If you want to embark on a journey at the end of which you
will know why history is often invoked in modern American political debates,
and why modern economic studies invoke the conclusions of other studies before
drawing their own conclusion, you may begin the journey by reading two
editorials in two major newspapers.
The first editorial came under the title: “The Shallow End
of the Campaign” and was published on September 11, 2012 in the New York Times.
The second came under the title: “Romney's Pre-Existing Politics” and the
subtitle: “The GOP candidate might try explaining his policies. Just a Thought”
and was published on the same day in the Wall Street Journal.
The Times editorial starts like this: “...the country is in
for eight weeks of wild, often random answers to some important policy
questions. Voters trying to understand the positions of Mr. Romney and
Representative Paul Ryan are going to have a harder time than ever.” And so the
editors of the Times go on to assess the performance of the Romney team with
regard to health care, taxes and defense spending. They provide a link to the
Washington Post which discusses a Martin Feldstein article that critiques a
study conducted by the Tax
Policy Center
As to the Wall Street Journal editorial, it starts like
this: “When Mitt Romney ventures into health care, political trouble usually
follows.” And so, the editors of the Journal go on to counsel Romney on how to
conduct himself. It all sounds like a 4 year old who is trying to teach
political science to a 4 year old.
What's all this about? Well, it all started when the team of
President Barack Obama went on the campaign trail and said it would be a good
thing at this time to raise taxes on the rich to help reduce the deficit that
is getting out of sight. On the other hand, the team of Mitt Romney which is
challenging the President in this electoral year has said it is not a good
thing to raise taxes at any time. However, the team went on to qualify its own saying
by adding that if you must increase the government revenues, do not single out
the rich but raise the taxes on everyone.
Something then happened as these things always crop up in a
political campaign. Each side started to invoke the parts of history that
suited it to support the point of view it was articulating. The parts most
often invoked by the Obama team were the good old days of Democratic President
Bill Clinton when the economy added millions of new jobs. And the parts most
often invoked by the Mitt Romney team were the good old days of Republican
President Ronald Reagan when the growth of the economy was steady as well as
sturdy.
The Romney team reminded the electorate that Ronald Reagan's
presidency performed well economically through the better part of the Nineteen
Eighties. On the other hand, the Obama team reminded the electorate that Bill
Clinton's presidency performed well economically through the better part of the
Nineteen Nineties. Not mentioned by either side was George Bush who was the
forty-first president of the United
States ; the man that served one term only
after Reagan, having been his vice-president. He presided over a bad economic
performance which is probably why he was defeated by Bill Clinton and replaced
by him.
The son, George W. Bush -- who was elected forty-third
president of the United
States -- followed Bill Clinton and served
two terms at the start of the Twenty First Century. He had an economic
performance that was not exactly stellar throughout the period, and then ended
his presidency with the economic disaster that was the near collapse of the
American financial system. This was an event that inflicted terrible wounds on
the whole world not just America ,
and having consequences that reverberate to this day at home and abroad. Thus,
you can imagine that its influence has been enormous on the presidency of
Barack Obama who took over from Bush forty-three, inheriting the mess he left
behind and expected to fix it.
In fact, what prompted the Obama and Romney teams to invoke
history in the current campaign was that a quarrel had erupted between the two
as to who was responsible for the anemic rate of growth registered these days
in the United States of
America and around the world. The question
was asked: Is this the responsibility of Barack Obama who has been in office
for nearly four years? Or is it the responsibility of Bush 43 who left behind a
mess so extensive no president could have cleaned it in four years?
The Romney team has been blaming the low rate of growth on
the policy of big government which it says the Obama administration has
adopted. In response, the Obama team has been blaming the previous
administration which it says adopted a policy of reducing taxes while
conducting two foreign wars and implementing a drug plan at home – all of which
were promised to be redeemed by installment. This was the policy that ran up
the deficit and piled the huge debt, says the Obama team. And those were the
old promises that the current administration is obliged to redeem only now.
As to the debate on how to reduce the deficit if not start
paying off a national debt that has grown to equal the GDP, the suggestion of
the Obama team to tax the rich was countered by the Romney team with the
argument that all the money earned by the rich would not be enough to make a
dent in the yearly deficit, let alone start paying off the accumulated debt.
Instead of doing this, said the Romney team, the loopholes in the tax code
should be closed, a move that will help reduce the deficit and pay off the
debt.
But this will punish the middle class, protested the Obama
team, and this is a group that has been battered enough already. No, said the
Romney team, because the loopholes are mainly used by the rich. It added that
the middle class will barely be affected by such a move if at all.
And this is where the public rolled its collective eyes and
sighed a sigh of dismay because to say that you can get more money closing the
loopholes on the rich than by taxing the money they make using the loopholes is
to talk like a 4 year old who is trying to teach arithmetic to a 4 year old.
In the end, the fact remains that an economy goes through a
cycle which does not always match the electoral cycle of the nation. For
example, a thorough study of the Bush 41 recession will show that it was caused
by the Reagan policies. As well, a thorough study of the boom years of the Clinton administration
will show that they started towards the end of the Bush 41 administration.
Thus, the ascription of credit to the self and of blame to
others is the sort of child play that America can do without at this
juncture.
May these people grow up and start talking like responsible
adults.