The Economic Thought of John McCain, Cont.

James Fallows says he hasn't seen all the Republicans debate before last night and that Mitt Romney kicked ass:

McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee all notably ill at ease when asked to say anything about the economy. (Huckabee: building two new lanes on I-95, Maine to Florida, as an energy saving measure???) When Romney asked Giuliani a specific question about how to deal with China, the answer reminded me of the way I would sound if asked to fill 90 seconds discussing my favorite fashion designers. McCain attempting to describe his economy policy by listing his advisors. (Jack Kemp?) The more the economy matters as The general election issue, the less this will cut it -- and the more Romney can use at least the veneer of his being able to discuss the issue.

Jack Kemp? It's fascinating that McCain is not only relying on this "some of my best friends have opinions about economic policy" but that he doesn't seem to have any idea who these people are or what it is they think. After all, former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin is also a senior economic policy advisor for McCain. Holtz-Eakin is a well-respected guy with mainstream cred. He's a traditional conservative and a big deficit hawk. Kemp is the complete reverse, the original legislative leader of the supply-side faction that came to dominate the GOP with its "less taxes, more tax revenue but in principle we should cut spending anyway for some reason" dogma.

When Mike Huckabee revealed his ignorance of foreign policy by proclaiming himself a Tom Friedman meets Frank Gaffney kind of guy on national security issues, he took big, big hits in the press. Will McCain suffer for similar flailing as he tries to establish an identity on economics? Somehow I doubt it, but like Fallows I think an inability to get a grip on this stuff is bound to catch up with him sooner or later.

Comments

I'm waiting for Jordan to lodge a diplomatic protest for being accused by a possible future U.S. president of complicity in hiding WMD from Saddam's Iraq.

Posted by steve duncan | January 25, 2008 2:13 PM

Jack Kemp ... The man fancies himself as an economic intellectual, but if Bob Dole had won in 1996, I have no doubt Kemp would have given Dan Quayle serious competition for the stupidest things ever said by a sitting Vice President...

Posted by DanF | January 25, 2008 2:16 PM

Jack Kemp longs for the gold standard.

Posted by Pritesh | January 25, 2008 2:30 PM

Debating a GOP-loyalist yesterday in a public forum and he states that tax cuts always increase revenue and as evidence cites a USA Today op-ed by Bill Frist. As Atrios would say, owww the stupid - it burns.

My point being, citing Jack Kemp is a certain bonus in the GOP primary. If these people are too dense to see that their claims undermine the very premise for the existence of the GOP then there is zero chance they will be concerned by a Holtz-Eakin/Kemp conflict.

The media? They'll let McCain slide as he talks up national security issues. The press loves a tough-talking manly man. Who wants to talk about tax policy? That's so Eastern and effete.

Posted by Steve Balboni | January 25, 2008 3:10 PM

Cutting wasteful spending to reduce deficits is an admirable goal in good times, but to put it forward as a remedy during an economic downturn betrays an incredible ignorance of Keynesian economics. But nobody calls McCain on it.

Posted by bob h | January 25, 2008 3:18 PM

Whether or not McCain understands the details, what's wrong with him having economic advisers with varying philosophies? Sounds better than Bush surrounding himself with Yes Men or Giuliani having a national security team of warmongering batshit crazies. Haven't we been rightly showing contempt for the Bush/Giuliani approach for years?

Posted by Randy G | January 25, 2008 3:27 PM

Randy - I would say there is nothing wrong with having advisers of "varying philosophies."

When one has advisers who are diametrically opposed to each other though it betrays a sense ignorance to the subject at hand.

Posted by Steve Balboni | January 25, 2008 4:10 PM

Steve....

I won't disagree, since it seems that McCain is showing little coherence on economics matters when you look at the whole picture. McCain's been around long enough to have established a reasonable window of where he stands on economic issues. It's clear that he's suddenly taken to pandering to the base in a shallow manner.

But, in general, having devil's advocates around to engage in honest internal debates can and should be healthy.

Posted by Randy G | January 25, 2008 4:49 PM

When Mike Huckabee revealed his ignorance of foreign policy by proclaiming himself a Tom Friedman meets Frank Gaffney kind of guy on national security issues, he took big, big hits in the press. Will McCain suffer for similar flailing as he tries to establish an identity on economics?

No

With apologies to Atrios - that's a simple answer to a simple question.

Posted by Tiparillo | January 25, 2008 4:59 PM

Hey, hate to be the grammar/spelling nazi, but it really should be "supply-side fiction."

Posted by Jack Roy | January 25, 2008 10:06 PM

It's a crying shame that, in an election in which the economy is the most important issue, the frontrunners of both parties are utterly ignorant on the subject.
I'm ready to take a closer look at the second tier...The same sources that told me they aren't worth consideration are the same that told me these clowns were!

Posted by Cagey B | January 26, 2008 11:54 AM

With McCain it's not "the economy stupid". It's "let's not forget about Illegal Immigration stupid". McCain's past AND present support of amnesty for Illegals is a CRIME against every law-abiding immigrant or would be immigrant as well as a crime against every law-abiding, tax-paying American citizen! No one who undermines the rule of LAW in this way and violates every principle of justice and fairness should ever again be Commander in Chief!

Posted by Michael Litz | January 26, 2008 4:09 PM

all this talk about the ecomonmy and republicans and not one mention of ron paul. ron paul and mitt romney are obviously the two most versed in economics and they both have to different views. considering where the economy is heading the media and yourself should be focusing on these candidates. yet not one mention, not even of ron paul asking mccain about his opinion on the presidents board of free market thingy mobop as john would say.

Posted by dan | January 27, 2008 2:55 PM

I have never heard Mitt Romney say anything about economic theory other than cut taxes. To presume he has an overarching philosophy about economics from running a company - well, then, our last two Treasury secretaries have run big companies, and all they've managed to do is feebly complain about China. The words "monetary policy" have, to my knowledge, never crossed Romney's lips.

Vote for Ron Paul. He's written books on Austrian economics. Mitt has yet to read one.

Posted by Fazsha | February 4, 2008 3:07 PM