Recent economic data suggest a modest improvement in the job situation. While this news is nothing to celebrate–and overblown in my view–any positive movement in the economy puts those seeking to unseat President Obama in an interesting predicament. If the economy appears to be moving in the right direction around election time, the President could make the case to forgetful and less-informed voters that his “economic plan” is starting to work. Should the current strong economic case against Obama weaken a little, the President could find a way to survive in November.
It’s been said the best economists are right only 51% of the time. I agree and I’m not an economist, but one point is worth making. Recessions in the U.S. typically last less than two years and the current downturn is overdue for improvement. You can put off the purchase of a new car, a TV, or even a pair of jeans for a while, but over time things wear out and must be replaced. Markets still adjust some even in an anti-business climate. While a robust recovery is highly unlikely, the economy could improve a little in 2012. The present economic malaise is on Obama’s watch, but making that point isn’t good enough. Republicans seeking office in November should be prepared to provide clear conservative, limited-government solutions.
This is where the Republican primary gets interesting. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has laid out a clear plan to significantly shrink the size of the federal government. His foreign policy views don’t seem to click with enough primary voters to advance his candidacy, however, leaving Republicans without a consistent small-government option. I’ll leave the political analysis to others, but suffice to say that whoever survives the process will likely run against Obama as a right-leaning moderate (at best). This is where I start to get nervous.
I reject the notion that a moderate candidate has the best chance against the President. I fully expect Obama to campaign as a moderate, so its essential that the Republican nominee make a clear distinction between the two alternatives. Big government has failed us. We don’t need to slow the growth, but to make it smaller. A lot smaller.
We need to support genuine conservative candidates across the board. A small-government Congress and Senate will be necessary to advance the cause. Romney, Gingrich, or whoever can’t and won’t do it without a push from Congress.
Professor Parnell, for a long time now I have read every word you print, and considered your opinions valid. I had assumed that you subscribed to the Austrian philosophy of economics, not Keynesian economics (although I do believe that Keynes has been terribly distorted over time).
But for you to even mention Ron Paul as the only candidate who has laid out a clear plan to significantly shrink the size of goverment is on its face, disingenuous.
Those of us who also subscribe to the Austrian philosophy, having Hayak as our guiding light, know that Hayak was supported by Milton Friedman, another idol of mine. Paul does not follow the philosophy of Hayak via Friedman, but rather follows Murray Rothbard, who also contributed to Paul’s dislike for Jews and Israel.
To begin with, anyone who has looked into Congressman Paul’s record, will understand that he is mostly talk, and has never done anything in his 23 years in Congress to further the philosophy of Hayak and Friedman, who followed him. Paul is a 1938 isolationist, who thinks that if we just sing Kumbaya with other national leaders, especially those that would do us harm, and cut off their money supply, they would not try to harm us. Yes, I do think we should reevaluate our foreign aid policies, but not to the point Paul would go which would include denying money to nations hit by national disasters.
If you really want to know where Paul’s philosophy comes from, I suggest you spend a few minutes a day reading Lew Rockwell’s website. It will not take long for you to become physically ill, as Rockwell is everything conservative abhor. And Paul and Rockwell’s relationship goes back decades. Paul and Rockwell are, basically, one and the same.
Unfortunately, you cannot distance Paul’s economic philosphy from his foreign policy, as they are one and the same.
I was a pricinct leader for one of Ron Paul’s early campaigns. I remember all the promises; no pork, self-imposed term limits. None of that came to pass as he sold out not only his constituents, but the nation itself. I was also someone who received the Ron Paul letters. It was at that point that I put as much distance between myself and Congressman Paul as I could. Fortunately, redistricting gave me a new Congressman and I am no longer forced to choose between a radical Democrat or a radical who is really not a Republican.
I am truely disappointed in you.
It’s just not possible to mention Ron Paul without a sharp comment! Retire05- I disagree with your point about Friedman. We was a fine economist, but not an Austrian. Monetarists (like Friedman) and Austrians are similar is some ways but there are stark differences.
“Ron Paul is the only candidate who has laid out a clear plan to significantly shrink the size of the federal government.” Whether you like Paul or not, this is a true statement when one considers Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry as the alternatives. If you think I’m disingenuous, feel free to make your case for any of the other candidates. Each has some good ideas, but none comes close to Paul in terms of dismantling leviathan. I’m not endorsing Paul. I’m just stating a fact.
I understand the link between Paul’s foreign and domestic policy, but it’s more complex than you suggest. My point here is that Romney and the others don’t seem interested in the real cuts necessary for long term economic growth. They’re clearly preferable to Obama, but not what I would prefer as a classical liberal.
BTW, I have my own opinion but I’m steering clear of the anti-semitism issue on the blog because it’s not relevant to the topic at hand. My views are generally akin to the Austrian perspective and I choose to support them on their own merits, not the personalities or foibles of others who espouse them…I just wish it weren’t so controversial to discuss Paul’s ideas.
RETIRE, you’re missing the point. I’m not supporting Ron Paul and I don’t think Parnell is either. He’s right about the size of government. Congressman Paul is the only one willing to cut it down to size. Besides, if the others won’t talk about major cuts now, imagine what will happen when the winner moves to the center after the primary?
the split between the libertarians and the moderate conservatives is killing us. the paul loyalists need to quit hating everyone else and everyone else needs to quit hating paul. if we can’t get past this obama will get a second term and screw us all again.
Congressman Paul is the ONLY real conservative in the race. Most of the Republican party is no longer conservative, which is why Paul is so different from the others. Real conservatives are less entangled in foreign affairs and believe is SMALL LIMITED government. No real conservative could support the earned income tax credit, the EPA, or a mandatory social security program.
Dr. Parnell, it is impossible to separate Ron Paul, the man who wants to shrink the size of government, from Ron Paul, anti-semitic, best friends with Lew Rockwell, and Ron Paul, purveyor of conspiracy theories. They are one and the same. Paul is a whole package. The problem is that his supporters pick and choose which philosophies that Paul subscribes to that suits their agenda and base their support on that alone.
I have known Dr. Paul for a long time and in one of his early campaigns was a district chair, as I said before. I have watched as he became more and more radical with time. I was relieved when the district boundries changed due to a census and he was no longer my representative. I no longer had to check the box for a man who runs as a Republican out of political expendiencey.
I also know that someone doesn’t promote smaller government then soak up as much pork for his district as he can and be honest about being for smaller government. And I disagree that Paul is the only GOP candidate that would like to see a smaller, reduced government. I won’t go into a campaign speech for someone else, but the fact of the matter is that Paul has been an ineffective Congressman who could not persuade a fat man to by a McDonald’s quarter pounder. He would be equally ineffective as a president.
Paul talks a big stick, but that is all it is. He has NEVER done one thing that should cause anyone to think that he will not continue to be just as dishonest, just as deceptive as president as he has been as a Congressman. You see, when a man makes a promise to his constituents, and then goes back on that promise claiming that since no one else is doing what he promised why should he, that doesn’t speak to his philosophy, it speaks to his character.
If we can’t separate Ron Paul from his ideas we have no chance. You don’t have to reject his ideas just because you reject him as candidate. Ron Paul will never be elected president, but his ideas on the economy are the only thing that can save this country