GMU economist Tyler Cowen offers some sane perspective on the 2008 U.S. presidential elections. Even U.S. voters are generally unaware that presidents do not have much influence over 5-year economic performance. Yes, they can influence long-term policy and productivity as did Reagan. But in the campaigns the candidates want you to think they will have their hands on the controls of the “chocolate factory”.
IT has become common wisdom that the battle for the presidency is all about the economy. Voters are being told that the country’s economic health depends on pulling the right lever in the polling booth.
This election is certainly important. But based on the historical record, it isn’t likely to result in a major swing in economic policy. Fundamentally, democracy is not a finely tuned mechanism that can be used to direct economic policy as a lever might lift a pulley. The connection between what voters want, or think they want, and what ultimately happens in the economy, is far less direct.
Voters may be concerned about the economy, but there is little evidence that the electorate, as a whole, really wants to engage in close consideration of economics. The current campaign season is a case in point.
0 Responses to “It’s an Election, Not a Revolution”