McCain Doesn't Really Hate Economists, Does He?


Political rhetoric tends to be overwhelmingly simple while economic analysis is often needlessly complex.

This is not news. But it does make for a big disconnect between what politicians say and what they hope to do — because if they publicly said what their economic advisers told them, voters would either riot or fall asleep.

That said, after spending some time at the Republican National Convention this week, and hearing John McCain‘s multi-faceted energy proposal (the Lexington Project) reduced on the convention floor to the simple chant “Drill, Baby, Drill!”, I came to wonder if indeed McCain hates economists.

Consider what he said about economists at a New York town hall meeting in June during the frenzied days of the “gas-tax holiday” debate:

They’re the same ones, I guess, that didn’t tell us about the housing subprime lending crisis. They’re the ones that didn’t tell us about the dot-com meltdown. And they’re the ones that didn’t warn us about inflation that’s coming up. I have to fall back on the old adage that if you took all the economists in the world and put them end to end, they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion. So I trust the people, not the so-called economists. … to give the American people a little relief.

So I put a few questions to Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s chief economic adviser, who participated earlier in a quorum on this blog about the role of such advisers.

Q: John McCain doesn’t really hate economists, does he? As his economic adviser, how did you feel about his “so-called economists” comment?

A: No, he doesn’t hate economists and I laughed when he said it. And I agree: you should not simply “listen to economists.” My well-meaning colleagues (and me) can be out of touch with conditions on the ground (if too reliant on data). And by focusing too much on differences, we as a profession often do not convey clearly the things about which we disagree.

Q: In our earlier blog quorum, you wrote that an economic adviser’s hardest job is fighting bad economic ideas. Can you give an example or two of bad ideas that you’ve helped quash?

A: Require that all oil extracted in the U.S. be sold in the U.S. — silly because it is a world market, etc.

Q: With energy such a prominent issue in this campaign, how are you helping your candidate communicate an effective political message about such a complex subject?

A: Break it into pieces. Problems: national security, economic security, environmental security. Solutions: change the way we drive (hybrids, electrics, biofuels); use the abundant resources (coal, nuclear); and break the political deadlock (moratorium, nuke storage, cap-trade).

Q: Can the sort of populism Sen. McCain appealed to in the “so-called economists” quote possibly be reconciled with the economic realities of the real world?

A: Sure. You listen to the people. You also listen to the political constraints. You listen to the research. That is the reality of economic policymaking and the reason it is not a textbook activity.

At first blush, McCain would seem to be the sort of candidate well-suited to appreciate economic advice. He, like many economists, is a rationalist — blunt, and not always politically correct. On the other hand, he publicly professed that “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.”

In the new book The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn’t), Alvin Felzenberg attempts an unideological ranking of U.S. presidents, using more specific criteria than are usually used by people who rank presidents.

In judging the presidents’ economic successes, he breaks the issue down into a few categories: overall economic performance during their tenures; improving the country’s economic infrastructure; and expanding economic opportunities for all Americans.

According to Felzenberg, there have been four excellent economic presidents in U.S. history: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. Seven more did quite well: James K. Polk, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton. The worst economic presidents according to Felzenberg’s methodology were James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Martin Van Buren, and Jimmy Carter.

So what is it that makes a president a good economic president? Here’s what Felzenberg says:

Most economically successful presidents were genuinely interested in business and economics. They availed themselves of multiples sources of information both inside and outside their administrations and selected good advisers and competent department heads … Nor did they resort to short-term gimmicks … While often reacting to short-term challenges, these presidents developed coherent policies designed to boost long-term economic performance. … None of [the failed] presidents, save for Carter and Hoover, showed much interest in business or economics.

Assuming that Felzenberg’s theory is mostly right, and given what we know so far of McCain’s appetite for economics, what sort of economic president do you think McCain would be?

[Note: you can hear a discussion related to this topic of The Takeaway.]

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. globetrotter says:

    Looks like bad economic decisions have affected Japan’s sale of automobiles. Another sign of bad economist advice haha

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. Fred T. says:

    “So I trust the people, not the so-called economists. … to give the American people a little relief.”

    Interesting, considering it was The People who bought all those internet stocks and signed up for those sub-prime loans.

    I think if anybody had actually asked a true economist (not some schmuck passing himself off as an “expert”), they would have avoided internet stocks and sub-prime loans.

    The problem is that most people just join the crowd and plunge head first into situations they know nothing about.

    Then they blame the others for not making the “Beware of Bottom” sign big enough.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Morgan Walker says:

    I think John McCain would be the kind of man he always is… a man of Character first. That said, his economic interest will be a shoot-from-the-hip virtue economics with little big global picture, despite what he used to say. He will avoid much tax-incentive innovation, and keep appealing to the pathos of non-economists like himself. On a funnier note, 236 just did a good piece on McCain. If he works for us, he should be fired:

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Kent says:

    I’m no McCain fan, but it seems to me he’s far from the only politician who’s willing to sneer at economists when it suits his political/pandering needs. Hilary Clinton did it, and so have many others before him.

    In fact, whenever the evidence or the experts say something that the public doesn’t want to hear, you’re probably going to hear a politician pandering by extolling the virtues of common sense over the “so-called experts.”

    Apparently in this country, being thoughtful and intelligent and rational don’t always mean a whole lot. Or else Nobel Prize winners would be as well known as NBA stars.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. James says:

    I’m quite surprised that Felzenberg didn’t list FDR in the top tiers, myself.

    And with regard to McCain’s ‘so-called economists’ line, especially this:

    “They’re the same ones, I guess, that didn’t tell us about the housing subprime lending crisis. They’re the ones that didn’t tell us about the dot-com meltdown. And they’re the ones that didn’t warn us about inflation that’s coming up.”

    Sir, economists are not able to see into the future. They are prophetic, not infallible.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. DragonScholar says:

    I’d say poor. His gambler/shoot-from-the-hip approach is ill suited to the complexities we face, and he seems to have allied too much with ideologues. I can’t expect rational, long-term economic planning from him – or at least worse planning than I expect from many politicians.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. At?l says:

    International economic conditions are more important now than ever. and you know the latest news: the conditions are changing frequently. so we can not judge mccain with the same methodology i guess.

    and i guess, the advisors will be highly influential about the economic policies and if they analyze things well, then he would score it high. the actions should be taken carefully. otherwise he can be one of the between worse & middle. he is standing on the thin line between good economics man & bad economics man.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. AaronS says:

    Can anything be of greater long-term strategic performance than making America energy independent?

    It keeps American dollars in America pockets–much of it to be spent on the goods of nations that have, for the most part, been non-hostile to America.

    It does passive damage to nations that have wielded their oil power to put us in financial straits and to seek to control us.

    It creates jobs, technology, and so forth that will benefit our nation.

    And, if we truly keep angling toward green energy, we also help the environment in a huge way.

    Yes, McCain will be an incredibly good economic president…if he keeps his word. Otherwise, more of the same stuff.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0