« China fact of the day | Main | Marginal Revolution? »
It's an Election, not a Revolution
That's the title they gave my latest NYT column. Excerpt:
To put it simply, the public this year will probably not vote itself into a much better or even much different economic policy. To be sure, the next president — whoever he or she may be — may well extend health care coverage to more Americans. But most of the country’s economic problems won’t be solved at the voting booth. It is already too late to stop an economic downturn. Health care costs will keep rising, no matter who becomes president or which party controls Congress. China is now a bigger carbon polluter than the United States, so don’t expect a tax or cap-and-trade rules to solve global warming, even if American measures are very stringent — and they probably won’t be, because higher home heating bills are not a vote winner. A Democratic president may propose more spending on social services, but most of the federal budget is on automatic pilot. Furthermore, even if a Republican president wanted to cut back on such mandates, the bulk of them are here to stay.
Yes, the election does matter. Even small differences on economic issues affect millions of Americans. But the record of the Bush administration should prove sobering to all those who expect the American political economy to turn around in the next four years.
Many conservative and libertarian economists supported President Bush, thinking they would be getting policy drawn from the work of Milton Friedman and Martin Feldstein, two respected market-oriented economists. Instead, in economics, the Bush years have brought an increase in domestic government spending, and some poorly-thought-out privatization plans. For all the talk of an extreme right-wing revolution, government transfer programs like Social Security and Medicare have continued to grow. And despite big mistakes involving the Iraq war, Mr. Bush wasn’t punished by voters in 2004.
There is much more, and it is a more political column than I usually write. My final conclusions:
And if you’re still worrying about how to vote, I have two pieces of advice. First, spend your time studying foreign policy, where the president has more direct power, and the choice of a candidate makes a much bigger difference. Second, stop worrying and get back to work.
And there are points I could not cover for reasons of space, such as the constraining need to provide an AMT fix, or the ability of a party to sound more intelligent when it is out of power.
Addendum: Here is coverage from Mark Thoma and commentators; do they support or contradict Mark's last sentence? And here is commentary from John V.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 17, 2008 at 03:35 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Overall, well-argued points ... and foreign affairs is a safe conclusion for Executive effectiveness - but why the cynical
ending (THX1138 came to mind)?
Posted by: TomG at Feb 17, 2008 4:35:46 AM
Maybe Edwards never gained traction because of his policies. That is, the voters were more moderate than he was and were put off by his positions.
Also, in the 2004 elections voters did consider foreign policy over domestic. That is precisely how Bush won despite the Iraq missteps. Voters were put off by Kerry as a potential exective in chief.
The general elections to come will present a delightful tension as Mccain will try to shift the debate towards foreign policy while the democratic nominee will try to bring it back to the economy.
Great Article!
Posted by: Noam at Feb 17, 2008 7:39:23 AM
I don't consider the last sentence cynical at all. The payoff of 500 years of economic growth and large-scale democratization is that we've come to a place where politics matters less than it ever did. This means the choice of who becomes president matters less (at the margin, check the blog title) than most people seem to realize. America has changed enormously since I was born in 1965. Politics has changed very little. The reasonably conclusion is that politics isn't driving the changes. Instead, it's people getting back to work. That's not cynicism. That's victory.
Posted by: Dave at Feb 17, 2008 8:26:21 AM
Read the article over on the NYT site so I
didn't see your "political column" caveat. The
get back to work crack made me laugh out loud.
Also immediately thought some of the
soul-seeking supporters of a certain candidate
need to get back to class, if one is disposed
to calling that work today.
Posted by: tao9 at Feb 17, 2008 8:29:00 AM
Nice. But I do wonder is the average voter any better off learning about foreign policy rather than economics? At least economics can make accurate predictions, so that if one makes the effort to learn it, it can be useful. Can the same be said for foreign policy? Well, perhaps other than, "It's generally a bad idea to invade foreign countries. It's expensive and things don't usually go as well as planned."
Posted by: Scot at Feb 17, 2008 8:33:20 AM
"The reasonably conclusion is that politics isn't driving the changes. Instead, it's people getting back to work. That's not cynicism. That's victory." by Dave
Fine, if that's what was meant (though not explained as such) ... rather it struck me as a wee bit condescending, as though that's what we're only good for - when the message ought to be "don't worry, and get back to your useful affairs (whatever they be)"
Posted by: TomG at Feb 17, 2008 9:07:36 AM
Just vote for whoever makes you feel best about yourself. Who's bumper sticker do you proudly sport on your car? Who makes you feel closer to all your friends and colleagues?
This is how I vote. My coalitions are more important to sustain than an interest in the commonweal.
Posted by: Rue Des Quatre Vents at Feb 17, 2008 9:24:46 AM
The president is commander-in-chief and cheerleader-in-chief. Oh, and also Supreme-Court-justice-appointer-in-chief. That's about it. The president's impact on the economy is limited, although both blame and credit are disproportionately awarded because the president is the government personified.
Instead of a fully independent Supreme Court appointed for life with a de facto legislative veto, we could fantasize about a fully independent Federal Reserve with an economic veto. A fourth branch of government. That's an alternate universe I'd prefer to live in.
If it's all the same to you, I'd prefer not to get back to work. Speculation has worked out better financially than, you know, the "w-word". There are plenty of reasons to worry, though. The proverbial interesting times are upon us. Future historians will look back and mark the end of an era sometime around now.
Posted by: at Feb 17, 2008 9:38:40 AM
"Here is coverage from Mark Thoma and commentators; do they support or contradict Mark's last sentence? "
Heh. They contradict Mark's last sentence, and confirm Buchanan, Mises, Bastiat, Krugman, and Caplan in a big way. Every man his own economist, you know.
Posted by: Steve Miller at Feb 17, 2008 9:48:56 AM
but which candidate will provide the most hope?
Posted by: josh at Feb 17, 2008 9:49:10 AM
It's disingenuous at best to claim that who is president doesn't matter much.
Consider America's standing in the world now vs 10 years ago. It can be argued that our interventionist foreign policy hasn't changed much over that period - Iraq notwithstanding - but the face of our leadership has drastically.
The world loved Clinton and hated Bush. The devil is in the details.
Posted by: meter at Feb 17, 2008 9:53:53 AM
I dunno Tyler, I think there are some pretty substantial differences in economic policy, at least if the last 20 years is anything to go by.
For most of my lifetime, Republican economic policy has been to cut taxes without any corresponding decrease in millitary or domestic spending, and that's all netted out to making the U.S. into a country that issues soverign debt to purchase consumer goods. Beyond dramatic qualatitave shifts, numbers matter, and reducing the federal deficit amounts to a pretty radical change in economic policy.
Or does my allegiance to Mundell-Fleming make me hopelessly outdated?
(And, honestly, that line about China and climate change is a bit disingenious, but that's another topic...)
Posted by: TomR at Feb 17, 2008 9:57:38 AM
Beyond dramatic qualitative shifts, numbers matter, and reducing the federal deficit amounts to a pretty radical change in economic policy.
Sure, if I had any reason to believe that a Democratic candidate would reduce the federal deficit, that might matter. All of the Democratic presidential candidates available in the current election are explicitly campaigning on increasing taxes while increasing federal spending by even more. In other words, increasing the federal deficit.
Posted by: Dave at Feb 17, 2008 10:57:04 AM
I guess after a presidency that took an overall budget surplus and turned it into the largest deficits in American history it is not sur[rising that you would want to say that 'most of the federal budget is on automatic pilot.'
But the fact that a large percentage of American voters want a 'revolution', whether rationally based or not, illustrates, I think, the bankruptcy of those conservative ideas.
In fact, the eight years of the Bush administration have been largely about turning back the social reforms of the New Deal. It is clear not that Americans want those reforms back, whether or not right wingers think they will be effective, much less constitute a revolution.
And, indeed, they want more. Perhaps the president cannot fix the economy - it may have been wrecked beyond repair - but the president, by passing a universal health care insurance plan - can fix the personal economies of millions of Americans.
Perhaps, in the end, that's all that matters.
Posted by: Stephen Downes at Feb 17, 2008 11:31:46 AM
In fact, the eight years of the Bush administration have been largely about turning back the social reforms of the New Deal.
Huh? Bush hasn't touched any of the remaining New Deal policies, except to increase Medicare. The brief attempt at suggesting that it was time to reform Social Security was quickly dropped, to no effect.
It's not so much that I'm disagreeing with you, as wondering what the hell you could possibly be talking about.
Posted by: Dave at Feb 17, 2008 12:31:50 PM
Great article. Great links at the end...well at least one of them! ;)
Posted by: John V at Feb 17, 2008 12:43:38 PM
Consider America's standing in the world now vs 10 years ago.
10 years ago they hated us enough to start planning an attack on the WTC, and today they hate us enough that we can assume there is a similar attack being planned.
Posted by: Eric H at Feb 17, 2008 12:51:14 PM
I can't really agree with Tyler here. To a great extent your choice for president is not about policy, but about decision-making. How a candidate explains policy choices, and makes promises about such, is a little window into the way they will make decisions when the role of the president really matters-- in crisis.
Hoover was the smartest guy in the room. He was a technocrat/engineer/wonder boy who showed a propensity for not listening to advice and tinkering when it came to problem solving. Facing a huge economic problem he tinkered, without any evidence or process for determining if it made sense to do so...
Roosevelt was vocal and open about his central planning bent and had shown a proclivity for treating people as part of large, faceless, groups rather than caring about individuals and details. He also had a history, prior to being elected president, to being absolutely ruthless rather than open-minded in the face of criticism...
Carter had a personal history of rewriting his history. His public stump speeches were often re-engineered views of what should be, rather than what was. He was an engineer and didn't face the Afghanistan invasion or Cuban interventions or Iranian revolution-- he studied the details and made few decisions. He listened to very few people and had an open disdain for anyone he thought less intelligent than himself. To this day he refuses to take criticism well and his approach to election watching, through his foundation, borders on the absurd...
Pluralistic decision-makers, who don't think they are the smartest people in the room, have been better presidents throughout history. Over and over the policy ideas of presidents mattered less than the way they dealt with crises.
Pick your president based not on who you want to share dinner with, but who you'd want with you when the house catches fire.
Posted by: The other Eric at Feb 17, 2008 2:06:22 PM
Good article, Prof. Cowen, although some might feel it was almost "non-democratic." I hope your preferences don't get removed from the social welfare function!
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Feb 17, 2008 2:48:20 PM
Sage column, particularly the last paragraph, but one word annoyed me:
"John Edwards ... redistribution of *economic* wealth"
So what is non-economic wealth?
Posted by: Mike Linksvayer at Feb 17, 2008 4:02:41 PM
Eric, the "they" was not a reference to the mean ole terrists, but to those who historically have been our allies who are now less so. And who can blame them? Bush and his cronies have portrayed our nation as the angry drunk with a pistol in the local bar.
Posted by: meter at Feb 17, 2008 5:02:24 PM
Tyler makes a nice point. Presidents only have a marginal influence. Its not like they are the sole arbiter of policy reform. They have a policy idea and then it gets churned through the Washington-K Street process and ends up looking nothing like the original idea. I think so much policy is already pre ordained by the will of special interests groups and voting blocks. Whether or not special interest groups and voting blocks can change our lives for the better, I remain skeptical.
I still think we could slash the federal budget by seventy five percent, abolish the income tax, implement a minimal national sales tax, and the poorest Americans would be just as wealthy, healthy, and happy, if not more so. I dont view public policy as a tremendous boon to the poor. Politics is only good for people who are good at politics. The rest of us stand in awe and beg for mercy.
Posted by: john pertz at Feb 17, 2008 5:03:03 PM
The last fifteen years have demonstrated that the best governing happens when the President and Congressional majority are from different parties. Dividing the government is more important than the personality of the president.
Since it doesn't look like the Democrats will loose Congress, the best vote will be for McCain.
Posted by: ft445 at Feb 17, 2008 5:59:50 PM
Nixon was good at foreign policy.
Posted by: Dave at Feb 17, 2008 7:03:03 PM
Mark Thoma in his EconView comment thread about Cowen's article.
Posted by: EconViewSnooper at Feb 17, 2008 8:38:28 PM
