Kommentarer til: Guest comment: Politics rather than policy

Af: ankola007

ankola007 — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:07:59 +0000

for all the auctioning [lease visitauctions

Af: Søren Korsgaard

Søren Korsgaard — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:11:13 +0000

So Rove’s prediction of decades of Republican hegemony seems to have come to a sudden death. For now, at least. Why? Iraq certainly is part of the answer, but (mis-)management of domestic politics is not to be neglected.At times I am nonplussed by the seeming support for Republicans and equal disdain for Democrats expressed on this blog. [This is not in particular directed at your posting which I liked, David]. Studying at a (to put it mildly!) liberal, pro-market institution (Wharton School of Business) in the US, it is not at all clear to me why any liberal-minded person would consider Pelosi a greater peril than her republicans predecessors. The current ideology of big government conservatism certainly is no ideal to aspire for, and I am afraid that some look back to the Reagan-era and mistake the Republican party of today with one of the past.In fact, it is rather difficult to identify any policy areas where the Republican party has promoted smart policies. Domestically they have curbed civil liberties and preached moral, but offered little reform. While foreign policy has sought to achieve idealistic aims, it has in most instances been counter-productive (personally I cannot help drawing a parallel to the late Friedman who so clearly demonstrated why government meddling, however well-intended, almost always ends up producing distortions).Some might argue that at least the economy has fared well. This is true if one looks only at GDP. Yet for all the growth in GDP median wages have not risen. No even the tax cuts did they get right: These were designed to bolster demand, and (unfortunately) not directed at the supply side of the economy.However, deficits have been soaring – and unknown to many are grossly understated! Smetters and Gokhale have demonstrated how a flawed, backward-looking accounting treatment misrepresents the US’ future obligations – in fact that very same accounting treatment would be deemed illegal if a private entity used it. Currently the deficit is reported to be in the area of $3.5 trillion while the actual deficit is closer to $45 trillion! (Rougly 300% of GDP)[The major source of this deficit is an ever-more expensive health care system, which neither Democrats nor Republicans seem capable to reform.]Unfortunately the Bush-administration has even failed in those areas where they are otherwise most sensible. We are yet to see tort reform; President Bush is running out of time to use his executive ‘fast-track’ in free trade negotiations; and legislation such as Sarbanes-Oxley obviously has not improved the business climate. It is difficult being optimistic when looking forward on US politics. My critique of the Republican Party is no embracement of their opposites. Democratic policies also have flaws in plenty, in particular in the areas of business regulation, protectionism, and judicial reform. However, when it comes to political liberalism Democratic policies are generally more appealing – less paternalistic – than Republican.I am afraid that the next president, whether it be Clinton, McCain, Guiliani, Romney, or Obama, will have inherited a difficult position.P.S.: I am not always sure how which news from US politics disseminate back to Denmark, but some may find it of interest that a Newt Gingrich is starting a ‘movement’ to reform the US (and, some say, create a launching pad for his own presidential candidacy).

Af: David Garby

David Garby — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:38:57 +0000

“Senator George Allen from Virginia … lost his presidential chances according to Fortier. The same goes for the former senator of Montana.The same goes for the former senator of Montana.”Hvem har overvejet at Conrad Burns skulle være USAs præsident?

Af: David G.

David G. — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:18:38 +0000

"Policy consists of setting forth actual bill proposals and engaging in bipartisan settlements."This is misleading, as well as being bad English, and I can't imagine Fortier said this. What the author means here is not policy, but the making of policy. Setting forth bills and engaging in settlements are parts of the techniques and methods of policymaking, which is something quite different from policy as such.Policy is the ideology and strategy that underly the "setting forth" of bills as well as a good deal else. Policy (as in "foreign policy", "economic policy", "welfare policy" and so forth) consists of a set of principles as well as a set of operating rules for putting them into practice. In divided government, such as we will have after January 20, the administration will seek to execute the policies it has decided by negotiating with Congress, where the Democratic majority will have policies of its own.Otherwise, Fortier seems about right. We will see at lot of noise. The worst we may see is the sort of thing Henry Miller fears (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZhNzMyN2U0MDQ5YmQ4OGExODZiZDZjODkyOGQxYzM=)namely that ignorant but power-happy legislators will sabotage beneficial innovations. Miller quotes Mark Twain: "Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

Af: David Pontoppidan

David Pontoppidan — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 02:59:27 +0000

Dear David,Thank you for expanding on that. You are absolutely right. All the best,David