November 5, 2007
What’s Old is New III
I’ve long argued that this country is in the midst of a profound political shift. The Conservative Coalition that has defined the country for the past 40 years is cracked and the Republican Party, after suffering the loss of both houses of Congress in 2006, is incredibly demoralized. The candidates running to become the nominee of the party have been engaged in an intense internecine battle to see who ultimately comes out on top. As Tommy noted yesterday, all of the candidates have flaws and will inspire an different portion of the Conservative Coalition to either hold their nose and vote, stay home altogether or form a third party to withhold the presidency from them if all else fails. But enthausiasm and turnout will almost assuredly be lower no matter who the GOP nominee is then it was in 2004.
But even more then that, the general trends are shifting towards the Democrats. Dave and I have pointed out over the past several months (here, here, and here for starters) how the traditional base of the GOP is shifting due to the fact that the Republican Party of today is a mere collection of interests that are held together not by an overarching philosophy, but a party label.
If that wasn’t bad enough, this Gallup poll on taken almost every year since 1951 illustrates just how bad things have gotten:
Jonathan Rauch has an excellent historical analysis of the poll and it’s implications for today’s Republican Party and the future:
Seeing opportunity, [George W.] Bush set out to recapture and fortify Reagan’s redoubt. His weapon was tax cuts-large and aggressive ones. That, plus five years of economic growth, should have pleased the public.
The results? Devastating. Crushing. Not only did Bush and his party fail to make the sale, the public slammed the door in their faces. Just why is hard to say. Worries about economic insecurity, and the failure of the median household income (adjusted for inflation) to rise during the Bush years, undoubtedly played a part. Bush’s personal unpopularity and the public’s displaced anger over the Iraq war may also figure.
In any case, by September 2006, Democrats had opened up a 17-point lead on prosperity. This September, the gap widened to 20 points, confirming that the change was no fluke. Democrats enjoy a lead on prosperity whose like they have not seen in a generation.
The prosperity gap is best viewed not as the jaws of oblivion for the Republicans but as a window of opportunity for the Democrats, because the public is more angry at Republicans than sold on Democrats. Anti-Republican sentiment, of course, is likely to do the Democrats some good in next year’s election, but it is mere weather, likely to be transient. To change the climate, the Democrats need to own prosperity for years, not months.
Winning the presidency and keeping the economy healthy would be essential, but even that, as Bush’s case shows, may be insufficient. Democrats also need a prosperity narrative: a compelling story about why the public can better trust them to make the economy flourish.
The Democrats’ postwar narrative was Keynesianism: By managing demand, the government would balance the economy instead of the budget. Reagan’s narrative was supply-side: He would reignite stagnating productivity by reducing tax rates, deregulating, and shrinking a bloated public sector. Bill Clinton preached fiscal responsibility and globalization, a program that succeeded economically but lacked staying power politically, partly because Al Gore seemed to repudiate it.
Bush adopted the supply-side story, but in a primitive form in which tax cuts, deregulation, and smaller government became tax cuts, tax cuts, and tax cuts. The public has responded with something between indifference and contempt, leaving Republicans without a leg to stand on.
As for the Democrats, they have an audience. For the first time since the Great Society era, the public is receptive to a Democratic prosperity narrative, even eager for one. What the party does not have, yet, is the narrative.
If they find their narrative and given that the Democrats have up to 14 possible Senate pickups (with 3-5 sure things), the country could look very different come January 20th, 2009.
What, if anything, are conservatives doing to counter this?
http://race42008.com/2007/11/05/whats-old-is-new-iii/trackback/
November 5th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Wow, very, very scary.
It’s a good thing the Clintons are not haters of free enterprise. I fear the destruction of health care most with a Hillary Presidency.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Rudy has proven he can take conservative economic ideas and recast them in ways to make them sound like common sense to Independents and Democrats. He is clearly the answer to this challenge.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Unrelated: Check this out! ronpaul2008 dot com –
He has now raised six million dollars in this quarter! He’s raised over three million dollars today!
November 5th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
take the iraq war out of this equation and those graphs would be a lot different. i thiknk the main reason we were booted out was the iraq war in 06. it ticks americans off that we are in such a bad situation, whether we leave or not, the lives and money adn naationaly standing we have put into this is incredible. for what though, to have iran step in once we leave?
it ticks people off.
and yes, yes, rudy is ‘CLEARLY’ the answer to this very complicated matter. yes, definetly. lol. even if it were true, the optomism and shere admiration such a comment entails is funny.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
his website also has a lie on it, its says beat romney who has the record at 3.1 million. he raised more than that in five hours that day in january. i don’t know what he is talking about. is he talking abouts trictly online donations? i don’t think so though. this number seems to come from thin air
November 5th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
tim, he’s going to beat Romney in a couple of hours, which is absolutely freaking amazing.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
A little over $3 million has been raised today.
He really might impact this race.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I’m pretty sure he’s talking about online donations.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
but wouldn’t he problabl steal from giulaini if anybody?
November 5th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
No. Donations in one day. Ron Paul is about to break Romney’s record.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
tim, no way. Giuliani is Paul’s worst enemy. Paul is running the big anti-war, insurgent campaign. Rudy is running as one of the top pro-war candidates. The hardcore libertarians hate, hate, hate, hate, hate Rudy Giuliani with a hot, hot heat.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Great piece, LJ. These are the issues we need to be dealing with. Regardless of the candidate you support, the GOP needs a pathway to prosperity that goes beyond marginal rate cuts. Lower marginal rates is no longer a political or economic panacea. Our playbook is almost as tired as the Dems was in ‘79.
Arguing for lower rates is fine, but not in a vacuum. We need to offer a pathway to proseperity to the forgotten middle class. Help alleviate the wage pressure they’re getting from illegal immigrants, and from foreign workers who can live on dollars a day and have the benefit of protectionist governments (Hunter’s mirror trade policy proposal comes to mind). Provide school choice so that those who can’t afford private schools still get the benefits of competition, raising the bar for the teachers who teach their children (as several candidates have proposed). Simplify the tax code so that the average worker can understand the economic ramifications of their personal decisions, and not feel like they’re getting the shaft b/c they can’t afford an expensive CPA firm (as Huckabee and Thompson have proposed). Find creative ways to leverage existing infrastructure to get retraining to workers who have been displaced (as McCain has suggested). Find ways to slow government spending and shrink it as a % of GDP, which will open the door for future tax cuts (Mitt’s discretionary spending pledge and Rudy’s federal workforce attrition plans come to mind).
No GOP candidate is offering a coherent and integrated middle class opportunity platform. Each of the canidates have some strong ideas, but they get lost behind the stern warnings to Iran, and the pandering to the SoCon agenda (which I like to see, but which is more effective in the primaries than the general election).
The days when we could rely on having the $ edge because of our ties to Wall Street and the financial community are over. Hillary is outraising all the GOP & Dem candidates combined from the big money interests in NY, Boston, and CA. If we don’t offer a coherent vision of how we can grow the economy and still improve the standard of living for middle class Americans, the majority of voters will continue to view our “strong economy”, by which the Bushies mean GDP growth, as a mere statistic–even worse than lies or damn lies, as the quote goes.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
As Iraq stabilizes, the fortunes of the Republcians will go up dramatically.
Another problem in 2006 was Foley. The Repulicans were looking pretty good
in the polls up until that story broke, and then they dropped like a rock.
If people want their taxes to go up and like a defeatist party to look after
their national security needs, they will vote democratic. If they don’t,
they will vote for the Republican. I’m betting that the latter will happen,
unless we have another Foley attack or another terrorist attack.
If we have another terrorist attack, that means the Bush strategy did not work
and we need to change gears. I would have voted for Kerry in 2004 if we
had had another one. When people get in that voting booth, they will think
long and hard about who is defending them, and who is defending their own
personal political career.
I can forgive Bush and the Republicans for getting caught with their
pants down once on 9/11. Now there is no excuse. If they can’t protect me,
I’ll ditch them. If they can, I will keep them in power, and I think
that is how most Americans will feel come election time.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
TLG, #11, LOL. So true, you just put it funny.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Well, I have written a couple posts about this, with special attention to healthcare. Yesterday on “This Week” it was also part of the roundtable discussion. One commentator said the GOP was offering nothing to counter the dems. I don’t think that is true, but many of the ideas offered are retreads. HSA’s, for example, never caught on but Giuliani and McCain are still pushing them. Part of the explanation for the dirth of ideas is that much of the focus has been on Iraq and terrorism.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
What Rudy needs to do in the general election is sell the electorate on the GOP as the iPod party: Your choices, your way. Private accounts for retirement, healthcare. Full range of choices. Customize your life, don’t have the government set your terms for you and limit your options. Bring in the youth with this message. Forward looking, and dare I say, “progressive.”
November 5th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
TLG,
Romney’s record was 6.5 in one day, not 3.1 million. Ron Paul is not anywhere near. Plus Romney did it in a mear 5-6 hours.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I like it, Metro!
November 5th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Jason – Oh. I just trusted tim.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Fredo how often do we see our paychecks?
For me its once a month. For most its biweekly. For a few its every week.
Now that provides very little emotional stimulus.
However we purchase things almost daily.
One of the benefits of a Good and Services Tax (like the one in Australia) over an income tax is that its impact is easier to see and generates more emotion.
Until the people realize that govt spending isn’t “free” they will continue to demand more spending and few will worry about taxes.
In Australia and other nations Good and Services Taxes have become veritable bully clubs for conservative against liberals.
In Australia and Canada using the rate of those G&S taxes as campaign issues has been instrumental in electing conservatives.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
20. egs
-5-
November 5th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Sounds like a VAT or sales tax. Whatever the merits of such proposals, they are DOA in Washington.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
egs
Another point on trade policy that bewilders me. I’m always at a loss to explain how the same foreign policy hawks, who in military matters believe in the efficacy of “peace through strenth,” take a polar opposite position on trade policy. When foreign governments implement currency manipulation, tax rebates to their exporters, and/or protective tariffs against American firms, these same conservatives demand that the US follow a policy of “peace through unilateral disarmament.”
Punitive across-the-board protectionist tariffs, such as those that led to a breakdown of international trade in the 1920’s, are certainly a bad thing. But targeted retaliatory tariffs that are meant to (in the long run) open more markets to the free flow of goods and capital, is a decidedly conservative position that puts American interests ahead of theoretical or global interests.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Jason: I believe that in that $6.5 million was $3.4 million of “pledges.” Paul’s $3.1 million is actual donations.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Fredo, I’ll let econ grad stud educate you on that one. It’s one of the few things we agree upon.
Retaliatory tarriffs hurt the country imposing them.
There is no economic “force.” One party offers another a product, service, or deal that might help them out. If it does, they take it and are better off. If it doesn’t, they reject it and are no worse off. Trade can only make both parties better. It cannot make one party worse, except for occasional errors in judgment.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Would you people please take you “GOP is doomed” rhetoric to people who actually want to listen to it? I’m sure the DNC would love to promote you as the “demoralized Republicans” who have given up the fight.
You people are making a self-fufilling prophecy – by saying that the GOP is finished, you will write its fate. Do you people honestly believe that losing one election is the end of the party? Do you honestly believe that an unpopular President means the other party is going to win the WH for the next three elections? If that were the case, the DNC would not exist today after massive defeats in 1980, 1984, 1992, 1994, and 2002, the party is still alive and well – with control in both houses of Congress, and, by most accounts, a better than 50% chance of winning next year.
Allow me to point out on your chart that, even though Democrats were favored from basically the end of WWII to 1981, America still choose to elect just as many Republicans in that period as Democrats.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
The United States cannot allow countires like South Korea, China, and the EU to give its companies an unfair advantage. Where they impose tariffs, subsidies, and currecy minipulation, we have to respond to protect our own companies. Capitalism only works in free, AND FAIR, markets.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Metro–
Yes, but as with most who merely regurgitate the free trade mantra, you miss the main point. You write
“Trade can only make both parties better. It cannot make one party worse, except for occasional errors in judgment”
Of course, your “logic” rests on a false dichotomy. You seem to think the choice is between “trade” and “no trade.” In fact, what we need to be doing is using our trade policy so that the question becomes one of “status quo” vs. “improved trade conditions.” “Improved” meaning a trade environment in which American products and services on a stronger competitve footing, and only in those cases where American firms are being directly and adversely impacted by foreign governments and their policies.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
“Jason: I believe that in that $6.5 million was $3.4 million of “pledges.†Paul’s $3.1 million is actual donations.”
Ah…Romney and his supporters puffing up his stats by trying to mask where he gets his money from? Why, this is just shocking! I simply cannot believe ti!
November 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“You people are making a self-fufilling prophecy – by saying that the GOP is finished, you will write its fate. Do you people honestly believe that losing one election is the end of the party?” – ACT Blog
Replace “GOP” and “the party” with “the pro-life movement,” and we have what ACT Blog thinks about what will happen under a President Giuliani…
November 5th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Some fascinating internals from today’s CNN poll:
“How would you feel if each of them won teh Republican presidential nomination next year” (Republicans only)
Enthusiastic / Satisfied / Dissatisfied / Upset / No Opinion
Rudy 27 / 48 / 17 / 7 / 1
Fred 20 / 51 / 18 / 8 / 3
JMac 18 / 49 / 21 / 11 / 0
Mitt 15 / 52 / 26 / 4 / 3
Huck 15 / 43 / 31 / 6 / 5
So much for SoCons torpedoing Rudy. Only 7% upset. In fact, Rudy’s the most enthusiastically received candidate, and the most satisfied+enthusiastic.
Let’s note that ONLY 3% of Republicans nationally have no opinion on Mitt Romney, so we can dispense with THAT canard. 97% have an opinion, and that opinion is that he is worse than Rudy, Fred, or McCain.
“Please tell me whether you would be extremely likely, very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or extremely unlikely to vote for each of the following.” (All voters)
Total likely / Total unlikely / No Opinion
Obam 52 / 47 / 2
Hill 51 / 48 / 1
Rudy 49 / 49 / 1
Edwa 48 / 50 / 1
JMac 46 / 54 / 1
Fred 37 / 61 / 3
Mitt 34 / 64 / 2
Once again, not that only 2% of voters have no opinion about Mitt Romney, and he is the MOST UNELECTABLE of all the major Democratic and Republican candidates.
Looking good for Rudy– in the primary and in the general.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Well, Fredo there is a problem with free trade policy.
It’s called the second best problem.
With international economics it is a truism that free trade is the ideal system.
However we cannot move directly to free trade. We can only move towards it in steps. Paradoxically not all moves towards free trade provide net benefits although most do.
In general my experience is that the government uses its trade power in ways that make me wary of any greater activity on their part. If I thought the government could impartially move us towards beneficial arrangements I’d support such activity.
In reality retaliation often has the effect of encouraging more retaliation and less trade. The government tends to make this worse by bringing politics into trade instead of national interest.
We lose billions of dollars a year because of US sugar tariffs but the power of Midwestern corn farmers and Louisiana sugar farmers outweighs the national interest.
I’d like to see us negotiate better deals but I don’t trust the government to not screw up retaliation.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
egs,
Fair enough. Your argument rests on the assumption that government would fail to execute a coordinated strategy of diplomacy and retaliation that would ultimately lead to more fair trade. Doubting our public officials and civil servants probably gives you the high ground in this skirmish.
That said, it sounds like we’re in agreement that the status quo does not dominate all alternative trade paradigms. You don’t like my “means” but seem to agree it would be a worthy “end,” were it possible.
I guess I’m a bit less pessimistic than you. We can actually prod other nations into opening their markets. It’s a question of offering both the carrot and the stick. If we can show that we are opening to expanding free trade zones with nations who want to partner with us, both in the GWOT and in trade, while at the same time showing that we will not allow a one-way street for those who are reliant on American consumers, we can make progress. Nations like China may have regimes with a different set of political values, but they still prefer economic growth to stagnation. Lets just say their irrationality is bounded.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I thought I heard that the greatest part of our trade imbalance is due to the import of oil and not China. And with respect to China, I believe the reason we do not impose retaliatory tarrifs on our goods is because we actually want their cheap products. What we want is for them to open their markets.
I confess to not understanding monetary policy, but I think the Chinese’s refusal to allow their currency to float is the equivalent of a tax on our goods.
Finally, a major issue is piracy. There is rampant and blantant theft of American product occuring in China. But again our industries are willing to work with China rather than pushing for draconian measures because everyone wants admittance to their growing consumer market.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
EGS,
“I’d like to see us negotiate better deals but I don’t trust the government to not screw up retaliation.”
But you do trust them with NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO?
I agree with most of what you say, EGS, but on trade, I’m a Hunter/Buchanan guy.
The dollar is worth less than the Canadian dollar, is worth less than half a pound, and is down a bazillion % against the Euro. China could sink our currency with the flip of the wrist- holding about $1,000,000,000,000. Endless trade deficits are coming home to roost.
Free trade dogmatists always told us that protectionism is inflationary. Well, guess what? The plummeting dollar is ALSO inflationary when we are so dependent on imports!!! Except we don’t have the rising wages keeping pace (or industries vital to national security)! We went from a trade surplus to a trade deficit with Mexico before the ink on NAFTA was dry. Free trade idolatry is is starting to be exposed, and even 70% of rank and file REPUBLICANS now admit that NAFTA is a bad deal.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
MWS
I don’t know if that WSJ poll floored you the way it did me. I was just thrilled to see I wasn’t alone. Spend enough time at RedState and you start to think that in the GOP, only globablists need apply.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
MWS, there’s so much garbage in that, I won’t even begin. It’s amazing we are in the same political party. What are your views on foreign policy?
November 5th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
“Nations like China may have regimes with a different set of political values, but they still prefer economic growth to stagnation. Lets just say their irrationality is bounded.”
I’m in general agreement that their are problem in the trade structure that could cause massive damage to America.
It wouldn’t be so bad except the Chinese are making their people artificially poorer today to pump up growth. The problem is if demand falls in America, China will be unable to hold its share of world demand.
A devastating depression is not far fetched if China continues to try to pump growth out of market manipulations without preparing to assume its role in maintaining world demand if America falters.
My belief is that we could solve the problems through tax reform and by judicious use of carrots and sticks. If China continues to send such unsafe products and imbalance our currency retaliation may be our only option.
For the sake of the world economy I hope it doesn’t go that far.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Metro,
“MWS, there’s so much garbage in that, I won’t even begin.”
Okay, pick a piece up and explain it to me.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Metro,
“It’s amazing we are in the same political party.”
Indeed, you and I would make a very “balanced” ticket. This is but an anecdotal example of the crackup of the Republican party, and the continuing evolution of the concept of conservatism. I think there is a decent chance one of us won’t have a poltical home next November.
Fortunately for me, this world is not my home. I’m just a pilgrim.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Fredo,
“I don’t know if that WSJ poll floored you the way it did me. I was just thrilled to see I wasn’t alone.”
Indeed. Yet another Buchanan prophesy is coming to fruition. The rank and file are starting to wake up to the self-serving lies of the political elites.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
MWS, I suggest you Google:
protectionism myths
November 5th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
EGS,
“A devastating depression is not far fetched if China continues to try to pump growth out of market manipulations without preparing to assume its role in maintaining world demand if America falters.”
And yet you are cool with exposing America to such scenarios and leaving our economic security to the whims, fancies, and pathologies of the ChiComs?
November 5th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
At least countries that trade and have significant economic ties don’t go to war with one another. But this limited discussion demonstrates why more than cursory attention to trade in a campaign is pointless. Even Romney’s trade presentation (the Reagan Zone one) did not address the trade deficit, worker retraining, or labor standards.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Metro,
“I suggest you Google:
protectionism myths”
That’s it?
I pointed out the myth of Reagan as the über-free-trader in another thread. I didn’t notice a response from you, after you elevated Reagan to the pantheon of free traders.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Metro,
How about this:
Google……….. “free trade myths.”
Wow, do I win?!?
November 5th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Pablo,
“At least countries that trade and have significant economic ties don’t go to war with one another.”
Oh, yeah. Like the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians. I don’t believe they had any economic ties.
How about the Italians and the Austro-Hungarian Empire? The Brits and the French? The Russians and the Ottomans? The Prussians and the Austrians. The AMERICANS and the BRITISH!!!
I don’t mean to be so sarcasitic (well, I guess I do) because I usually find your posts thought provoking and insightful. But this is just a platitude not born out by history.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
The flip side of the trade deficit coin is capital surplus. Other countries are financing our trade deficits by investing money in America. In effect, we take their money and pay them to send us goods and/or services that we want, and at a lower price than we would have to pay otherwise. We send them paper and they send us wealth. Not a bad trade/off. If the Fair Tax were to be enacted, our goods and services would be so much more competitive overseas that it would generate millions of jobs in the U.S. Embedded taxes would no longer be a tax factor in our exports, while the extra costs of consumption inherent in a consumption tax would reduce the amount of imports. A negative factor would be that within 5 years we would create so many jobs that we would need to drastically revise our immigration quotas to let in a lot more foreign workers. The value of skilled labor would increase so much that the standard of living would rise exponentially. A Fair Tax pegged to the inflation rate minus 1 or 2%, coupled with severe spending restraint would dramatically expand our economy.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I am too lazy to do the research tonight, but I suspect none of them had “significant economic ties.” I was also thinking of modern times in terms of China and the US being heavily dependent on each other such that the collapse of one would severely damage the other.
From memory, I recall that with respect to the Russians and the Turks during the reign of Peter the Great, there was very little trade. Mainly because Russia had no merchant ships. Holland and England ruled the seas. Russia went to war with Sweden mostly to gain a northern port, ArchAngel.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
MWS,
You can argue that massive trade between 2 countries isn’t a disincentive to go to war with each other. It would make about as much sense as most of your posts. You might be aware that the Chinese military, a.k.a. the PLA, along with the old Communist guard would dearly love to go to war with us. Chinese nationalists want the freedom to break out into the Pacific. To do so, they need control of Taiwan, and the only way they can get that is over our dead bodies. However, there is a very large interest group in China that does not want to go to war with us. Those are the elements of the Chinese economy that are selling us hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods. They want to keep that money coming in. Two guesses which of these groups in growing the fastest in terms of power and influence, and the first one doesn’t count.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Dave, it’s a nice change to be on the same side as you.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Well, I did a little research and there is indeed historical evidence that trade does not necessarily deter war. I normally don’t fall for them, but this one made sense (which I guess is why it keeps getting repeated).
November 5th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Metro,
We’ve always agreed on economics. We probably agree on foreign policy and military modernization. Mitt and Rudy agree with each other on these as well. Our disagreements lie elsewhere.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Dave,
“It would make about as much sense as most of your posts. ”
You flatter me.
Believe it or not, there are people in this world who care about more than money, and anyone who bases his foreign policy on the assumption that everyone else shares his values is a fool.
BTW, Do you happen to know who the largest trading partner was for the 13 colonies at the outbreak of the American Revolution? By your reasoning, it COULDN’T have been…… NO!!!! major trading partners don’t go to war!!!!
Now give me some lame reason why that example doesn’t count…..
November 6th, 2007 at 12:21 am
…..hmmmmm. How about that little tussle in the Balkans? I bet those guys didn’t have any economic ties.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Americans in the 1700’s were self-reliant. The more primitive the economy, the less important trade is. But trade is always a disincentive to go to war. A third of the colonists were Tories and were disproportionately influenced by trading concerns.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:27 am
You know, we could go all over in history. How about the Macedonians and the Greeks? The Romans and Egyptians? Germany and the rest of Europe? How about Japan and the entire Pacific Rim. I bet the Japanese weren’t trading with ANYBODY in the Pacific rim. How about Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil? Maybe the Prussians and Austrians? How about Spain and like, almost all of Latin America? What about the Boers and the Brits in South Africa. I bet there wasn’t any trade there…..
Do you want me to go on?
I’m off to bed….
November 6th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Dave,
“Americans in the 1700’s were self-reliant.”
Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson didn’t seem to think so. But even if we accept your premise, I find this quote of yours interesting:
“A third of the colonists were Tories and were disproportionately influenced by trading concerns.”
Are you suggesting that a country can become over-reliant on trade, to the point that it constrains its pursuit of its own interests? Would we be better off if (contra your false premise about self sufficiency) the colonists were trading so much with Britain that we would not have gone to war? It sounds as if you are glad that the colonies were not a “free trade zone” and maintained the **independence** to pursue their own good.
You also state
“The more primitive the economy, the less important trade is. ”
Not true. Ask the Phoenicians. It depends on what the country gets from trade. Egypt was the bread basket of the ancient world, and many countries would have been in a world of hurt without grain from the Nile. Note I am not suggesting that trade is always bad, or necessarily bad; I am simply refuting the idea that the importance of trade is something uniquely modern, and that trade is enough of an incentive to prevent war. World history has numerous examples of trading partners warring with each other. The Vikings- particularly in eastern Europe and Russia, are a prime example of this. Indeed, sometimes countries went to war BECAUSE of their dependence on trade, and concerns that their trading partner had gained too much power over them.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Pablo,
“Well, I did a little research and there is indeed historical evidence that trade does not necessarily deter war. I normally don’t fall for them, but this one made sense (which I guess is why it keeps getting repeated).”
I appreciate your intellectual honesty.