Conservatives have one big problem, the left leads them around by the nose, and they don't realize it. I mentioned in "Giving Away the Game" how our inconsistent opposition to big government gives the left endless victories and allows them to run rings around us in debates, but that is small potatoes compared to the way they manage to get us to become our own worst enemies. In "Bad Economics Part 17" I mentioned how many advocates of big government manage to confuse us by blurring the distinctions between true free market capitalism and regulated interventionist system, making us think of government lackies and honest businessmen as being the same. Well, the left is doing it again, and conservatives with populist leanings are helping them.

The problem is the way that Obama has handled big business. By giving away money to certain favored firms, bailing out Wall Street and some automakers, and otherwise favoring some business, he has made some conservatives criticize "Big Business". That is simply wrong. In their criticism, they are not fighting Obama, they are doing his job for him. He might be bailing out some firms now, but he is no friend of big business, or any business, and many who he is supposedly helping are actually being harmed, some against their will. And while others may be cashing in on political connections and may be worthy of blame, we still have to ask if in using these few bad apples to attack all business we are not helping the left much more than hurting Obama.

First, let us be clear that businesses favored by government are not always acting voluntarily, or if they are, they are not always blameworthy. Yes, some use big government to avoid competition, or to gain advantage, as I described in "Anti-Business Businesses", but then there are others. For example, if your competitors use government connections to harm you, what do you do? Go under or use the same tools in self-defense? If in the end you come out on top, does that make you a villain? Or a victim who got lucky? Similarly, many others do not wish government help, but have it thrust upon them, as was the case in some bank bailouts. That hardly makes them villains. And finally, there is the case of the firm, not directly attacked, but who sees other firms benefiting from government aid, which decides to not voluntarily accept a disadvantage and so joins the fray for government favors. They are likely a bit more blameworthy, but still, they are simply making use of the tools in their environment. The blame should not go to them, but to the government which created an environment where favor matters more than ability.

Second, even if we adopt a puritanical model and blame every firm which ever took any government help, there are still others which did not, and so to blame all business for the misdeeds of one is absurd. This, in essence, the error I discussed in "Bad Economics Part 17", and one which works well for the left. By leading moderates and even conservatives to confuse businesses dependent on government favor and those which succeed on their own merits, they either gain tacit approval for government intervention, or, more likely, get moderates and conservatives to turn against business in general, which only helps them in their campaign against free commerce and unfettered business.

Third, as I argued in "The Irrationality of Government Redistribution", even the firms that think they benefit, lose in the long run. So, while they may be seeing temporary gains, they are truly doing more harm than god to their firms. In the case of those trying to exploit the government to harm competitors, I feel little regret, but there are others, those coerced into accepting government aid, or those forced to do so by aggressive competitors who exploit every government action for their own advantage. These firms, sadly, have no choice but to turn to the state, and yet in doing so they buy only temporary relief, as in the long run the "aid" is still destructive.("Clarifying a Reality of Capitalism", "The Limits of "Scientific" Management", "Planning For Imperfection", "Fairness and the Free Market", "The Triumph of Good", "Greed Versus Evil")

And finally, we must always remember, even if some firms benefit from regulation, regulation is never pro-business. It is always aimed at destroying the market. ("The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", "Moral For Me, But Not For Thee", "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises", "Bureaucracy Revisited")  Yes, firms may find ways to exploit intervention in the short run, and in many case, the opening move by the government may appear to aid some firms, but in the long run intervention aims, at best, at taking over all firms, and at worst at replacing enterprise of all types with outright government ownership. No one writes interventionist laws with the final intent of favoring a political crony, they may take that step along the way to gain some advantage, but in the long run, the true believers in intervention think they should control it all, which leaves no place for business.("How the Government Corrupts Relationships",  "Deadly Cynicism", "The Citizen Dichotomy", "In A Nutshell", "Cognitive Dissonance Part 2", "The Right Way", "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"", "Contradictory World Views" )

Which is why I say by criticizing business we are doing the left's work for them. Obama's business "friends" are not friends, but temporary allies. He plans to destroy them later himself, along with business in general. The man is hardly a fan of the market -- as ObamaCare and cap and trade show, not to mention the handling of GM and others -- so why would he favor any firms? So, when we criticize these firms, attack the market as a whole, we do not hurt Obama, we help him.

So, please, do not take up arms against "greedy Wall Street firms" or run down businesses "exploiting" Obama. Recall that it is Obama who is to blame, and he who is exploiting everyone. If the government gave out no favors, then no one could buy them ("Transparency, Corruption and Reform", "Selling Yourself Cheap"), so it is the government and its intervention which makes any of it possible.

Or, if you must blame anyone, look in the mirror. After all, politicians only do what we ask. So if they go too far, grant favors, sell out to business, they do so because they are certain we will not care, won't vote them out. So, if you must blame someone other than an office holder, why not start with the rest of us? ("Defending Freedom?", "Don't Blame the Politicians", "What We Deserve", "Who Is To Blame?", "What is Wrong with Us", "The Single Greatest Weakness", "Why We Lose", "Government Tries to Solve a Problem It Created, and Manages to Create New Problems in the Process")

POSTSCRIPT

In addition to the misguided souls who turn against businesses when they see them favored by government, there are also many supposed conservatives, paelo-cons mostly ("Misplaced Blame and A Power Play", "Remember I Predicted It") who have a strong populist, protectionist agenda ("Beware Populist Deception", "Protectionism, "Protectionism Right and Left", "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs"). The fact that conservatives grant these individuals the designation conservatives ("The Political Spectrum") is yet another way we give the left an advantage in debates, as they can turn to these anti-trade, anti "Big Business" nominal conservatives and argue that even people on our side of the aisle see the harm of free enterprise.

I am afraid, until we develop a clear position ("A True Conservative Platform") and define what conservatism truly is ("Conservatives and the "Big Picture"", "The Party of 'No'?", "Activism As The Only Acceptable Position? ", "Winning By Losing? Not A Chance!"), our "big tent" and inconsistent beliefs will give the left innumerable advantages ("Many Types of Conservatives", "The Need to Correct Ourselves").

POSTSCRIPT II

It is hard to honestly assess blame in circumstances such as we have. After all government has been meddling in some businesses (eg. railways and most interstate trade, especially in grains, meats and other agricultural products) since 1890. So it is part of the environment and a reality with which businesses must deal. On an analogous note, are you a leech if you take social security? Or is it acceptable as they took your money and it is an accepted practice? Similarly, relying on government favors is an established part of some industries, and failing to do so can put firms at a sometimes fatal disadvantage. So it is difficult to call those who seek favor the bad guys.

In the end, as I said above, the lion's share of the blame must go the state which set up the fun house mirror world of regulation where successful competition brings antitrust lawsuit, and failure brings government aid, where firms can be "too big to fail" and so are kept alive despite inefficiency, and government programs encourage granting unprofitable loans, but then blame those who did so for failing to exercise caution. This bizarre landscape is the fault of the government. So any response to it is best blamed on the state which created it, rather than the businesses, many of which are simply trying to survive in an environment where traditional measures of success do not work any longer.