Political rhetoric tends to be overwhelmingly simple while economic analysis is often needlessly complex.
This is not news. But it does make for a big disconnect between what politicians say and what they hope to do — because if they publicly said what their economic advisers told them, voters would either riot or fall asleep.
That said, after spending some time at the Republican National Convention this week, and hearing John McCain’s multi-faceted energy proposal (the Lexington Project) reduced on the convention floor to the simple chant “Drill, Baby, Drill!”, I came to wonder if indeed McCain hates economists.
Consider what he said about economists at a New York town hall meeting in June during the frenzied days of the “gas-tax holiday” debate:
They’re the same ones, I guess, that didn’t tell us about the housing subprime lending crisis. They’re the ones that didn’t tell us about the dot-com meltdown. And they’re the ones that didn’t warn us about inflation that’s coming up. I have to fall back on the old adage that if you took all the economists in the world and put them end to end, they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion. So I trust the people, not the so-called economists. … to give the American people a little relief.
So I put a few questions to Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s chief economic adviser, who participated earlier in a quorum on this blog about the role of such advisers.
Q: John McCain doesn’t really hate economists, does he? As his economic adviser, how did you feel about his “so-called economists” comment?
A: No, he doesn’t hate economists and I laughed when he said it. And I agree: you should not simply “listen to economists.” My well-meaning colleagues (and me) can be out of touch with conditions on the ground (if too reliant on data). And by focusing too much on differences, we as a profession often do not convey clearly the things about which we disagree.
Q: In our earlier blog quorum, you wrote that an economic adviser’s hardest job is fighting bad economic ideas. Can you give an example or two of bad ideas that you’ve helped quash?
A: Require that all oil extracted in the U.S. be sold in the U.S. — silly because it is a world market, etc.
Q: With energy such a prominent issue in this campaign, how are you helping your candidate communicate an effective political message about such a complex subject?
A: Break it into pieces. Problems: national security, economic security, environmental security. Solutions: change the way we drive (hybrids, electrics, biofuels); use the abundant resources (coal, nuclear); and break the political deadlock (moratorium, nuke storage, cap-trade).
Q: Can the sort of populism Sen. McCain appealed to in the “so-called economists” quote possibly be reconciled with the economic realities of the real world?
A: Sure. You listen to the people. You also listen to the political constraints. You listen to the research. That is the reality of economic policymaking and the reason it is not a textbook activity.
At first blush, McCain would seem to be the sort of candidate well-suited to appreciate economic advice. He, like many economists, is a rationalist — blunt, and not always politically correct. On the other hand, he publicly professed that “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.”
In the new book The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn’t), Alvin Felzenberg attempts an unideological ranking of U.S. presidents, using more specific criteria than are usually used by people who rank presidents.
In judging the presidents’ economic successes, he breaks the issue down into a few categories: overall economic performance during their tenures; improving the country’s economic infrastructure; and expanding economic opportunities for all Americans.
According to Felzenberg, there have been four excellent economic presidents in U.S. history: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. Seven more did quite well: James K. Polk, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton. The worst economic presidents according to Felzenberg’s methodology were James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Martin Van Buren, and Jimmy Carter.
So what is it that makes a president a good economic president? Here’s what Felzenberg says:
Most economically successful presidents were genuinely interested in business and economics. They availed themselves of multiples sources of information both inside and outside their administrations and selected good advisers and competent department heads … Nor did they resort to short-term gimmicks … While often reacting to short-term challenges, these presidents developed coherent policies designed to boost long-term economic performance. … None of [the failed] presidents, save for Carter and Hoover, showed much interest in business or economics.
Assuming that Felzenberg’s theory is mostly right, and given what we know so far of McCain’s appetite for economics, what sort of economic president do you think McCain would be?
Except the joke doesn't really work. The comment that the Republicans chose to interpret as comparing Palin to a lipstick-wearing pig was the following:
Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change, too. And so I guess his whole angle is, "Watch out, George Bush, except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics. We're really gonna shake things up in Washington." That's not change. That's just calling the same thing, something different. But you know, you can lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.
He wasn't talking about Palin at all, either directly or by implication. The Replublicans just used the fact that he said the words "lipsitck" and "pig" to manufacture some phony outrage.
Argh, I need to catch up on Sinfest! I was really good about it for a while, but then I fell behind and got intimidated by his incredibly frequent update style.
ABC news has a neat little doohickey here. They give a quote from each candidate on a variety of issues and you see which one you agree most with. Sometimes it's really easy to guess which candidate said what, but others are more ambiguous.
I picked the Obama choice for every one except for on on immigration, but I remember when reading that question that both seemed to be saying substantially the same thing (which was very little) so I just picked one at random.
I picked the Obama choice for every one except for on on immigration, but I remember when reading that question that both seemed to be saying substantially the same thing (which was very little) so I just picked one at random.
I had that issue with a lot of them. I tended to pick the Obama ones for those apparently. The rest- the few that showed differences were McCain for me. McCain it is.
I don't like these comments. Most of them are very non-commital comments that don't mean anything. Politics as usual.
I've seen a lot of political talk show things where it just shows a few politicians being asked questions and talking a bunch without actually asnwering the question. What's worse is that sometimes they spout a bunch of bullshit that is total lies. Like the time someone managed to use the logic of "tax breaks for oil companies" causing higher gas prices, like this was an obvious conclusion that everyone should assume. Idiot, idiot, idiot! That doesn't even make sense! Stop trying to smear your opponent by fabricating lies to make them look bad!
Why is it that the best I can hope for is a choice between an honest fool or a brilliant crook?
It's not that I don't trust old people, I just specifically don't trust McCain. My answers to that ABC News quiz thing had me split fairly evenly between the two, but McCain's complete turn on all of his celebrated 'principles' that made him such an attractive candidate 8 years ago makes it no contest. I might vote for Barr, because I'm not wild about Obama, but if California (however unlikely) becomes close between the two major candidates, I'll vote for Obama to keep McCain out of office.
All politicians are liars, but to parade yourself as a paragon of virtue, integrity, and principle in one election and then change all your positions while maintaining that you're the same principled martyr is another thing. Frankly if McCain had come out and said why he's changed his positions on gay marriage, war-time tax cuts, abortion, immigration, and torture, instead of angrily thumbing his nose at those who previously trusted him on these issues in an attempt to sway the conservative Republican base and pretending that his 2000 campaign platform never existed, I might not be nearly as furious with him.
I'll save yet another rant on that fucknut Palin for another time.
Sorry about the double post, but now I've gotten to thinking: maybe my blind rage against McCain's shift from 2000 is somewhat misguided, and I'm missing something more important or more promising than my idealized version of his 2000 platform. As I said, I'm not wild about Obama either, but maybe I should take a deep breath and reconsider where McCain is now.
I'm not trying to be glib, and I'm not trying to set up any sort of "gotcha!" argument. I'm asking sincerely: for those of you who are leaning McCain, why? What do you see that makes him the better candidate? What am I missing?
I'm honestly holding off my decision until I see the final debates. I know each party's stances on the various issues and I know what the candidates say they'll do in office, but I really have no idea what either of the candidates will do in office.
I got all mcCain on that thing except for #6. Obama said raise the payroll cap and McCain said fix inflation. That's not an answer. That's not a plan, that's a result of a plan. I have to say, a ton of those quotes from Obama seemed really nice and idealistic, but horribly impractical. Even if he tried to implement all of the changes he says he will, I don't think he'd be able to get anywhere You can't force the public and corporations to change.
I may never have a combover, but you got me on the mustache.
On a different note, I'd like to try and respond to Jakey here, as I honestly haven't put a lot of thought into it so this would help me out. Excuse me while I pour out some random thoughts...
I don't emphatically support McCain. I tilt toward him naturally as I'm really not a big fan of the Democrat platform. McCain is coming off to me as a fairly standard issue Republican sort. Not ideal, but ok. I might be wrong though. I don't pay that close of attention.
Obama isn't bad. Thankfully. But I just don't agree with everything he says. Like Iraq. That's a cliff we already jumped off. There is no turning back anymore. If he says he's going to move troops out he's got his head in the clouds. It's pretty much as Behemoth said with him. He won't get a fraction of the shit he'd want to do done, and he'd probably just make a bigger mess for trying it. And in some cases I'm just afraid of what would happen if he succeeded. Some of it is just more stupid programs that are going to cost more money that we shouldn't be spending just so we can even better line the pockets of classless bums making good money abusing a variety of welfare systems.
Going back to McCain? I dunno. Like I said, he's just a default for me. He seems reasonable enough. From what he says his views align a bit closer to mine than Obama'a. My only major concerns about McCain is Palin. She's fine for a VP but McCain's continued good health would be a very good thing. I don't fancy the idea of President Palin.
Talk of change is mostly bullshit, but I think any thinking person knows that. Do any Presidents actually make good on their promises though?
It's also hard to judge candidates when they spend so much effort making up imaginary issues to jabber about (offshore drilling?) and trying to convince us that life sucks and they'll make it better.
I think they mostly act as a figurehead anyway. Really we are just voting in a new face to blame.
Some other things I think about are if a President makes some decisions that cause major problems for the country in the here-and-now, but ultimately serve the country for the best in the long run are they still a bad President? Even if a decision was just plain bad, was it really the president who made that decision or was he just deferring the decision to someone else and taking the credit/blame?
Another interesting sidenote is that Obama winning the election would give the Democrats control of every branch of the government. Who would the Democrat party blame all our woes on then?
I'm going to, pick on X'o'Lore a little bit, because its just so easy to quote-paste some of his statements and then offer simple common sense rebuttals to them. Also, I'm way too lazy to make the effort of addressing other posts, when this one is right there. Its right there, people!
I don't emphatically support McCain. I tilt toward him naturally as I'm really not a big fan of the Democrat platform. McCain is coming off to me as a fairly standard issue Republican sort. Not ideal, but ok. I might be wrong though I don't pay that close of attention.
Ok, fair enough. However, please explain two things for me:
1. What exactly does "fairly standard issue Republican sort" mean? What principles and standards are you referring to, that define a "Republican sort"?
2. How is it a good idea to support "standard issue Republican sorts" when they were in total control of the federal government for 6 years, and controlled congress for 12, when the result is the mess we're currently wringing our hands over?
Obama isn't bad. Thankfully. But I just don't agree with everything he says. Like Iraq. That's a cliff we already jumped off. There is no turning back anymore. If he says he's going to move troops out he's got his head in the clouds.
We are going to move troops out. Iraq itself has already called for the previously maligned "timetables" for troop withdrawal.
It's pretty much as Behemoth said with him. He won't get a fraction of the shit he'd want to do done, and he'd probably just make a bigger mess for trying it. And in some cases I'm just afraid of what would happen if he succeeded. Some of it is just more stupid programs that are going to cost more money that we shouldn't be spending just so we can even better line the pockets of classless bums making good money abusing a variety of welfare systems.
Fair enough. But I ask you to take a good look at his opponent's records on spending and other appropriations, and then ask yourself if giving money to classless (and inept!) private corporations who make good money abusing the system they paid to create is any better.
Going back to McCain? I dunno. Like I said, he's just a default for me. He seems reasonable enough. From what he says his views align a bit closer to mine than Obama'a. My only major concerns about McCain is Palin. She's fine for a VP but McCain's continued good health would be a very good thing. I don't fancy the idea of President Palin.
That part of the post just made my brain hurt.
So you have concerns about Palin being president, but you think she makes a fine VP? And this makes sense because... VP's are never expected to ever become president, ever?
Talk of change is mostly bullshit, but I think any thinking person knows that. Do any Presidents actually make good on their promises though?
Without talk of change, which is mostly bullshit, you wouldn't actually have change, which is usually traumatic to people who don't know how to handle it.
Personal aside, I just gotta remark how hilarious it is to see the Republicans somehow try to paint themselves as agents of change during the RNC.. after being in power for a good long time.
It's also hard to judge candidates when they spend so much effort making up imaginary issues to jabber about (offshore drilling?) and trying to convince us that life sucks and they'll make it better.
While I think your example of an "imaginary issue" is a bit retarded (offshore drilling will bring in tons of jobs, as will creation of new refineries. Meanwhile, they will also bring greater risk to the ecosystem, but less so than the simple presence of tankers near the shoreline), you are correct in that there are far too many imaginary issues on the political docket.
Another interesting sidenote is that Obama winning the election would give the Democrats control of every branch of the government. Who would the Democrat party blame all our woes on then?
Well, they could do as the Republicans have done... deny, deny, deny, then lose Congress after 6 years, and then blame the dominant congressional party for being "do-nothing" after...3 sessions of work.
Comments
That comic was great though. Extremely clever.
McCain!
And nobody here gets it.
I had that issue with a lot of them. I tended to pick the Obama ones for those apparently. The rest- the few that showed differences were McCain for me. McCain it is.
I don't like these comments. Most of them are very non-commital comments that don't mean anything. Politics as usual.
I've seen a lot of political talk show things where it just shows a few politicians being asked questions and talking a bunch without actually asnwering the question. What's worse is that sometimes they spout a bunch of bullshit that is total lies. Like the time someone managed to use the logic of "tax breaks for oil companies" causing higher gas prices, like this was an obvious conclusion that everyone should assume. Idiot, idiot, idiot! That doesn't even make sense! Stop trying to smear your opponent by fabricating lies to make them look bad!
Why is it that the best I can hope for is a choice between an honest fool or a brilliant crook?
EDIT: And there is no way to know which is which.
All politicians are liars, but to parade yourself as a paragon of virtue, integrity, and principle in one election and then change all your positions while maintaining that you're the same principled martyr is another thing. Frankly if McCain had come out and said why he's changed his positions on gay marriage, war-time tax cuts, abortion, immigration, and torture, instead of angrily thumbing his nose at those who previously trusted him on these issues in an attempt to sway the conservative Republican base and pretending that his 2000 campaign platform never existed, I might not be nearly as furious with him.
I'll save yet another rant on that fucknut Palin for another time.
I'm not trying to be glib, and I'm not trying to set up any sort of "gotcha!" argument. I'm asking sincerely: for those of you who are leaning McCain, why? What do you see that makes him the better candidate? What am I missing?
I got all mcCain on that thing except for #6. Obama said raise the payroll cap and McCain said fix inflation. That's not an answer. That's not a plan, that's a result of a plan. I have to say, a ton of those quotes from Obama seemed really nice and idealistic, but horribly impractical. Even if he tried to implement all of the changes he says he will, I don't think he'd be able to get anywhere You can't force the public and corporations to change.
On a different note, I'd like to try and respond to Jakey here, as I honestly haven't put a lot of thought into it so this would help me out. Excuse me while I pour out some random thoughts...
I don't emphatically support McCain. I tilt toward him naturally as I'm really not a big fan of the Democrat platform. McCain is coming off to me as a fairly standard issue Republican sort. Not ideal, but ok. I might be wrong though. I don't pay that close of attention.
Obama isn't bad. Thankfully. But I just don't agree with everything he says. Like Iraq. That's a cliff we already jumped off. There is no turning back anymore. If he says he's going to move troops out he's got his head in the clouds. It's pretty much as Behemoth said with him. He won't get a fraction of the shit he'd want to do done, and he'd probably just make a bigger mess for trying it. And in some cases I'm just afraid of what would happen if he succeeded. Some of it is just more stupid programs that are going to cost more money that we shouldn't be spending just so we can even better line the pockets of classless bums making good money abusing a variety of welfare systems.
Going back to McCain? I dunno. Like I said, he's just a default for me. He seems reasonable enough. From what he says his views align a bit closer to mine than Obama'a. My only major concerns about McCain is Palin. She's fine for a VP but McCain's continued good health would be a very good thing. I don't fancy the idea of President Palin.
Talk of change is mostly bullshit, but I think any thinking person knows that. Do any Presidents actually make good on their promises though?
It's also hard to judge candidates when they spend so much effort making up imaginary issues to jabber about (offshore drilling?) and trying to convince us that life sucks and they'll make it better.
I think they mostly act as a figurehead anyway. Really we are just voting in a new face to blame.
Some other things I think about are if a President makes some decisions that cause major problems for the country in the here-and-now, but ultimately serve the country for the best in the long run are they still a bad President? Even if a decision was just plain bad, was it really the president who made that decision or was he just deferring the decision to someone else and taking the credit/blame?
Another interesting sidenote is that Obama winning the election would give the Democrats control of every branch of the government. Who would the Democrat party blame all our woes on then?
Arg. This post got long. Sorry about that.
Ok, fair enough. However, please explain two things for me:
1. What exactly does "fairly standard issue Republican sort" mean? What principles and standards are you referring to, that define a "Republican sort"?
2. How is it a good idea to support "standard issue Republican sorts" when they were in total control of the federal government for 6 years, and controlled congress for 12, when the result is the mess we're currently wringing our hands over?
We are going to move troops out. Iraq itself has already called for the previously maligned "timetables" for troop withdrawal.
Fair enough. But I ask you to take a good look at his opponent's records on spending and other appropriations, and then ask yourself if giving money to classless (and inept!) private corporations who make good money abusing the system they paid to create is any better.
That part of the post just made my brain hurt.
So you have concerns about Palin being president, but you think she makes a fine VP? And this makes sense because... VP's are never expected to ever become president, ever?
Without talk of change, which is mostly bullshit, you wouldn't actually have change, which is usually traumatic to people who don't know how to handle it.
Personal aside, I just gotta remark how hilarious it is to see the Republicans somehow try to paint themselves as agents of change during the RNC.. after being in power for a good long time.
While I think your example of an "imaginary issue" is a bit retarded (offshore drilling will bring in tons of jobs, as will creation of new refineries. Meanwhile, they will also bring greater risk to the ecosystem, but less so than the simple presence of tankers near the shoreline), you are correct in that there are far too many imaginary issues on the political docket.
So... lets vote for the guy we like?
Well, they could do as the Republicans have done... deny, deny, deny, then lose Congress after 6 years, and then blame the dominant congressional party for being "do-nothing" after...3 sessions of work.
So, yeah. How bout them Tigers?