For the majority of pro-American people around the world, Election Day 2004 was a bitter pill to swallow. Just about everyone outside the country could see what a mess Bush was making in Iraq and what damage he was doing to America’s international standing, but the majority of electors voted for him (a narrow majority, but more than he got when falsely presenting himself as “a uniter not a divider” in 2000).
Still, getting things wrong from time to time is part of democracy, and some things are more easily seen from abroad than at home (think of how badly we collectively got it wrong on asylum-seekers in 2001, and how long its taken to achieve even a partial reversal of those policies). As Tuesday’s election results have shown, most Americans have come to the same view of Bush and his war as most people everywhere else in the world.
John Quiggin 
Economists Are Destroying America
Economists, politicians, and executives from both parties have promised American families that “free� trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO/CHINA would accomplish three things:
• Increase wages
• Create trade surpluses (for the US)
• Reduce illegal immigration
Well, their trade policies have been in effect for about 15 years. Let’s review the results:
• Declining real wages for 80% of working Americans (while healthcare, education, and childcare costs skyrocket)
• A record-high 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance (due in part to declining wages and benefits)
• Illegal immigration out of control
• Soaring trade deficits, much with countries that use slave and child labor
• Personal and national debt both out-of-control
• Global environments threatened by lax trade deal enforcement
Economists Keep Advocating Policies That Aren’t Working
Upon seeing incontrovertible evidence of these negative trade agreement results, economists continue with Pollyannish blather. Some say, “Cheer up! GDP is up and the stock market’s doing fine.� Others say, “Be patient. Stay the course. Free trade will raise all ships.�
Even those economists who acknowledge problems with trade agreements offer us only half-measures—adjusting exchange rates, improving safety nets, and providing better job retraining. None of these will close the wage gap in America—and economists know it.
Why Aren’t American Economists Shouting From Street Corners?
America needs trade deals that support American families and businesses in terms of wage, environmental, and intellectual property abuses. Why aren’t economists demanding renegotiation of our trade deals? There are three primary reasons:
• Economists are too beholden to corporations and special interests that provide them with research grants.
• Economists believe—but refuse to admit—that sacrificing the American middle class is necessary and appropriate to generate gains in third world economies.
• Economists refuse to admit they make mistakes.
Economic Ambulance Chasers
Now more than ever, Americans need their economists to speak truth and stand up to their big business clients. Instead, economists sound like lawyers caught chasing ambulances: they claim they’re “doing it for our benefit�.
In 15 states in the USA,the Republicans now hold no seats at all…over 275 seats changed hands in state legislatures. This shows the extent of the swing . and Rumsfeld is gone !!! but when do the War Crimonals get sent to the Hague ?? Bush,Blair ,Howard….Hopefully soon !
My reading of things is that the majority view in the world is that Bush’s war was not just pragmatically bad, but a grave evil. Of course, given the intractability of gaining a decent understanding of even local opinion, my reading of what ‘the world’ thinks is worth as much as anyone else’s (ie. just about nothing).
But I wonder about the electoral backlash: do they really think Bush and henchmen are bad, or just that they are losers? If the US armed forces were cheerfully killing and torturing lots of ‘terrrists’ and ‘insurgents’, and US casualties were seeming reasonably under control and diminishing in numbers, what would have happened yesterday?
I suspect that the result in this case would have depended a great deal on the media. I don’t think it’s too wild to suggest that their cultural myths are weighted towards violence, thus the notion of a President being ‘strong’ and dealing death to distant foreigners would do an incumbent no harm. But how robust these myths would be in the face of detailed media scrutiny of the human reality of such violence is another matter entirely.
I’m not sure if this makes me anti-American. I know I find the idea of a world without jazz close to intolerable.
John,
I’m surfing in from the USA. I’m an economist in NC. Basically, I would describe myself as a somewhat conservative libertarian (eg I support gay marriage but you and I part ways on the 2nd amendment). I say these things to reduce an unfair information asymmetry (since I know more about your views than you do mine). I do agree that yesterday’s vote was a huge rebuke for Bush and the congressional Republicans, but I think in very complex ways:
1. There was the anti-war element. But these people were out in force in 2004. While I admit their ranks have swelled since then, I think more must have been at play.
2. Bush has considerably undermined his support among traditional Reagan conservatives. From bloated highway bills to medicare part D, his gov’t delivered exactly the things those people voted him into office *not* to deliver.
3. I think the steady stream of scandal in congress (which is more about the corruption of power than part-remember the congressional Democrats of the late Eighties and early Nineties?) discouraged some elements that came out in force for Bush in ’04 (the values voters/religious right in particular).
The Dems won this thing largely by running against 1 and 3. They haven’t really delivered a compelling affirmative agenda of their own yet. That’s when we’ll see if this is at all an enduring victory.
As for the Bush administration policies that have most enraged the world, don’t get too excited yet. Check out the following recent editorial in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110102972.html
I have the answer now to my question about fusion voting. As implied it was defeated comprehensively with a 65% No vote. Perhaps the suggestion is here that it actually makes sense to implement at a local level, as is happening in some areas with preferencial voting (instant run off), so people can gain experience with them and not be spooked by the inevitable critics.
John Konop,
I am an economist and none of my funding comes from such sources (unless you regard the NIH, NSF, etc. as similarly tainted). But my views are often in line with those of the “economists” you cite. So how do you explain the enigma that is me?
I want to zero in on one point in your speech, b/c it is an area I have been tracking: there is little consistent empirical evidence to support many of the hypothesized links between trade and environmental damage (eg the pollution haven hypothesis). If trade has any deleterious effects its is probably by driving up incomes (but that’s rather another breathless rant, right?).
Oh, by the by, the trend toward liberalizing trade has been in place a lot longer in the US.
I prefer to avoid the good vs evil arguments – they make me extremely uneasy, with so much being subjective and subject to personal belief systems as well the quality of information that is digested within them. I know I find the “satisfaction” and even pleasure felt when seeing someone believed to be bad getting hurt very disturbing, given that it does not require clear and incontrovertable evidence to have these feelings evoked. So much horrific violence gets “justified” to the perpetrators and their supporters through these feelings. They are the basis of much fictional drama and unfortunately enter the broader public psyche through our media, who are not obliged to be fair, accurate or balanced, and seem unconcerned with the blurring of notions of justice and of revenge whilst remaining very much in tune with the emotional impact that a good story can evoke. When the bad guy gets his just deserts, it’s a neat and emotionally satisfying conclusion. If not, then outrage at the injustice can keep the whole thing going another episode or two.
Is it just that urge to revenge, to payback, that sent us into Iraq, and made it for a time popular? Kick their Asses, Yeah? Surely the peace only comes when enough people, as injustly treated as they may have been say let those grievances go for the sake of our futures. “Fight on to the last, let no wrong go unavenged” makes great drama, with heroism and sacrifice and all that but in fiction the good are portrayed as clear and distinct from evil and will invariably win despite the odds unless more episodes are planned. Back in reality it takes unbiased courts of law, carefully weighing evidence without fear or favour, to get even remotely close to something called justice.
Pr Q.
Just about everyone outside the country could see what a mess Bush was making in Iraq and what damage he was doing to America’s international standing, but the majority of electors voted for him
I think you’re half right. The failure to stabilise Iraq is definately a major PR problem, and I think Bush has been forced to acknowledge this by getting Rumsfeld to resign today.
As for the “international standing” issue, I don’t think many Americans care too much about that. Bush was never going to have a strong international standing, seeing as he isn’t as articulate or charming as Clinton. Clinton’s smooth and sometimes sleazy skills may have looked great and given him a strong standing in the international community, especially with his massive efforts to form an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, and bomb the living hell out of Kosovo to protect Muslims, but this didn’t help Americans one bit and all they got in return was 9-11.
People seem to get carried away during elections. The same issues exist, the same problems in the world exist, and government has never done much to solve major issues of conflict.
Only difference now – a whole new range of US government pork and spending will be handed out to suit the Democrats liking.
You’re right, there’s a lot to be positive about, like the first socialist senator and the first muslim member of congress.
Watching Bernie Sanders’ interview is particularly heartening.
But JQ when you said about Bush in 2004: “the majority of electors voted for him”.
No, they didn’t
Scott,
Technically, what John Quiggin said is right. I think you are confusing the electorate (those who vote on election day) with the US electoral college (whose vote actually decides the presidency and whose members are usually referred to as “members of the electoral college” but are sometimes, and properly, called “electors”). Bush got his slim electoral college victory. You can lose the popular vote overall in the US and still win the Presidency as long as you get the majority in enough states that you command the majority in the electoral college. For instance, if you got 51% of the popular vote in just enough states to win in the electoral college but your opponent got 100% in the remaining states, you’d be president despite almost certainly getting wiped out in the popular vote.
As for the rest (ie whether Bush actually won Ohio), I’ve seen arguments ad nauseum both ways and all miss the point: as in 2000 it should never have been close. The issue is not how some blacks in Ohio in 2004 or old ladies in Ft. Lauderdale in 2000 didn’t get to vote, but how in 2000 Gore and in 2004 Kerry ran such inept campaigns against such a fundamentally vulnerable candidate (Bush) that it came down to local irregularities in one or two states. Nader was right in 2000 and the same sentiment could have been applied in 2004: how could Gore manage to lose to Bush? That’s the real story you should be thinking about if you to see a more competitive political situation in the US. In the last two national elections, we’ve been back to politically inept campaign traditions first established by Mondale (84) and Dukakis (88). Hopefully last night signals a return to Clintonian political competence, but that is far from established.
Scott,
Put a bit differently, I believe that if Bill Clinton ran for the first time in either 2000 or 2004 against Dubya, he would have won. The thing you should really focus on if you care about Democratic politics is why the party seems to generate so many political mediocraties for every Bill Clinton. And I’m talking about basics here, not lofty ideology. Did you watch the first Gore/Bush debate in 2000? They should have released it as a movie: “Deconstructing Al”. Have you every *really* watched Kerry speak? When he isn’t shooting his feet (too much was made of his remarks about our soldiers in Iraq last week but that in no way exonerates him: the jackass should realize finally that he lives in an age where you can bet on too much being made of such things) his boring his audience to death (I don’t think the man has ever grasped that a United Auto workers rally or VH1 Rock the Vote town meeting is not like talking to the Harvard Society of Fellows).
As has been stated by many people (including Michael Moore), Americans don’t read. In his 2001 book, Stupid White Men, Moore stated that on average most US citizens would read less than one book a year. If all your information is coming from one source (like Fox – fair and balanced my…), what do you expect!
I remember the campaign against Kerry. The brainiac Rove (or one of his underlings) came up with the flip-flop line. What really p’d me off was that Dubya had used the term “War President” in many of his speeches, then suddenly, when the polls tightened up, claimed he was a “Peace President”. Besides being a flip-flop, it had Orwellian doublespeak written all over it. Why Kerry didn’t jump on it, I do not know.
Smiley,
Just the kind of stuff that will turn average Americans around to the outlook of men like Michael Moore: arguing that their views are simply a function of their failure to read. Have you considered running for the US presidency as a Democrat in 2008?
Seriously, attitudes like yours and Moore’s would be funny if they hadn’t played right into the hands of Republican “populists” and cost the Dems so many elections.
Peter,
Point conceded re the definition of “electors”.
I’m actually far less concerned about which rich white man from which faction of the money party won in 2004 than I am about the methods of rigging of the election process you so readily dismiss. Those are processes that make it very difficult to be pro-American.
Scott,
I’m not saying it isn’t important. But it isn’t central: either Gore or Kerry should have beaten him by a margin wide enough to allow no real scope for decisive monkey business (and there is such a margin: you saw it in most states last night).
Besides, who around the world really has a case against us that could not just as easily be turned on them in similar circumstances? The truth is that no voting system on earth will perfectly deal with votes as close as 2000 and 2004. But they should not have been that close. That *is* the real issue here.
“how could Gore manage to lose to Bush?”
he didnt, it came down to one state, rigged, and the supreme court, rigged
if you want to know who’s in charge really, james baker III,
prove me wrong
Smiths,
The 2000 election was kind of like a soccer game. Various Republicans were on the field until then there was only Bush. Meanwhile, a really gifted player named Bill Clinton was basically running up an 8 goal lead, which he handed to his elected (in the primaries) heir, Al Gore, at the appropriate time for such a substitution (the end of any real competition in the Democratic primaries). Then, on election day, Bush may have been offsides when he scored his final goal to beat Gore 9 goals to 8. Anyone who wants to be successful in either soccer or politics will focus on how Gore managed to lose an 8 goal lead rather than whether Bush snuck one in at the end. If you can’t see that, you really aren’t in a position to enlighten us about who is in charge. I am tired of seeing the Dems lose, horribly skewing US politics in the process, in large part b/c they don’t think like winners. And yes, it really is as simple as that.
One interesting thing about the Democrats and their activist base in this last election cycle: they finally shut up about Florida 2000 and focused competently on the task at hand. And they won!
What does that tell you?
Its late in the US south and I’m going to bed. I hope that the Dems can capitalize on this and make US politics competitive again. I hope they do not go down some of the dead ends mentioned here and end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That’s all I can say about it.
Pr Q says:
This gets it exactly wrong. One might say that this issue is one of those ones that liberal pundits get wrong from time to time.
In 2001 the Australian populus vindicated Howard’s policy of reforming immigration and refugee policy. They have to live with the failed ideologies of their elites. This reversed a generation of rorts and follies perpetrated by the Wets, which had left two major Sydney suburbs into war zones, brought about the jailing of an immigration minister for felony and provoked Australias first political assasination.
Something drastic had to be done. Were it not for Howards strong stand for an alien intake policy based on the national interest Australia would be going down the same disastrous track beaten by the USE and USA ie terrorist harbours, ethnic ghettos and crime mafias.
Its a pity that a small number of legitimate assylum seekers got buggerised around in the process. But there were much more bigger issues to fry at the time, including putting a stop to the lethal people smuggling trade which had slaughtered hundreds of reckless assylum seekers over the nineties. (The Wets hardly made a peep about that slow motion catastrophe at the time, given the absence of Howard-hating angle.)
The results speak for themselves. In this country ethnic unrest and unruly behaviour has dampened down over the past decade. The majority of the Australian population now support a high flow of (largel NESB) immigrants selected on the basis of economic and ethical, rather than ethnic, criteria.
And the decent Wets have largely returned to their proper home in the liberal wing of the Liberal party. The partisan interests of ethnic lobbies, over-lawyered activists and chronic Howard-haters have been consigned to the DoH.
Professor John Quiggin wrote: “For the majority of pro-American people around the world, Election Day 2004 was a bitter pill to swallow.”
The same could be said of the majority of pro-Australian people around the world in regards to 9 October 2004. Let’s make sure that the Australian public are not fooled again in 2007.
I am very pro-American. I too am not so hot on the second amendment, but the rest of the Bill of Rights is excellent (although what is amendment III all about: “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”).
Dems winning is undoubtedly good for America. Maybe next time the Reps get control they’ll do a better job.
proust,
This was directly targetted at an old British army habit of moving in to housing without asking. The British army tried using it during the rebellion (AKA the War of Independence) to try to counter the insurgency and terror tactics being used by the rebels to try to throw out the British army that they saw as being foreign invaders.
It was not entirely succesful as a tactic, but it did succeed in annoying the residents of those houses.
Funny amendment since if it is only going to be useful in times of insurgency or revolution, it’s unlikely the insurgents or revolutionaries will stop what they are doing just because you wave the constitution under their noses (recent example: Iraq).
It was simply meant to make sure it never happened during peace time and, during a war, only on conditions that had been sanctioned by law.
I don’t know whether it is because I am an outsider in the US, and hence see things more objectively than I do in Australia, but it has always struck me how the principals underlying the US constitution seem to be reflected in the culture (eg individualism, lack of respect for big government), whereas in Australia you don’t seem to feel the influence of the constitution in the culture.
fair comment peter,
gore did squander some of the momentum gifted him, but clinton had already done that to a fair degree,
it still doesnt change the fact that it came down to the line, it was totally rigged and gore was swindled in the final moments,
by… James Baker III
Baker served as chief legal advisor for George W. Bush during the 2000 election campaign and oversaw the Florida recount. He was instrumental in getting the Supreme Court to intervene in the Florida vote recount.
On september 11th, 2001, he stood with former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci and representatives of the bin Laden family watching it all unfold at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, for the annual investor conference of the Carlyle Group. Things went very well for them after that day.
Hes the lawyer for the Saudi government.
The judge who decided not to freeze the assests of Enron executives in January later recused herself from the case because she was a former employee of Baker & Botts, because of her ties to George Bush and the fact that she had been an Enron stockholder.
‘State of Denial’ by investigative reporter Bob Woodward says that White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card urged President Bush to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with Baker following the 2004 election.
On January 5, 2006, he participated in a meeting at the White House of former Secretaries of Defense and State to discuss United States foreign policy with Bush administration officials.
On March 15, 2006, Congress announced the formation of the Iraq Study Group, of which he is the Republican co-chair along with Lee Hamilton
he alone will decide the future of american foreign policy,
“he alone will decide the future of american foreign policy”
At least he has his own office at the whitehouse from which to do it.
As Palast points out, he’s the first representative of a foreign govermnent in history to be granted one.
Getting a tad off topic now, but you forgot to the 323 page State Department report, Options for a Sustatinable Iraqi Oil Industry, written by Big Oil and the James Baker III institute’s Amy Jaffe.
As Palast’s brilliant research illustrates, the Baker institute plan was to overthrow Saddam in three days in a “disguised coup” and to maintain OPECs and a few oil companies’ control of perhaps the worlds most strategic asset. Unfortunately for Iraqi society, the OPEC smashing theocons over at the Pentagon had their own plan of privatisation, drilling too much oil and long term occupation. The two went to war across the Potomac and in Iraq.
There is a lot to admire about USA but to win back real admiration they would have to close Guantanamo Bay and work out a real solution to the Iraq mess. Bush knew nothing about Foreign affairs or policy when he was elected and this ignorance on his part and that of his advisors was resonsible for many of the poor decisions made in Afghanistan and Iraq. A basic history of Afghanistan would have shown that this home of Osama Bin Laden would be extraordinarily difficult to tame. The move to the Oil Fields in Iraq whilst leaving the man wanted dead or alive and believed to be responsible for Sept 11 in his Cave was disastrous for all but the money men cronies that Bush favours.
The Democrats win in both houses does a great deal to restore credibility – however it will need to be followed up by decent actions. Hanging chads and lost votes are not decent and invading someone else’s country on a lie is not decent either.
Jack
The the primary cause of the spike in boat arrivals were large scale humanitarian crises in Afghanistan and Iraq to which the West made a not insignificant contribution. 2001 is nothing to be proud of.
I don’t have any problem with the idea that US voters got it right in both 2004 and in 2006. Only a foreigner would think that US foreign policy should be the only issue to concern US voters or that it’s rating of importance should not wax and wane over time. More often than not voters make the right choice given the mostly lousy menu they are offered.
I wholeheartedly agree with the thrust of Pr Q’s remarks. THe Bush admin has behaved in a generally immoral, if not criminal, fashion. The Dems dramatic victory will not only put a veto in the way of Bushs bad policies. It will also give them the power to investigate these crimes, shedding light on a dark chapter in US history.
It is also time for more pundits to admit that their support for Bush was a combination of folly and knavery.
Jack Stracchi,
Those investigations you refer to will only go so far b/c the Dems are in some real sense essentially complicit in those so-called “crimes”: they went along wholeheartedly with Bush’s war powers and provided little oversight, formal or otherwise. The truth is that outside of the self-described “progressive” wing of their party, they went along for the ride, and got off when it was politically convenient to do so.
I have very thoughful friends in the US who supported Bush for some time after difficult examination of the costs and benefits. I can assure you that you are wrong about their motivations.
You are now into the same trap Bush did: trying to turn things into a simple morality play. Can’t you see that?
I keep hearing ad nauseum about the need for Americans to recognize some essential truth many of the commentors here feel they possesss. But, even if their position has its merits, those commentors can’t even seem to see who is looking back at them in the mirror: Bush, cloaked in the robes of the Left.
Sorry, meant to say “You are now falling into the same trap Bush did”
If we are to accept that the Bush govt acted immorally if not criminally and was inept, corrupt etc etc, the win by the Dems may not be good enough and may be the high point for a 2008 Republican win.
Now they have control over two houses Dems are going to have to do more than be the opposition.
Some very interesting discussion on what may come out of the new congress in today’s broadcast. Much to be optimistic about.
http://www.democracynow.org
Great that our kids can learn all about Iran-Contra again…
I’ve spent a very small amount of time in the US and mostly in Dem controlled states and areas. Americans are lovely, warm people in my experience.
I think that they are not any more worried about the original motives for Iraq than they were before – the ones who are against it always were, but others, more than anything, despise Bush for starting to lose what appeared to have been a won battle. The car stickers supporting the troops are still in strong evidence (and they are easily peeled off). As I said, they are great folks, but they hate losing.
The corruption scandals (again IMHO) would have turned a number of folks off voting who would otherwise have been Republican votes. It’s an option we don’t see here, as people, once forced to the polling booth do not tend to vote informally deliberately.
As for us and our policies on immigration, it was Tweedledee and Tweedledum? Bomber was trying to be harder than Howard on the topic. But I rode a fair bit of public transport at the time, and both sides had their polling right to judge by most of the conversations I overheard. We got precisely the policy we deserved, and yes, that is democracy.
I was particularly struck both by Peter’s indifference to the self-serving illegality
and injustice of the Iraq war (“simple morality play”) and by R.Kagan’s frank statement
(in the article Peter linked to) that “Americans of both parties simply have more belief in the utility and even justice of military action than do most other peoples around the world”. And Kagan
isn’t the first to notice this feature of the US as an international player.
I try not to be too violently anti-american, but after Vietnam, Iraq and all the other invasions, lies
and manipulations it just gets harder and harder. How long, I wonder, before I adopt the same attitude to Americans as my mother (an Englishwoman) had towards the Germans?
Gordon,
I am not indifferent to the Iraq war. I have a friend over there right now. Tell me, do you?
And I have heard and reflected on arguments like yours, and thought very hard about what is the right thing to do, bearing in mind so many factors.
And yes, I am right about simple morality plays. Gordon, the Irish in my family would’ve viewed the English the same way your mom looks at the Germans. Be very careful Gordon: the list of people in this world whose shit does not stink is very, very short.
I assure you, the worst harm that has been done in history has been done by people like you, and not people like me.
By the by, injecting a moment of levity into this, I thought I’d share with you a link to a hilarious Bush impersonation that tore its way through the various American corners of the net a few weeks ago:
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/bush-impersonator-p1.php
Enjoy.
That reminds me that the legislative arm is not the only branch of the USA government that has had a change of guard. The top families and companies in the USA cannot afford to have the gang that couldnt shoot straight in charge of the worlds largest company. So the defacto President of the USA is now James Baker III.
Bush Administration, Dying at the Border
This is from “Skeptical Economist�. This is the one of the best articles I have ever read on economics and illegal immigration.
It is no secret that the Bush administration is failing and failing badly. The woes of the administration are legion, Iraq, immigration, the economy, Katrina, health care, gasoline prices, etc. The impact on public opinion is profound. Bush is well on his way to being one of the least popular presidents in U.S. history. His current popularity rating of 31% may be a high water mark. The twenties and perhaps teens are not that far off. Increasingly he has lost, not just liberals and mainstream Americans, but conservatives as well. The key question is why? Why has this once promising administration gone downhill so far and so fast? Is it just bad luck or is their a deeper force at work? In my view, the ideology and practice of Open Borders has condemned this president to complete failure. Could the Bush administration turn itself around by changing its stance on immigration? Yes, but it is exceedingly unlikely to happen. Bush is doomed and may not finish his term in office.
It is clear that the immigration polices of this administration are deeply unpopular and contrary to what the public wants. Clearly, immigration is contributing mightily to the low standing of this president. However, immigration is also directly responsible for the economic failings of this president and is (one step removed) also responsible for the debacle in Iraq. Immigration is also partially responsible for all of the other problems (Kartrina, gasoline prices, health care, Dubai ports, etc.). The links between immigration and what ails Bush (and America) are explained in more detail below. What should be clear by the end, is that immigration is either directly or partially for everything (and there is a lot) that is weighing down this president.
The immigration failures of this administration are obvious. The border is totally out of control and Bush completely refuses to even try to control it. Ordinary Americans are demanding immigration control and Bush has abandoned even the pretense of enforcing our laws (by some measures enforcement has declined by 95% at least, but other measures 100%). Ordinary Americans fiercely resent illegal aliens taking over their neighborhoods, jobs, and schools. Bush actually proposed legislation to replace every American worked with a foreigner who would do the same job for less (the “willing worker� program).
To call the administration out of touch on immigration would be an injustice to the language. Polls show strong support for greatly intensified enforcement. Bush is still trying to have the Kennedy Amnesty bill passed. Why the administration is so committed to policies that the American people regard as toxic is another matter. However, the reality of a president at war with his own people on this issue, should not be in doubt. Astoundingly, Zogby finds that only 17% of Americans approve of Bush’s immigration policies (7). On border security, Bush gets a 16% approval rating.
Immigration is also responsible for Bush’s economic woes. Superficially the economy should be a source of considerable strength for Bush. The high level numbers are actually rather good. Unemployment is down to 4.6% from a peak of 6.3% in June of 2003. GDP growth in Q1 2006 was 4.8%. The economy grew by 2.7% in 2003, 4.2% in 2004, and 3.5% in 2005. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has rallied from a low of 7286 on October 9th, 2002 to a recent high of 11,643 on May 10, 2006. That a gain of 59.8% in less than four years. The S&P is up 57.25% in the same period. Definitely a lot for investors to cheer about, particularly in the aftermath of the Tech Bubble and corporate scandals (Enron, Tyco, Health South, etc.).
The zooming stock market has reflected fast rising corporate profits. Pretax profits bottomed out at $714 billion (annual rate) in 3Q2001 and have since risen to $1,293 billion in 3Q2005 (not adjusted for inflation) (11). As a percent of GDP profits have grown from 7.0% of GDP (3Q2001) to a peak of 10.9% of GDP in 2Q2005 (down to 10.3% in 3Q2005). At 10.9% of GDP, corporate profits were higher than any year since 1968.
The productivity numbers have also been very, very good. Nonfarm productivity has risen by 17% or more since 2001. What the BLS calls multifactor productivity is up almost 8% since 2000. Per-worker/GDP is perhaps the broadest measure of productivity growth. In chained 2000 dollars, per-worker GDP is up by 8.73%. CPI-U adjusted, per-worker GDP has grown by 7.95%. The strong growth in productivity has almost completely offset nominal wage growth. Unit labor costs have only risen by 4.3% since 2001 (9).
Of course, Americans haven’t been shy about spending under Bush. Indeed, it’s been party time for several years as anyone who travels or frequents upscale restaurants can attest. The number tell the same happy story. Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) rose by 15.64% from 1Q2001 to 4Q2005. Not bad given that GDP only rose by 13.9% in the same five years (13).
As you can see it is easy to come up with a whole panoply of good economic news. But still… The American people just don’t agree. Poll after poll give gloomy views on the economy. Indeed 59% of Americans rate the economy as only “fair� or “poor� (8). Is the public wrong? Deluded? Confused by liberals? Where it only so. The sad truth is that the economic boom has passed the American people by. Indeed, they are suffering more from the backwash of inflated prices than enjoying any of the fruits. Why? As is all too frequently the case, Open Borders is killing the American Dream by making sure that only immigrants (legal and illegal) and the elites get richer while ordinary Americans get poorer.
This is not some liberal/left-wing fantasy. Indeed the left goes to great pains to avoid using the “I� word when they are talking about jobs/wages/incomes. The sad reality is that from the standpoint of ordinary working Americans, the economy is weak, at best. Some of the facts are downright scary. For example, only 9% of the new jobs created from 2000 to 2005 when to the American people even though Americans accounted for 61% of adult population growth (1). Worse, labor force participation has been falling since Bush took office (10). In January of 2001, it was 67.2%. Now it is 66.1%. You have to go back to the first days of the Clinton administration to find numbers this low (actually 66.2% in January of 1993). Labor force participation does not normally fall in an expanding economy… (12). Indeed, this appears to be the first recovery with declining labor force participation.
Sadly, the minority data is worse. Black male labor force participation has fallen from 69.4% in January of 2001 to 67.7% in May of 2006. Black female labor force participation declined from 60.1% to 59.1% in the same time period. Hispanic labor force participation (both sexes) has also declined, from 69.9% in January of 2001 to 68.7% in May of 2005.
The jobs growth numbers all point in the same direction. This is, by far, the worst recovery in modern history for employment. The last recession ended in November of 2001. Since then (actually the next 48 months) employment has grown by 4.7%. The worst prior recovery enjoyed jobs growth of 6.2%. The average recovery since the 1960s has produced 9.5% growth in jobs. Sadly, the payroll employment data is much worse (14) showing only 2.6% growth over 4 years.
Average weekly earnings peaked back in November of 2003 and have since declined. Amazingly, weekly wages are now back where they were in 1959 and 17% below the high in 1972. Forty six years without a raise. Something to be proud of. Not surprisingly the poverty rate has risen steadily since Bush took office. Back in 2000 the poverty rate was 11.3%. By 2004 it reach 12.7%. The poverty rate always rises in recessions. This may be the first boom with rising poverty (3).
Median household income tells the same tale of woe. Median incomes have declined every year Bush has been in office and are now 3.8% ($1740) below the 1999 level (4). Quite an accomplishment for a president who thinks tax cuts for the wealthy will make us rich.
The superficially nice consumption numbers (15.64% growth in five years) start looking rather dodgy once you look under the covers. Cleary GDP didn’t grow nearly fast enough to pay the piper. Nor did compensation keep pace. Indeed, compensation of employees rose by only 8.3% in the same period. Something had to give. Indeed, the savings rate fell from 2.4% of disposable income in 1Q2001 to -0.5% in 4Q2005 and -1.3% in 1Q2006. Where is the money coming from? Greenspan found the home equity extraction reached $600 billion in 2004 (15)(16) an immodest 7% of disposable income. Are folks using their homes as ATM machines really thrilled with the economy? Does ever rising debt pave the road to heaven? Or would that be hell?
Of course, none of this had to be true. Productivity has risen strongly in recent years (see above). Soaring productivity could have brought large wage and salary gains to ordinary Americans. Productivity alone should have increased incomes by 8% since 2000. No one likes paying $3 for gasoline. However, not too many people would be complaining with fast rising wages. This is not a fantasy. In the 1950s and 60s, wages and median incomes rose right along with the economy. Then we abandoned our borders…
There are other dismal numbers as well (after all economics is the “Dismal Science�). Household inequality has increased under Bush (5). Inequality also went up under Clinton (�no interior enforcement�). Back when we took our borders seriously it declined, from 1947 to 1968. Inequality only started to soar when mass immigration resumed in the 1970s. Predictably, male median earnings fell from 2002 to 2004 and are now lower than they were back in 1973. The percentage of Americans without health insurance has risen from 14.2% in 2000 to 15.7% in 2004. Employment based health insurance fell from 63.6% in 2000 to 59.8% in 2004 (6). Why bother proving benefits when you have illegals?
If the economic statistics weren’t bad enough for Bush, we have the Iraq debacle. Is Open Borders really responsible for Iraq? At least indirectly, the answer is clearly yes. No we aren’t fighting illegal aliens in Ramadi or Sadr city. However, the connection to Open Borders is far from trivial. The easiest linkage is simply the cast of characters. Almost without exception, the cheerleaders for the Iraq war were Open Borders fanatics. Of course, the WSJ and Senor Bush fall into this category. However, you will also find the likes of Fred Barnes (The Weekly Standard), William Kristol (The Weekly Standard), Ben Wattenberg (AEI), and Michael Barone (US News & World Report) in this group.
By contrast, the strongest advocates of immigration reform were generally skeptical of the Iraq war or overtly opposed (Michelle Malkin being a rare exception). What is the connection? Both the Iraq war and Open Borders were/are based on a panglossian view of human nature. If you think America can tolerate massive legal/illegal third world immigration, then the idea that Iraq could be transformed into a model Middle Eastern nation with human rights, free elections, a free-market economy, peace with Israel, and U.S. bases might make sense. Saner voices recognized both ideas as deeply crazy. Crushing Saddam’s murderous and ultimately dangerous (sanctions were fading) regime might have made sense. Pouring American blood into the desolate soils of the Middle East to nurture “democracy� was, and is, folly.
Is immigration responsible for the other problems weighing on the Bush administration? In many cases, the answer is yes, at least to some extent. Only a president deeply wedded to Open Borders would have threatened his very first veto over the Dubai ports deal. A saner administration would have quashed the deal upfront or authorized it only after deep and credible scrutiny. Gasoline prices? The population of the U.S. has risen by 82 million since the mid-1970s when we built our last oil refinery. Most of the growth has been do to immigration. Runaway population growth doesn’t work with highly limited energy development. Something has to give, prices it would seem. A different president would make these choices clear or simply tell the American people that immigration must be stopped until we have a consensus in favor new pipelines, power plants, refineries, offshore drilling, etc. Hard choices in the Pollyanna world of Senor Bush? They don’t exist.
The immigration sickness infecting U.S. health care has already been mentioned. Of course, as the uninsured population explodes the costs fall on taxpayers and those with private insurance. These burdens make insurance even less affordable, pushing more and more folks into the ranks of those without. Why so-called conservatives would demand an immigration policy than can only end with socialized medicine boggles the mind. Perhaps non compos mentis explains it all.
Did Open Borders bring Katrina to the Big Easy? Actually, No. Even the most ardent restrictionists don’t suggest an enforceable ban on category 5 hurricanes. However, in a normal economy the reconstruction work would be providing well paid job opportunities for poor and working class Americans. Such a thing will never happen with Bush in office.
The Bush administration is clearly infected with some kind of “End of History� globalist worldview where mass migration is both inevitable and desirable. In this wonderful future fantasy, borders will disappear and all of mankind will embrace capitalism, free markets, free trade, democracy, etc. Sadly, this Pollyannaish view of the human condition has led to tragedy abroad, and economic failure at home. What should be clear is that the ideology of Open Borders is directly and indirectly responsible for the woes of the Bush administration. As of this late date there is little they can do about it. After 9-11, Bush had a perfect moment in time, to change course and save his presidency and his country. With malice and forethought he threw it away.
“Just about everyone outside the country could see what a mess Bush was making in Iraq…”
He made a mess out of Baathists, and terrorists like Abu Abbas, no doubt about that.
Naturally, leftists the world over, are up in arms.
“I was particularly struck both by Peter’s indifference to the self-serving illegality
and injustice of the Iraq war…”
Same old leftist claptrap, different day.
Nothing illegal about the war.
The Baathists totally had it coming.
So Dave, hows that peace and democracy project going then?
Got the power on yet?
It’s going great. How’s that “Please Don’t Make War on my Baathist Friends” project going?
Not so good, eh?
Tragic.
Don’t know about that project Dave. Though the Ba’ath Party is still in power in one country I can think of.
“Though the Ba’ath Party is still in power in one country I can think of.”
For now, anyway.