Well, maybe stated in economic terms it's relevant. Gore and Clinton are two very different people -- Clinton ran as a "New Democrat" more mainstream, supported NAFTA, etc. His positions on many economic matters were abhorred by the more liberal union-oriented people who support Gore. Also, under Clinton's last 6 years, we've had a Democratic president who willingly acted with moderation in the face of a Republican-controlled Congress. We've had about as middle-of-the-road government as we can get in this country.
So, who's to credit for this boom? If anything, isn't it the fact that we've had MODERATE government for the past 6 years?
Now, if Gore is elected and the Democrats take over the House of Representatives, then we have Clinton's first 2 years, only with a much more ideological president. Clinton's goal was to be president, to have that power, to influence. To do that, he was willing to move across the political spectrum. Gore, I think, is far more ideological.
I don't think a Gore presidency will continue what we've had, in terms of economic policy. I think we'll have a much more activist government, which will be destructive to business. Because I don't think we'll see a Gore victory without the Democrats also taking over the House. That will result in a major shift in our economic policy, and I would expect the markets to react accordingly.
Look at your charts. Look at post-Nov 1994 compared with before then. When the Republicans took over the House and in essence handcuffed Clinton's liberal tendencies, the markets began their surge. We need moderate government for this great economy to continue. A Gore victory will move us away from moderate government more than a Bush victory will, in my opinion.
fuzzymath |
