Interesting. Razib, a former libertarian, now describes himself as a "moderate social liberal," while you, Godless, who once voted for Gore, describe yourself as "a rightest." People change. In any case, I agree with you on the immigration issue, and on the instability of the Republican party if Bush loses.

But you neglect a third issue that, in my opinion, will prove even bigger as a political issue than Iraq and immigration, namely, the effect on American workers (including the underclass) of trading with low-wage Giga-states like China and India. I can imagine a political future in which one party, the Republicans, take an essentially Buchananite position of being against both immigration and free trade, while the Democrats also oppose immigration, but favor free trade in combination with a policy of income redistribution (via wage subsidies and a progressive tax on consumption). Supposing that were the choice, which would you favor?

while you, Godless, who once voted for Gore, describe yourself as "a rightest."

True, but really only on the immigration issue, and that too because the Democratic party has drifted way left over the past four years. I talk frequently about being a rightist - but I'd vote for a Wesley Clark type if he promised immigration reform. That along with Iraq & GE are the most important issues.

The DLC Democrats were pretty close to libertarian on economic issues, though their immigration policy needed work.

I can imagine a political future in which one party, the Republicans, take an essentially Buchananite position of being against both immigration and free trade, while the Democrats also oppose immigration, but favor free trade in combination with a policy of income redistribution (via wage subsidies and a progressive tax on consumption).

A country can tolerate some degree of socialism but not a large drop in mean IQ. The former can be thrown off in time - the latter means permanent remission on the world stage.

I do think your idea that free trade is bad for the US is totally incorrect, but that topic has been hashed out ad nauseum. You see only the inefficient being put out of work by foreign competition, and I see lower prices and efficient markets.

The problem is that too many people believe that free trade and free immigration are necessarily linked, when they have nothing to do with each other. A box of 10 playstations is totally different from a group of 10 immigrants, not least because the latter *vote*, receive (or pay for) government expenditure, and bring cultural change and possibly crime if they are low in IQ. The playstations have a surgical effect: either your local video game company steps up or it goes bankrupt. But migrant workers have many external effects beyond the relationship with their employer, not least the fact that they are generally net tax recipients.

Neither Buchananites nor Randists can understand this. Fellows like Frank McGahon are well meaning, but deny that such a thing as revenue negative immigrants even exist , or that cultural differences or national origin (e.g. between Muslims and non) should figure into immigration policy at all.

On the other hand, the Buchananites have learned nothing from a century in which those countries that closed themselves off to trade became poorer, those countries that engaged in trade became richer, and those countries that had higher taxes & more government intervention lagged behind the Anglosphere.

For a lot of us, neither Bush nor Kerry is at all appealing. I will probably sit this one out.

It is interesting that Arnold was elected, at least partly, for the fact that he was an alternative to complete immigration capitulation. But, yes, he is certainly no reformer.

My prediction is that if Bush loses, the Republican party will go Conservative again, because that is what works to win votes for Congress. Bush has been, if anything, a force for moderation.

Trade (with low wage countries) and immigration have one similarity: they are both ways to help poor workers in the third world -- although trade is better in that respect because it helps all workers in a poor country, and not just the lucky few who are able to get out. In fact, it can be argued that immigration hurts the majority left behind in the third world, by taking away its most energetic and ambitious members, and I believe this may be the most effective "bleeding heart" argument for immigration reform in the future.

BTW, the factor price equalization theorem holds that wages in the high wage countries decline even allowing for the cheaper goods that can be imported from abroad. In HO theory, wages are measured in real not nominmal terms. Major point, and one that has not been hashed out.

Free trade, in any case, is good for "the country as a whole" if you mean total GNP. I have NEVER denied that. It just plays hell with income distribution in a high-wage society like ours, because the globe is, for historical reasons, lop-sidedly divided between rich and poor countries. Once China catches up to the West, that problem should go away. But in the meantime, wake up and smell the dynamite.

Like Godless, I used to sympathize with the Democratic Leadership Council and their neoliberal approach to economic affairs. However, the DLC has sold out and rallied behind the Mondale-liberalism of John Kerry, who calls himself a "New Democrat," but in reality, based upon his voting record, is nowhere near the centrist approach advocated by the DLC. Zell Miller, a New Democrat, has recently abandoned the Democratic Party because of Kerry. Also, the influence of the founders of the New Democrat movement, like Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, is waning. This is very bad for the future of the Democratic Party.

If Joe Lieberman had of won the primaries, I would vote for him in November, because I know that, as a libertarian conservative, divided government with a centrist Democrat in the executive branch and the GOP in the legislative branch is the single best way to stem the growth of government.

If John Kerry were to win the election, his term would be a complete and utter disaster. He has proposed over $2.1 trillion in new spending over the next ten years, according to a recent AEI study, and hardly anything would get done because the GOP would counter all of his initiatives. When 2008 comes, a Republican president will not return to office because of the dismal record of this current president will still be on people's minds, and the people will instead re-elect Kerry and elect a much more Democratic legislative branch.

Which leaves me to why I am voting for Bush. Like Godless, I oppose illegal immigration and support an immigration policy based upon merit and the national interest. I strongly oppose Bush's immigration proposals.

The ideal Republican party platform for me would be:

1. Eliminating all taxes and creating a national sales tax, perhaps with a 10% flat income tax that can be completely written off as incentives to buy such things as health insurance.
2. Creating an immigration policy, as outlined above. If merit-based, perhaps allow an increased amount of legal immigration with more extensive assimilation programs to bring more highly educated people to the US.
3. Abandoning this idea of "multiculturalism" and foster a unified American culture without any of the hyphenization (Africa-Americans, for example) that has been so well described by Samuel Huntington.
4. Remain committed to a strong national defense, modernization of the military, increased troop strength, complete the missile defense system with a space component, and a renewed emphasis on intelligence reform (as an ROTC cadet, I could elaborate on this more, but I'll spare you).
5. Finishing the de-regulation revolution of the 1980s.
6. Increase national funding for voucher programs and move towards more contract-schools and privatization. Abolish the teacher's unions.
7. Bring about a large-scale reinvention of government, eliminating unnecessary agencies and departments and eliminating bureaucratic overlap.
8. Restoring federalism when it comes

To finish my previous post:

8. Restoring federalism when it comes to social issues, leaving them up to the individual states.
9. Increasing investment for high-risk scientific research, support for biotech initiatives, and advocating an increased private sector role in space exploration. Enact a second Goldwater-Nichols Act.
10. Finish FTAA negotiations and begin immediate free trade negotiations with Japan and South Korea. Bring the UK and Iceland into NAFTA.

Unfortunately, the GOP doesn't seem interested in this ideal platform. However, I must say that Bush is the lesser evil of the two, and I can't stand the Libertarian Party's isolationism. So, Bush has my vote.

Sad, eh?

Trade (with low wage countries) and immigration have one similarity: they are both ways to help poor workers in the third world

do you really believe trade with low wage countries is welfare, or that any distinction of import needs to be made? Skilled immigration likewise is not welfare - i don't need to quote the math olympiad & westinghouse stats back at you, but i know you're aware of them.

it can be argued that immigration hurts the majority left behind

it can be argued incorrectly. japan became industrialized during the meiji restoration because it sent students abroad. the same is true today of china, taiwan, south korea, and to a lesser extent india. All four countries have sent hundreds of thousands of their best students abroad - and they have set up intercontinental trading networks to bring us cheap semiconductors, monitors, software, etc.

I would bet that if you took a plot of the # of expat students vs. percent GDP growth per year over post-Cold-War period, it would be clearly positively correlated. Those countries that don't let their students travel abroad aren't about to develop modern technology indigenously, after all.

can you name a country with a surplus of foreign students whose economy is in the toilet?

In HO theory, wages are measured in real not nominmal terms.

yes, but a) wages do not map 1:1 to living standards (b/c prices for the traded goods also decline in real terms due to increased efficiency) and b) in the long term wage reduction prompts a reallocation of resources towards higher performing factors.

Bush has been, if anything, a force for moderation.

That's a diplomatic way of phrasing it. I'd say that Bush is a Christian socialist - rightist on the social issues that I don't find all that important, and far left on things like open borders, fiscal restraint, no child left behind, etc.

Justin:

I agree with almost every plank there (though I think the tax part will be more complicated than you make out).

Our differences are entirely tactical rather than ideological (we have the same strategic goal for the US). In particular, I believe that this projection of yours is unlikely:

When 2008 comes, a Republican president will not return to office because of the dismal record of this current president will still be on people's minds, and the people will instead re-elect Kerry and elect a much more Democratic legislative branch.

But look at recent history: Clinton's attempted socialism in 1992 caused calamitous defeat in 1994. The Republican Revolution & the Contract WIth America were co-opted by Clinton, and that rightist Congress is what kept the US on the fiscal straight and narrow for the next 6 years. Welfare reform was part of the contract, and Clinton was smart enough to triangulate and take credit for it.

I agree that from our perspective Kerry is worse than Bush in virtually every respect (save maybe stem cells and science funding). But I think that:

a) if Bush is not defeated the immigration amnesty will become a permanent part of the party platform. It will be seen as something that did not cost Bush the election, even though Bush knows it's highly unpopular with his base. Failing a Mexican 9/11, at that point it will only be a matter of time before some kind of open-borders legislation.

b) a rightist Congress will gridlock Kerry for four years. The big problem now is that Republicans are good soldiers and are toeing the party line...which has been drawn FAR to the left by Bush on the aforementioned issues (esp. immigration & spending). With Kerry in office, partisan feeling *and* ideology will be free to reassert themselves.

In other words, the rightist Republicans are now being pulled to the left by Bush. But under Kerry, the leftist Republicans would be pushed to the right. THAT is the big difference, and it's really big.

Interesting. Razib, a former libertarian, now describes himself as a "moderate social liberal,"

i've always been socially liberal, never been a social conservative libertarian. i am still more libertarian than anything else i guess, but rather not enthused about politics anymore.

for what it's worth, was excited by the 94 republican take over, not because i believed in some of the nuttier social conservative viewpoints espoused by the freshmen, but i thought they would rein in spending. to some extent, they were a good combination with clinton, even though they weren't perfect (pork spending on a transportation bill, etc.). the problem with bush for me is that he isn't conservative on stuff that would get me going, but he is "conservative" about stuff i'm not that excited about (if you controlled by reflexive party affiliation, i think the gap between conservatives and liberals on the iraq war would narrow a lot, that is, if you could magically figure out who supported the invasion starting from their principles alone).

on paper kerry is really, really, bad. in real life, he is really, really, bad. i don't agree with most of his pap and i am repulsed by his personality. the problem is that bush is really bad (at least), but the republicans don't seem to want to ancknowledge it. they will acknowledge that kerry is really, really bad.

i think bush has the superficial aspects of right-wing presidency down pat, explaining the leftish rage and fury at him. but, i fear that he'll never really internalize the long view. as burke would say, " it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. . . ."

of course, if you think kerry would endanger the safety of the united states, and that bush is the only alternative on foreign policy, i can see why people would have to stand by him. i just happen to think he's made too many mistakes, and accountability is something that is important.

Godless:

If we weren't at war, I would agree with you completely on that. However, I don't think Kerry has the guts to fight this war, and I truly think that once he's in office for a few years, he's going to completely pull out the rug from under the war on [radical?] Islam. That is the primary factor in my decision for this November. Domestic issues can take second place temporarily, and I truly think that the Republican Party is becoming more and more upset with Bush's stances on fiscal policy and immigration policy, and will probably make an attempt to rein him in sometime in the near future.

What you're saying, however, is absolutely correct, and Niall Ferguson made a point similar to yours in the Wall Street Journal last week. The war on "terror" cannot be ignored.

Thanks, razib, for the clarification. And, no, Godless, trade with low-wage countries is not "welfare", if that means giving something for nothing. But using loaded terms like "welfare" (or "socialism") in these contexts is more in the nature of propaganda than reasoned argument, wouldn't you say? I agree that allowing qualified foreign students from poor countries to study in the U.S.is a good idea almost always, whether or not a few of them end up staying. And your point about import goods from low-wage countries becoming relatively cheaper here is also well taken. But it does not negate my main point, that real wages in the rich countries also go down; just means our workers get nice flat screen color tv's to watch in their double-wides.

what's being forgotten is that a repub-controlled congress won't give bush a pass in his second term like they are in the first to prop him up for re-election. in fact, they may deliberately deep six bush's domestic agenda in order to pave the way for a GOP fresh face to take the reins in 2008. there is a simmering disgust growing for open borders ideology and affirmative action soft-pedaling, and this will manifest in a big way during a lame duck bush term.

The war on "terror" cannot be ignored.

Yes, insofar that it is an piece of Orwellian bullshit designed to expand military power outside the nation and police power inside the nation.

"US invasions for the sole purpose of spreading democracy (given the lack of WMD). "

Do you really believe the war with Iraq had much to do with either WMD or democracy? To me it seemed pretty much about setting up the groundwork for a friendly/client state in the Middle East, something like what Iran was in mid 20th century. There seem to be straightforward strategic advantages, relations with a new US friendly Iraq can certainly be used as leverage over Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich nations, and will probably be even more important as discovery of new oil supplies diminish. I don't see this as a partisan pursuit, I think it falls pretty well within the bounds of US foreign policy overall, if the democrats take office I assume they'll carry out the same policy with a little more liberal veneer to it (note Kerry's adherence to staying in Iraq).
I'm not saying you should adopt a peacenik/ultra-left mentality about this, but if you have a concern for being rational, didn't all the talk of WMD or spread of democracy seem to be more of a rhetorical facade than anything else? Just my thoughts.

I sense that it's the democrats who are on the verge of self-immolating. All that rage toward Bush will be turned inward if Kerry loses.

Hold Bush accountable after his second term expires, R. Otherwise you punish the country with Kerry, which will make everyone suffer much worse.

Kerry's immigration stance will make gc long for the good old day's of Bush. It's amusing how anger can blunt a person's reason.

"A country can tolerate some degree of socialism but not a large drop in mean IQ. The former can be thrown off in time - the latter means permanent remission on the world stage."

Well, if we threw off socialism, the welfare recipients wouldn't bother coming here in the first place, and our immigration problems would be solved.

Well, if we threw off socialism, the welfare recipients wouldn't bother coming here in the first place

Ken, while I agree with your goals, some degree of government spending is going to happen nonetheless. The problem is the immigration of large numbers of net tax recipients.

Tax payments don't have to take the shape of welfare alone. It costs money for Spanish language signs, for crime prevention, for new freeways and school buildings, for emergency medical care, and for all sorts of things beyond simple welfare payments.

It is more surgical to go after illegal & unskilled immigration - which is wildly unpopular - than to go after dozens of less unpopular targets...which is what it will take in order to get the state out of roads, emergency medicine, schools, etc.

From a pragmatic standpoint South Central LA is the future of the US unless we stop unskilled/illegal immigration.

Justin,

You claim Kerry doesn't have the guts to fight radical Islamic terrorists. Well, Bush is unwilling to take many obvious steps that would reduce our risks of being attacked by Muslim terrorists:


Make visa rules as tough for Saudis as for other Arabs.
Stop the flow of illegals across the border from Mexico. Arabs are crossing the US-Mexican border.
Round up all illegals in the US in order to get rid of Muslim illegals (though this would have other benefits as well obviously).
Allow religious and ethnic profiling of airline passengers.
Change immigration policy to make it much tougher for Muslims to come to the United States.
Fund huge amounts of energy research to develop energy technologies that will obsolesce oil and defund the Wahhabis


I could go on. Bush's anti-terrorism policies are wholly inadequate.

Randall: “I could go on. Bush's anti-terrorism policies are wholly inadequate.”

But would Kerry be better?

On Parapundit you’ve stated that you want Bush to lose so that the Republican Party will reform around conservatives more to your liking. Assuming that did happen, why do you believe that the new “old” Republican Party could win elections in 2008? Wouldn’t moving to the right make the party base smaller?

In the meantime, Kerry would lead the US for four years. I believe those four years are critical to the future of the US and the world. Bush has his faults and has made mistakes, but I’d rather follow the Bush path than trust that a Democratic administration led by Kerry will fight Islamic terrorism.

Wouldn’t moving to the right make the party base smaller?

This is the crucial question, and I think the answer is no. I will post a follow up on this, but suffice to say that immigration is a killer issue. Pew reports there is no single issue that has as much of a difference between the elites and the masses as immigration reform - it's a 38 point gap, with the masses wanting immigration stopped and drastically reduced.

It is a guaranteed vote getter if the Republicans run on it as supermajorities (greater than 60%) of BOTH dems and repubs want immigration reform. Even most Hispanics don't want more immigrants (because they mean more competition).

see here:

The poll results indicate that there is no other foreign policy-related issue on which the American people and their leaders disagreed more profoundly than immigration. Even on such divisive issues as globalization or strengthening the United Nations, the public and the elite are much closer together than they are on immigration...

* The enormous difference between elite and public opinion can also be seen on the issue of illegal immigration. The survey found that 70 percent of the public said that reducing illegal immigration should be a "very important" foreign-policy goal of the United States, compared to only 22 percent of elites.



* President Bush’s efforts to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants appear to be hurting him politically. While 53 percent of the public said his handling of foreign policy overall was excellent or good, on immigration only 27 percent said his handling of immigration was good or excellent; moreover, 70 percent rated Bush as poor or fair on immigration. the lowest rating he received on any foreign policy-related issue.

Conclusion: moving right on immigration is a surefired vote getter, just as the 1994 Republican Revolution revamped the party's antitax creds after Bush 41 hiked taxes.

I'm surprised that with all the intelligent debate going on in this comments box, no one has brought up the wild card: a terrorist attack on the U.S. right before the election a la Madrid. Or is there a post on this elsewhere which I have missed that one of the moderators could direct me to?

Personally, I feel that Bush has been a disaster for the right. His megalomaniacal desire to Mexicanize this country in the image of his own biracial family has severely undermined our national security.

Unfortunately, I fear that if there WERE a terrorist attack on U.S. soil right before the election, people would rally around Bush the way they did after 9/11.

Paul,

I have argued on my own blog (here and here) that a terrorist attack on US territory before the election will work in Bush's favor. But there is no way to predict whether such an attack will actually take place. I do not know what additional comment I can make about it.

As for an immigration restrictionist platform: It would be an obvious vote winner. It would win more white votes and more black votes. It might even win more Hispanic votes.

Bush or Kerry for the next 4 years: I have argued that Bush's Middle East policy is making the US less secure and the Republicans will behave more responsibly if they only have control of Congress. I do not see the net downside to Kerry because I think Congress will restrain him and Bush has a really big downside anyway.

GC: “moving right on immigration is a surefired vote getter”

But would the major media and elites allow the political dialog to occur? Any politician that speaks out against immigration (legal or illegal) gets tarred as a racist. That ends his political career.

I’ve read that the major media bias toward Kerry shifts public opinion 15 points. Wouldn’t the same affect work against an anti-immigration platform to an even greater degree?

For these reasons I’m pessimistic that any top-down political battle against illegal immigration can succeed. I have more hope for a bottom-up and targeted approach. Organize people at the local level who are most affected by immigration and force local enforcement of the law. Also attack the worst immigration abuses such as terrorists joining the illegal immigrants and criminal and gangbanger illegals. If successful, use the local movements to build a national movement for immigration reform. The party leaders would then come on board.

But would the major media and elites allow the political dialog to occur? Any politician that speaks out against immigration (legal or illegal) gets tarred as a racist. That ends his political career....For these reasons I’m pessimistic that any top-down political battle against illegal immigration can succeed.

But Prop 187 passed 60-40 despite the media campaign. And welfare reform happened also. Furthermore, if you've read Stephen Steinlight, you can see that mutterings are happening on that front as well. I don't think it's smart to give up - immmigration reform nowadays can be phrased in totally aracial national security terms.

the other possibility here is that a bush win would pull the democratic party to the right.

i don't know how plausible that is - someone more familiar with the internecine battles on the left could probably comment. where's zizka when you need him?

GC: “I don't think it's smart to give up - immmigration reform nowadays can be phrased in totally aracial national security terms.”

I don’t think we should give up. I think we should first focus on immigration reform that everyone can agree on. Deport criminal and gangbanger illegals and secure US borders. Given Bush’s immigration stance this might even be easier as the Hispanic community should be more cooperative.

I also believe we’ll need a secure national ID and database so that it will be easy to verify citizenship. This is necessary to combat terrorism but will also be necessary to enforce immigration law.

Finally, we need to stress that illegal immigration lowers the wages for US citizens and that many employers take advantage of illegal workers. Start enforcing penalties against employers.

Only after these steps are taken could we hope to arrest and deport all illegal aliens. (Arresting and legally deporting millions would be a nightmare. We need an approach that encourages most to leave on their own.)

Even then we’d have problems with those who have lived in the US for years and whose children are US citizens.

Sorry, but the case that the President's policy on Iraq has been "disasterous" has often been asserted, but never coherently made.

Saddam never accounted for the chemical and biological weapons he admitted having, nor did he destroy his WMD under UN supervison- and *that* was what those seventeen resolutions the Security Council passed during the twelve year "rush to war" required. Hans Blix never had a brief to go looking for WMD, but only to supervise their destruction; and even though Saddam seems to have irrationally gotten rid of the weapons
without complying with the requirement that the UN supervise, any President who interpreted his actions as indicating such a policy would have had to have been as crazy as he is- and a much bigger threat to America's security.

Bush's policy on Iraq was wrong only that the invasion was several years too late- and should have been supported by France, Germany, and the other countries that made the rules for Saddam, and then refused to enforce them when the chips were down.

good site
http://www.healthinsurance.net.in/

nice site
http://www.flooring1.org/

best site
http://www.b2b-guide.org/

nice site
http://www.nightvision.co.in/

good site
http://www.flights1.net/

10f3f9 76a69d3b6c