Whom do you want for president in 2024? How about the candidate who promises to vacation and play golf the most? There’s my answer for those who are interested. The natural state of the American people is one defined by progress, so my choice would be someone who promises to do much less than a little so as to not interfere with all the achieving of the most achievement-oriented people on earth.
In which case, Nikki Haley is difficult to be excited about. About what’s being said, none of it should be construed as an endorsement of Haley’s opponents. They all promise to do things, which means cheering one over the other reads as rather foolish. So why the critique of Haley? To watch her speak, or to read her opinion pieces is to see a candidate who has a plan for everything, and wants to be everything to everyone. That’s dangerous.
At an energy conference in October, Haley spoke of her plan to not just make the U.S. “energy independent,” but to make us no longer reliant on oil from the Middle East. Really? Why? Haley claims she’s for free markets, but with regard to the most important market commodity on earth, she has a plan. If we ignore that it doesn’t matter where oil comes from, and that no amount of U.S. energy autarky would keep Iran et al from selling all of their oil, why the need the for control? A true free market candidate would understand that every economic activity under the sun is a tradeoff, which means if for whatever reason Americans were to start purchasing all of their oil from overseas (it’s extracted much more cheaply in Saudi Arabia, for instance), this wouldn’t hurt the American people one iota. Better yet, 100% “oil dependence” would be a sign of immense American prosperity as Americans directed their genius to non-oil pursuits, all the while having their energy needs met by others. Work divided with as many hands as possible is prosperity personified. Not according to Haley.
While she claimed in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece from last June that she’s “a firm believer in economic freedom,” she promises to “push American businesses to leave China as completely as possible.” Which means she’s not a firm believer in economic freedom. American businesses have large presences in China not because they’re masochistic, but because they see profitable opportunity there. Haley should respect this rather than meddling in business affairs.
Politicians similarly aren’t fit to tell people whom they can transact with. Seriously, what could be more fundamental to freedom than the individual ability to exchange the fruits of one’s labor with anyone? It’s not just that work divided with the men, women and machines of the world makes us so much more productive, it’s also that we individuals who comprise the economy should be free to get as much in return for our work as possible. Not according to Haley. In the aforementioned opinion piece, she promised to “revoke permanent normal trade relations with China,” which was Haley’s way of saying she’ll decree higher prices for all Americans. It’s worth adding that if the Chinese can’t sell to us, they also can’t buy from us. This is a big problem when it’s remembered how much U.S. businesses value their presence in China, a presence that Haley would like to end by decree.
From there, it’s not just Haley has a plan for everything. It’s that she’ll seemingly say anything to touch all the bases. In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, Haley said “small businesses are the heartbeat of America.” No they’re not. A visit to any shopping center reveals the exact opposite. Big businesses give small businesses life. If you’re confused, check out the anchor tenants at any large shopping mall.
Haley asserts disdainfully that “the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.” Oh well, let’s hope. The rich only get that way by mass producing the former luxuries of the rich, not to mention that there are no companies and no jobs without the investment that the rich provide the vast majority of.
Haley says she would pursue “middle class” tax cuts, which is Haley’s way of saying she would pursue tax cuts that would have little to no impact on economic growth. Seemingly lost on the say-anything candidate is that contra the Keynesian thinking that informs her tax ideas, consumption doesn’t power economic growth. Investment does. If you really want to help the poor and middle, you substantially reduce the tax burden on the rich. They’re uniquely positioned to invest.
Speaking of investment, Haley has shrunk herself to battling with Ron DeSantis “over which governor enticed more Chinese investment.” Oh dear. Spoken like a politician who will never miss a meal. Actual businesses, small ones in particular, approach every new day fearful that it could be their last precisely due to a lack of capital. Yet Haley would turn her nose up to Chinese investment? It should be added that Haley claims foreign policy chops, yet she wants to keep Chinese investment out. Why? Do countries generally shoot at and bomb countries where so much of their wealth resides? Were Haley willing to speak the truth over rhetoric, she might tell the American people that the surest path away from war with China is more economic interconnectedness with it.
The problem is that as opposed to wanting to lead, Haley is feeding the flock. Which means she’s insulting the GOP base by refusing to insult them. Which means she’s not running as a Republican. Republicans are allegedly for limited government and truth telling of the kind that says government can only give after it takes. Meaning do-something government is the costly, anti-growth problem. I’ll vote for the do-nothing candidate if and when he or she comes along.
Republished from RealClear Markets
