Qualitative Comments

If Huckabee were to win the nomination, a National Security third party could pull voters from Republicans, independents and Democrats in the Presidential election.

I am a lifelong Republican.  I have been a Romney supporter for the nomination since early 2006.  Giuliani is my second choice.  I could readily vote for Thompson, if nominated, and reluctantly vote for McCain, if nominated.  However, Huckabee scares me.  I think he is clueless on national security (see his comments on Gitmo and in Foreign Affairs), gullible (see his list of pardons as governor), ethically-challenged (see his back-handed, “who-me” sideswipes at Mormons, his gift-taking as governor, and his misrepresentation of his tuition break program for illegals in the Stephanopoulos interview), a spender (see his growth in Arkansas government), and a blind populist on the economy (see his comments about control by the upper class).  If nominated by the Republicans, I don’t think I could vote for him, and if he were elected (which he wouldn’t be – he’d lose in a landslide) I think he would be a disaster for the country.

The Republican party has three main constituencies – national security conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives.  In many ways, I am in all three constituencies, but, for me, they are prioritized in the order in which I have listed them.  National Security at the federal level trumps everything in times of war.  (By the way, I really like Rudy’s name for the war – the Terrorist War on Us – rather than the GWOT.)  Even though I am a regularly attending Christian (Methodist), I find Huckabee’s running as the “Christian candidate” to be an offensive example of identity politics.

Unlike a social conservative third party candidate, I think a national security candidate could actually win if a coalition is built.  A social conservative would draw virtually no one from the independents and Democrats, but a national security coalition would.  I think Lieberman’s re-election shows that there are still some Scoop Jackson Democrats.  (Yes, I know that many Republicans also voted for him.)  Building the coalition would mean compromising on some social and economic issues, but it would be better than a Democratic presidency (or a Huckabee presidency).  Natural leaders to pursue to assemble the coalition would be Giuliani, McCain, and Lieberman.  Bloomberg has no place on the ticket because he has no substance on national security, although his endorsement would be helpful.  Perhaps Norm Coleman, Tim Pawlenty, George Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith, Colin Powell, Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, General Anthony Zinni, Jon Tester, and Ken Salazar would endorse the National Security ticket.  Maybe even some of the conservative commentators whose first concern is National Security would endorse it as well.

This is not where I want to be; I want to see Romney or Giuliani nominated and elected.  But if Huckabee were to be nominated, I think a National Security third party candidate could win and would be better for the country than the likely Democratic winner (or an unlikely Huckabee winner).

Why can't two candidates initiate a debate between each other (say Romney suggesting a debate to Giuliani) in the same manner that Lincoln and Douglas exchanged letters agreeing to the terms, times, and locations for their debates?  I realize that they could not cause radio/TV stations to cover it live, but they could certainly stream it to the internet and post it online at very little cost -- and in all likelihood, broadcast news would show some extracts.  What's preventing this?  Why doesn't this happen?

It would certainly be far more informative than a CNN/YouTube circus... and more informative than the sound-bite Q&A with eight candidates on a stage
 

I just listened to the interview that Bill Bennett had with Jim Woolsey on Friday 11/23 (posted on the Bennett Morning In America website.  Like many of his listeners, I was recovering from turkey overdose on Friday.)  I was STUNNED to hear Dr. Bennett and other conservatives talking so eagerly about Big Government Central Planning on how to "break the monopoly that oil has on transportation".  Since when did Central Planning work better than the free market?  Apparently Big Media has so muddled reality that even otherwise clear thinkers are predisposed to embrace Central Planning and to believe in what amounts to conspiracy-thinking with regards to the big bad oil industry.

I understand the argument that we are subsidizing the international demand for oil through a portion of our military expenditures to keep the Persian Gulf open and the Middle East oilfields producing.  I would even consider an import tax for foreign crude oil or refined product to help pay for some of our military expenditures.  The problem is that since oil is a world commodity, an import tax would put America's economy at a disadvantage versus the rest of the world.  The rest of the world would continue to benefit from our protection of oil-producing regions, but would pay none of the costs.  This "externality" of costs arguably causes some dislocation in the economy favoring consumption of oil -- but the subsidy is to the consumer, not the oil industry.  The oil industry is a price taker, not a price maker.

Mr. Woolsey’s mention of subsidizing the oil industry by allowing them to use carcinogens in an unregulated manner in the refining process is a new one on me.  It certainly hasn't stopped the trial lawyers from suing the refineries on behalf of anyone within a certain radius who has developed cancer.

Regardless, the response to externalities should be to try to find a way to internalize costs in the system.  A good argument can be made that offsetting taxes already exist that create costs for the oil industry that are not related to any “real” costs of the industry -- severance taxes (in addition to the royalties that are paid to the mineral owner, including the government when it is the owner), ad valorem taxes for the value of the oil in the ground, and excise taxes on gasoline.  These taxes are huge and are not for any external costs that need to be internalized, they are simply added burdens borne by a politically impotent industry.

Among the least desirable responses to an argument about subsidized costs is one that says Big Government can achieve something through Central Planning that the frothy brew called capitalism can't do in the free market.  Even the vaunted Japanese MITI missed the rapid evolution of business since the 1980’s.  Mr. Woolsey is saying that the government bet on the wrong technology with hydrogen fuel cells for cars, but now we know better.  -- No, no, no!

The language of “breaking the monopoly that oil has on transportation” is silly and reminiscent of conspiracy theory talk.  Does he really think that the oil industry is a cabal that conspires to deprive the free market of a more efficient transportation energy source?  -- Nonsense!

The government needs to get out of the way, not intervene.  Let the multitude of fuel cell, ethanol, butane, and battery entrepreneurs (yes, even General Motors can be entrepreneurial when faced with opportunity) do what they do best.  GM is preparing to offer their plug-in hybrid in 2010 because the economics make sense at $90 oil, not because a Central Planning committee thinks it’s the best idea.

Even the idea of the government committing to buy an all plug-in auto fleet is interference.  I don’t want to send extra tax dollars so that the government takes on early-stage risks and costs that rightly are part of the costs for which any entrepreneur should plan.

What should we do?  We should make our personal purchases with rational self-interest.  If we want to be early adopters, that’s great.  But we have no right to tell or force other people to be early adopters.  Let the markets work!

If the government interferes now, when oil prices are high due to supply and demand.  Then they owe some make-up to producers when prices were low (1986-2000) due to supply and demand.  Then soon, we can protect all industries from price swings and innovation.  See where this discussion leads?  My answer is NO – let markets work.

I don’t know why the oil industry is viewed to be a cabal that controls the world, but its time that fair-minded free-marketers stand up and say no.  The Republicans seem to be surrendering capitalism bit-by-bit.  (The Democratic party surrendered it long ago.)  That is not where we should be.