In Bob McDonnell's view, all problems can be solved with simple, quaint bromides. His philosophy is more closely akin to that of anarchists than to that of entrepreneurs. Reform means laissez faire rather than regulatory oversight, cutting budgets for "efficiency" without regard to effectiveness, and prohibition from being made whole. "My view of how you keep a strong state is, I guess, reasonably elementary. If you keep taxation, regulation, litigation to a minimum, if you keep strong right-to-work laws and great universities, you're going to have the foundation for a good free-enterprise system where the private sector can grow." – McDonnell to the Washington TimesOh, that reality were so simple. You have to agree that the view is elementary. Philosophies like these are usually the products of the briefest exposure to fundamentals and avoiding meddling in complexities that matter. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous tool. When you hear someone crow that theirs are principles of Economics or Political Science 101 an alarm should go off; you can bet that this is the depth of their immersion in the subject. Simple microeconomic principles do not sum to the macroeconomic reality, but they are much more certain and comforting and are thrown about by politicians who want to reduce issues to quaint bumper sticker slogans.
McDonnell's assertion that "strong right to work laws and great universities" are the "foundation for a good free-enterprise system where the private sector can grow" is implausible. A level playing field, savings and investment, the rule of law, and easy entry into and exit from the marketplace are fundamental. A well trained and disciplined workforce is essential. Dare define the relationship between right to work laws and the economic development of the United States. There is a relationship between right to work laws and the consolidation of markets away from competition; an adjunct attempt to dominate the labor market. And establish the relationship between great universities and economic growth. The relationship is between higher education and potential earnings, not economic growth. In the American experience, growth resulted in the endowments that made great universities proliferate; not the other way around. At best that relationship today is symbiotic. If great universities were the lynchpin of free enterprise, they would be self supporting economic entities. Pre-K to 12 are significantly more important to not only economic development but democracy itself (unless you want a ruling class).
"I'm trying during this campaign to help to rebrand our party as the party of positive, happy, friendly, conservative leadership that's pro-growth, pro-free enterprise, pro-economic development. And that's really what we stand for." – McDonnell to the Washington TimesWhat Bob wasn't in his incomplete term as Attorney General was pro-free enterprise, pro-economic development, or pro-consumer. Just how much antitrust litigation did he initiate or even consider? What did he do to ameliorate the Dillon rule? How many class-action suits were successfully prosecuted? Oh, right, minimum litigation, a self-fulfilling objective. And what about that thorough review of the payday lending legislation where his office caught the car title loan loophole? As an aside, he also wasn't effective combating gangs, though he produced a film to no acclaim (maybe that is why he supports tax credits for the film industry now). Are we supposed to believe that he will lead gang interdiction efforts as governor; not unlike fellow Republican, Senator McCain's promised secret plan to capture bin Laden?
"Rebrand" must be the new term for reframe toward the center. But "happy, friendly," should we say "gay" in the old sense of the word? Almost makes you want to break out in song. Positive? How positive are: NO to fixing transportation; NO to protecting the consumer: NO to pre-K to 12 education funding; NO to medical care for the underprivileged; NO to being made whole; NO to unemployment benefits to the tune of $125 million?
