Bush Nominates "devoted Student Of Ayn Rand"

[Spano]

Here is an interesting article in the NY Times (link) that claims that Cristopher Cox, Bush's nominee for the SEC chairman, is a student of Ayn Rand and very pro-business. Of course, they have plenty of quotes from people who see him as a dangerous "friend" of corporations and one who is opposed to regulation.

Has anyone else seen news of this or heard of Mr. Cox before?

[JMeganSnow]

Rob Tracinski did a little blurb about him in TIA Daily today. He worked at deregulation under the Reagan Administration, right?

[scottkursk]

Here is an interesting article in the NY Times

Has anyone else seen news of this or heard of Mr. Cox before?

I think the storm is waiting to gather to attack Cox. Larry Kudlow was bragging today about how he and his dad would translate Pravda into English more directly than their English version and how he was no just an anticommunist as most conservatives are but he is actually a *gasp* procapitalist. Given than most conservatives today could really care less about the free market that is a real shocker to most people. Finding someone that is even vaguely pro free market much less genuinely advocating free markets and/or doing something about it must cause the left to shudder.......

Given the relatively positive review he wrote for the NY Times for the Letters of Ayn Rand, I'm assuming he'll be pretty violently attacked. Remember when Clarence Brandley was nominated for the supreme court, reporters when absolutely ape over the fact they, after spying through his curtains of his home, saw copies of Ayn Rand books on his shelves.

Anyway, Brandley never hid his admiration of Rand. Actually I think he has his clerks read The Fountainhead every year as a part of their clerkship but that is something else entirely.

edit to parse quote of previous post

Edited June 4, 2005 by scottkursk

[Eric Mathis]

From statement of Christopher Cox on nomination as SEC chairman:

The rule of law that the SEC enforces has given America the most dynamic and vibrant capital markets in the world.

Oh, so capital markets are made possible by federal regulation? I suppose there were no dynamic and vibrant capital markets before the Progressive Era?

We should also note that on his web site Cox lists this as one of his accomplishments in the 108th Congress:

Restoring the Mission at San Juan Capistrano. On January 23, 2004, President Bush signed into law the budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, including the $225,000 requested by Rep. Cox to finish restoration of the Mission San Juan Capistrano’s Great Stone Church, which was damaged by an earthquake in 1812. In November 2004, President Bush signed into law another bill co-sponsored by Rep. Cox, “The California Missions Act,” (P.L. 108-420) authorizing an additional $10 million to the California Missions Foundation to clean art and artifacts, repair walls, improve pathways, and preserve historical manuscripts.

Gee, I wonder what version of Capitalism the Unknown Ideal he read.

[Capitalism Forever]

Gee, I wonder what version of Capitalism the Unknown Ideal he read.

I suppose he borrowed it from Mr. Greenspan.

[scottkursk]

....Remember when Clarence Brandley was nominated for the supreme court....

Let me apologize here for my own confusion. I was talking posting about Clarence Thomas right after discussing a case involving a defendant named Clarance Brandley. It just occured to me I typed that Friday night. Man I hate bar prep.

[Jeff Durbin]

I met Chris at the 1988 Republican convention (yes, I realize the fact that I attended the convention in and of itself makes me suspect). I have been to some of his fundraisers in the past 17 years.

He's a solid pro-markets (not pro-business) Congressman. You guys probably will find ways to nitpick him (such as the pork for the missions) but unfortunately that is what politicians do. Yeah, it would be great if they did a lot less of it.

I look at the political game as a game of possibilities. Bush's nominations of Cox and Janice Rogers Brown push the envelope in terms of possibilities and they should be hailed by members of this forum. It is a strategy of pursuing incremental gains that will advance the cause of liberty just as the Left has used the same incremental strategy in the 20th century to advance the cause of statism.

I was in a conversation yesterday with a buddy regarding Chris's nomination and we both agreed that it will inevitably make him a stronger candidate to run for Boxer's seat in 2010 or Feinstein's seat in 2012 (assuming she gets reelected in 2006). He would be a lot better than either of them.

[scottkursk]

He's a solid pro-markets (not pro-business) Congressman. 

I hate it when people confuse pro big business with pro free markets. They aren't always the same. Frequently quite the contrary is true but the lack of understanding of economics of most people they get lumped in together. In fact, it's companies that the left so frequently condems that find themselves relying on a more left than right marketplace to stay in power. And you are correct about their being two camps here, the incrementalists and the absolutists. Some wouldn't be happy if Yaron Brook weren't appointed to singlehandedly dismantle the SEC rule by rule.

As for Cox's comment about the SEC's regulations, I could easily parse it to mean that the fact the SEC stays out of people's lives compared to any other foreign country is the reason for the success in our capital markets. Still PATRIOT, Reg T, and 2520 are onerous pieces of crap that need to go the heck away in one way or the other. Cox is maybe one of the few people I heard rumored to be up for the job that may do something about the levels of self regulation.

Speaking first hand, we could use less regulation, much much less from the SEC. But compared to when I had to deal frequently with Canadian regualtors, I shudder with their polite but inane rules. I'm just glad I never had to raise funds in Europe, I understand it's an even bigger nightmare.

a stronger candidate to run for Boxer's seat in 2010 or Feinstein's seat in 2012 (assuming she gets reelected in 2006).  He would be a lot better than either of them.

Oh the tingles that went down my spine reading that Jeff. The thought of a Boxer or Feinstein free congress. But I'd almost say anyone would be better than them but then Houstonians said that years ago about someone and we got Sheila Jackson Lee. Whoa what a nut.

[Capitalism Forever]

I met Chris at the 1988 Republican convention (yes, I realize the fact that I attended the convention in and of itself makes me suspect).

Why would it? I have nothing against Republicans, only against Republicans acting like Democrats.

I look at the political game as a game of possibilities.  Bush's nominations of Cox and Janice Rogers Brown push the envelope in terms of possibilities and they should be hailed by members of this forum.

Agreed. I like to give credit where credit is due and criticism where criticism is due. My previous post focused on the latter, but those who know me will know how glad I am to see Mr. Cox nominated for this post.

It is a strategy of pursuing incremental gains that will advance the cause of liberty just as the Left has used the same incremental strategy in the 20th century to advance the cause of statism.

What Republicans need to understand is the distinction between an incremental gain and a COMPROMISE. They'll make too few of the former until they stop making any of the latter.

[scottkursk]

Did anyone get a chance to listen to George Will this weekend? He basically said that the only connection that Chris Cox has with Ayn Rand was the review of The Letters Of Ayn Rand that I mentioned. In fact, he specifically said that Cox had never actually read any of her fiction and he only read the Letters in order to write the review of it for the Times.

He intimated that it was the left leaning press that was trying to smear him with the Objectivist brush by since he was pro free market and had written a positive review of a book involving Rand. I don't have a subscription to the Times so I'll have to wait and see but someone is bound to be able to find his review and see exactly what he said in his review. I tried googling the review and couldn't find the exact text of the review.

Interesting. So I think the whole hubub about Cox may very well be the press making an extrapolation of a single book review and a belief in the free market and lumping them together when that may very well not be the case. I have no doubt that he is probably very friendly towards Objectivism but as much of the left in the press has speculated, I doubt he's got Yaron Brook on speed dial. (tinge of sarcasm towards the press duly noted)

[Spano]

I read Will's column this weekend as well. I wasn't sure what to make of it, since he didn't provide or even suggest where he got the information from. I was also put off by Will's characterization of Rand's novels as "fat" and "pitilessly didactic", which cause a bit of suspicion as to the genuineness of Will's information.

The review seemed to be positive, from what I can find of it, so whether or not Cox has actually read all Rand's novels shouldn't be a dealbreaker. Take what you can get, I guess.

[scottkursk]

I was also put off by Will's characterization of Rand's novels as "fat" and "pitilessly didactic",

I think that was Will's own puffery and editorializing of Rand's writing style. Which is very much laced with irony if you read Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball you just want to scream "WOULD YOU JUST GET TO THE DANGED POINT GEORGE ALREADY!" He's like Howard Cosell, Phil Donahue, and William F Buckley's love child. Argh.

The review seemed to be positive, from what I can find of it, so whether or not Cox has actually read all Rand's novels shouldn't be a dealbreaker.  Take what you can get, I guess.

There really is no doubt that Cox is very much a pro free marketeer. I seriously doubt he is a liberterian otherwise the press would be using that word much more since it's easier to paint them to look like loons when it comes to being capitalists. Chances are, he's still a really good candidate that will do a good job. Glad to see someone who even mentions free markets for a change. It's downright refreshing.....

[DavidV]

The “devotee” label says much more about the media’s hostility to capitalism than Chris Cox:

“Cox, however, has never read a Rand novel. He sampled her work only when preparing, for the Times, a less-than-reverent review of a collection of her correspondence”

The SEC is an unjust and anti-capitalist division of the interventionist welfare state. The only legitimate role a capitalist has running it is to immediately disband it.

Somehow, I doubt that is Mr. Cox’s intention.

Edited June 16, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist