Posted by
Andrews on Friday, September 04, 2009 6:00:36 PM
I was reading
Best of the Web when I saw an interesting post:
Up With Business, Down With Big Business
John Carney of The Business Insider has an acute observation on the political failure of ObamaCare:
The Obama administration "expended great effort to line up
the support of health-care insurers, pharmaceutical makers and care
providers, believing that by keeping them around the table, they could
win over Republicans and stop the kind of industry-led attacks that
helped sink the Clinton plan," writes the Journal team.
It was supposed to be a simple formula. Win over the health
care industry shepherd, and the Republican will follow like sheep. But
it didn't work.
What seems to have gone wrong can be described as a failure
of the imagination: Obama's administration just never believed
Republicans would stand up for their limited government principles if
that meant opposing business interests. They were apparently assuming
that Republicans and conservatives could be won over by winning over
"business interests," as if free market and anti-government positions
were just rhetorical cover for policy making at the behest of business.
A useful distinction can be drawn here between business (commercial activity) and big business
(large corporations or industries acting collectively to seek economic
advantages from the political system). Those of us who adhere to
free-market principles are pro-business, in that we think commerce is a
good thing, but owe no allegiance to corporations or industries as
such. If the president and his men are still confused, they could do
worse than to read "Down With Big Business," a 1979 editorial written by the late Robert Bartley, editor of The Wall Street Journal.
What makes this interesting is that both the article itself, and the
1979 article it cites, both make strong arguments in favor of my post "
Anti-Business Businesses
". In it I argue that many existing firms find "anti-business" legislation beneficial, as it harms other firms, or excludes newcomers, more than it harms the businesses in question. It helps to explain why it is pointless to argue, as some on the the left do, that certain laws cannot be "anti-business" as certain businesses support them. Businesses often support anti-business laws. That is not proof.
POSTSCRIPT
Due to some physical ailments I have not written much today. Hopefully tomorrow will be more fruitful. But I did find this interesting enough to merit comment.
POSTSCRIPT II
It is nice, for once, to see "Republican" and "principle" in the same post. So often lately we have heard "realists" arguing Republicans
need to join in the big government parade that it is nice not only to hear someone arguing for principle rather than pragmatically following the Democrat line, but also to hear that Republicans are, themselves, actually following some principles, rather than flailing about looking for a popular line to try out on potential voters.
I hope it is a trend that continues.