Karl has requested that, along with a few other people, I answer this question:
What are the significant differences that you think we could actually see come to pass from a Romney Presidency versus an Obama Presidency?
Here are Tyler Cowen, Kevin Drum, and Matt Yglesias. They all say a lot of believable things. I’m probably my least useful in this type of speculation, but here goes anyway. In a lot of points below I’m going to take the cowards way out and make a bunch of arguments I’m not necessarily going to stand behind, but that could plausibly be argued for.
One thing I’m pretty confident in is that if we’ve arrived at Obama vs Romney, and I think we have, then we’ve already dodged the biggest bullets (you know who I mean). So I think Karl is right to ask this question, as the answer is neither as dramatic or obvious as it could be if some of the other GOP contenders had gotten lucky.
If we’ve passed through the better part of the recession by the time the election is over, one could imagine attention will turn to tax reform. I can see either supporting something like Simpson Bowles, but Romney relying somewhat more on changes in the social security formula and removing exemptions, where Obama would lean somewhat more on increases in top marginal tax rates and some new taxes. I don’t think that the differences here would be huge overall, especially given the range of what could be done, but small differences can be pretty consequential in terms of welfare when you are talking about a multi-trillion dollar economy, so I don’t want to overly minimize these differences.
But whoever wins, I am looking forward to the end of Obama’s first term. I’ve come to believe that Obama’s biggest mistake might have been winning the election as resoundingly as he did. Republican’s came out of the election with a president who had mobilized the youth and won over a lot of independents. He was going to gain more from their mutual success if they worked together, and he was going to lose more from their mutual failure if they didn’t work together. Rationally then, many Republicans’ top priority in the past four years has been to make Obama a one term president. One could argue that if Obama wins, especially if it is a tight race, this dynamic will change once the possibility of one-terming is gone. Or he’ll lose and I just don’t see Democrats having the same resistance to working with Romney.
If Romney wins I suspect he won’t have to give very much to the base for the very same reason that Obama’s first term has been such a struggle: what Republicans want most is for Obama to be a one-term president. In achieving this Romney will already have delivered a large chunk of what the base wants. This could conceivably grant him some sway. He’s probably a moderate technocratic conservative, so maybe that’s how he’ll govern, but who knows.
I’m hopeful that once the recovery gets fully underway political cooperation will be easier regardless of who is president. I don’t think most voters actually understand the recession, and without a clear real answer they grapple naturally for whatever answer is most satisfying, and partisan explanations are most satisfying, which naturally leads to polarization. Of course if Tyler is right and we are in the middle of a Great Stagnation, then I don’t think we’ll be out of the political stagnation anytime soon. Let us home Smithianism carries the day.
One possible problem with Romney is that he can’t win under circumstances which he could govern under effectively. The conventional wisdom is that the economy will be determinative in the election. To oversimplify the issue: if the economy is weak, Romney will win. If it’s strong, Obama will win. But while I think Romney will have the political freedom to deal effectively with a recovering economy with long-term structural problems,what tools will he have to deal with an ongoing balance sheet recession? Does he have a plan to stimulate the housing market? To increase inflation? He’ll have won on some pretty strong anti-immigration rhetoric, so a large amount of immigration as stimulus seems unlikely. What will he be able to do? If I’m right he will have some sway, but I don’t think much of it in the direction he would need it here.
One of the ways I think about elections is to ask “what will the victory do to voters?” One could argue that one of the benefits of Obama winning in ’08 was the salutary disillusionment of liberals on the power of a strong president relative to what they’d be thinking at this point had McCain won. A democrat win risks undoing the hard earned disillusionment. (“Rocking the vote” is a tragedy. The central limit theorem does not apply to voting, in fact something like the opposite is true. More voters means more people paying attention means more populist governance.) On the other hand, a republican win in 2012 followed by a recovery could solidify the unhealthy myth that this is Obama’s recession if Romney happens to ride in at just the right time in the recovery. This part about how people will react to either win is hard to predict but important.

14 comments
Comments feed for this article
Thursday ~ January 19th, 2012 at 10:11 am
Rick Russell
As Karl pointed out, a lie to get the right candidate might be far better than the truth from the wrong candidate. That is so far from the democratic ideal that it is truly disheartening.
Romney is a power-hungry political transient. At this point, he has contradicted himself so much that I don’t believe a single thing he says, and I truly have no clue whether he would revert to 1990s moderate technocrat or not. I have a genuine fear that he would be another GWB-style “team leader” president and allow minions with far too much influence to lead the nation back into permanent foreign war.
Thursday ~ January 19th, 2012 at 10:58 am
Becky Hargrove
Everyone seems to be relieved that Ron Paul is not supposed to win the nomination. But Paul was the only Republican candidate who came out against the proposed laws that would hurt the Internet. (Should this change, count me glad) It’s too bad we live in times when saying what we really are about primarily works against us. And it’s also too bad that both parties are truly digging themselves into a whole as to societal solutions – they are getting further and further from them with each passing day.
Thursday ~ January 19th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Matt (@MeCampbell30)
What this is don’t even…
Thursday ~ January 19th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Tom B
I realize that I might seem like the eternal optimist here (cough, cough), but I think that it’s still a little early to be calling Romney the victor here.
I really get disappointed when people put things in terms of only two candidates/parties who are running. While I realize that the ‘”two party system” is the preferred brand, it might be helpful to stop enabling them to continue that stranglehold on the American people. There are other options out there, parties and people who might not only be closer to what you believe in and can support, but could also put a serious damper on the Corporate Party control of this nation. Change the paradigm of ‘not a viable candidate’ and ‘throwing my vote away’. Every candidate is viable if enough people believe in him/her. It’s not a horse race or a beauty pageant. The only vote you are throwing away is the one you give to someone who isn’t deserving of your support to begin with. Holding your nose and voting for the lessor of two evils still gets you evil.
Friday ~ January 20th, 2012 at 12:15 am
Rick Russell
But as Ralph Nader supporters learner in 2000, voting your conscience may get you the greater of two evils.
Friday ~ January 20th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Tom B
Perhaps. However, unless we start somewhere we will always have the status quo. Failing to vote your conscience is giving in to the current structure. Besides, would Gore really have been better? I’m not convinced by the argument that he wouldn’t have involved us in so many wasteful wars. Perhaps not. He would have done some other insidious thing. He’s not the saint everyone seems to believe he is. He profits from the laws and systems he helped to create. No different from the Bushs, Clintons, Cheneys, etal….
http://www.dunwalke.com/10_Clinton_Administration.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00358.htm
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2320–carbon-scam-al-gore-profits-and-copenhagen
Thursday ~ January 19th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
The Daily Climb « georgesblogforum
[...] the company; furthermore, soon after he became a messenger boy. [...] Jon-Paul Modeled Behavior FeedWhat difference will it make if Obama or Romney wins? January 19, 2012Karl has requested that, along with a few other people, I answer this question: [...]
Thursday ~ January 19th, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Terry Mahoney
This was an excellent analysis of the situation. I think Paul would have made a good candidate for the economic discussion that would be forced. Once the American public is forced to face Ludwig von Mises in the full light of day, it would end this self-defeating austerity in a down economy crap.
Thursday ~ January 19th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Becky Hargrove
…”digging themselves into a whole” – not sure if that was a mistake or a Freudian slip.
Thursday ~ January 19th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Th
One area you touch on that I certainly hope doesn’t need to come up is the policy regarding government interference in markets. In an effort to attack Obama, the Republicans have convinced a large share of their voters that what has been standard practice is now forbidden. I just don’t see the wiggle room for Romney to bail out bankrupt too-big-to-fail firms.
Becky, I think most politicians give us a pretty clear picture of what they are all about. Sometimes that is phoniness and sometimes it is cluelessness but they do talk about what is important to them. Have you been surprised that everything Obama has done (other than foreign policy where Hillary runs the show) has been half-assed mush where signing a bill seems to be far more important to him than the contents of the bill? Didn’t he spend all his time in 2008 talking about working together and new atmosphere and reaching across the aisle and hasn’t his legislation been whatever Lieberman and Nelson and Olympia Snowe will vote for? I’ve been frustrated but not surprised.
Thursday ~ January 19th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Carl
I’m just worried about my social safety nets.
Thursday ~ January 19th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Matt (@MeCampbell30)
Aside from the big issues, there are the little things that also matter. For example, I trust Obama’s judgment more than I do Romney’s. I also dislike how the trend in politics is to simplify things. These issues are complex and sometimes a one sentence answer doesn’t cut it. Obama, while often falling prey to that kind of politics, does resist and does have a tendency to explain the details. Obama has also been more deferential on environmental issues and, frankly, I think he’s a better diplomat.
The judgment thing I think is key though, the government will be run by the people the president chooses. People the public won’t really get a good look at.
Saturday ~ January 21st, 2012 at 12:53 am
What if Obama wins again? | Is the End soon?
[...] What difference will it make if Obama or Romney wins? (modeledbehavior.com) [...]
Wednesday ~ August 22nd, 2012 at 1:44 am
Who Am I Carrying Water For? | Forbes
[...] In an old blog post where we credit Romney of anti-immigration tongue [...]