"Too Clever by Half"

WaPo says that the administration's attempt to use steel tariffs ("safeguards" in the new doublespeak) to buy a few steel union votes has backfired. The union support isn't forthcoming, and the industries that use steel have been shedding jobs by the thousands as a result of higher costs. If there's anything worse than betraying your principles in a cynical and destructive attempt at political pandering, it's betraying your principles in a cynical and destructive attempt at political pandering that doesn't even work.

Comments

[Sir Real]

...The monkey laughed to see such a sport-

POP! Goes the Weasel.

[Jason Ligon]

This was clearly a direct attempt to buy votes that would otherwise go to lefties. Is there hope that he will drop the protectionist crap?

[StMack]

Do you suppose we will be reading the same critique when it turns out that giving drivers lilcenses to illegal aliens doesn't get Gray Davis enough of the latino vote to keep his job - assuming there is ever a vote.

[Sir Real]

StMack-

Of course we'll be reading the same critique- it'll just be written George Will.

[Warren]

How does it feeeeeeeeeeeel?

[Zathras]

Well no kidding. You don't need to be a political genius to figure out that three years before an election is not the time to buy votes that you expect to stay bought.

Or maybe you do. The idea here is that being a political genius precludes having any notable skill at governance, which is a completely different occupation than campaigning. In that context it may not be fair to talk about Bush betraying his principles on steel tariffs; a good test of whether one has principles is whether one can articulate them, and on trade Bush never has. It's probably more accurate to speak of his preference for free trade, other things being equal. Other things are absolutely not equal if turning away from free trade will generate some applause for the unquestioned number 1 priority of George W. Bush's administration, that being George W. Bush.

But that kind of logic works during a campaign when scant weeks and days separates the applause from the election. It would seem, then, that the best course politically is to pretend the perpetual campaign doesn't exist, at least for the first two and a half years of one's term in the White House. One might even set up one's campaign manager in an office outside the White House.

[Stich]

Well aint that a bitch! Guess those steel tarriffs can now be striped, battered, and fried. Bad move, George. Fix it.

[Kevin Carson]

Zathras,

Yeah, he fought his war about eighteen months too early, too.

[Ray]

Yeah, it always amazes me that the punditry pulls observations out like this as if it wasn't already painfully obvious.

Another take on this was put forth by one of the top economist of the firm I work for. He and his team have surmised that, I'm paraphrasing, that the main reason the administration did the tariffs was to weaken the dollar while also being able to use them for political fodder. Their main focus was of course the weaker dollar and this administration's efforts at "letting" it weaken. From a wonk's point of view, the tariffs alone are still good political fuel, labor endorsement or not and the weaker dollar does help our economy.

Follow my link on this one, I put out a decent cartoon on this a couple of weeks ago, click on "caveat emptor."

[R.C. Dean]

When will the goddam political gurus in the White House ever learn the lesson that pandering to Democratic voters on the environment or protectionism or anything else doesn't get them a single vote.

No matter how often this happens, the idiots continue to lunge after left and "undecided" idiot, I mean moderate, voters to no effect, while pissing off their natural, more libertarian, constituencies (and passing loads of bad law into the bargain). These political gurus (and I mean you, Karl Rove) are genuinely stupid if they think something that has failed hundreds of times in the past is suddenly going to work, just for them.

[Gene Berkman]

Why does anyone think George W Bush has any principled commitment to free trade? Has he ever stated such a belief?
Protectionism is not about going after left-wing votes. It is about going after the support of businesses and workers in industries that find themselves facing foreign competition. Many conservatives support protection of American industries, or American agriculture.
Even Roger Milliken, textile millionaire who funded the now defunct Rampart College, has joined the protectionist chorus as cheap third world textiles threaten his business.
Libertarians and free trade conservatives should oppose Bush because of the steel tariffs. But it is a distraction to think he had a principle that he compromised in this case. It is just politics.

[Julian Sanchez]

Gene-
Well, about a week before he signed the farm bill, he gave a stirring speech honoring Milton Friedman in which he seemed to "get it." At any rate, his speechwriter got it. One of the things that bugs me about these policies is that he seems to know better, which kind of makes it worse.

[Ray]

Gene,

But you think everyone should oppose George W., even if it weren't for the tariffs.

Even most politicians have some sort of natural tendency towards a freer or more restricted market.

Bush knows a freer market is better but, IMO, he's justified his poltical actions by assuming he has to make sacrifices to stay in office to achieve the "bigger picture."

[Jean Bart]

Ray,

Well, the dollar is no longer as weak as it was.

[Madog]

We should keep an eye on where Bush's campaign funds come from for the next election. Maybe he's hoping for a kickback from the steel industry, and just talks about protecting union jobs to placate democrats.

[M. Simon]

Ray,

The town I live in is a victim of Bush's weaker dollar policy.

We use a lot of steel here to make stuff. I can tell you we are using a lot less steel because we no longer make as much stuff.

I suppose lowering the demand for steel was Bush's way of improving the steel industry and the American economy by lowering American production. Such a policy continued to it's natural conclusion should eliminate the demand for American production and dollars entirely.

Bush is an economic genius.

Creating a depression will win him lots of votes. it worked for Hoover. No wait. Wrong analogy. I'll get back to you when I find a better one.

[Marcus David]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://preteen-models.biz
DATE: 01/22/2004 12:07:05
Nothing's far when one wants to get there.