BUSINESS FOR SPITZER.

BUSINESS FOR SPITZER. Speaking of business, this endorsement of Elliot Spitzer, on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, by a former executive vice president of Morgan Stanley, is interesting stuff. The argument, which others have made from the outside but Donald Kempf makes from experience, is that Spitzer's style of anti-corporate populism is a boon, rather than a threat, to capitalism in general and business in particular:

Mr. Spitzer often had a better grasp of the underlying facts, legal implications and policy considerations than many from the federal regulatory agencies. Discussions (sometimes debates) with him on the substance of matters were both focused and fruitful. He was especially constructive when it came to searching for sensible solutions that would facilitate firms resolving problems and getting back to running their businesses for the benefit of customers, employees and shareholders.Moreover, because he is both smart and self-assured, Mr. Spitzer is willing to engage where others at times seek to hide behind their regulatory status. Ask him, "How can you justify that?" and he will answer you. (Sometimes quite aggressively, to be sure, but he will answer you.) Ask the same of someone from a federal agency involved in the same matter and the reply you're apt to get is often something like, "We don't have to justify (or even explain) our actions to you. We are the ones officially charged with this area of responsibility. We have made our determination and that is the end of it."[...]Still, the story line runs something like this: Why is this guy Spitzer "meddling" in stuff over which the feds already exercise jurisdiction? The answer, of course, goes all the way back to the founding of the country and the federalist system we adopted back then. At the end of the day, far from being an officious intermeddler, Mr. Spitzer has proven to be a catalyst for constructive change.

And so on. Spitzer is pioneering a new type of regulatory populism that offers Democrats an interesting path forward in a moment of unchecked corporate power. It's one that can truthfully claim to be interested in making capitalism work better, framing its opposition to unfair or illegal business practices as a genuine desire to make all businesses work better (at least from society's point of view). So it's no surprise that he's converting certain business executives: Over the long-haul, I'd guess there'll be a lot of corporations who feel squeezed or unfairly outmaneuvered by larger, stronger competitors and will be happy to endorse the guy who promises to check their enemy's excesses.

--Ezra Klein