of mine: Art is right wing, even when the artists will only consciously voice political opinions of the left-wing kind.

"Romney book: Britain is a tiny island that makes stuff nobody wants."

That's the headline in Foreign Policy, which is getting attention (according to Memeorandum), especially after Romney supposedly said something that upset the Brits today. (Surveying the London Olympics, Romney saw "a few things that were disconcerting." The Brits are keen to mock, and the mockery is magnified here in the U.S., because American media is inclined to boost Obama whenever the opportunity arises.)

Let's look at the paragraph Foreign Policy highlighted:

England [sic/[FP's sic]] is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions. Yet only two lifetimes ago, Britain ruled the largest and wealthiest empire in the history of humankind. Britain controlled a quarter of the earth's land and a quarter of the earth's population.

Oh, there's where they cut it off? Well, obviously he was in the middle of making a point. But you know the rule in journalism: Taking things out of context is okay when you do it to hurt conservatives. But I happen to have my Kindle copy of Romney's book "No Apology: Believe in America," so it's easy for me to give you the context. Here are the next 4 paragraphs:

Late in the eighteenth century, after the loss of their American colonies...

Foreign Policy didn't want to remind us Americans that Britain antagonized us.

... the British set out to compensate for what had been lost, first by defeating Napoleonic France and then by expanding the reach of the crown in colonies from India to the tip of South America and from Africa to the islands of the Western Pacific. 

And all that imperialism by the British doesn't make them look too appealing.

Britain’s might was military, having built the most powerful navy the world had ever seen. But what enabled their military superiority was their industrial might. The British had pioneered the Industrial Revolution, and they enthusiastically promoted free trade, understanding the huge export potential for their products. By 1860, the nation’s economy was the biggest in the world. 

Here's the great compliment to the British, but you know there's a big but...

But maintaining leadership proved more difficult than achieving it. Whereas other nations extended the manufacturing revolution by embracing new technology and innovation, the British reversed course and tried to contain it. The country’s culture of class immobility stymied the entrepreneurialism and initiative that propel a competitive economy. 

Here's the serious critique.

From owner to laborer, the British were eager to protect the status quo. Industrialists secured subsidies for themselves and tariffs on foreigners rather than face foreign competition and technology head-on. When subsidies proved insufficient for the most unproductive businesses, the government took them over. The nation spent national resources to keep sick companies alive rather than inventing new ones and investing in those that were strong.

Britain’s economic missteps were compounded when it was forced to fight and endure the cost of two world wars. By the end of World War II, its national debt had tripled. Massive loans were required to shore up the ailing economy; they came from its former colony.

Now Foreign Policy — a respected journal? — ends its out of context squib with snark: "Its roads and houses are small? The trees probably aren't the right height either." I'm giving you the whole context that Foreign Policy didn't want to deal with. It's about the British decline into socialism. What do you say we take that seriously?

Socialism/capitalism — that's how campaign 2012 has been framed. Let's stare that issue in the face. Sorry if the Brits' feelings are hurt, but this is about us.

"I remember when my family became pretty wealthy, and some people tried to make us feel bad about being wealthy."

Says Patti Scialfa (Mrs. Bruce Springsteen) to The New Yorker's David Remnick:

"Here’s the bottom line. If your art is intact, your art is intact. Who wrote ‘Anna Karenina’? Tolstoy? He was an aristocrat! Did that make his work any less true? If you are lucky enough to have a real talent and you’ve fed it and mined it and protected it and been vigilant about it, can you lose it? Well, you can lose it by sitting outside and drinking Ripple! It doesn’t have to be the high life."

Who's trying to make them feel bad about being wealthy? Obama?

Springsteen admires Obama for the health-care bill, for rescuing the automobile industry, for the withdrawal from Iraq, for killing Osama bin Laden; he is disappointed in the failure to close Guantánamo and to appoint more champions of economic fairness, and he sees an unseemly friendliness toward corporations—the usual liberal points of praise and dispraise. He’s wary about joining another campaign. “I did it twice because things were so dire,” he said. “It seemed like if I was ever going to spend whatever small political capital I had, that was the moment to do so. But that capital diminishes the more often you do it. While I’m not saying never, and I still like to support the President, you know, it’s something I didn’t do for a long time, and I don’t have plans to be out there every time.”

The capital diminishes? Not if you're a good capitalist. Interesting that you build "political capital" by not using it at all... not in the realm of politics anyway. Or... what am I saying? You didn't build that political capital. Somebody else made that happen. Rock and roll didn't get invented on its own. Government created the conditions for the music industry so that all the pop stars could win the love of the people and they owe a hunk of that burning love back to the politicians who created this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed them to thrive.

Obama takes a new tone.

Apparently, he's gotten the message that nastily attacking Romney isn't working. Here's his new ad, in which he actually seems kind of like Romney:



Text:

Over the next four months you have a choice to make. Not just between two political parties or even two people. It's a choice between two very different plans for our country. Governor Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top, roll back regulations on big banks, and he says that if we do our economy will grow and everyone will benefit. But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place.

Top-down? I think "top-down" is a better descriptor of the Obama preference for using the federal government to solve problems. A preference for the free market is bottom up.

I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class. Asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way. So that we can afford to invest in education, manufacturing, and homegrown American energy for good middle class jobs. Sometimes politics can seem very small. But the choice you face, it couldn't be bigger.

This feels like making the argument for Romney: an economy built to last... the middle class... pay down our debt... invest in education, manufacturing, and homegrown American energy....

Snuck in there is the old Obama theme: tax the rich. It's camouflaged within a lot of Romneyesque pro-capitalism talk. I think the Obama people have decided that lefty edge is a loser. Americans will chose capitalism over socialism if you make it stark. So he's repackaging himself as moderate. He's still saying "two very different plans for our country," but not pick capitalism or socialism, which is about what it was sounding like when he resorted to the "you didn't build that" rhetoric.

Carter Eskew says:

The extra expense to buy time to air a 60-second ad — instead of the usual 30-second unit lengths — usually means a campaign has a pressing need. What is Obama’s? Is it that his negative ads have reached the end of their usefulness, and it is time to present the alternative? Or did the ads overstay their welcome and begin to backfire? The campaign’s own polling — vastly more regular and extensive than the media’s — likely has the answer.

The left/right split on the question who invented the internet.

1. President Obama — in his notorious "you didn't build that" riff — said "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."

2. Gordon Crovitz — in the WSJ — said that's a myth: "The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happens—and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way."

3. Farhad Manjoo — in Slate — says: "Crovitz’s entire yarn is almost hysterically false. He gets basic history wrong, he gets the Internet’s defining technologies wrong, and, most importantly, he misses the important interplay between public and private funds that has been necessary for all great modern technological advances."

Fighting for reelection, Obama spent $58 million — $38 million on TV ads alone.

According to this L.A. Times article, which is illustrated, for some reason, with a photograph of Sheldon Adelson — a Romney donor — gesturing at some lit-up models of what are presumably models of casinos. (He's identified as a "casino mogul.")

A "mogul," which originally referred to "the successive heads of the Muslim dynasty founded by Zahīr-ud-Dīn Muḥammad Bābur (1483–1530), which ruled an empire covering a large part of South Asia from the 16th to the 19th centuries," now denotes "An important, influential, or dominant person; an autocrat," according to the OED, which gives the early example "I am the Sultan of this place: Mr. Limberham is the Mogol of the next Mansion" — a line spoken by a character named Brainsick, in the play "Limberham (or The Kind Keeper)," by John Dryden.

The photo of Adelson in the L.A. Times makes him seem capable of moving skyscrapers like big chess pieces. What a manipulative fellow! He gave $10 million in June to a Romney super PAC called Restore Our Future. ("Restore" means to bring back. Back to the future.) Restore Our Future raised $20.6 million in June. Meanwhile, Obama's super PAC, Priorities USA Action took in only $6 million.

Romney's campaign raised much more money than did Obama — $106 million to $70 million (in June). So Obama is lagging in the fundraising and also spending much more.

Heading into July, Romney and his party allies were left with nearly $170 million on hand, while Obama and the Democrats had $147 million.

That's not that huge of a difference, but Obama is such a big spender. And what did he get for all that spending? I think the idea was to frame Romney as an evil capitalist, and it hasn't worked out that well. 1. Despite the heavy attack on Romney, Obama hasn't moved up in the polls, and 2. The attack on capitalism went too far and touched off an effective counterattack. Not only has Obama depleted his funds, he's depleted his argument against Romney.

The Obama campaign’s attempt to portray Mitt Romney as the villainous Bane from “The Dark Knight Rises” appears to be a big flop. And the problem for Obama is, he really doesn’t have a Plan B.

 ADDED: The Obama campaign spent more than $2.6 on polling alone, just in June. What are they finding out? Why isn't that information giving them more useful ideas about how to win? Reminds me of the stimulus program, dumping huge amounts of money on things that done even pan out.

Let's look at the latest Romney and Obama ads.

I like Romney's riff on Obama's "you didn't build that" gaffe/revelation (via Instapundit):



And then there's this from Obama and Biden, who bill themselves (at the end) as "The Truth Team":



This is an odd ad, using a kind of "Jaywalking" technique of asking people on the street what something means, which allows them to throw out a lot of statements that "The Truth Team" doesn't have to get behind. Then there's a scroll of text that the viewer assumes supports the insinuation conveyed by the guesses from the people in the interviews. The phrase the people were asked to define is "retroactively retired," which the Romney campaign has used to explain Romney's exit from Bain Capital. The ad says to the viewers: There's something confusing and fishy here, and we know it means that Romney's ashamed of what his company did, which must be really bad or he wouldn't be trying to dance out of it, and we've got the facts, in case anybody wants to check, but you can trust us, we're The Truth Team.

It was funny watching this ad after the Romney ad, which has such a somber tone. The businessman almost breaks into tears over the fact that Obama isn't giving him respect for his accomplishments as a businessman. The Obama ad with its perky, plucky music portrays the businessman Romney as a big old clown. We're invited to identify with the amused and confused ordinary people who either don't know what's with the "retroactively retired" or assume it's some kind of trick. They seem like nice people, so maybe it's planted in our heads that Romney's a big joke. Who's the trickster here? You might think it's Obama. That's how the Obama ad could backfire. "The Truth Team" — seems juvenile, especially in context. But it also can make you suspicious. I get a Ministry of Truth— "Minitrue, in Newspeak"— kind of "1984" vibe from things like that. Obama's ad relies on the viewer's skepticism about language, so why wouldn't we be skeptical about his language too?

Obama's ad feels like Leno-light comedy, and Romney's ad is melodrama. Given the state of the economy, viewers might feel a stronger pull toward melodrama and identify with that hardworking owner of a metal fabricating company. Note that the campaign didn't choose a businessman in a suit type guy. There's a real workingman aura around this man that reminds me of the laid-off steelworker used in Obama's most famous anti-Bain ad. (Yes, I know that guy, Donnie Box, called Obama a "pantywaist.")

The Romney ad shows a workingman/businessman who gets up at 6:18 am, drinks coffee kisses his wife (in a conventional, middle-class kitchen, drives a truck into the sunrise, works in a shop complete with punch cards and spark-flinging grinders, and wears a T-shirt along with his employees. Interestingly, the business owner doesn't have a stereotypical workingman look. He's got a neat gray goatee and a trim body. Interestingly, the coffee is made in a French press. (And speaking of French, do you notice the slightly French way Romney says "entrepreneur" at 1:20 in the ad?)

I'll let you make the call:

Which ad is more successful?
	Romney's ad is brilliant. Obama's is trash.
	Both ads are excellent, in different styles.
	Obama's ad is hilarious and effective. Romney's ad is whiny and dishonest.
	Both ads are ads -- sort of good, but deceptive and annoying.
pollcode.com free polls

UPDATE: Obama has a new ad directly confronting "You didn't build that," and I analyze it here.