A North American idea for a presidential election?

Modern campaigns defy the logic of economic development: the more money that’s on hand to spend and the more campaign planners know about market conditions today, the less they think about the future or tolerate new ideas.

Case in point: the 2012 US presidential election.

Some $2 trillion will be spent talking to voters about their economic concerns. A clear majority of those voters can be persuaded that one of the candidates can make a positive difference. In any event, only one set of policy makers will win and be assigned to play dice with America’s future. So, the stakes are high—whether the candidates are gamblers or not.

Under these bracing circumstances, America seems to be stuck in a rerun of France’s recent presidential election: Who can get us back to “normal”?

Romney would stick with the policies of George Bush; Obama wants to return to the 1990s, with Bill Clinton’s wife.

Democrats believe government can help business do more; Republicans believe everyone can get more out of government by giving it less. The only new economic idea of campaign year 2012 that is not already in circulation in China was Newt Gingrich’s public-private partnerships to colonize Mars.

It seems big money politics gags ideas, as well as talks.

When the day comes, however, when the campaigners can’t imagine how they’ll carry on without something new to say, here’s one to work up: rather than speculating about how to persuade or bully the world, why not consider how to complete the integration of North America’s two industrial, energy-rich, high-tech, high-income, highly skilled, free-enterprise, liberal federations—Canada and the United States?

Of course, there’s no focus group research on the subject and whoever first broaches the idea runs the risk of being called unrealistic or (ouch) off message.

However, neither Obama nor Romney will fire the American imagination by asking for A Mandate To Negotiate With John Boehner.

A grand bargain with Canada—a deal that would require sixty votes in the Senate and a majority government in Canada—could put real substance behind the promise of both liberals and conservatives to preserve America’s global leadership and enhance the benefits for middle class Americans from a growing global economy.

A common regulatory framework for energy security and environmental stewardship, a custom and currency union, the elimination of all present border constraints on Canadians and Americans, reciprocal employment rights for skilled workers, graduates and professionals, and joint Canada-US public works to modernize the infrastructure of the Mid-West and the North-West would go a great distance to modernize the “supply side” of the North American economy.

Extreme protectionists and chauvinists on both sides of the border would take offense, only adding a little drama to time-tested ideas.

Sure, there are ready objections to these ideas.

Romney might feel he has nothing to prove as a free enterpriser and stick to attacking Obama on the Canada-US Keystone pipeline delay. Obama may fear objections from Mexican-Americans and industrial union protectionists. 

However, the Republican Party can’t sell free enterprise by just attacking the federal government. And Obama’s credibility with voting Mexican-Americans is sturdy enough to be able to stand for equality for lawful immigrants and a different economic relationship with Canada today than with Mexico.

After working with the governments of Canada and Ontario to subsidize GM and Chrysler, could Obama attack Romney if he proposed an economic union with Canada? Conversely, would Romney dare ridicule Obama—the most popular politician in Canada—for over-reaching?

Five months to go, just wondering.

Western democracies still attractive places to be fed up

Risk managers and futurists who rank the winners for the new century picked the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) well before the financial crash of 2008. Today, it’s conventional wisdom among decision-makers. At ground level, however, the story is more complicated.

Capitalists wake up worrying about the morning’s market. Western business leaders fear that their politicians aren’t strong enough to lead and that government economic relief, including tax cuts, will only be temporary. On the other hand, capitalists in Russia and China talk off the record about leaving.

Western political incumbents get very worried when a majority of the people openly declare that their country is “on the wrong track.” It’s not known how leaders in Moscow and Beijing feel about stories that their best and brightest imagine simply getting out.

The US Census Bureau’s latest population forecast anticipates annual US net legal immigration of 880,000 per year. That’s the mid-range; it assumes continued decade-long waiting lists and little progress in Washington in modernizing immigration law. The Bureau has no reason to worry that millions will continue to join the queue.

Here are two stories about malaise in China and Russia—the most powerful BRICS—that put the crisis of confidence in the West in perspective.

Last week, The Globe and Mail ran as story from Beijing by Louise Watt entitled, “For China’s wealthy, a fond wish: to leave.”

“The United States is the most popular destination for Chinese emigrants, with rich Chinese praising its education and health-care systems. Last year, nearly 68,000 Chinese-born people became legal permanent residents of the United States . . .

“In China, nothing belongs to you. Like buying a house. You buy it but it will belong to the country 70 years later,” said Mr. Su, lamenting the government’s land leasing system.

Getting a foreign passport is like “taking out an insurance policy,” said Rupert Hoogewerf, who compiles the Hurun Rich List, China’s version of the Forbes list.”

Click on: www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/for-chinas-wealthy-their-fondest-wish-is-to-leave/article2157290/

This week, The Economist is even harder on Russia. In a briefing entitled “Time to shove off,” it reported:

“A recent opinion poll by the Levada Centre shows that 22% of Russia’s adult population would like to leave the country for good. This is a more than threefold increase from four years ago, when only 7% were considering it. It is the highest figure since the collapse of the Soviet Union, when only 18% said they wanted to get out. Those who are eager to leave are not the poor and desperate. On the contrary, most are entrepreneurs and students.

The Levada Centre recently conducted a survey of people aged 25-39 living in large cities and earning five-to-ten times the average income in Russia. Almost a third would like to emigrate permanently.”

Click on: www.economist.com/node/21528596

These stories do not argue that the BRICS will lose. And they certainly don’t make it easier to believe that history will be quiet elsewhere as the West sorts out its finances. However, they should remind conservatives as well as liberals that our social, political and economic systems still beat the alternatives—and are worthy of respect when we think big about fixing our problems.