Virginia Postrel argues that
fence-straddlers like me should resist the decision to despise George W. Bush because all the cool academics do it (
Jacob Levy effectively defends himself against charges of trendiness).
More substantively,
she argues that a Kerry administration would expand the size of government even more than a second Bush term:
Vote for Kerry if you must, folks. But don't pretend you're doing it because Bush's economic policies are insufficiently free market or fiscally responsible. Kerry wouldn't be any better on economics. He'd be worse.
Tyler Cowen supplies a counterargument. Some of it is compelling, but this part baffles me:
I look less at what politicians say, and more at what kind of coalition they would have to build to rule. The high domestic spending of Bush I take as a sign of perceived political weakness ("we need to buy more allies"), rather than a reflection of Bush's ideology.
Huh? This is an administration that controlled all three branches of government for a majority of the first term -- and they felt confident enough in their political position to piss off Jim Jeffords less than three months into office. Compared to most post-war governments, the Bush administration had fewer constraints on its governing coalition.
Meanwhile Robert Tagorda argues that Kerry's selection of Edwards hints at a more protectionist Kerry administration:
Whatever his overall record, Edwards is now associated with these "trade-bashing noises." Nobody believes that Edwards adds to the Democratic Party's national-security profile, right? He brings excitement, charisma, and message -- the "Two Americas," of which a skeptical attitude toward free trade is a part.
However, Ryan Lizza argues in The New Republic that this is a rhetorical smokescreen (thanks to this anonymous link):
The one major policy difference between Kerry and Edwards during the primaries was over free trade. Edwards attacked Kerry's vote for nafta, but, notably, he never called for its repeal and his criticism always smacked more of opportunism than of conviction. He didn't raise the issue strenuously until after Richard Gephardt was gone from the race, when he saw an opening with organized labor and working-class voters on Kerry's left. These attacks on free trade were an awkward fit with the rest of Edwards's middle-class, New Democrat agenda, and they will clearly not be a major feature of the Kerry-Edwards rhetoric.
The more I think about my choice, the more this election boils down to four questions:
1) Which candidate will prove most successful in prosecuting the War on Terror?
2) Which candidate is more likely to finish the job in Iraq?
3) Which do I prefer, a moderate increase in government spending accompsnied by a massive increase in the budget deficit, or a massive increase in government spending accompanied by a moderate decrease in the budget deficit?
4) Which John Kerry -- the internationalist or the populist -- would govern his foreign economic policy? Which George Bush -- the guy who talks a good game on trade or the guy who slaps steel tariffs on when he's got an 85% approval rating -- would have the upper hand in a second term?
Developing....
UPDATE: Ezra Klein gives his answers to my Four Questions.
Roger L. Simon weighs in on the War on Terror and rebuts Mickey Kaus' line of argumentation.
On my first question, this Kerry answer on Larry King Live is not comforting:
KING: Let's get to, first thing's first, news of the day. Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States, didn't increase the -- do you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?
KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time. But all Americans are united in our efforts to defeat terrorism.
Later on, Kerry says he'll get briefed "tomorrow or the next day." On the other hand, this Washington Post story on Edwards' foreign policy background makes me believe that he does get the significance of the war on terrorism (link via Jack O'Toole).
[So your qualms about the administration's competence in foreign policy have been resolved?--ed. Hardly. I remain on the fence.]
Read More
(106)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE