In his latest New York Times column, Paul Krugman alleges that the Republican party has been deliberately obstructing measures that might help the American economy. I don't know enough about Republican strategy to be able to guess whether or not this is true, but if it were it would make excellent tactical sense.
As Ezra Klein of the Washington Post points out, incumbent politicians in growing economies almost always win elections. Incumbency and whether or not the economy is growing are by far the two most important factors that determine elections. The Republicans did their best to prevent the former in 2008. In 2012, the only one which they have any control over is the latter, the economy. Add to this calculus the fact that most measures that boost the economy significantly today have some future cost, and it becomes easier to understand why an anti-growth strategy could feel justified.
No comments:
Post a Comment