Well we’re pleased.
We’ve long been proponents of the idea that if you want to keep the economy afloat, you need to keep deficit spending going. And if you want to keep the deficit spending pumping, then the clear answer in November is Mitt Romney.
While it’s true that Romney and the rest of the Republicans talk about cutting spending, that’s total nonsense. Austerity is purely the domain of opposition parties. Spending cuts and shrinking government is a new Republican idea that only formed under Obama, and as soon as Romney gets into office, the party will revert to its traditional beliefs.
Of course, if Obama wins re-election, and the GOP goes down with the milquetoast Massachusetts liberal, then the fury of Congressional Republicans will come to a boil, and we’ll get more digging in than ever.
We first made this argument on April 1, and nobody took it real seriously in part because it just happened to be posted on April Fool’s Day.
Then we reiterated the argument in the middle of last Month.
Now the idea is really gaining steam.
Today the Washington Post’s influential blogger Ezra Klein spelled out The Keynesian Case For Romney.
Klein does a better job than we ever could explaining the technicalities of what could and will happen under various election outcome scenarios, but the gist is the same: Romney win = more likelihood of prolonged deficit spending. Obama win = potential fiscal cliffmageddon.
More and more people are grasping this. This is a great line from Klein’s post:
Miles Nadal, CEO of the marketing and communications firm MDC Partners, says that at a recent event with executives of more than 100 companies, the business leaders, panicked about this possibility, agreed on the best outcome for the economy: “a Republican landslide.” Why? “Because anything that breaks the logjam is positive,” he says. “The quality of the leader is less relevant than the ability to break gridlock.”
But the idea of a Keynesians For Romney campaign really distresses people, since it’s basically a tantamount to rewarding the GOP for being obstructionists, that won’t pass the slightest bit of stimulus if it’s proposed by a Democratic President. Actually it’s worse: As the Republicans showed last summer, the party is willing to take the nation to the brink of default.
Hence Klein concludes:
This is the logical conclusion of a system biased toward gridlock: The out-party benefits when the public feels that Washington is failing and it often has the power to make Washington fail. Which, arguably, leads to another unusual reality about this election: Even if you agree with Romney’s policies, it may be that voting for Obama, and delivering a landslide against the GOP’s economic brinksmanship, is the only way to end the dangerous appeal of strategic gridlock going forward.
So which are you more worried about? The fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling? Or the political system?
Others have made the same conclusion. Here’s economist Andy Hardless tweeting the same idea.
The gist, which he later stated in a followup tweet, is that voting for Romney over the economy is a reward for economic extortion.
So that’s the hot meme: Do you vote for the economy or do you stand up for democracy.
NOW WATCH: Briefing videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.