March 2, 2004
COULDN'T THEY MIX IN SOME BUCHANAN AND 1859?:
Serious Times, Serious Choice (David S. Broder, February 29, 2004, Washington Post)
Two factors have merged to make this election consequential -- much more so than most second-term decisions usually entail. One is the emergence of genuinely new forces in the world and at home, demanding tough policy decisions. The other is the way Bush has responded -- or failed to respond -- to these changes.The threat of terrorism, rooted in radical Islamic movements, challenges the entire structure of international relations and the stability of the worldwide balance of power. At the same time, the rapid spread of advanced technology into previously backward countries -- notably China and India -- has accelerated the pace of globalization and upset the economic stability of the industrial world.
Confronted with these unprecedented challenges, Bush has chosen a path of boldness and risk in one instance and of great caution -- almost inaction -- in the other. He has been as innovative in dealing with the security threat as he has been passive on the economic front. And in both areas, the Democrats are prepared to question his policy and leadership.
On the military-diplomatic front, Bush has declared a policy of preemptive action against any movement or government that he judges a threat to America. He has asserted -- and in Iraq has demonstrated -- a willingness to go it alone, arguing in his speech that "America must never outsource America's national security decisions to the leaders of other governments."
Although they initially voted to back his policy in Iraq, Kerry and Edwards have denounced its execution and have made it clear they do not accept it as a model for future actions. They want to return the United States to its traditional international status, as a leading figure in NATO and the United Nations, bound to and substantially influenced by other countries.
On the challenges presented by the new international economy, however, Bush's basic response has been to accelerate the liberal trade policies of the previous two decades. He has continued to reduce the main federal revenue resource, the income tax, while trusting that resulting growth will produce the needed jobs and finance what he hopes will be the declining domestic responsibilities of government.
After some initial hesitation, the leading Democrats now are in full cry against this policy. They would roll back some of the tax cuts, stiffen trade policy against foreign competition and greatly expand the federal role in providing health care, education benefits and retirement security.
So, as regards our foreign policy they want to enable the UN, NATO, etc. to bind us.
As regards the economy they want to raise taxes, erect trade barriers, and return to New Deal welfare?
It's like they've combined the worst of Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover and want to give us some horrific combo of 1929 and 1979. This is a serious political platform?
Posted by Orrin Judd at March 2, 2004 12:43 AMWell, when you put it that way, no it doesn't sound like much of a policy, but that's not the point. Dems resent you uncreative types harping on specific policies and their likely effects. What matters is identifying inequities and envisioning outcomes.
Posted by: Dave Sheridan at March 2, 2004 4:02 AMNotice that even Dems who are willing to acknowledge that 9/11 happened contiinue to insist that it came out of nowhere and resulted from genuinely new forces in the world. It certainly did not result from any force that had previously declared war on the United States and attacked us at home and abroad, civilians and military alike, for most of the decade preceeding before 9/11.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 2, 2004 5:40 AMDave:
Oh, I'm envisioning the outcome--it looks something like Mad Max...
Posted by: oj at March 2, 2004 7:23 AMThe Democratic platform as is actually pretty simple.
- That the US should never take part in any military operation whatsoever (except when it serves no national security purpose as in Bosnia);
- That the judiciary should be able to override the other branches of government in the service of any liberal cause;
- That trial-lawyers should be able to take unlimited amounts of money from any targeted group;
- That taxes should be raised to buy as many votes as possible (as long as at least 50.1% of the voting public are on the receiving end);
- That pandering to protectionist, environmental, anti-capitalist, and other anti-growth forces is preferable to economic growth;
- That the group identity is more important than individual identity;
- That racial equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity;
- That Europe and the UN are always right and America is always wrong;
- That America is to blame for every problem in the world.
Leaving trade barriers low may result in pain, in the short and medium term, but consider this possibility: That China may actually fufill its potential, and become a fairly stable and prosperous nation.
China's already a member of the WTO; If they perceive the US as playing fair, they're more likely to go along with mutual free trade agreements, as well as enforce intellectual property rights.
In the middle of the 21st century, China is likely to have three times the population of America, a fat prize for America's world-class brand-makers and marketers.
Leaving trade barriers low may result in pain, in the short and medium term, but consider this possibility: That China may actually fufill its potential, and become a fairly stable and prosperous nation.
China's already a member of the WTO; If they perceive the US as playing fair, they're more likely to go along with mutual free trade agreements, as well as enforce intellectual property rights.
In the middle of the 21st century, China is likely to have three times the population of America, a fat prize for America's world-class brand-makers and marketers.
Michael:
They have 4 times the population, by mid-century they'll have only half.
Posted by: oj at March 2, 2004 11:09 AMoj:
The UN Population Division's medium variant projection is that by 2050, China's population will be 1.5 billion, and the US' will be 350 million.
The US Census Bureau's international data base projects that China will have 1.4 billion people in 2050, and that the US will have 420 million.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 2, 2004 1:24 PMMichaeL
Yes, those numbers are nonsense. Even without an AIDs or influenza or war or civil war or whatever pandemic China is already sureplacement level.
Meanwhile, we're predicted to add 100 million+ this century, but factor in illegal immigration and what not and it's easy to see us adding far more.
Posted by: oj at March 2, 2004 3:25 PMDave:
Oh, I'm envisioning the outcome--it looks something like Mad Max...
OJ, that might be enough to turn some liberals around -- they couldn't stand the possibility of having Mel Gibson as their savior in some post-apocolyptic future...
Posted by: John at March 2, 2004 6:46 PM