Sobering Statistics and Economic Commentary
Ryan | 11 06 2008If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!
From 2005 to 2007, he voted with his party 97 percent of the time, reports the Politico…[McCain on the other hand] sided with his party only 83 percent of the time from 2005 to 2007.
Not that most of us at the New School haven’t been saying this for some time, but these statistics remind us of how political perception is often divorced from reality–especially during this election. For all the talk of Obama “not want[ing] to pit Red America against Blue America” and McCain running for “a third Bush term,” their legislative histories (although it is probably unfair to call Obama’s cup of coffee in the Senate a “history”) indicate that these claims do not stand on their own.
Senator Obama has offered little, if anything, remnant of an independent streak in Congress. He has practically been toeing the Democratic Party line for the entire three weeks (or three years–I can’t remember) he’s represented Illinois. Despite cries to the contrary, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise why the National Journal ranked Senator Obama the most liberal Senator in 2007, and one of the most liberal in the body over his short career. Nor does he have any notable legislative accomplishments (to the extent of my knowledge and research), but that shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.
Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with Obama being a partisan and/or left-winger if that is what he truly believes. But, if that is the case, the problem is that he is trying to mask it. He has run on the idea that he will transcend the politics of the past; that he is the reformer–the breath of fresh air who is immune to partisanship. At the same time, as a Senator he has been the Democratic Party Platform manifest, even before he started running. So while he is (incorrectly) claiming that McCain is running for Bush’s third term, he, himself, is running for little more than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s ascension to the White House.
To be sure, John McCain still shares many of George Bush’s policy stances (and has strangely–and by strangely, I mean politically conveniently–shared an increasing number of those positions at least since 2001/02), but he has also demonstrated a long-standing streak of thinking for himself. Not only has McCain dissented from his party in his career (perhaps) as many times as Barack Obama has casted votes in the Senate, but he has shown a far greater tendency to be an independently minded politician than the Jr. Senator from IL.
In light of the facts, it is clear that the rolls are the reverse of what Sen. Obama would have many think. For better or for worse, John McCain has been his own man for much of his career in DC, while, in his short time in Congress, Barack Obama has been playing something along the lines of “follow the leader” with Democratic Party Leadership.
In Economic news, a notable panel of economists, including five Nobel Laureates, were put to task discussing various, global economic policy proposals. They assessed 40 different ideas and prioritized them, in utilitarian fasion, in order of how much good they would do for the welfare of the world’s population. The top of the list included relatively cheap nutrition and immunization for third world youth (tens of millions), which would yield hundreds of millions to billions of productivity in the future.
The top also included global expansion of free trade coming out of the Doha trade talks, which, according to studies by present economists could produce as much as $113 trillion in new wealth in the 21st century at a maximum opportunity cost of $420 billion from displaced industries.
What was perhaps most notable however was that Global Warming mitigation (as well as research and development to that end) came in at 39 and 40–the very bottom of the list. The explanation was that the costs of proposed policies to economic production and growing dynamism of the world economy will be very great, while the reasons and benefits for such overhauls have been speculative, and in some cases minimal.
Also of note: an opinion piece in today’s WSJ reminds us of the daily, yet revolutionary change that the market has offered America–and the world–over the course of history as well as in modern times. This sort of change, which coincides with unprecedented growth in standard of living, in the US and around the world, is produced by innovation and free trade both within and between nations–another sobering fact to those partial to a different type of change.
Last 5 posts by Ryan
- Scarcity, Shmarcity - June 26th, 2008
- The Greatness of Southpaws - June 26th, 2008
- Step One: Open mouth... - June 23rd, 2008
- Obama: Humbly setting out to save the world - June 8th, 2008
- There's a whole ocean of oil out there... - June 7th, 2008
Popularity: 54% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
The Sobering Statistics and Economic Commentary by New School Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
