David Brooks, "Why Our Elites Stink": The Stench of Money

"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Pogo, 1971

In his latest New York Times op-ed, "Why Our Elites Stink" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html), David Brooks suggests that today's "brainy elite" might not be doing a better job of leading the US than yesteryear's "old boys’ network." The reason for this failure, according to Brooks, is anchored in an absence of a "leadership code":

"Today’s elite is more talented and open but lacks a self-conscious leadership code. The language of meritocracy (how to succeed) has eclipsed the language of morality (how to be virtuous)."

Leadership code? Long before 2012, leadership was replaced by narcissism.

As reported by ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/obamas-air-force-one-call-to-donors-reveals-money-worries/):

"President Obama has spent more time raising money than any of his predecessors in recent history, crisscrossing the country on Air Force One to 175 re-election fundraisers so far in his first term.

His campaign, the Democratic National Committee and their joint accounts reported more than $173 million cash on hand at the end of May, $61 million more than rival Mitt Romney and Republicans.

And after smashing fundraising records in 2008, tapping $746 million from a historic donor roll of 3 million names, Team Obama has appeared on pace to do it again.

Still, Obama and Democrats are sounding the alarm for what would seem to be unthinkable: that they are poised to be outraised and outspent by Romney, the GOP and allied outside groups.

'We see where we stand, and right now on a month-to-month basis, we’ve fallen behind,' Obama told a group of high-dollar donors Friday on an 18-minute conference call from Air Force One, according to The Daily Beast, which obtained audio of the call from a participant."

Excuse me, but at a time when Iran is threatening to sink US aircraft carriers and to destroy 35 US military bases, Obama is sleepless because Romney is raising more money? Goodness gracious, after four years of failure, Obama is deathly afraid that those nefarious Republicans will be able to beam more 30-second addle-brained television advertisements into the homes of tens of millions of Americans and turn the tide of the 2012 election. In fact, Obama has good reason to be wary, given that "Change" did not happen, and "Give Me a Second Chance" is not a viable battle cry.

Who is raising the money for this pap? No, it's not just coming from Wall Street tycoons. There are also the chic and glamorous from Hollywood and New York, who would also impose their imprimatur upon November. As I observed in my prior blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/paul-krugman-whos-very-important-class.html), consider the recent $80,000 a plate fundraiser at Jessica Parker's Manhattan penthouse, arranged with the able assistance of Vogue magazine editor Anna Wintour.

Vogue? Surely you recall Vogue's enchanting 2011 profile of Syrian first lady Asma al-Assad, entitled “A Rose in the Desert,” now scrubbed from the web, which was published at a time when the Assads had already begun slaughtering Syria's citizenry. As stated by this sycophantic article, "The household is run on wildly democratic principles. 'We all vote on what we want, and where,' [Asma] says."

Then, too, there was the May shindig for Obama arranged by George Clooney at his California home, which raised some $15 million. Almost everyone in attendance paid $40,000 for dinner with a few exceptions. As observed by The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304543904577397330920533806.html):

"But the Obama campaign raised millions more online by raffling off two free tickets to the dinner. The winners were Beth Topinka, a New Jersey science teacher, and Karen Blutcher, a Florida utility company employee. Both women came with their husbands. The two couples sat toward the rear of the tent."

Why do Jessica Parker, Anna Wintour and George Clooney think that they know better than we do? What does movie and fashion talent have to do with economics and statecraft? How has it come to be that someone like George Clooney - I like many of his movies - think that he knows best how the US should be governed?

More to the point, how has it come to be that money swings elections? Answer: Because we allow it to happen.

I wouldn't spend a nickel to participate in a raffle that might "win" me the opportunity to dine with Clooney and friends. And even if invited, I wouldn't go.

Excuse me now as I go harvest my tomatoes.

Paul Krugman, "Who’s Very Important?": Class Warfare Without Solutions

The 2012 presidential election is becoming an ugly mud slinging match between two candidates bereft of ideas intended to free the US from the economic muck in which it is mired.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Who’s Very Important?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/krugman-whos-very-important.html), Paul Krugman would have us believe that the Romney candidacy is all about the "superrich" seeking to establish control over America. Krugman begins his opinion piece by observing:

"'Is there a V.I.P. entrance? We are V.I.P.' That remark, by a donor waiting to get in to one of Mitt Romney’s recent fund-raisers in the Hamptons, pretty much sums up the attitude of America’s wealthy elite. Mr. Romney’s base — never mind the top 1 percent, we’re talking about the top 0.01 percent or higher — is composed of very self-important people."

Oh, those snotty Republican rich people! And I might even buy into this fantasy were it not for the recent $80,000 a plate fundraiser at Jessica Parker's Manhattan penthouse, arranged with the able assistance of Vogue magazine editor Anna Wintour. Vogue? Surely you recall Vogue's enchanting 2011 profile of Syrian first lady Asma al-Assad, entitled “A Rose in the Desert,” which was published at a time when the Assads had already begun slaughtering Syria's citizenry. As stated by this sycophantic article, "The household is run on wildly democratic principles. 'We all vote on what we want, and where,' [Asma] says."

As for Anna Wintour, who is said to be worth $35 million (see: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/designers/anna-wintour-net-worth/), there is speculation that she will be named the next US ambassador to England, owing to the enormity of the funds she has raised for Obama. If so, she will replace Louis Susman, "a retired vice-president of Citigroup, whose fund-raising abilities during Obama’s 2008 campaign earned him the nickname 'the vacuum cleaner'" (see: http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2012/06/anna-wintour-angling-for-an-ambassador-post.html).

And let's not forget that May shindig for Obama arranged by George Clooney at his California home, which raised some $15 million. Almost everyone in attendance paid $40,000 each for dinner with a few exceptions. As observed by The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304543904577397330920533806.html):

"But the Obama campaign raised millions more online by raffling off two free tickets to the dinner. The winners were Beth Topinka, a New Jersey science teacher, and Karen Blutcher, a Florida utility company employee. Both women came with their husbands. The two couples sat toward the rear of the tent."

Sorry, Paul, but the stench of the moneyed attempting to influence November's outcome wafts from both sides of the aisle.

If only either candidate could proffer a viable program for achieving US energy independence over the next four years. Yes, it can be done and at the same time create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

If only either candidate would be willing to reinstate the Uptick Rule and reenact Glass-Steagall, providing the US economy with an instant burst of renewal.

However, this is not meant to be. Obama loyalists, such as Paul Krugman, would prefer to depict the election as a contest between rich and poor, which is a fable intended to paper over almost four years of failed economic policies.