In terms of intelligence and integrity, I don’t think George W. Bush could do better.
I’ve known Chris Cox for (gulp) 30 years. We were classmates that long ago. We served together on the Harvard Law Review. We have kept in touch, across the aisle, since I moved to California 16 years ago.
What makes this case easy is that Chris has strong ideological views, but he puts reality ahead of ideology and people ahead of intellectual purity, and he always has.
I don’t know any senator who could best him in a conversation on business, although Chris is extremely polite and not inclined to show off for the sake of showing up.
Manners go a long way these days, too.
There are legitimate worries that with Chris at the helm, investors will be unprotected against corporate abuses and management tyranny, because Chris adheres to a less regulatory, lower tax, classic conservative, free enterprise model,the kind that allows good businesses to flourish and bad ones to get away with murder.
In Congress, he has fought for bills calling for fewer lawsuits,which, of course, means the trial lawyers will oppose him. In a post-Enron world, where even his predecessor has been outdone by state attorneys general, the idea that he will be less aggressive than his predecessor will cause groups concerned with protecting shareholders rightly to raise an alarm.
I understand that. I’m a shareholder who is frankly appalled at the lack of democracy in Corporate America. But I don’t need to oppose Chris Cox. I trust him. The difference between very, very smart people and mediocre ones is that the mediocre end up hiding behind their ideology, while the very, very smart ones end up determined to get it right, whatever it is.
I can’t see Chris Cox letting anyone else take the lead if he sees real corruption out there, not the Chris Cox I know, not if he sees something really wrong.
,Susan Estrich, USc law professor,
liberal commentator
