Monday, July 16, 2012

Obama's pathetic hysteria over outsourcing!

I doubt if there was ever a column by Michael Kinsley that I did not like.  My all time favorite is, of course, his wonderful piece on the brain surgery that he went through for treating the awful Parkinson's disease.  If only he didn't have that early onset of Parkinson's.

In his latest, Kinsley asks what is so wrong about outsourcing. After noting the benefits of trade, which results in outsourcing, he writes about Obama's approach in going after Romney:
He accuses Romney of outsourcing both as governor of Massachusetts (letting a state contractor move its calling center operation to India) and before that as a businessman (as part of Romney's "buy, fillet and throw away the guts" method of corporate acquisition at Bain Capital). Romney replies that nothing he did was illegal (true, as far as we know) and that the Obama campaign misrepresents some of the facts (also true).

Obama apparently intends to skewer Romney as a businessman. His campaign carefully conflates being a businessman with being a crooked businessman, and many other variations on the theme: being a ruthless businessman, a businessman who engages in outsourcing, a businessman who doesn't pay enough taxes and so on.
While it makes political sense for Obama to virulently go after such a representation of Romney, the anti-business harsh rhetoric that Obama employs makes no logic.  It is even more bizarre when one thinks about how Obama spent gazillions bailing out GM and Chrysler, and gazillions to banks that were essentially gambling away somebody else's money.  These were done without the rhetoric of how businesses and corporations were evil, when the reality of highly irresponsible corporate decisions was obvious even to the regular Joe, whom Obama is targeting with his anti-outsourcing attacks.   Where was this anti-business Obama when, for instance, banks were given gazillions with no strings attached?

Kinsley writes:
One of Obama's flaws is that he seems to feel he can't criticize any current arrangement without vilifying the people involved, whether they are responsible for it or not.
Indeed!

Of course, it is not the first time that I have been ticked off by Obama's anti-outsourcing crusade, which I have then blogged about, like in this post, for example.  

Over the years, I have noticed that the more limousine liberals, Obama included, use such stupidly insane arguments supposedly defending the poor, the less I find myself sympathetic to their arguments! As I wrote some time ago on the pathetic American hysteria over outsourcing:
If Republicans can be stupid on some issues, then Democrats ensure that they can be equally moronic, and up the ante!  I wish we could outsource the politicians' jobs!!!

1 comment:

Ramesh said...

As an Indian, I steadfastly do not comment on outsourcing bashing for the simple reasons that any opinion of mine will never be treated as unbiased.

Still , I cannot resisting to make the point in this blog which to its excellent credit focuses on issues rather than emotions, that if outsourcing did not benefit consumers in the form of lower prices for goods and services, it would never ever survive as a concept. More Americans (consumers) have been benefited by outsourcing than affected (employees unfortunate to have been laid off).