Not only is the suggestion insane and illegal, but look at the way the policy he advocates has worked against the North Korean regime. The idea that the NK regime was close to collapse and stronger sanctions would bring it down in as little as a year has been almost an unshakable faith since Kim Il Sung's last years. Not so much. Our entire Iran strategy is cast in that same ignorant vein. So his policy it is not only insane and illegal, but it is ineffective and counterproductive, as well!
AND THEY APPLAUD HIM!
I think that there are a few reasons for Mr. Broder's strange advice. The Republican party has maintained for 30-40 years that Roosevelt's policies didn't really work and that WWII ended the Depression. There is some small grain of truth that the arms build-up in 1940 and 1941, and the sales to England, put the final spike in the Depression. But that is, as you hint, pure Keynesian intervention. The bump we could get from increased military spending is now very small, because we are already fueling that sector of the economy to the point that it can't be a driver of major job growth. It should be obvious that war can't get us out of our current economic crises because we are already embroiled in two conflicts, so if war was the answer the economy should be booming.
The second reason is that Mr. Broder, for as long as I can remember, has always been a stalking horse for the Republican party - always reasonable and sometimes right- but his slant is definitely orthodox Republican philosophy, so his advice to a Democratic President is pitched to create a certain impression that the President is somehow inadequate to the task, even when the President is correct.
There seems to be no penalty to suggesting that we go to war with other nations that have never actually harmed us. But I do worry about what would happen if the Republicans were to capture the White House in 2012, when even the reasonable edge of the Republican Party can make this argument.
This particular point has driven me crazy for years. War has once and only once proven to be an economic 'boon'. That was to the US during WW2 under specific conditions. Even then the real economic stimulus was the lend-lease and the arms sales to Britain. The war itself saw rationing and other signs of stress and privation. In every other case I can recall wars have proven disastrous for economies of both the winner and the loser.
The 1970's stagnation was touched off by the Vietnam war. What prosperity does Bush see there? The Civil War was good for the economy? The War of the Roses? The War of 1812? Just which wars does he mean?
The mystery to me is how did this bogus notion gain such wide credence in the popular imagination? Perhaps you could prevail on Professor Sheehan to guest write a column addressing this issue.
Not only is the suggestion insane and illegal, but look at the way the policy he advocates has worked against the North Korean regime. The idea that the NK regime was close to collapse and stronger sanctions would bring it down in as little as a year has been almost an unshakable faith since Kim Il Sung's last years. Not so much. Our entire Iran strategy is cast in that same ignorant vein. So his policy it is not only insane and illegal, but it is ineffective and counterproductive, as well!
AND THEY APPLAUD HIM!
God may have said He wouldn't destroy the world - He didn't say We couldn't. So even his theology makes no sense.
I think that there are a few reasons for Mr. Broder's strange advice. The Republican party has maintained for 30-40 years that Roosevelt's policies didn't really work and that WWII ended the Depression. There is some small grain of truth that the arms build-up in 1940 and 1941, and the sales to England, put the final spike in the Depression. But that is, as you hint, pure Keynesian intervention. The bump we could get from increased military spending is now very small, because we are already fueling that sector of the economy to the point that it can't be a driver of major job growth. It should be obvious that war can't get us out of our current economic crises because we are already embroiled in two conflicts, so if war was the answer the economy should be booming.
The second reason is that Mr. Broder, for as long as I can remember, has always been a stalking horse for the Republican party - always reasonable and sometimes right- but his slant is definitely orthodox Republican philosophy, so his advice to a Democratic President is pitched to create a certain impression that the President is somehow inadequate to the task, even when the President is correct.
There seems to be no penalty to suggesting that we go to war with other nations that have never actually harmed us. But I do worry about what would happen if the Republicans were to capture the White House in 2012, when even the reasonable edge of the Republican Party can make this argument.
This particular point has driven me crazy for years. War has once and only once proven to be an economic 'boon'. That was to the US during WW2 under specific conditions. Even then the real economic stimulus was the lend-lease and the arms sales to Britain. The war itself saw rationing and other signs of stress and privation. In every other case I can recall wars have proven disastrous for economies of both the winner and the loser.
The 1970's stagnation was touched off by the Vietnam war. What prosperity does Bush see there? The Civil War was good for the economy? The War of the Roses? The War of 1812? Just which wars does he mean?
The mystery to me is how did this bogus notion gain such wide credence in the popular imagination? Perhaps you could prevail on Professor Sheehan to guest write a column addressing this issue.