FreedomTalks

The big news in politics today, obviously, is this evening’s Iowa caucus, the first actual voting event (or psuedo-voting event, anyway) in the 2008 election season. For political junkies and interested Beltway residents, elections are a source of endless fascination and frustration, a bizarre sport marked by head-scratching traditions and byzantine rules played by the famous and the strange. They also serve as a unique (if sometimes maddeningly vague) window into the mind of the American public, a way for the country to learn a little bit about itself, and, more specifically, for those of us with particular interests in policy to see how the voting public feels about a wide variety of issues.

Along these lines, there are a couple of things that are worth noting. In the New York Times this morning, Adam Nagourney notes the increasing importance of domestic policy issues:

Candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes.

The shift suggests that economic anxiety may be at least matching national security as a factor driving the 2008 presidential contest as the voting begins.

Dick Armey has long argued that pocketbook issues — the basic economic issues that voters feel and see in their own lives — are what drive elections, and I think we’re seeing that here. But there are worrying trends too, as the movement seems to have the potential to go the wrong way. Here’s Larry Kudlow at the Corner yesterday:

The worst outcome in tomorrow’s Iowa caucuses for the stock market and economy would be victories by Mike Huckabee and John Edwards.

Both are anti-business, anti-Wall Street, and anti-CEO. They would employ government regulation, and perhaps taxes, to work against free-market forces.

Both are anti-trade. Both are tax-and-spend. (Governor Huckabee has tried to inoculate himself against the tax charge with his Fair Tax national sales tax idea that would go nowhere in Washington.)

The key point is that Edwards and Huckabee are the left-wing populists in the campaign on economic policy. Their victories would send up a red-flag warning signal to a stock market already beleaguered by worries about an economic slowdown and the ongoing subprime credit problem.

The fearful, tax-and-spend, protectionist policies proferred by these candidates represent the sort of raw, unthinking populism that the country has often flirted with but has always done best to reject.

On the other hand, the Ron Paul phenomenon (chronicled most recently in a delightful piece by Eve Fairbanks at The New Republic) indicates that, though the establishment seems mystified at it, there is a substantial amount of energy and enthusiasm for a freedom agenda.

Bonus Iowa Fun: As I said, the caucuses are a psuedo-voting event. That’s because no Iowa caucus-goer actually, you know… votes.  Instead, they stand in corners.  Confused yet? TNR’s Mike Crowley explains it all.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 am and is filed under Taxes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.