|
The value of a presidential candidate’s
proposal lies in the application of his proposal
if he is elected. This view maybe contested; the
value of proposals according to economics lies
in its favorability in the eyes of the public.
Since elementary school we have been taught the
perfect ness of democracy. A candidate can only
be elected if he proposes what the public demands
and once elected he does what the public demand
so that he may be reelected. So what ever the
President does it is in the general interest and
greater good of the public. Is democracy in reality
that perfect? Just as people who are born into
one religion stick with it for the rest of their
lives, a person may have political inertia. The
social group, union and family may have a lot
to do with a voter’s political choice than
his or her personal opinion about presidential
candidates. David Friedman in his book Hidden
Order: The Economics of Everyday Life puts forward
on the economics of politics by saying, ‘In
order to improve the state of the world, you must
not only vote, but vote for the right candidate
– which requires additional hours spent
considering candidates and issues. Sport fans
do not have to know which team is more deserving
of their support. Neither do political fans. Quite
a large fraction of voters cannot name their own
congressman, and only a small minority can give
an accurate account of the policy positions of
the candidates.’ Therefore staunch Democrats
will forever oppose Republicans. Yet there have
been Republicans as well as Democrats in the Presidential
office. This fact shows that policy and proposals
may have a sizable impact on political choice
of the public. (Freidman David D. Hidden Order:
The Economics of Everyday Life)
The Presidential Campaign 2004 has turned out
to be a neck to neck race between Democrats Kerry
& Edwards and Republicans Bush & Chaney.
The first thing that comes to mind as one reflects
on the history of this campaign beginning in 2003
is that unlike other presidential campaigns the
2004 campaign is being fought on ideological grounds.
During the early phases of the election Ted Kennedy,
a Massachusetts Democrat remarked "Never
in my years in the Senate have I seen my fellow
(Democratic) citizens’ rise to the challenge
of defeating the Republicans with such passion
and force than in this election."
The two biggest factors are foreign policy and
the economy; together they affect all American
people. The importance of these factors lies in
the fact that they have been a constant feature
of the Kerry campaign as well as the Bush campaign.
Both campaigns have sought to spotlight their
stance on economy and foreign policy and prove
each other wrong. The battle has been intense;
President Bush accused John Kerry for shifting
his position on policies, "No matter how
many times Senator Kerry flip-flops, we were right
to make America safer by removing Saddam Hussein
from power.” John Kerry on the other hand
accused Bush for pursuing wrong policies at home
and abroad, "So this race for the presidency
comes down to one simple decision. Do you want
four more years of moving in the wrong direction,
wrong choices, or do we want to move America in
a new direction and make things right with Edwards
and Kerry? That is what this is about!”
In another statement Kerry said, "And I will
tell you that of all the wrong choices, of all
the wrong choices President Bush has made, the
most catastrophic choice is the mess he has made
in Iraq.” These are persuasion speeches
which are oriented towards a specific public,
a public which either a fan of Democrats or Republicans.
Outright negativity about ones opponent means
that a candidate wants his supporters to know
that he is right and inform the opponent’s
supporters that they would be gambling. The presidential
candidates’ proposals in the election of
2004 have become a major factor, previously presidential
elections used to focus on the background of the
candidates and their achievements. This time due
to constant highlighting of economic and political
issues, the candidates have forced the public
to decide on the basis of proposals. Incumbent
President Bush may have the advantage of his Presidency
record but John Kerry has based his entire campaign
on proposals. However, proposals are made and
reinforced with the objective of winning supporters.
Therefore the question remains are Bush and Kerry
focusing on the undecideds, or are they hoping
for larger voter turnover to carry their votes?
Fans of Democrats will vote for Kerry, fans of
Republicans for Bush; the balance it appears lies
with the undicideds and the potential voters who
do not usually vote but have registered to vote
for the 2004 election. It is here that the impact
of proposals will take effect.
During the presidential debates and speeches
candidates have utilized moral persuasion, a call
to patriotism and promises for a brighter economic
future. Typically President Bush has been stating
various forms of this particular statement drawing
much public appreciation, "Since that terrible
morning of September 11, 2001, we have fought
the terrorists across the earth-- not for pride,
not for power, but because the lives of our citizens
are at stake.” However on the economy President
Bush has made more of an excuse than a promise,
"You know, I like to say this economy is
strong and getting stronger. I say so because
I know where we have come from. We have endured
a recession, corporate scandals, and a terrorist
attack. And yet this economy is growing. It is
growing because the workers are great.”
From statements such as these it becomes clear
that an appeal to American patriotism is being
made along with all the elements for creating
hope and goodwill in the minds of the listeners.
Even motivation is used by declaring that workers
are great. While Kerry’s campaign has dubbed
President Bush as a ‘rudderless incumbent’
when it comes to the economy, despite this negativism
there has been economic growth with more job creation
and rising consumer confidence.
A presidential campaign is an advertisement financed
by funds from special interest groups. The candidate
will advocate the policies favored by his financers.
These policies will be in the form legislations
such as taxation, legislation for environment
and health. David Freidman wrote in his book Hidden
Order: The Economics of Everyday life ‘Individuals
offer payments to politicians for supporting or
opposing legislation. The payments may take the
form of promises to vote for the politician, of
cash payment to be used to finance future election
campaigns, or of contributions to the politician’s
income. The politician is seeking to maximize
his own utility, subject to the constraint that
he could sell legislation for only as long as
he can keep getting elected.’ President
Bush pursued two tax cut bills which he believes
made the recession shallower. John Kerry declared
that such tax cuts were meant for the prosperity
of wealthy businesses. On this line President
Bush insisted that his tax cuts promote innovation
and development of technology “One thing
we've got to do as we think about how to make
sure America stays on the cutting edge of technology.
Always remember good tax policy helps innovation.
See, if we want to be a nation of innovators,
we don't want to over-tax industry and commerce
and the entrepreneurial spirit. It's very important
for Congress to understand this. It's important
for Congress to make sure that the tax relief
we passed stays in place and not raise taxes on
the American people.” Of course these tax
cuts were made to promote rich businesses; however,
it is clear that with expansion of rich American
businesses more jobs will be created along with
related industries and small businesses. A tax
cut can be utilized more effectively by large
companies than smaller ones due to economies of
scale. John Kerry however maintains that a restructuring
of the tax bills is a necessity because broad
growth and a progressive taxation system are needed.
With high rates of unemployment and an expensive
health care system John Kerry’s reform should
be very attractive for the average American citizen.
At this point an argument put forward by David
Friedman becomes relevant; he said that the special
interest groups can gather more funds for the
campaign and hence influence the candidate’s
proposals than the larger public. This is because
if the cost of a tax bill is $100,000 to an average
man and the probability of his vote affecting
the outcome of the election is one in a million
then his vote will affectively be a decision worth
10 cents. However, a corporation which has much
invested interest in the tax bill would be more
willing to provide funds for the campaign than
the average man. So yes President Bush’s
tax cuts may be meant to make the rich richer,
as is further evidenced by deregulation and limitations
on law suits, however, as stated earlier these
reform have the power to move the economy forward.
It is worthy to note that George Bush has banned
campaign ‘soft money’ which is money
from corporations and interested parties while
john Kerry has not. (Freidman David D. Hidden
Order: The Economics of Everyday Life)
The Bush government has favored the progress
of technology at the expense of the environment.
This has been done by eliminating regulatory restriction
on development of public lands for industrial
projects. The Bush Government also rejected the
Kyoto protocol saying that it would be too costly.
Bush facilitated the passage of the Clear Air
Act which affectively reduced controls on air
pollution. The Kerry government pledges to reverse
this act. Regarding their general environmental
policy the Kerry campaign declares “John
Kerry and John Edwards will revitalize contaminated
industrial sites, get toxins out of communities,
guarantee our children access to clean, safe parks
and baseball fields, and take on traffic congestion
and sprawl.” John Kerry also would not sign
the Kyoto protocol but he would invest in cleaner
fuel. The environment affects us all and the impact
of technology has made our environment unhealthy
for humans. There has been an increase in cancer
directly attributable to impact of pollution,
toxicity and technology in general. It has become
imperative that in order to secure the future
of our children the environment and especially
the air we breathe should clean and devoid of
carcinogens and other health hazards. To this
argument the Bush administration would seem to
have turned a blind eye. The Kerry campaign talks
about reducing emissions, developing cleaner fuel
but the real steps to ensure environmental security
have not been proposed. The environment has taken
a back seat and the economy has gained preference
in the 2004 election.
The Bush administration has taken a very lenient
approach to social security; young workers have
the option of placing a portion of their payroll
tax into personal retirement accounts. Higher
returns on investment can be gained at the expense
on smaller social security benefits. Bush has
not ruled against an increase in retirement age
whereas Kerry has. Kerry has also opposed the
reduction of social security payments. The benefits
of social security have been diminishing and it
seems more profitable to invest this money in
retirement accounts. Regarding health care Bush
advocates an expansion of medical savings accounts
and 100% tax incentive for medical costs. During
his term Bush signed a law which gave elderly
people prescription drug coverage. To these reforms
John Kerry declared that they "primarily
benefit healthy, wealthy Americans while doing
little to expand coverage." To society as
a whole an increased government involvement in
the health sector would reduce efficiency on the
other hand increasing private involvement would
increase costs. Kerry’s reforms to give
tax credit and insurance coverage aimed at the
general public have the potential of giving the
ordinary citizen more health coverage.
Political campaign boils down to one fact selling
tactic and demand of product. The demand for reform
seems to be primarily invested in the economy
and foreign policy, all other issues although
important, would perhaps not have much affect
on the voting public. Only environment comes a
close third. Most voters do not have knowledge
of presidential candidate’s stance on issues
nor do they care to investigate. The whole election
cycle turns into one big game where the potential
undecided and registered voter are the primary
targets of campaigns.
|