The Candidates
Here we go with another question! I’ll be busy from the very early morning tomorrow, so I’m posting this now.
This week’s question: in order, what are the five most important issues to you when you vote, on a national level?
Mine:
1. Health care — Will the candidate fight for free-market values?
2. Taxes/tax reform - Tax cuts and tax code simplification.
3. The War on Terror — Will the candidate put America first?
4. Free trade — Is the candidate a consistent supporter of free and open trade?
5. Federalism — Will the candidate keep the federal government out of the business of the states?
Your turn!
May 1st, 2008 at 9:23 pm
1. Judges- Will the candidate appoint originalists or Bickelian minimalists?
2. The Fight against Radical Islam- Does the candidate understand that we’re dealing with Islam as a socio-political project, which is poised to transform both Europe and the Middle East?
3. Anti-multiculturalism- Does the candidate reject the culture shriveling multi-culturalism which is killing much of Europe? Are they willing to assert a robust pro-American, early 20th century western culture?
4. Spending- Is the candidate willing to cut even popular programs?
5. Health Care- Is the candidate willing to address the real concerns Americans have about health insurance, while staying mostly within the realm of conservative solutions.
Taxes would be up there in another cycle, but right now I think spending restraint ought to come before significant additional tax cuts.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
On #1. Having parents not born in the U.S. what the hell is wrong with multiculturalism?
May 1st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
1. Philosophy, Conviction and Character — does the candidate have a coherent philosophy regarding the relationship between the individual and the state and a fundamental belief in individual free choice and responsibility, is he firm in those convictions, and does he/she have the character to hold firm in those convictions.
2. Limited Government and Tax Reform — is the candidate committed to limiting the size and power of the federal government, reforming/simplifying the tax system and does the candidate demonstrate an understanding that wealth is not created by government but by individuals, and does the candidate understand that tax cuts are NOT “government expenditures.”
3. National Security — does the candidate place national defense and security as the first responsibility of the president and federal government.
4. Candidate’s history and track record — what is the history of the candidate, their philosophical consistency over time, what has been their actual accomplishment.
5. The character of the campaign — what kind of campaign has the candidate run? For example, has the focus been on core philosophical principles and sound policy proposals or has it relied on “class warfare” or “social wedge issues”? It has been my observation over the years that candidates who win well govern well, where as those who win by cynical manipulation, reliance on social wedge issues, and/or class warfare do not govern well and usually fail once in office.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
1. Healthcare
2. Security
3. Fiscal conservative
May 1st, 2008 at 9:50 pm
4. Complex Thinker, not inflexible when needed
5. A doer, not a schmoozer
May 1st, 2008 at 9:51 pm
1. Judges
2. Judges
3. Judges
4. GWOT
5. Reducing the size/intrusiveness of the federal gov’t.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
1. economy
May 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Kavon,
If the the Judiciary in general, and SCOTUS in particular were reigned in to their Constitutionally prescribed roles- and not treated as a veto proof Oligarchy- judges wouldn’t matter. We shouldn’t meekly sit around just praying for the “right” judges. Congress should act and give SCOTUS the *royal* smackdown.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:13 pm
sas,
“A doer, not a schmoozer”
How about a boozer?
May 1st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Spice this blog up with a little Mitt news. From Evans-Novak Political Report:
Will McCain name a vice presidential candidate in mid-July to step up fund-raising before the national convention, or will he wait until Democrats make their choice in late August? A rumor running through the political community now puts former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the lead for VP. But Romney has many critics in the McCain inner circle, and we don’t think the decision has been made.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:27 pm
#2. Ajay- Nothing wrong with embracing your culture, be it religious, ethnic, racial, etc., just as long as you put being an American first.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:29 pm
1. Abortion- end the holocaust. If the candidate doesn’t give a rip about protecting innocent life, he goes in the same category as Hitler for me. I don’t care if the trains do run on time.
2a. Other social issues, including the sanctity of marriage, the right of local communities to protect themselves, and the notion that the federal government shouldn’t be subsidizing anti-Christian filth, whether in “art” or academia.
2b (tie) Spending- the two parties are currently deciding between themselves if we as a nation go bankrupt sooner (Democrats) or later (Republicans). But they both seem hellbent on getting us to the same goal. Massive overhaul of entitlements is essential if we are to avoid catastrophe.
4. Foreign Policy- I’m with Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan here. We’ve written checks we can’t cash, and granting unconditional security guarantees to places such as Lithuania, South Korea, Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan is going to hasten our bankruptcy at best, and get us into a catastrophic war with a major power over a place where we have no national security interest at worst. If a backwater like Iraq is truly “breaking” the Army as many top generals suggest, why the hell are we EXPANDING our commitments? How in the world do we plan to fulfill them?
5. Reforming the judiciary. End the oligarchy. Stop treating SCOTUS as if it is the oracle of God, and start impeaching judges that step beyond their authority. As it stands, SCOTUS gets to define the limits of its own power (what other branch gets to do that?) and the other two branches stand meekly by, watching this 50 year bloodless coup. This is supposed to be the WEAKEST branch folks. I want a single, nonrenewable term for SCOTUS, and a Congress willing to issue impeachments.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:37 pm
1 - Judges by a mile. They affect every aspect of life, social, economic and GWOT. This and number two get McCain my vote and my support, regardless of the rest. If we get this wrong we have to wait 20-30 years to have another chance like this.
2 - GWOT - We need a plan to win moderate Muslims through aid and other diplomatic means in addition to carrying the big stick.
3 - Reduce spending and size of government
4 - Healthcare reform. Since I am in medical school this will really affect my life, and I really hope the federal government doesn’t get anymore involved than it already is.
5 - Immigration - Since I live in Arizona. In the past three weeks I have delivered about 30 anchor babies myself, and I have had about enough of it.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Dskinner,
“Judges by a mile. They affect every aspect of life, social, economic and GWOT.”
You’re missing the forest for the trees. See my comment to Kavon in #8.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
MWS,
Sorry, even if I agree with you in principle about judicial review, that’s not the world we live in. Since judges control so much, we need to have them on our side. Gay marriage, abortion, everything you care about is, or may be affected by the SCOTUS.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Dskinner.
” Since judges control so much, we need to have them on our side.”
If the President made an executive order that declared Congress could not override his vetoes, and that furthermore he could write legislation without Congress’ consent, would you just hope he and all future Presidents agreed with you on the issues, or would you move for impeachment? Are we a Republic or not? Why does SCOTUS get a pass when they usurp power?
SCOTUS will get away with their bloodless coup until Congress and the President get the backbone to put it in its place, and return the power they have stolen back to Congress, the President, and the 50 states.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Ajay,
It depends a great deal on what you mean by “multiculturalism”. If all you mean is, there are different cultures, and educated people ought to be aware of the elements of these cultures, there’s nothing remotely objectionable about it. But, if you view cultural these cultural traditions as unique, but ultimately equally worthwhile, variations in the rich tapestry of human history, then you’re in an awful lot of trouble. The traditions that have grown out of the Anglo world and the Judeo-Christian world- democracy, a certain type of rule of law, respect for individual rights, etc, are the foundations of modern civil society in almost every successful country in the world. And they stem from certain ways of viewing the world. We shouldn’t be shy of asserting the power of these traditions for fear of offending some sensitive soul mired in cultural relativism.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:52 pm
MWS,
That’s not what the American people want. When was the last time you heard anyone say, Washington is broken, we really need to fix the SCOTUS. For most people the SCOTUS would get the highest approval ratings of anyone in Washington, if for no other reason than they are removed from partisan warfare.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Dskinner,
“That’s not what the American people want. When was the last time you heard anyone say, Washington is broken, we really need to fix the SCOTUS. ”
So voter ignorance and apathy justify this usurpation?
May 1st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Ummmmm… I kinda figured that all that is implicit by my listing judges in the #1, #2, & #3 spot.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
1 - Pragmatism and flexibility. If GWB had this, think of how much we could have accomplished when we had the presidency and both houses. Now the next GOP POTUS will have democrats running congress. With good cross-aisle appeal and some know-how we can still make these next four years a victory for conservatism. Inflexibility, however, will just result in lots of vetos and lots of nothing happening.
2- Healthcare. Gets more coverage to more people. Preferably does this through the private sector, but I’d tolerate some government here if it means results.
3 - Reducing the number of annual abortions. It seems unlikely that we’ll be able to overturn Roe any time soon but that sure doesn’t mean we can’t take real steps to end the murders. They have to be stopped. It has to be a priority.
4 - GWOT. The US needs to maintain a strong presence in the middle east. So much depends on it.
5 - Fiscal prudence. The candidate will balance the budget. For me, this comes before - though it doesn’t have to exclude - the cutting of taxes.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
MWS,
I agree with you completely and in 20 or 30 years we might be able to change enough minds to get people upset enough for Congress and the President to act, however until then I would at least like to have rule the country unconstitutionally from a conservative perspective.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Buchanan is write. Our Republic is dead, and our country doomed. We are ruled by nine lawyers in robes. We will be completely bankrupt as a nation within a generation, and our culture is rotting away.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Er, Buchanan is “right,” though given his profession, I suppose he might be “write” as well.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:04 pm
oops 22 should read “like to have them rule the country”
May 1st, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Kavon,
“Ummmmm… I kinda figured that all that is implicit by my listing judges in the #1, #2, & #3 spot.”
Are you relying on the Justices themselves to reign themselves in, or do you think Congress should act? Is it simply a question of getting self-restraining Justices and hoping for the best, or does the institution itself need correcting?
May 1st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Dskinner,
#22. Well, at least your honest and forthright about it. Personally, I don’t think they should get away with it one more day. To hell with voter apathy, Congress and the President have taken oaths to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I’m going to do this a little bit differently, as I think responses to issues like taxes, immigration, separation of powers, the judiciary, etc, can all be predicted by the manner in which a candidate views the founding principles of our country and the role of government.
1) The candidate should understand that the core principle of this nation is that each individual is born with the ability to act and react, and that those abilities, given to him or her by nature, should not be impeded or restricted by other men unless one man’s rights run into that of another.
2) The candidate should further understand that Principle #1 cannot in the real world lead to a fundamentalist libertarian society. Sometimes the empowerment of the individual requires state action as much as state inaction. Total laissez faire economics is nice in theory, but how free is a market when companies monopolize? Or when entire markets are closed off to the majority of the population because they can’t afford the umpteen years of schooling required to attain the advanced degree necessary to enter it? Therefore, the candidate will realize that the thing that makes this country work is YOU, and the government exists to remove barriers and impediments that prevent YOU from helping yourself achieve YOUR dreams. That may mean cutting taxes one day and funding education the next. That is what leads to a true pro-growth society that boasts a thriving middle class with a standard of living that actually increases regularly.
3) The candidate should realize that this is a Hobbesian world. 200,000 years into human history and much of the world is still not “developed” by modern standards. Instead of pretending that all nations and cultures are equal, we need to realize that there is something special about the Anglosphere. The candidate will have an appreciation for the American exceptionalism that has its roots in Classical Antiquity, which were re-discovered during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and which became the foundation of the Anglosphere and were translated to the shores of our nations by the Founders.
4) Because of the need to protect the rights of American individuals in this Hobbesian world, the candidate will be dedicated to peace through strength and will ensure that our military remains the world’s finest. The nation will play a leadership role in the world but will not attempt to enact grand imperial designs on the globe and does not view itself as the savior of the planet.
5) The candidate is ultimately empirical and is willing to make decisions based on the facts on the ground instead of on ideology. The candidate won’t draw conclusions about potentially hostile foreign leaders, for example, by looking into their souls. As such, the candidate is not likely to mistake a KGB agent for a democrat, or to insist that troop levels are sufficient when every indicator before him suggests that they are not.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:19 pm
My issues:
1) Protect human life (end abortion, prevent euthanasia)
2) Protect the family
3) Return to a pragmatic foreign policy (ala James Baker)
4) Fix the Healthcare Mess
5) Reform Entitlements
May 1st, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Now, if you were going to ask me for an issue wish list from President McCain, it would probably go something like this:
1) Conclude the project in Iraq so that the country that results is an ally to the US and not an enemy. Then, re-focus our efforts on the larger threat of Islamism to the West.
2) Make the tax cuts permanent.
3) True fiscal responsibility is impossible given the coming Boomer retirements and the imminent explosion of entitlements. Restructure the entitlements into something that makes sense for the 21st Century. Then, make a balanced budget the norm and begin to pay down the principal on the national debt.
4) Ensure universal access to health care and work to bring costs down so that the access actually means something.
5) Recognize that competing with China and India in a global marketplace is going to require Americans to become as hyper-educated and uber-skilled as they are. Raise the bar on K-12 education in this country and make higher education more affordable and accessible so that American employers no longer need to bring in foreign workers to fill white collar jobs here at home.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 am
1.) National Security- Wiht out a secure nation, all other issues don’t matter
2.) Trade policy- are we going to be a forceful advocate for free trade or listen to the siren-song of protectionism
3.) National Economy- Are we going to let the free market correct itself (including oil, food and housing prices) or will there be government meddling
4.) Social Security- Will my dad get it when he turns 65? Will those of us in our 20’s and younger ever see a social security check?
5.) Government Spending- Are we Republicans going to reclaim the label of “fiscal conservatives” and start cutting non-defense spending?
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:12 am
1- Conservative Judges
2- National Security/Iraq
3- Keeping Tax rates the same
4- Cutting spending
5- Pro gay rights
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 am
On #11 - How is the government supposed to determine if people are putting “being an American” first. Why does someone have to put “being an American” first? As long as they break no laws, who cares?
On #17. It seems rather arrogant to say that Anglos / Judeo-Christians “own” democracy and/or the rule of law. Plus there’s no real conflict between democracy / rule of law and multiculturalism. At least, you haven’t pointed it out yet. And it doesn’t seem helpful to say one culture is better or worse then another. Obviously everyone is going to think their culture is best, but does it really help for a government to say some of its citizens are inferior for embracing a culture different then the mainstream. Obviously we can’t let someone opt out of the law due to a random culture they might have (like in my culture i don’t pay taxes, hehe), but other then that I’m not really seeing the issue here.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 am
1.) Individual rights (not the too-Confederate-for-my-tastes “states rights” dogma of the modern Right). That includes support for gay marriage/civil unions and opposition to programs based on “group rights” like affirmative action.
2.) A default tendency to favor free market economics. This does not, however, mean that want a candidate who sides with business interests. Customers, and their rights to make free and informed choices, are important too.
3.) The war in Iraq. Stay until at least the next national (Iraq, that is) election, to see what the political state of the country really looks like. Commitment to leave a stable democratic state behind when we withdraw. Commitment to maintain relations, incuding a military presence on bases, even when the majority of combat troops are gone.
4.) Science. Believes in modern science (including evolution, and yes, the potential impact of human activities on the environment). Commitment to increase funding for basic research and development through Federal agencies. Pro-stem-cell-research (including embryonic). Focus on energy, and is willing to push for an increase in nuclear power production.
5.) Immigration. Require national ID or uniform IDs issued by states for everyone, to combine information on social security numbers, green cards, visas, and entry/exit in one place. Willingness to begin integrating illegal immigrants who have resided in the country for some time, have learned English, and who have not committed crimes. Understand that we suffer a labor deficit in this country in many sectors of the economy, and that if we don’t import workers we will continue to export jobs.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:45 am
1. Right to Life issues
2. The fight against terror & tyrants
3. Giving a hand up not a hand out
4. Making the tax structure more fair and simple
5. Keeping taxes and spending low
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:29 am
“On #17. It seems rather arrogant to say that Anglos / Judeo-Christians “own†democracy and/or the rule of law. Plus there’s no real conflict between democracy / rule of law and multiculturalism. At least, you haven’t pointed it out yet. And it doesn’t seem helpful to say one culture is better or worse then another. Obviously everyone is going to think their culture is best, but does it really help for a government to say some of its citizens are inferior for embracing a culture different then the mainstream. Obviously we can’t let someone opt out of the law due to a random culture they might have (like in my culture i don’t pay taxes, hehe), but other then that I’m not really seeing the issue here.”
The Anglosphere and Judeo-Christians don’t own democracy by any means, nor they did they create it. Athens obviously had a fairly democratic society. But, the cultural traditions that have come out of the anglosphere (and indirectly through Christianity and Judaism) form the basis for the vast majority of the world’s political and social order. And certainly most of the world’s “successful” modern countries are modeled off the ideas of the West. There’s a reason, for instance, that many of the greatest regional powers speak English predominantly- South Africa, India. It’s meaningful that many countries have adopted the forms of the Government that were influenced by Enlightenmnent thinkers like Locke, and by earlier ideas of the Christian World (the Justinian Code for instance). Granted much of this is due to imperialism, which has ruined as many countries as it’s aided. But, there’s no question that the societies that have actually chosen to embrace many of these principles, the societies that have “westernized”, have succeeded, and the societies that haven’t (with the possible exception of China), well, haven’t. As far as whether or not it’s “helpful” to insist on cultural superiority, I suppose I’m not quite sure what you mean by helpful. For hundreds of years American students learned of the greatness of our country; they were taught that the unique Democratic ideals that truly saw their first application in the US, and which henceforth spread across the globe through revolution and accommodation alike, are genuinely something to be proud of.
Now American students are taught about the evils of the founders, and how “original sin” of slavery has tainted all of their accomplishments. I’ve taken an introductory world history course where half the semester is spent detailing the evils of imperialism, and bemoaning the destruction of culture. This is all done under the auspices of a “balanced” perspective. And it’s nonsense and killing our world, because Americans, and Europeans to a far greater extent, no longer assert the primacy of some of these values- they’ve descended into a mushie land of false equivalences.
I was in class the other night, and one the students was referring to the 60 minutes interview with Ahmadinejad, and he said something like “I watched that interview, and it’s interesting, and he didn’t seem like a bad guy. Yeah, we have criticisms of our country, but he pointed out that he has criticisms of ours. So it’s sorta similar, just different cultures, and we must learn to appreciate their perspectives”. And that class nodded their heads like good little zombies. Because they really have no means of refuting such idiocy, or wanting to refute it, because the whole of their education, both in school and through the broader culture, implicitly accepts the idea that America is just one nation of many, and the western world is just one part of civilization, which has often done great evil, and there’s no sense in getting too worked up about any of the cultural traditions that go along with these bodies.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:38 am
1. Supreme Court - ( Having Originalist judges)
2. A foreign policy that defends against Genocide, Terrorism and defends Human rights ( For example let’s win Iraq and Afghanistan)
3. Health Care - With the goal of everybody being covered - hopefully we can avoid a government takeover, but I do think we need some kind of increased governemnt intervention.
4.Immigration - let more immigrants in legally, and legalize the one’s here
5. Maintain civil liberties - Don’t torture, don’t detain citizens without trial…
6. Balance the budget - since I’m not even in favor of destroying welfare, and I’m in favor of a strong defense, and think we need to increase spending in health care some this would involve raising taxes.
7. Pro - vouchers.
8. Free trade
9. Sensible stewards of the enviroment ( disclaimer - I don’t know much about enviromental issues, enough to see huge differences between the parties, so it doesn’t really effect my voting)
10. Tough on crime
11. Privatize Social security - maybe
12?. Abortion - I don’t know where to put this exactly, this is probably a top issue for me, but the president can’t really do anything about it without HLA, and I don’t think even the HLA really gives the president any power over it, so its more of congressional issue
13. Opposition to gay marriage - I’d be open to blank civil unions though.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:39 am
Hope you don’t mind me going a little beyond your five.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:07 am
John Mark you can get thrown out of the GOP for preferring balanced budgets to ever lower taxes. That’s why I don’t discuss the issue often.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:11 am
39, I don’t mind a good arguement.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 am
The thing is, its become a doctrine in the GOP or at least among the
talk radio crowd that taxes raise revenue period - they don’t allow for
any if ands or buts about it. When obviouslly sometimes tax-cuts lead to
higher revenue and sometimes they don’t, the consensus from experts that I’ve
seen seem to indicate that tax-rates would have to be quite a bit higher for tax-cuts to
totally pay for themselves.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:18 am
1. Stop the natural inertia of Government to grow
2. Simplify the Tax Code
3. Grow GDP
4. GWOT
5. Put personal freedom ahead of all other ideals
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
1. Foreign Policy/Iraq
2. Limited Government
3. Leadership/Ability to accomplish goals
4. Low Taxes/Cut Spending
5. No Federal Run Health Care
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 am
What Doug said
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
1)Judges
2)War in Iraq
3)Taxes
4)Balanced Budget
5)Federalism
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:13 am
iraq/terror
judges
energy
international relations
healthcare
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 am
1) Judiciary - appointing good judges and being aggressive about it.
2) Defending socially conservative issues publicly and persuading the public to defend life and the family.
3) Slashing entitlements and spending. I want the welfare rolls cut drastically, and government waste eliminated from top to bottom.
4) Immigration - having a sane immigration policy. Deport lawbreakers.
5) Military - supports a strong military and is committed to finishing the job in Iraq.
I rank the military this low because I believe any candidate will do well in this area, even the Democrats won’t totally bail on Iraq (despite what they say now).
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 am
dang it. i forgot about fiscal responsibility. revised:
iraq/terror
fiscal responsibility
judges
economy
international relations.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 am
1. GWOT
2. Privatize Social Security
3. Universal access to free-market healthcare
4. Decreasing the size of government
5. Paying off the National debt (through spending cuts and lay-offs NOT by raising taxes!)
6. Energy Independence
7. Getting out of a “stable” Iraq
8. Equal but not special rights for all
- Judges should be in here somewhere but I figure as long as I plan to vote Republican that it sort of a given.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
And I forgot to put immigration policy in there. I don’t know, probably put it at #6. I’m not going to get into MY immigration policy stances, but that does factor into my voting.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:28 am
Sorry, but I really need to list six criteria to give a complete answer:
1) General Efficacy of Markets as Opposed to Government — Does the candidate understand that there is literally no good the government can create by itself?
2) Individual Autonomy and Choice — Does the candidate trust individuals to choose what is best, especially in such important matters as education, planning for retirement, raising children, or choosing whether to have children in the first place?
3) Taxes — Do I have to be a lip reader, or is the candidate a committed supply sider?
4) Constitutional Rights — Does the candidate oppose policies that peanalize freedom of speech, favor “correct” viewpoints, entail racial discrtimination, sacrifice Bill of Rights protections of the suspect or accused in the interest of “expediency”, or fail to even admit certain “outdated” rights (such as the right to bear arms)?
5) Recognizing External Threats to Freedom — Does the candidate have a clear and realistic vision (neither head-in-the-sand nor paranoid, though the latter is usually not the problem) of the enemies of the US and of free societies in general?
6) Federalism — Does the candidate oppose measues (from whichever end of the political spectrum) that would supplant federal power and policy for that of the states?
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 am
1) Devotion to Free Trade. Remember, it was Smoot-Hawley that caused the great depression.
2) Reduction of taxes, at the margins. Preferably the championing of the Fair Tax.
3) Reduction of the regulatory burden. In some ways the Fascist aspects of government are more detrimental than the Socialist ones.
4) An understanding of and willingness to fight the Islamic threat.
5) Commitment to building the strongest possible military.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 am
Dave,
“Remember, it was Smoot-Hawley that caused the great depression.”
No, the Great Depression started long before Smoot Hawley. That is a myth. It was however, the protectionism of the Republican party for the prior 70 years that contributed to the greatest industrial juggernaut the world had ever said.
Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Calvin Coolidge were all devote protectionists.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 am
Dave,
An inflated stock market, over leveraged investors, and the structure of the financial system (not to mention the general global meltdown) were the major factors contributing to the Great Depression.
Smoot Hawley was signed into law June 17, 1930. Our Great Depression started October 29, 1929. In other countries. it started in 1928. But the timing of Smoot Hawley aside, if protectionism causes depressions, how do you explain the economic and industrial boom of the prior 70 years under protectionist Republicans? Compare the explosive growth of protectionist America with the economic stagnation of free trading Great Britain over the same period. Free trade has evolved from an economic theory to a doctrine of faith; which one must suspend critical historical judgments to believe.
But put another way, do you think $700 Billion trade deficits are a good thing? That means (to balance the books) free trade is costing us $700 billion a year in capital assets flowing out of the country. That is not sustainable, as evidenced now by the collapsing dollar.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
MWS,
You need to read the section on free trade in Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt again. ANY restriction on free trade impoverishes a nation because the economy has to take productive resources away from the things it does well and put them into things it does badly. The key concept is comparative advantage….basic economics. BTW, the great depression didn’t really kick in until 1932, and there was another major cause besides Smoot-Hawley. The fledgling Federal Reserve System contracted the real supply of money between 1929 and 1932 by 5%, causing good businesses to go under along with the malinvestment that needed to be weeded out of the economy. The alphabet soup agencies and initiatives concocted by Hoover and Roosevelt exacerbated the problem. Also BTW: it pains me to have to credit Smoot-Hawley as the primary cause of the depression since Senator Smoot was a fellow Mormon….but his being right on religion doesn’t mean that he knew beans about economics.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
54, MWS of course you are right that the smoot-hawley act was signed after the Great Depression. However, it is thought that it complicated the Great Depression by spreading it to the rest of the world. It hurt our former allies in Europe, which owed us a lot for WWI. Thus they defaulted on their loans which further hurt the United States.
Of course this is just from a shallow understanding of what other my text-book or professor said about it, I really have the time to research the issues for myself. That the seems like the frustrating thing about college, you have to learn the facts the way the teacher you, and end up not having time to do historical research for yourself on a deeper level.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 am
MWS,
I didn’t answer a couple of your ancillary questions. A trade deficit is simply another name for a capital surplus. When you buy goods overseas and pay dollars for them, the people selling to you have to do something with the dollars. They either buy other things from you, or invest it in your country, or stick it in a vault. Eventually the dollars come back to us. Trade deficits are only a bad thing if there are artificial distortions in the market place instigated by some government or combination of governments. Other countries are not forced to sell to us. They do it because they want our dollars. When they stop wanting dollars, they will stop selling things to us. BTW, as our economy grew larger, trade became a more important component of it….doing more good things for Americans. That’s why the cessation of it was so disastrously disruptive.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
Dave,
1. When was the last year the US ran a trade surplus?
2. Do you think that is a good thing, or a bad thing?
3. What does America do “badly” that needs to be outsourced?
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
MWS,
One last note before I have to go. If you really want to understand the great depression, read Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression, as well as The Great Contraction, by Milton Friedman.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 am
3. Aparently making things in general. I do not really know that Americans blue collar industry jobs anymore. We’ve shifted to a service economy, and we might have to do away with alot of things if we cut trade down.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 am
The Great Depression was caused by several factors.
1) The world economy had fractures and instabilities left over from WW I. Free Trade wouldn’t have made a difference because trade was such a minor element in most economies even before Smoot-Hawley.
2) The Fed didn’t know what it was doing.
3) The government didn’t step in to restore confidence quickly enough.
4) The Dust Bowl impoverished and decimated whole regions of the US.
The Great Depression was a perfect storm economically speaking. Without the Dust Bowl we’d have probably inched out of the Great Depression a few years earlier.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:52 am
MWS,
Lots of countries have comparative advantages with us in many goods or services, or there wouldn’t be any trade at all. As an example, Brazillian Biomass is far less expensive than our own corn-based ethanol. If we bought biomass ethanol from Brazil and did away with our ethanol subsidy to mid-western farmers, our cost of energy would go down dramatically. Unfortunately, we’ve placed a 35% tariff on Brazillian Biomass, so gas is $3 1/2 a gallon and mexican peasants are going hungry because they can no longer afford to buy our corn. It would also save our own consumers tons of money and reduce our budget deficits.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:54 am
61, It’s interesting I recently interviewed my Great Aunt about the Great Depression for a class project in the Recent American History class I’m taking this summer. They didn’t even know about the stock market crash. To them the Great Depression was simply a great drought. And the dates she gave were late in the decade too -1938 - 1941 or so.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
63, Make that spring/winter not summer.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
Comparative advantages aren’t a given.
Japan, South Korea and China have used protectionism to first build inefficient native industries and then become efficient exporters.
In the world of oligopolistic international industry, you can’t start a capital intensive industry without first protecting it from established firms.
In general we don’t need to restrict trade to help our failing economy. If we reduced regulation, reduced healthcare costs, reduced payroll taxes, and corporate taxes we could compete as the low cost producer.
If foreign nations use subsidies on specific goods, we ought to place tariffs on the subsidized goods. Essentially we’d be transferring money indirectly from foreign taxpayers to the US government. I don’t mind French taxpayers paying for our military budget.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
Optimally, we should negotiate with other countries to mutually do away with tariffs, but when they don’t do this, it is still in our advantage to do away with ours. The consumer has the choice to buy whatever he wants from wherever he wants if we have a lack of tariffs. Otherwise the consumer’s standard of living is automatically lowered by government fiat.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Dave, that’s an interesting theory. It’s not a given truth.
1) It’s built off a two country model that assume perfect competition.
Perfect competition has never existed in any stable industry. In oligopolistic or monopolistic competition markets (the majority of market in international trade). Removing tariffs and letting the other nations control a market is never beneficial in the long-run.
The naive ECO 300 approach only makes sense with commodities (oil, steel, corn, computer chips etc).
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
1. life/judges 2. fiscal responsibility/limited gov/size of gov 3. tax cuts 4. pro-green/pro-environment 5. strong defense/iraq
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
1. Government Spending - Will the candidate find ways to cut as much wasteful spending as possible? Regular federal budget audits.
2. Taxes - Tax cuts, tax code simplification
3. The War on Terror/Iraq - The candidate must support and have realistic plan for Iraq and the War on Terror
4. Federalism - I only wish that every candidate had Fred Thompson’s views on federalism and backed them with actions. The state and federal division of power is an important one that needs to be preserved.
5. Judges - Enough said.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Doug Forrester (#29) - you list “protect the family” as your number 2 criteria of import. Can you elaborate on what you would want or expect a president or the federal government to do in this regard? How should they go about doing whatever it is you want them to do.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
1) Federalism - to include 10th amendment
2) Defense - War on Terror and increase military
3) Judges - Strict constructionists
4) Tax Simplification and reduction
5) Reduction of Nanny State - Personal responsibility and liberty.
On the last point - I view government should be there as a safety net - At the LOCAL level. Social Security/Medicare/etc. are income redistribution ponzi schemes.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
1) Economy
2) Foreign Policy / Security
3) Judges
4) Low taxes
5) Control government spending
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
1. federalism
2. judges
3. economy
4. balance budget
5. entitlement reform
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
This has been a very worthwhile discussion.
I will venture a guess that folks who have offered very topical responses (e.g., “Iraq” or “GWOT”) are younger than those who offered more encompassing definitions of the important “issues”.
Here, then, is a corollary question: Looking back and applying your respective criteria to all the Presidential elections from 1972-2004 (my own voting history, as it happens), is there any election in which you would vote for someone other than the Republican candidate?
Third-party candidates with ballot status in at least half the states qualify.
My own answer: Definitely in 4 of those 9 elections, and arguably in 1 other as well.
[I never voted for Nixon, Bush I, or Dole, and have "buyer's regret" about "W" in '04.]
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
1. Abortion
2. Marriage Protection
3. Judges
4. National Security
5. Gasoline
6. Economy
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
1. War on Terror / National defense. Far and away the #1 issue, since if we don’t defeat radical Islam, #2,3,4&5 don’t matter (and neither does anything else).
2. Restoring fiscal sanity to government. Republican used to believe that there were three essential elements to fiscal policy — low taxes, low spending, balanced budgets. Now it’s low taxes, lower taxes, still lower taxes. Sorry — any good idea can be overdone. I may support cutting taxes still further someday, but not until spending is cut and the budget is brought into balance.
3. Limited government — Federalism and respect for individual rights.
4. Free trade. I consider a protectionist to be on the same intellectual level as a flat-earther.
5. Immigration. For me this means enforcing the borders tightly and imposing severe penalties on employers of illegals. Meanwhile, legal immigration must be expanded greatly and made a simpler process (anyone who has foreign family members, as I do, knows that the current process is absurd).