Obama Needs a Capitalist

Pages: 1 2

A top business executive, however, may be a better fill for the position of chief of staff, now that Rahm Emanuel has left to run to be Chicago’s mayor and David Axelrod will be running Obama’s campaign headquarters, also in Chicago. That is, if a high-ranking business executive would even consider such a post.

Tapping a true capitalist would not only be startling in an Obama administration, but Obama’s unforced errors have almost completely alienated him from American business. Since taking office, he has shown no hint of appreciation for the wonders of the free market and private enterprise. It was because Obama has seemed infatuated with what he considers the “best and brightest Ivy League types” that he chose Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard.

Obama might have avoided much of the business backlash if he had brought in a few business people into his entourage or if he had brought a prominent business person into his cabinet, pondered The Economist. What is surprising, the column said, is that “some of the President’s biggest supporters’ have so publicly derided his policies, even at the risk of hurting their ability to influence the party in the future.”

Obama may now be seeking reconciliation with the corporate community after business leaders sank millions into the midterm election to defeat Democrats. But two years of frustration are more than enough for many executives who say “they won’t be won over by another round of private lunches and photo opportunities at the White House,” said a Politico story. If the President has any hope of a truce with industry in time for his reelection campaign, he needs to drop the name-calling and step forward with some specific positive proposals.

“No amount of relationship-building is a substitute for policy,” said Johanna Schneider, executive director for external affairs at the Business Roundtable, which once was an enduring corporate ally. She added: “We have to see some concrete policies that will help grow business because everyone’s goal is to grow jobs. This isn’t hocus-pocus. There are concrete steps to take for job growth.”

The administration is considering an appearance by Obama at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent about $75 million to help Republicans in the November election. Many from business and industry believe that Obama just doesn’t get them. No one in the White House has had corporate experience or been “steeped in the daily challenges of operating in a global economy,” as Politico put it.

Cooperation with the business community is essential for expanding the economy and providing jobs. That’s why finding a top economic adviser who understands this is so critical.

Pages: 1 2

  • scum

    Kicked Wall Street at every opportunity?? Are your freaking serious? Republican CEO's flew to Washington desperate for handouts, and they got it. The stock market which had tanked under Greenspan/Bush has risen dramatically. What we have now is greater centralization than ever as smaller banks are closed and the 'too big to fails' rule the roost. Obama as a socialist? Preposterous, ideological garbage. Get over it and tell the truth for once…

  • davarino

    Hehehe its funny watching reality chash in on the lefties.

  • Reason_For_Life

    Obama needs a capitalist? For what? To blame the depression on?

    If you're thinking that an Art Laffer or a Walter Williams could become an adviser to Obama then you are obviously under the influence of controlled substances.

    Obama will pull someone from academia with a penchant for writing unintelligible papers in obscure journals. No one will be able to decipher the jargon laden verbiage in his writings. Then, the Republicans will approve the choice and the new adviser will call for another "stimulus".

    The Republicans will feign shock at the proposed spending and demand that the administration cut the stimulus dollars. The final bill will spend more money than originally proposed and put the economy into a tailspin.

    In November 2012 Obama will run against Mitt Romney on the platform that the Republicans deepened the recession by not spending enough money. Romney will reply that it wasn't the amount of spending, it was where the money was spent that was the real problem.

    Obama will win re-election by an unprecedented 65% in one of the smallest turnouts in electoral history as conservatives and libertarians boycott the elections and move to remote areas of Texas and New Zealand in search of freedom. Obama's victory enables him to retake the House and implement an economic "final solution".

    • Seek

      This might make for a good John Galt fantasy, but let's hope for everyone's sake that it doesn't come true. I'll take Mitt Romney over Barack Obama in a heartbeat.

      • Reason_For_Life

        People said the same thing about Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey as well as George W Bush over Al Gore.

        It didn't turn out well. Each Republican did things no Democrat would have dared to do.

        • coyote3

          Well, you are not given us very good choices with Humphrey and/or Gore, in the first place. That said, Nixon and Bush, were two of the biggest lefties we have ever had in the White House.

  • USMCSniper

    capitalism is blamed for the ills of government intervention–and then even more government intervention is proposed as the cure. The Great Depression? Despite massive evidence that the Federal Reserve’s and other government policies were responsible for the crash and the inability of the economy to recover, it was laissez-faire that was blamed. Consequently, in the aftermath, the government’s power over the economy was not curtailed but dramatically expanded. Or what about the energy crisis of the 1970s? Despite compelling evidence that it was brought on by monetary inflation exacerbated by the abandonment of the remnants of the gold standard, and made worse by prices controls, “greedy” oil companies were blamed. The prescribed “solution” was for the government to exert even more control. It’s time to stop blaming capitalism for the sins of government intervention, and give true laissez-faire a chance. Now that would be a change we could believe in. But don't ecpect it under Obama

  • jgreene

    It's pretty pathetic that Obama really doesn't know ANYONE he can "tap" from his friends or acquaintances who know anything about business or capitalism. He does know a bunch of folks who the words to the "Internationale".

  • Guest

    Only a pathetic 7% of obama's cabinet have ANY private sector experience. By comparison, before obama, the lowest percentage of cabinet appointees was with JFK at 28%. Obama will not appoint any capitalist as he utterly detests capitalism and is doing everything he can to destroy it.

  • leeman

    Kenneth Chenault is misidentified in the article as chief executive of Federal Express. He's CEO of American Express.

  • Wesley69

    Obama is a Radical Socialist and will always be that. He has no faith in the marketplace, but he will use it to get reelected. Lenin, in Communist USSR, when War Communism was alienating peasants and workers developed the New Economic Plan which called for a degree of Capitalism. Once the Communists were firmly in charge, the NEP was ended and Central Planning took off with a vengence. Obama knows history better than most. Besides the Executive Agencies like the EPA & the FCC are doing the heavy lifting now that Congress won't be. Obama's transformation continues, but at a slower pace.

  • dave

    "business leaders sank millions into the midterm election to defeat Democrats," "If the President has any hope of a truce with industry in time for his reelection campaign,"
    A fine statement you make about our democracy when you openly admit the capitalists can simply buy their elections. Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper if we just let the Plutocrats decide without bothering with elections.

  • http://www.pandorabraceletsonsale.com/ pandora bead bracelets

    You can generate your individual collection of Pandora bracelets with them and enjoy the key admiration of everyone approximately you in just about every occasion.