Professor Yasheng Huang of the Sloan School of Management at MIT wrote an article in the July/August issue of Foreign Policy magazine entitled THE NEXT ASIAN MIRACLE. His central premise addresses the idea that authoritarian forms of government suppress economic development. He compares and contrasts China's rapid expansion with India's significantly slower growth. While many people might expect that a democratic form of government would foster greater economic expansion, the examples of India and China will make us think otherwise. Indeed, we might come to the conclusion that China's rapid growth is due to its more authoritarian style of government, and India's slower growth is the result of greater political freedoms in that country. However, Professor Huang concludes that China's real expansion occurred in the 80s when the government significantly reduced intrusions on the lives of its citizens and, on the other side of the coin, India's slow growth was due to Indira Gandhi’s unaccountable and corrupt government.

This line of thinking made me wonder what effect eight years of the Bush administration has had on the American economy and how if a Barack Obama or John McCain presidency might either reverse or perpetuate our current economic course. Although certainly not a hard and fast rule, historically the American business cycle has trended towards a pattern of eight years of growth followed by three years of hardship. Our last real recession, which occurred in 1991 (remember, “It’s the economy, stupid.”?), was followed by eight years of historic growth. So in the year 2000 I would've expected that whichever candidate won the battle for the US presidency in Florida would have been presided over three years of economic downturn. Of course, as with any generalization, unexpected variables will always throw a monkey wrench into the system. The events of September 11, 2001, were just such a monkey wrench. The downturn, which I expected during the first Bush administration, never came and the significant upturn, which I would've expected during a second Bush administration, also never came. However, the events of 9/11 did allow the Bush and Cheney administration to begin the largest accumulation of executive power since the Great Depression.

I should note that all though I am no Bill Clinton fan, I have always been willing to give him credit for meddling little with the US economy during his eight years in office. As most people can tell you, new leadership usually brings change--whether it is needed or not. New leaders want to be seen as having put their imprint on the systems they oversee. They want to validate the ideas that facilitated their rise to power in the first place. So it's very common for new Presidents, CEOs, and even mid-level managers to make change for the sake of change even when no change is warranted. Thus it is with mild dismay that I give President Clinton his due for essentially leaving the US economy alone during his eight years in office. He was smart enough to see that the economic engine of the United States was purring along nicely after 12 years of Republican governance. In hindsight, and in light of Professor Huang's article, I wonder now if his liberal approach to managing the economy (and by liberal I mean being released from government intrusion) might have actually been high-octane fuel for an economic engine already running at high RPMs. And I wonder if the accumulation of executive power by the Bush administration during the last eight years has been a swift application of the breaks to America's motor.

What is important to note from Professor Huang's article is that it is not the actual form of government that is critical to economic acceleration. Had that been the case, China's authoritarian rule would never have allowed for the rapid economic expansion from which China continues to reap the benefits today. Moreover, India would have seen a significantly more rapid growth in its economy given its well-formed democratic government. No, the key seems to be the perception of the people regarding the direction in which government is moving. Citizens in India, blessed with a democratic constitution, endured Indira Gandhi's administration’s accumulation of power, restrictions on freedoms, and suppression of states rights. This trend seems to have made investors, entrepreneurs and creative people skittish about the security of their money. Likewise in China, the big bang for their economic growth was Deng Xiaoping's very liberal reforms in the early 80s. Quoting Professor Huang, “China did not take off because it was authoritarian. Rather, it took off because the liberal political reforms of the 1980s made the country less authoritarian. Like India, when China reversed its political reforms and saw governance worsen in the 1990s, citizens well-being declined.” Professor Huang concludes that while the actual number of individuals affected by specific Chinese policies was small, that, “symbolism mattered.” Professor Huang says, “The change in direction of China's politics was sufficiently credible to encourage millions of entrepreneurs to go into business for themselves.”

Authentic conservatives, who have been arguing for smaller federal government, will not be surprised by these conclusions. Big government restrictions on citizens and businesses are viewed as a threat to the intellectual capital behind economic growth—creativity, risk-tolerance, investment, venture funding, etc.

This makes me wonder which of the two presidential candidates, Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, would be most likely to change the perception of how our executive branch of government is functioning. The easy answer would be Barack Obama. He has been campaigning for the better part of a year on a platform of change. And no doubt a Barack Obama presidency would usher in a great deal of change. However, would this change result in less government intrusion or more? Given his standing as the most liberal senator in Washington and some of his policy ideas like increasing federal regulation on the banking industry and implementation of a single payer health care system, I can only imagine that his presidency would include vastly more government restraints than we see today.

John McCain has certainly been bucking the system and his party for the better part of his political career. As a Republican, at least in theoretical ideology, we would expect him to relax federal regulation, reduce taxes, and free the components of the economic engine to operate with less friction. But as much as he likes to place himself outside of the establishment, he is still a senator who has served his political career in Washington during a time when both parties have gotten into the habit of providing more and more from the public coffers to special interests and niche political groups. Additionally, McCain -- Feingold cannot leave us with much optimism about his desire to let Americans operate unencumbered.

If perceived reality is indeed more important than reality itself, then perhaps we should simply believe that the marketing campaigns of each candidate have already provided us with the answer to this question. In a recent poll in which likely voters were asked to say the first word that comes to mind when prompted with each candidate's name, the runaway front runner for Obama was “change” and the leader for McCain was “old.” Even not being an Obama supporter, I, too, would have thought, “change” first, even as I resisted saying it out loud. Whether or not this perception of change will be sufficient to overcome the likely reality of growth in federal government and intrusion is obviously cause for speculation. But at least he would enter the office cloaked in the perception of being a change agent. Given the direction of this discussion, I find scant cause for optimism when considering a McCain presidency. The last year of campaigning has done little to separate him from President Bush. Of course, upon taking office, he could change whatever perception he arrives in the Oval Office with by spending his first 100 days freeing Americans from many of the regulations and government intrusions we are currently saddled with.

As is always the case, the success of our great nation depends on the behavior of its individual citizens. We can choose to respond any way we wish. Regardless of whom we elect as President, we can look for the areas in which we are regaining liberties, not losing them. One thing Senator Obama has right: we must BE the change we wish to become. He, or Senator McCain will have less to do with our national success than each of us will. At least that’s my perception.

I don't have a problem with four-dollar gas.  Or five-dollar gas.  Or six dollars or seven.  Maybe it's my own shallowness that causes me to simply want to be a part of something bigger than myself.  Though I served in Gulf War one, I don't really think that my military experience gave me the sense of participation in a great national struggle. 


So maybe I long to be a part of such a struggle, such an opportunity, where the future of the world turns on the behavior of the generations involved in that struggle.  Then again maybe my motivation runs deeper.  Maybe I simply believe in the greatness of America so much so that I understand that without America's participation in any global struggle there will never be the positive outcome that the world desires.

 It should come as no surprise that Americans need a kick in the butt to get involved in any global struggle. World War I, which began in 1914, raged for over three years before the United States was co-opted into full participation.  The fighting of World War II began in 1939 yet it was more than two years before the United States became fully involved in that global conflict and then only after the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.  So I'm not surprised that high gas prices in other countries a few years back, when gas prices here in America were still a tolerable two dollars a gallon, were insufficient to spur the great American economy into action.  We were able to sit back and relax knowing that this enemy wasn’t disembarking on our shores.   But now the battle has been brought directly to our homeland.  Gasoline prices are spiking, as never before, and regardless of who's to blame, the bottom line is that each and every American who pays for gasoline is acutely aware that changes are needed in our energy policy.

 My fear is that quickly rectifying the situation in a manner that returns gas to below three dollars a gallon would remove the impetus to action on the part of Americans. This is exactly what happened in the late 70s. President Carter put forth an ambitious energy policy that the Reagan administration promptly abandoned after prices returned to normal.

Fortunately, four-dollar gas is not the violent, instantaneous call to action that Pearl Harbor or 9/11 was.  Four-dollar gas at American pumps is not the type of catastrophe with ripples that are felt for months and even years in the American psyche.  If gas returns to a tolerable level tomorrow we will quickly forget how thin our wallets have been over the past year and return to our gluttony of the world's oil supply.  But it should now be clear to every American that long-term and permanent changes need to be made to American energy policy.

 "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me," the adage goes.  A century ago we committed to creating a petroleum-based economy.  Who could have foreseen the unintended consequences that occurred in the last hundred years?  But with hindsight as a counselor, we can now see the follies of many of our decisions.  Notwithstanding that every war is a war over resources, the last two wars the United States has been involved in have clearly been wars for access to oil.

 Applying all of the greatness of America's creativity, ingenuity and economic might to the problem, I suspect that since it took nearly a century to create the problem we now face, it will take at least half as much time to change our course.  Fifty years--half a century--to undo what we have done.  The constant pain inflicted on Americans by four dollar a gallon gasoline is the necessary catalyst to jumpstart America's complete involvement in solving the current conundrum in which we now find ourselves.

 There have been many studies done attempting to predict the point at which the world will reach peak oil production, that point in time at which the world will have produced the most oil it can at a given point in time after which oil production will steadily decline.  Regardless of whether you believe peak oil production will occur in 10 years 20 years or 30 years, given the fact that oil is a limited resource, that day will one day arrive. If gasoline were to return to two dollars a gallon tomorrow, the past year of rising oil prices rising gas prices and economic woes caused by those conditions should be a clear glimpse into the future when oil production is, without a doubt, on the decline. This is the time for the United States to act.  This is the time for the United States to reclaim our role as world leader--by accepting the reality of the situation and accepting the challenges that this situation presents for our great nation.

 Already we've seen Americans begin to make great changes.  Studies are showing that individuals and families are driving fewer miles than they did a year ago and carpooling is up.  Cities are investing in new mass transportation and the use of current mass transportation is on the rise.  Local and state governments are taking the initiative to try various tactics to decrease gas and energy usage, from Michigan's Governor Jennifer Granholm proposing a reduction of the speed limit to 55 to Utah's governor instituting a four-day workweek.  Every day it seems I read about another start-up automobile company investing in the development of car powered by alternative energy sources.  Homebuilders are, more and more, constructing their products with greater energy efficiency and incorporating newer technologies to reduce energy usage in the home.  All in all, America is beginning, once again, to demonstrate its willingness and ability to rise to any challenge it faces.  The sign of our greatness will not be our ability to quickly return gasoline prices to two dollars a gallon but rather our willingness and ability to learn from the lessons of the last century and incorporate those lessons into new energy policy that becomes a benchmark for the next century and for every other country on the planet.

 It's human nature to take the path of least resistance.  When gas is cheap, there's virtually no resistance and certainly no reason to change direction.  But when gasoline is four dollars or more per gallon, resistance is great and there becomes a national consensus that a new direction is needed that provides less resistance than the current course of action.

 Difficulties are part of life.  There's no avoiding them.  But rising fuel costs need not be the cataclysmic event most people think it is. The question becomes, will we view ourselves as victims as difficulties mount or will we view these difficulties as opportunities?  America has a history of the latter.  America has a history of not backing down.  Today, with gas at four dollars a gallon and rising, the enemy is clear and our challenges are well defined.  We should view every painful trip to the pump as a reminder that each of us has a part to play in creating America's future for ourselves and our children and our grandchildren.

 
As I dictate this article, I'm making the 150-mile journey from San Antonio, Texas, to Waco, Texas in the family minivan.  I'm acutely aware of the fact that I am a part of the problem, as are the myriad of cars that surround me in stop and go traffic through Austin.  I'm acutely aware that the sheer geographic vastness of America, and the development of the automobile 100 years ago have caused each of us to make lifestyle choices which are not easily undone.  I wonder how I might make this trip a decade from now.  I wonder if I-35 will more closely resemble the Flintstones or the Jetsons.  I may be only one American, but I know from conversations with friends over the kitchen counter that many share my concerns but they also share my optimism.  But I'm also enough of a realist to understand that in the absence of an external force acting upon it an object at rest tends to stay at rest.  Four dollar a gallon gasoline is the external force America needs to get the ball rolling.

The job of the Vice-President is much maligned and held in little esteem by those who know the job. In a telegram from Woodrow Wilson’s vice-president, Thomas Marshall, to newly nominated Republican vice presidential candidate Calvin Coolidge, Marshall wrote, “Please accept my sincere sympathy.” Harry Truman wrote of the job, “As useful as a cow’s fifth teat.” Maybe the smartest men are the ones who avoid the indignity in the first place. Daniel Webster, explaining why he declined the vice-presidential nomination in 1848 replied, “I do not choose to be buried until I am really dead.”

In fact, even from its very inception it inspired rancor from its holders. John Adams, America’s first Vice President said, “My country, in its wisdom, contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.” But Adams experience demonstrates the extreme irony. As insignificant as the position may seem to its holders, the American public seems to value the experience it provides. Adams, of course, went on to become our second president.

Since John F. Kennedy, we’ve had eight presidents: four have been governors and four have been vice-presidents. This year we will have a Senator rise to the presidency, but clearly this is the exception not the rule.

The bottom line is that while the job may be insignificant in and of itself, the experience of having had the job is by no means insignificant. Which is why I find it so perplexing that still today vice-presidents are selected on their merits as VICE-PRESIDENTS as opposed to PRESIDENTS IN TRAINING. This is, ultimately, the job of the vice-president—to succeed the President in his duties if he (or she) is no longer able. The rest is killing time. Consequently, the one quality a vice-president should possess is to be presidential material. Yet the qualities for which modern-day vice-presidents are selected is their ability to complement the presidential nominee as opposed to their ability to be attractive as a stand-alone candidate who might one day hold the highest office in the land.

An often-investigated “qualification” many vice-presidents are selected for is from where they hail. There is a line of thinking that vice-presidential candidates can help deliver the votes of their home state. This, in fact, seems to have some real merit, at least in the elections since 1960. In the twelve elections beginning in 1960, there have been 24 vice-presidential nominees. Seventeen of these delivered their home state. However, only seven of those 24 candidates could be considered to have come from a “key” state—either big states or swing states. The rest called smaller states home: Wyoming, Connecticut, North Carolina, Kansas, Indiana, Minnesota, Maryland, for instance. Of the seven “big state” vice-presidential nominees only George Bush in 1980 and 1984 and Lyndon Johnson in 1960 delivered their home state (Texas in each case). And in the 80s, it’s safe to say Ronald Reagan would have carried Texas with Captain Kangaroo as his vice-presidential nominee. Reagan beat Carter 55% to 41% in 1980 and Mondale 63% to 36 % in 1984.

In the midst of the current election, we find the discussion about a potential Barack Obama running mate centering on someone who has a longer D.C. resume or, more specifically, significant foreign policy experience. Jim Webb fit this bill having been Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy with the added benefit of being a Vietnam War veteran, which theoretically would have helped Obama shore up his position with the pro-military crowd. John McCain, apparently, also lacks a full complement of presidential qualifications, causing the pundits to postulate that a running mate who is more palatable with the social conservatives and evangelicals would make for an attractive dance card. Mike Huckabee and Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin are highly regarded on that list. Furthermore, Senator McCain has a self-acknowledged economic deficit so a running mate with extensive economic experience would be beneficial to his chances of being elected—enter Mitt Romney.

Of course, the practical reality is that the functional relationship between the two High-Office holders is seldom this collaborative. Presidents are not known for humbly calling upon vice-presidents to develop policy initiatives or make decisions in areas in which the president is perceived to have a deficit. I have a hard time imagining President McCain urgently calling Vice-President Romney on his cell: “Mitt, I know you’re at my doctor’s office checking on my health but you’re needed at the big house, pronto. These Cabinet fellas are talking economics and, shucks, I need a little help with this supply and demand chart.”

The reality is that we tend to view potential vice-presidential nominees as the other half of a matchmaking proposition. We look for VP yin for the nominee’s yang. We wonder who would make a cute couple, which potential nominee would complement the party’s candidate, who would offset perceived weaknesses, who could take out the trash without complaining while the other is at the office.

It makes me wonder if Samantha Daniels, the Manhattan Matchmaker specializing in discreet setups for the rich and famous has contemplated political consulting. Better yet, it might be easier to find the best candidate if those in need of a (running) mate registered at “veep-Harmony.com.”

First Name: Senator

I’m Currently: Campaigning

I’m a (circle one): man seeking man, man seeking woman, woman seeking woman, woman seeking man

Racial Preference: no preference/ black/ Hispanic/ Asian/ Other

Age Preference (circle one): older/ younger/ +/- 5 years

Postal Code: 20500

Country: Duh

Email: info@partyheadquarters.com

Password: Feingold/NotAMuslim

How did you hear about us (circle one): O’Reilly, Olberman, Limbaugh, Colbert, Direct Mail, Referred by “friend,” other.

At least THIS process would put the proven power of the Internet and current technological advances to work on creating the best match possible given our current standards for qualification.

Then again, maybe the Founding Fathers had it right from the beginning. The vice-president was the presidential candidate who came in second, thus assuring that American citizens had a vice-president who many already thought worthy of the Presidency. I’m not advocating a return to that system, but I am suggesting that the best vice-president is also someone we can imagine being president, not simply on the president’s elbow throughout the campaign.

This time of each election year is the ultimate exercise in self-indulgent palaver by those of us who make our living by saying or writing, “What he SHOULD do is…” We get so caught up in creating the perfect match that we forget the potential importance of the vice-presidency. Ultimately, the choice makes little difference whatsoever—at least not for four more years when this year’s VWM (vetted white male) becomes our next Man Seeking (wo)man.