Matthew Yglesias bangs his head against the wall as he reads George Will. He then poses a false question. Matthew, it's not either/or, it is both/and:
Posted by DeLong at August 16, 2004 12:30 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postmatthew: George Will: Liar or Moron?: George W. Bush and his US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick are, as those of us who've been paying attention know, not very enthusiastic about free trade. Hence the import restrictions on bras, socks, steel, shrimp, etc., the increased farm subsidies, and the Australia "free trade" agreement that is, in fact, an effort to extend US intellectual property law to the land down under. Zoellick, in an unusual move other Bush administration officials may want to consider emulating, chooses in an interview with George Will, not to lie about this record. Zoellick is a mercantilist. His agricultural policy goal, rightly described as a herculean task, is "Prying open 147 economies at once" in order to boost exports. As Zoellick says, "How much can we eat? The markets have got to be abroad." He tells Will that his "aim is to insinuate 'some Hamiltonian concepts' into U.S. foreign policy." Hamilton being, of course, the leading mercantilist politician of the Founding era, a role in which he was followed by Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln while being opposed by politicians in the Jefferson-Jackson tradition.
Will, however, writes this up as a column headlined "A Fighter For Free Trade" and ends by condemning John Kerry for offering "protectionism with an uneasy conscience." So here's the question: Does George Will, allegedly the intellectual among rightwing pundits, really not understand what a "Hamiltonian" trade policy consists of? This is not really an obscure moment in American political history, but rather, alongside slavery, the crucial issue of 19th century politics. Is he really unaware of the Bush administration's trade record? Is he some kind of fool? Or is he trying to mislead his readers?
Both/and. As Tenet would say, it's a slam-dunk.
Posted by: RT on August 16, 2004 01:27 PMI thought you were saying that it is not a question being for free trade or being a Hamiltonian. Then I figured out that you were referring to this:
"Is he really unaware of the Bush administration's trade record? Is he some kind of fool? Or is he trying to mislead his readers?"
Posted by: TreeTop on August 16, 2004 01:38 PMDoes he have a "W" in his name? If yes, I would
go with "trying to mislead his readers."
Looking at the trade figures, Zoellick and the Bush administration are pretty lousy mercantilists. Does a mercantilist have to achieve mercantilist ends, or is stated intention alone enough to get one in the club?
Posted by: walker on August 16, 2004 02:10 PMU.S. Competitiveness:Beyond the trade deficit
http://math.stanford.edu/~lekheng/krugman/
The Bush administration is consistently lousy at everything it does. Why should mercantilism be different
Posted by: Eli Rabett on August 16, 2004 05:56 PMThe Bush Administration could be accused of being mercantilist only if the U.S. wasn't running the (one of the?) largest trade deficits in history.
Posted by: Andrew Boucher on August 16, 2004 06:17 PMThe Chef is on top of the trade deficit:
http://ragout.blogspot.com/
Scroll down
The "exporting food" statement is silly. The money in Ag is in value added, not in production. How much can we eat indeed.
Posted by: bakho on August 16, 2004 06:56 PMI vote for 'fool'
Posted by: non economist on August 16, 2004 07:10 PMWhenever I think of Alexander Hamilton these days, one of his phrases for a horrifying poltical event comes to mind:
"a spectacle both hilarious and disgusting"
I think he used it about what happens when a populace follows a demogogue without feeling secure enought to reach a considered judgement.
Anyway, I think that Hamilton would have been able to do better, and even hope that somebody, actually many peple alive today, could.
Posted by: jml on August 16, 2004 08:47 PMFalse question? Perhaps it means "wrongly posed" (the notions of true and false refer to statements). However, the answer to M.Y.'s question: "Which is it: A or B" may be "A", "B", and, "A and B". Mind you, "A and B" implies "A or B".
Probably, a better gripe would be "M.Y. belabors the obvious, and with rhetorical questions to boot."
Posted by: Piotr Berman on August 17, 2004 12:23 PMGeorge Will should be supporting the Dems. He just can't admit it to himself. The first step to irrelevance is lying to oneself.
Posted by: Scott McArthur on August 18, 2004 08:33 AM