Category: Politics

From what we can tell, it looks like W has won with a fairly overwhelming popular mandate, if not quite an overwhelming electoral victory. This, of course, was not the outcome we had hoped for. Like everyone else who has a blog, we are going to blog about it.

First, I think that we’re going to find two kinds of reactions from the pundits. The first is the reaction from the Republican camp, which will argue that Americans just love W, that Americans are happy with his government, his record at home and abroad, and want four more years. The second is the likely reaction from Democrats, which is that the election campaign was run poorly, that Kerry didn’t push his message far enough or hard enough (or create one at all), or something like that.

Our view is that the former is probably right. Despite the fact that people spend a lot of money on polling and campaigning and all that jazz, when voters have a clear preference, they act on that preference. What is depressing to us is not that Bush gets to be president some more (we pretty much thought so anyway) but rather that, under this view, it is pretty clear that we simply do not have preferences that are in line with most Americans. We believe in meaningful international alliances. We believe that stem cell research should be encouraged, as should sex education. We believe that the government should stay out of our bedroom. We believe that the founding document of our nation should not be amended to include a ban on two loving individuals asking for the same rights from the state that everyone else has, and that no law should be passed to do otherwise. We believe that Gregory Mankiw’s textbook is right, not the policy that he has sponsored as a member of the Council of Economic Advisors. We believe that, indeed, no child should be left behind. We believe that creating a new bureaucracy with an apt title is itself not a solution to a problem. We believe that protectionism in the economy is a distortion that costs everyone in the long run. We believe in foreign policy accountability. We believe that the buck does not stop right below us, at the person we appointed. We believe that Islam is a religion of peace, and we acknowledge that the majority of Muslims are not Arabs. We believe that companies should have to bid on government contracts. We believe that separation of church and state is fundamental, period. We believe that companies should be accountable for their pension funds (that means you, financial services and airline industries!). We believe that Social Security should be protected. We believe that countercyclical fiscal and monetary policy should involve planning for both the good times and the bad.

Our views are not the same as the American people. The Democratic Party fielded a candidate whose preferences clearly line closer to ours than those of the incumbent Republican, and the public chose otherwise. That little snot Tucker Carlson is going to accuse that slimy creep Paul Begala of being out of touch with America. We, it seems, are too.

For all of you who watched election projections online, let us close with the only really good one, created by an economist, Ray Fair. We have not talked about it because we thought it was bad luck, because he always had Bush winning. Well, it’s too late now, so here it is.

This is the headline of The Economist magazine this week. The Economist, for its part, is going with the incoherent. The logic is simple, but the argument is incomplete. According to the Economist, a liberal-in-the-European-sense magazine published in London, President Bush understands the need for freedom in the Middle East, and acted decisively to respond to the true culprits of 9/11 with a minimum number of mistakes there. However, the editors of the Economist believe that while it was correct to invade Iraq based on shoddy evidence of WsMD, the subsequent occupation has been a disaster. They believe that the American people should give Bush the accountability that he claims to require for everyone, but seems not to require of himself, and vote for Kerry.

OK, I pretty much agree with that. There are several interesting observations, however. To me, it is amazing that the Economist, a magazine so dedicated to free markets, capitalism, and libertarian ideals, after having endorsed George W. Bush (whose record included six unimpressive years in Austin, a stint as manager of a baseball team, and several failed oil companies) over a sitting Vice President with a record of economic growth but a woody personality, after rallying behind Bush in Iraq, after moaning about the wretched “indecisiveness” of Kerry, has still chosen to change horses mid-stream.

It is also amazing that throughout the Economist’s justification for its decision, it mentions not once the fiscal policies of this administration. After demand stimulus tax cuts to the wrong segment of society; a record of pork, log-rolling, and horse-trading that even embarrasses the Heritage Foundation; an incoherent trade policy that vacillates between protectionism and liberalism; and three years of “disappointing” job/growth numbers, you think that the Economist would live up to its name as “The Economist” and actually talk about economics.

How many months of worse-than-expected economic statistics do you want before you say, dammit George, please revise your expectations down and tell the truth? Just shows you, fool me once, um, …