What a useful primary the GOP could have had

Let's see, so far we have Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in the GOP running, by tonight we'll add Mike Huckabee, John Kasich is forming an exploratory committee, and Chris Christie is set to plunge in, any minute. Hovering are Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, John Bolton, George Pataki, Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, Peter King, Ben Carson and, if we're even luckier, Donald Trump.

There are some minor variations in these candidates' and quasi-candidates' positions. But they are minor. Chiefly, they all believe in supporting an immense defense industry (even Rand Paul has signed on), loving Bibi — notwithstanding how irresponsibly Bibi behaves, hating Iran and Barack Obama, slashing entitlements and cutting taxes. Immigration reform is said to differentiate Bush from the pack, yet that steeliest of American nativists, Canadian Ted Cruz, opposes mass deportations. The "illegals" are here to stay, as far as the pack is concerned, and the less said, the better. That leaves the issue of Common Core, on which the GOP's presidential primaries are rather unlikely to hinge.

What, then, could possibly justify this overabundance of candidates?

It's not as though from many different angles the Republican Party is confronting its ideological fault lines, which are real. Instead, the party is running from them, en masse. No candidate is discussing how libertarianism's stark individualization of society can ever be reconciled with social conservatism's theocratic communitarianism, just as no candidate bothers to ask how a costly and ever-expanding global empire can be reconciled with a costly, ever-shrinking domestic revenue base.

The GOP pack won't even own up to what Italy's prime minister said today in a joint press conference with President Obama: that Europe took a wrong and miserable turn in 2009 — essentially, by adopting Republicans' economic plan of austerity — while the United States, following the permitted implementation of Keynesian theory, has seen growth and decreased unemployment. Obama's policies provide the world with an economic "model," said the prime minister. His was a beautiful rebuke of Bushism, Cruzism, Paulism, what have you — as reality's has been.

And yet how many Republican candidates are willing to acknowledge either the prime minister's simple truths or, more abstractly, their party's fundamental, irreconcilable disharmony? Zero.

What a waste of what could have been a useful primary season — a primary season with a serious, justified purpose. Its numbers suggest a lively debate, but that's merely a mirage. They're all wearing the same clown suits. 

 

Comments

[Bob]

Especially since the implementation of the Southern Strategy, the Republicans' job has been to attract enough of society's malcontents to win a majority of votes so party leaders could do the bidding of the rich. For a while they were woefully successful but now find themselves in a place where all the Lee Atwater and Karl Rove bullshit has effectively run out. What to do? Throw a stylistically diverse truckload of candidates against the wall to see who sticks. The problem is, as P.M. points out, the only way they really differ is in style. The basic program of delivering socialism and debt (sure investment) for the rich stays the same by basic necessity. It's always a mistake to underestimate their ruthlessness, but it's extremely hard to see any of these candidates going anywhere fast. For now the big brains in the party will have to content themselves with hopes for luck in oppo research, disenfranchisement of voters, (probable) ringer candidates like Chafee, and cranking the wheezing old noise machine for all it's still worth.

[Peter G]

I blame George Walker Bush. Having established within his party that literally anyone can grow up to be president he has encouraged many who should know better to try.

[Peter G]

My previous tongue in cheek comment aside a useful primary is beyond possibility now I fear. The low turnouts for primaries are basically driven by the most interested groups towards extremes that aren't terribly salable towards the electorate at large. More so in the Republican party it is true. The debates which everyone posits are a useful result of the primary process are pretty much illusory now. I'm liking the current alternative for the Democrats wherein the only realistic candidate at this point, Hillary Clinton I believe she is called, seems to be having a go at those back room arrangements with other party leading lights, like Warren, to craft policy positions with broad appeal. That makes perfect sense to me as bloodless as it seems. The blood never did anyone any good.

[Bob]

You weren't serious but might be right about Duhbya. Maybe that's why the 2012 elections featured so many high-functioning idiots on the R side. It will be interesting to see if the party puts up with outright self promoting clowns like Trump and Cain this time. You're also right about the Democrats' tactics though, having not a whit of romance in my gray matter, I see them as infinitely more smart than bloodless.

[RT]

"I blame George Walker Bush."

I think the GOP became so good at selling themselves as a party (the first American parliamentary party), they started thinking they could run *anybody* and get them elected on the strength of the (R) after their name. They were right, but as many corporations found out to their woe, cheapening the brand can undo what they've done.

[David & Son of Duff]

Seriously! On the subject of national economics you are paying attention to the words of the prime minister of ... ITALY?!

'Oh, mia zia vertiginoso!'

Er, that's Italian for 'oh, my giddy aunt!'

[Peter G]

You almost have a point David. The leaders of all the more corrupt Euro countries where tax evaders are heros seem to believe that austerity is a terrible thing. They got more or less what they deserved. But Britain and Germany and France? What was their excuse? In Britain there was absolutely no reason other than an ideological one to institute draconian cuts. None. Zero. Bond yields were well within tolerable borrowing limits and the reduced economic activity which instantly translates into lower tax revenues actually made the long term debt situation worse. It was stupid. What they should have done is what they are doing now which is essentially quantitative easing.

[David & Son of Duff]

If I were you, Peter, which thank the Lord I'm not, sir, I would hang fire on your enthusiastic support for 'money printing'. The bill has not yet been presented!

[Peter G]

If I were you, something for which I am equally grateful I am not, I would study the basics of economics. If you did you would know that well run central banks have a target inflation rate which they control by printing money. They do this to avoid disastrous deflation which is as toxic to an economy as runaway inflation. Now I am not sure if you are a gold nut or not but if you are I'd like to know your plan for matching gold supply to economic growth. Are you planning to print more gold as required? Or are you planning to hand over control over your currency to other nations which have gold reserves in vaults or in the ground for easy currency manipulation? I hate to tell you this dear but if you want to have any economy you have to print money. Very very carefully.

[David & Son of Duff]

"well run central banks"!

Would they be the 'well run central banks' that allowed governments to spend money like drunken sailors and who provided absolutely no warning of the catastrophe in 2008?

If you really trust *them*, Peter, can I interest you in an absolutely genuine, one elderly lady owner, low mileage, full service history, 2008 Ford? Going very cheap, honest, guv'nor!

Central banks do NOT control inflation by printing money. They do it, or should do it, by interest rates. Printing money doesn't help the real economy (the plebs!), it only help the holders of bonds, etc, that is, the rich! I cannot tell you what a delicious irony it is to read you defending a policy aimed at saving banks and bankers!

[Peter G]

Central banks have no say over how governments spend money. More's the pity. Nutbars, such as one finds in the Libertarian camp, think it should be the other way around. I thank the hypothetical gods that is not true. Still Keynesian economics is the only pragmatic one that works, stimulus when required, spending restraint when excessive economic exuberance leads to bubbles and excessively risky credit. The latter is the part lefties don't like and the former the righties don't. I've had many a person such as yourself tell me governments just can't keep borrowing and spending? Sorry ol chap but they can and often must. As long as the yield rate of any sovereign bonds matches the growth rate of the underlying economy the money to redeem the bonds will always be available. You can even exceed it for short periods if necessary especially when it is used to stimulate growth and higher tax revenue. Don't you worry your head about. We Canadians have sent over our Mr Carney to manage this for you. He's very good at it.

[Peter G]

Btw I forgot to mention that central banks cannot use interest rates to control inflation when they have reached the zero lower bound. You should know that.

[David & Son of Duff]

" forgot to mention that central banks cannot use interest rates to control inflation when they have reached the zero lower bound."

Wrong! When inflation rises you use interest rates to make borrowing money very expensive. This damps down demand and inflation subsides.

In stagflation, where prices keep dropping and people put off purchasing in order to buy at a lower price, then very low interest, or even negative interest, where you are in effect paying a bank to look after your money, prompts people to spend rather than save.

End of Economics 101!

Beyond that, central banks should play no part. If governments play havoc with the economy it is up to the voters to exact their price!

[Peter G]

What do you do when inflation is too low? That was the question David. I know what to do when it is too high. so does everyone else. What do you do when raising the interest rates is simply not an option? What do you do when too many people have too much debt and not enough spending money, when you have an absence of demand? Hey! Here's a dumb idea let's cut employment further so we reduce aggregate demand and, bonus, further increase government costs while reducing revenue. The problem with your rather foolish argument is that you insist on using tools to fight the problem that doesn't exist, inflation while ignoring the problems that are real. That's economics 201.