Reading Paul Krugman’s column from this week makes me wonder if we would have been better off with a Republican in the White House trying to fend off the Great Recession. I say this not because I think the party’s platform is better. Instead, I think what they implemented might have been better. Here is why.
Under a Democratic president, especially with the current opposition party, anything the President tries will be opposed because they don’t want him to be successful. So no matter how moderate - or even right-of-center - the policy is, it is and was opposed.
Now consider a Republican, like Reagan or even McCain (maybe even Romney). They would do whatever is in their power to end the recession so they could stay in office. This would mean not pursuing austerity yet. It would probably also mean stimulating tax cuts, which Republicans have mostly refused this time around.
The point I am making is that Republicans are opposing anything Obama calls for with the hope of keeping him a one-term president. They would however enact some of these same policies if they were in power.
The question is whether Democrats would be as obstructive as Republicans were. I doubt it; I can't see Democrats preventing a stimulus - even tax cuts only - if it would help with unemployment. Also, Bush was successful at passing a stimulus with a Democratic Congress.
Of course, I don’t think the answer is to let Republicans lead just because they are unwilling to support good policies if it comes from a Democrat. But it is a sign of the ugliness of the party and how it affects the country - especially the unemployed.
No comments:
Post a Comment