Is This Economic Conservativsm?

WMRomney:

"First, we have to tackle the problems head on. If I am your President, in my first 100 days, I will roll up my sleeves, and I will personally bring together industry, labor, Congressional and state leaders to develop a plan to rebuild America's automotive leadership. It will be one that works for Michigan and that works for the American taxpayers."

Is activist government compatible with economic conservatism?

Opponents of Romney seem to be salivating at his call for an "engaged Washington," reading into that phrase a clarion call for "big government." Clearly, Romney does not believe that the best way to solve Michigan's one-state recession is to cut taxes and get out of the way, as professional conservative thinkers seem to prefer.

Jennifer Rubin accuses Romney of "mimicking Soviet industrial policy" in attempting to prop up in industry that failed entirely on its own.

Here is the dilemma for free marketeers: none of the leading presidential candidates, save Fred Thompson, seems to be a leave-us-alone-consevrative in the model of Grover Norquist. All of them seem to be interventionist conservatives in the model of George W. Bush, and the sudden discovery of the GOP of widespread economic anxiety seems to have triggered the can-do executive in all of them.

Comments

"Is activist government compatible with economic conservatism?"

No.

It is the truly frustrating aspect of this campaign from a Republican standpoint. There really is only one major candidate who is espousing economic and social conservatism save Thompson and it is just now starting to be noticed.

Posted by Joel | January 14, 2008 2:15 PM

I don't know if this is what Romney is saying but when it comes to losing domestic production and manufacturing jobs to foreign competition; it is exactly the government's job to enforce trade laws, ensure a level playing field globally, and to resist foreign goods being "dumped" into our markets which result in the cost of goods plummeting unnaturally.

Those are exactly the roles of the Federal government and it is constitutional, therefore, conservative. In addition, this is a big issue that our country is facing and should rightly be addresses.

It is disingenious for McCain to throw up his hands and say, oh well! We lost 'em and they ain't coming back.

Posted by Michael | January 14, 2008 2:51 PM

I see a few ways Romney could help the auto industry.

Health care (not a universal plan or a forced plan on the states but coming up with some kind of revenue neutral health care policy)
Trade laws - as pointed out above
Currency manipulation - as China does with its currency
Sensible legal requirements for emissions, etc. - the US already has some of the toughest standards in the world, if not the toughest.

Tax incentives for US auto makers? This one is iffy with the free trade, but I could see some tit-for-tat here if we can't get concessions from foreign markets.

Posted by sam | January 14, 2008 3:45 PM

Michael,

It's now disingenuous to tell the truth? Those jobs are indeed gone. What incentive does any major automotive company have to employ labor in Michigan? In a highly unskilled, overpaid, and labor-protected workforce?

The federal government can play the protectionist role all it wants and prevent those cheap evil foreign imports from sullying our lands, but those jobs will still not come back to Michigan.

Other states? Sure. But not Michigan.

Posted by DDP | January 14, 2008 4:23 PM

McCain wants to avoid a discussion of his legislation. Once again McCain seeks to punish Americans to pin a new badge on his chest. He is entirely deaf to the real world.

Romney’s team has pointed out alternatives to McCain’s Washington for year. Consumption tax is one alternative, in which foreign oil shares the burden of carbon consumption. Romney’s economic team hardly fits into some simple label.
.
Activist government is a meaningless label. Tax cuts as well as deregulation are activist. They are popular with a wide spectrum of voters. As I understand, Obama was one of the first leaders to advocate tax cuts, and both parties favor some “unregulated banks”.

And finally, that American Spectator pundit has little credibility. That person is a domestic lawyer/lobbyist; that has flip-flopped between Giuliani and McCain; and that has attack Romney for a year. The silliest instance was a charge of insensitivity to Judaism because Romney announced his candidacy at the Ford Museum.

That pundit’s response to this issue is nonsensical. Her framework shows little interest in an honest economic discussion. I doubt she even cares about the issue.

All that matter to the American Spectator is to drive a slimy attack on Romney's identity!

Posted by mikeVA | January 14, 2008 4:56 PM

If that's Romney's position, I want him to campaign in Pennsylvania to bring back "our leadership in the coal and steel industries." Come on, Governor... PA has more electoral votes than MI!!!

Posted by MSH | January 14, 2008 4:58 PM

Tell me, before John McCain was gung-ho for CAFE did he sit down to talk to the already struggling auto-industry and figure out how this might affect Detroit? Does CAFE standards adopted apply to foreign cars around the world as well? So it's OK if McCain is upbeat about the "surge" but that wouldn't apply to the US auto-industry? Yeah. Mitt is correct in getting together with the industry to figure out how they can gradually get to these standards and take gradual steps without crippling an already fragile US industry. But McCain doesn't really care.

Posted by MJ | January 14, 2008 5:36 PM

What Romney is suggesting doesn't mean it needs to involve government programs. It can means getting of government intervention of certain existing policies, negotiating better trade deals at the federal level etc.

Posted by Steve | January 14, 2008 6:43 PM

Sounds like a new version of British Leyland... and that was a great success. No, Detroit will just have to learn to beat the Japanese at their own game.

Posted by Pete | January 14, 2008 7:51 PM

Detroit's problem is twofold: 1. they don't build cars -- other than huge, gas-guzzling pickup trucks for young men with manhood security issues -- that the public wants to buy and 2. their labor, particularly healthcare, costs are eroding their competitiveness globally. Other countries and companies are playing fair -- our system is just stacked against the domestic car makers. The federal government can't do much about the former, but a universal health care system would sure do a lot for the latter. Also, implementing a carbon tax that would eventually replace the payroll tax would encourage hiring and innovation in the auto industry and beyond and finally, lowering the corporate income taxes while raising the personal income tax rates in the highest brackets would stimulate employment growth while making sure that those at the very top who decide to take home the seven and eight figure salaries pay their fair share.

Posted by jt | January 14, 2008 7:53 PM

"none of the leading presidential candidates, save Fred Thompson, seems to be a leave-us-alone-consevrative in the model of Grover Norquist."

Don't forget Ron Paul, the conservative's conservative when it comes to leave-us-alone economic policy.

Posted by anon4rp | January 15, 2008 9:06 AM

"industry that failed entirely on its own."

It hasn't failed *entirely* on its own. There've been bailouts before. Which makes the pure hands-off-ers even more skeptical, I guess.

Posted by Knemon | January 15, 2008 9:24 AM

anon4rp, I second you on Ron Paul. He may not be registering very high in nationwide polls, but surely his decent showings so far make him a "leading candidate."

Posted by ojc | January 15, 2008 10:56 AM

aqrgfjcvk ywkvetum wrmbkaucl cxeigsvy sacdmgk nfyra uvpswmiak

Posted by wpezc qgnbmvwsh | June 17, 2008 3:19 PM

aqrgfjcvk ywkvetum wrmbkaucl cxeigsvy sacdmgk nfyra uvpswmiak

Posted by wpezc qgnbmvwsh | June 17, 2008 3:20 PM