Republicanism’s own looming danger: “normalcy”

Republicans didn’t just wait for big-government Democrats to age and grow incompetent. They developed a winning formula to unite two powerful electoral strangers: high-spirited fundamentalists and less high-spirited materialists with good pensions and business interests. Republican campaigners could rally these groups around a driving anxiety: “These are not normal times.”

Modern Republicans get elected by promising to clean up the indulgences of their less-adult opponents; they draw lines in the sand; most recently, they talk of Greek immorality and imminent financial collapse. This formula has been strikingly successful.

It’s in trouble now, however—not because the Party is short of fine performers but because their alarming argument is running out of gas from the real world.

Americans aren’t chronically fearful people. They don’t husband old traumas like adults in more slow-moving places like France, Russia, and Canada. So, being stirred to sacrifice requires fresh supplies of American bad news—credible signs of danger, of a danger, incidentally, that can be dropped at the feet of the federal government.

Bloomberg News reported quietly last week that Americans back spending-cut delay. That, itself, isn’t significant. That opinion can change with the times. Most people will delay unpleasantness if pollsters given a credible option.

What’s important, however, is that the failing case for severe cuts (a burgeoning deficit) is itself inflated:

“At the same time, the size and trajectory of the U.S. deficit is poorly understood by most Americans, with 62 percent saying it’s getting bigger, 28 percent saying it’s staying about the same this year, and just 6 percent saying it’s shrinking. The Congressional Budget Office reported Feb. 6 that the federal budget deficit is getting smaller, falling to $845 billion this year — the first time in five years that the gap between taxes and spending will be less than $1 trillion.”

In other words, the more Americans, and their business leaders, who acknowledge the recovery in government revenues as well as growing activity in the private sector, the less they’ll go along with extreme emergency measures to stave off an approaching national bankruptcy.

The Republicans will soon have to re-learn how to play politics more calmly. Indeed, if they’d let a retiring President win a couple of affordable fights, they’d be halfway there.

The world will surely give them a dandy crisis in the future. However, there is no virtue, on earth or in heaven, for inventing one now.

Investment analysts pick their winners:

Last month, Bloomberg News released a survey of fourteen hundred investors and analysts that ranked world leaders according to their efforts to create a “more favourable business climate”.

Angela Merkel came in first with a “mostly favourable” rating of 56 per cent. This isn’t that surprising. Whatever, you think of Germany’s incremental domestic policies, she did consent recently to bail out the Greek government and, thereby, save several European banks from possible bankruptcy.  And we’ve come to understand that professional investors are bred and paid to think short term.

Obama hasn’t saved a bank in over a year. But, is it credible to rank him almost last? At only 37 per cent, behind two appointed central bankers and Hu Jintao, President of the Republic of China and General Secretary of the Communist Party of China?

Let’s not take this too far. Those who keep small investors, economists and entrepreneurs up at night probably aren’t, by nature, authoritarians who prefer un-elected technocrats to politicians and, when they do, they are like a lot us. But it is a bit disheartening. These people have a big say in shaping the global economy and, yet, show little regard for how the checks and balances of liberal democracy create long term economic wealth.

Ben Bernanke could not have stopped the recession by himself and enjoys the powers he has by the consent of a duly elected Senate and President. Unlike the President of China, Barack Obama cannot choose winners and decide for now that profits are more important than health services and pensions. As long as Hu Jintao gets results, no organized force can get in his way. However, surely, western investors ought to appreciate that a superior climate for investment by capitalists requires a broad based liberal consensus—popular support for property rights, open markets, an independent system of courts and freedom of expression for journalists and knowledge workers, for instance.

The maintenance of that consensus in the United States and amongst its principle trading partners is surely a test of leadership that deserves to be weighed in the balance.  And, in the long-term, may place Obama in a very positive light.

Investment analysts pick their winners

Last month, Bloomberg News released a survey of fourteen hundred investors and analysts that ranked world leaders according to their efforts to create a “more favorable business climate." Click here to read more: 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-22/merkel-wins-most-with-investors-worldwide-in-poll-on-policies-for-business.html  

Angela Merkel came in first with a “mostly favorable” rating of 56 per cent. This isn’t that surprising. Whatever you think of Germany’s incremental domestic policies, she did consent recently to bail out the Greek government and, thereby, save several European banks from possible bankruptcy. And we’ve come to understand that professional investors are bred and paid to think short-term.

Obama hasn’t saved a bank in over a year. But, is it credible to rank him almost last—at only 37 per cent, behind two appointed central bankers and Hu Jintao, President of the Republic of China and General Secretary of the Communist Party of China?

Let’s not take this too far. Those who keep small investors, economists, and entrepreneurs up at night probably aren’t, by nature, authoritarians who prefer un-elected technocrats to politicians and, when they do, they are like a lot us. But it is a bit disheartening. These people have a big say in shaping the global economy and, yet, show little regard for how the checks and balances of liberal democracy create long-term economic wealth.

Ben Bernanke could not have stopped the recession by himself and enjoys the powers he has by the consent of a duly elected senate and president. Unlike the President of China, Barack Obama cannot choose winners and decide for now that profits are more important than health services and pensions. As long as Hu Jintao gets results, no organized force can get in his way. However, surely, Western investors ought to appreciate that a superior climate for investment by capitalists requires a broad-based liberal consensus—popular support for property rights, open markets, an independent system of courts, and freedom of expression for journalists and knowledge workers, for instance.

The maintenance of that consensus in the United States and amongst its principle trading partners is surely a test of leadership that deserves to be weighed in the balance. And, in the long-term, may place Obama in a very positive light.