Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why the Export-Import Bank Was My Deal-Breaker
Our last poll here at Ricochet asked our members what policy position would be most likely to be a deal-breaker for them if held by a Republican presidential candidate. Despite the fact that there were 10 options, supporting citizenship for illegal aliens nearly commanded a majority (49 percent), with a pro-choice stance on abortion coming in a distant second (24 percent). All of the other options were in the single digits, with support for NSA surveillance or raising the federal minimum wage tied for third at 6 percent.
I’m apparently way outside of the Ricochet mainstream on this one, as my choice — supporting the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank — garnered only one percent of the vote, tying with marijuana legalization and sending U.S. troops to fight ISIS for dead last. Now, I can anticipate the response that some of you will have, because I heard it in a few private conversations about this survey: how on earth could you prioritize Ex-Im over the life of the unborn or combatting terrorism? Well, I don’t. But let me offer you a theory: which issue is most important to you shouldn’t necessarily be the same as which one is most disqualifying.
Let me explain: I knocked four of the 10 issues out of contention from the start because they don’t bother me. As a Republican with a conservatarian bent, I’m basically fine with marijuana legalization and gay marriage, although I wish both would be handled at the state level rather than through the non-enforcement of federal law or activism from the federal judiciary, respectively. I’m also largely (though not entirely) unbothered by NSA surveillance and pretty set on the idea that dealing effectively with ISIS will eventually necessitate some sort of American presence on the ground.
With that out of the way, I was left with six issues on which I would be genuinely uncomfortable. But choosing a presidential candidate isn’t really just about an issues checklist. It’s about what those positions, taken as a whole, tell you about the candidate’s makeup. As a result, I tried to think about how I would process these issues if I found the presidential aspirant in question essentially sound on everything else. In other words: what shortcoming would be the biggest tell?
Here’s the thing: even though I disagree with them, there are plausible, respectable ways for people to be genuine conservatives and come out on the other side of several of these questions.
I’m anti-amnesty, but plenty of smart, principled conservatives think an expansive immigration policy is an essential feature of economic liberty (I’m actually fairly sympathetic to that argument, but I’m not willing to move an inch until we’ve got functional, effective border security).
I’m pro-life, but plenty of smart, principled conservatives think, on libertarian grounds, that abortion should be an individual decision.
I’m against Common Core, but plenty of smart, principled conservatives think that imposing rigorous educational standards is more important than decentralization.
I don’t happen to think there’s a smart, principled argument for increasing the federal minimum wage — in fact, I take it as evidence of economic illiteracy — but I’d at least give a candidate that held that view the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was genuinely trying to help the poor.
I think all of those positions are wrong — but I can imagine scenarios for all of them in which I wouldn’t find them disqualifying.
That leaves two options: A candidate who opposes sending troops to face ISIS or one who supports reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
Again, let’s stipulate the huge chasm in significance between these two issues. I’d happily foot the bill for Ex-Im in perpetuity in exchange for wiping ISIS from the face of the earth. But there are plenty of respectable reasons — reasons not necessarily rooted in reflexive non-interventionism — to resist placing American troops in a combat role in the Middle East right now. Moreover, foreign policy issues are usually the worst ones to judge in the abstract. A president has to work with the facts as he finds them — and that often means that his campaign posturing evaporates on contact with reality anyway (remember George W. Bush’s “more humble foreign policy”?). A “no boots on the ground” stance would make me nervous, but — unless it was born of a broader Paulite approach to international affairs — I wouldn’t regard it as necessarily terminal.
And that brings us to Ex-Im.
Why does this rise to the top of my list? Well, because there’s no plausible excuse for it. I can’t imagine the intellectual gymnastics it would take to simultaneously define yourself as a free-market conservative and a defender of such unvarnished industrial policy. And, unlike the minimum wage, you can’t even rationalize it as good intentions badly applied. It’s easier to forgive sins committed in the name of helping the poor than those committed in the name of helping Boeing.
Finally, this issue is a proxy for the kind of crony capitalism that’s become rampant in the Obama years. If a Republican candidate doesn’t understand just how toxic this kind of collusion between government and industry can become, then I’d develop serious concerns about where they draw the line beyond which the state has stepped into impermissible territory.
An eccentric analysis? Perhaps. But we only get one chance to vet these people — and sometimes the smallest details can represent the biggest red flags.
What was the rationale for the issue you chose?
Published in General
Nice! I was wondering who else picked that one!
I picked Abortion because as far as I can tell, nothing engenders a pursuit of all that is Wise & Prudent, of all that best ensures that the generations after us inherit a world at least as safe and soundly managed, if not safer and better managed, as the one we lives than seeing the next generation.
So I start with being Pro-Life.
I found it odd that the Ricochetoisie are more willing to forgive Republican candidates on issues that are clearly outside of the federal government’s jurisdiction than on issues that clearly are within federal jurisdiction.
Legalizing invasive residents grants Democrats electoral victory in perpetuity. Hand them the elections and every Republican cause will be lost.
But enforcing the borders isn’t really a united Republican cause, so it’s a moot point.
Our nation can survive stupidity, Troy. It won’t survive corruption and willful blindness.
I would like to see a moratorium on immigration in all ways until we figure out where we are and where we want to be.
The numbers are staggering. Over the last six years, the numbers of immigrants are so high that the demographics have changed. Millennials are now set to outnumber baby boomers.
That’s a huge change that is having a huge impact on state and local governments.
It’s immigration from all sources: work visas, student visas, traveler visas, state department refugee placements, illegal southern border crossers, and legal immigration.
The INS has become the world’s cash-cow registry of motor vehicles. It’s just a money-making operation. It needs to be redesigned using input from cities and towns on classrooms and emergency rooms.
It bothers me that the Republican leadership is so completely deaf to the concerns of the rank-and-file members of the party.
I think it is at the top of my list simply because if we stop yelling, it will continue to be ignored until there’s nothing but red ink everywhere we look.
I’m open to the argument that the Export-Import Bank’s a big deal, but, honestly, I don’t even really know what it is. Low-information Ricochet voter here.
I have some idea what is has become: a facility for handing out goodies to the connected.
I don’t know if this idea has been brought up before, but it feels like the abortion and illegal immigrant issues are linked, at least as it pertains to the motivations for amnesty.
In the alternate universe where Roe v. Wade upholds abortion laws we can assume that we would have the 40-50 million workers in the workforce today (and in addition however many they would have produced), and presumably, much less demand for illegal immigrant labor, if any. So in a strange way I see abortion as the root cause for the worker shortage, and amnesty for illegals is the symptomatic treatment, but not the cure, for the economic ill we have inflicted upon ourselves.
The evils of abortion don’t distill to a price tag, but it certainly seems to me that it came with a big one.
So I picked illegal immigrant amnesty. In addition to just being flagrantly wrong, it is not a cure for the disease, just managing the symptoms.
Gotta go with Knotwise – if the purpose of the bank is to easily exchange funds from one currency to another for the purpose of facilitating international trade then I am not seeing the problem.
What is it and why is it bad.
I won’t vote for someone who opposes free trade, b/c such a person is bereft of economic sense. One could make the same argument re raising the minimum wage. I would also like to see a candidate who opposes ethanol, an even worse example of crony capitalism than EXIM..
Didn’t vote. My deal breaker is whether a candidate can credibly deny that he or she is a witch.
The thing about the Export-Import Bank is that it….Um, lsdjf;dlsdj… Sorry, nodded off for a bit there. What were we talking about?
I’m still trying to figure out where the poll input post was . . . then again, I’m slow.
I’d like to see the poll retaken with the Ricochetti defining the options. Here are my deal breakers:
1. I will not vote for a Republican candidate who will not flat-out state he will overturn all of Obama’s illegal executive actions.
2. I will not vote for a Republican candidate who says he can work with Democrats.
3. I will not vote for a Republican candidate who does not respect the Constitution.
4. I will not for for a Republican candidate who refuses to use every weapon in his arsenal to roll back the evils that have been, and will continue to be, forced on us by liberal lawmakers, judges, and activist groups.
5. I will not vote for a Republican candidate who values rich donor donations or the establishment over my vote. This needs explanation. I don’t mind the money rich donors contribute, or dealing with the establishment types. What I mind is when the candidate (and later, office holder), screws the people who elected him in the first place. This is what we have now, IMHO. And finally . . .
6. I will NEVER vote for a candidate who lectures me, tells me I’m not capable of understanding the nuances (so much for my having two degrees), and who figuratively pats my head and says “Thanks for your vote, now run along.” (see comment #4). In other words, “Forget about my vote, Jeb.”
Sorry if my typing is bad. I’m trying to make dinner while doing this comment . . .
I’m not keen on disqualifying on a single issue and I did not participate in this poll, but I’m in almost perfect agreement with you on the Export-Import Bank. Senator Mike Lee was in my voting precinct when he ran to unseat Robert Bennett and I supported that effort. He has been hot on this issue all along and I believe that he, like you and I, recognizes this type of subsidy funded by federal revenues is straight out of the plunderbund ‘s list of favorites and is right at the top of the list of undesirable options for the central government in a federal republic such as ours. I LIKE your position.
I’m one of the knuckleheads that supports a higher minimum wage, I’d like to explain why before you dismiss us as bleeding hearts that aren’t real men. [I argue this position every two/three weeks with James Pethakoukis.]
I live out here in Appalachia and I’ve seen the corrosive impact of well intentioned programs like EITC – even if BillyBob wants to make an honest woman out of EllieMay he has to remember she does have a three year old by Jesse, who only pays child support when his tax refund is garnished, and if they get hitched there goes his truck payment to replace her food stamps and section 8 housing allowance, so it’s easier just to let DSS figure out what’s best for her and live together off and on…
If you’re a conservative who believes the disintegration of the family unit is bad long term policy maybe you could be more open to the idea that a higher minimum wage replacing the plethora of government handouts might be a better course of action. If the minimum wage has an adverse impact on small business or low skilled employment address it by abolishing the payroll tax. An adult man has to make enough of a wage to feel like he’s in the mainstream of society or else he will drop out. Back in the 2008 era when national unemployment was at 4.5% there was less than 50% labor force participation of men 25 to 54 in a lot of cities. A decent minimum wage is better than the alternatives.
I do agree with you on the Ex-Im Bank, though.
This would have been my vote, had I not been in the other 1% category, not sending troops to fight ISIS.
But Ex-Im is a big deal, and it’s one that’s actually in play. Nothing impresses me less than a candidate saying they’re anti-abortion. It’s empty moral posturing. But to shut down the Ex-Im bank is a fundamental change in our economy, away from crony capitalism.
Troy — I hope you don’t mind if I call you Troy — are you kidding? The Ex-Im Bank!
I agree with you that Ex-Im is objectionable in principle, but on reading your post, I immediately asked myself, how much does it cost? A quick Google search brought me to an AEI report stating that Ex-Im costs $2 billion a decade. That’s $200 million a year, out of a $3.5 trillion federal budget.
Let me do the math here . . . Ex-Im is 0.0057% of federal expenditures. Surely there are bigger fish to fry.
It doesn’t really compare to the massacre of over 1 million unborn each year, or the prospect of millions of new voters who would be expected to tip the electoral scales in favor of the Democrats.
I joined too recently to vote, but I would have voted with the plurality that citizenship for illegal aliens is my top deal-breaker. Abortion would be higher in theory, but it’s hard to believe that the GOP would nominate a candidate on the opposite side of this issue.
Troy,
I don’t think the analysis is eccentric, but it’s also why I didn’t vote. I would have voted for Obamacare as I am very anxious that Republicans are getting weak-kneed at the prospect of the subsidies provisions being read literally by the Supreme Court. There is some Republican out there in our future who will try to bring the party to terms with it, maybe not in 2016, but someday. (Like Eisenhower viz-a-viz the New Deal.) It’s not as subtle as your choice, but I think it’s in the neighborhood.
I didn’t vote in this one, partly because I hardly ever vote in them, but also because none of them is, strictly speaking, a deal-breaker. Pro-life would have come the closest. I just live here, now. If the Republic wants to hasten its end by blowing some money on Boeing -whatever. On slightly more practical grounds, if the Ex-Im bank will buy the votes we need from Boeing, I’m in favor. We can be principled after we’ve won.
If you’re looking for info on the Ex-Im bank, check out Veronique deRugy on facebook. She’s had a lot to say about it lately.
Oh, just you wait. I have a Reply.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so here’so the little I know about the Ex-Im. It doesn’t exchange currencies. It guarantees corporate loans to finance export transactions. The guarantee is backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government, so it lowers the interest rate on the financing to close to treasury rates. Think of it as Ginnie Mae for corporations.
These corporations can obtain financing on a non guaranteed basis. The lower financing cost helps the company underbid it’s foreign competitors. This is supposed to counterbalance subsidies competitors receive from their government.
You cannot tell the real cost of Ex-Im until the loans go south. Default rates are low, but that just proves they don’t really need a federal guarantee.
A conservative who supports amnesty is like a chicken who votes for Colonel Sanders.
Troy, I also picked the Ex-Im Bank for the exact same reasons.
Why wasn’t the repeal of obamacare one of the options?
I was wondering that myself. I suspect they were being naive.
I just want to say that this is a fascinating idea, one that I too have been looking at the edges of for a while.
I’d love to see the numbers on this. We approach social services from a minimum-income figure. So if employers are paying people below that number, in a sense we are subsidizing those employers.
At any rate, you should write a post about this. It’s a different way to look at a big problem.
Wow. I’d never thought of the issue from that angle before. A quick search yields an estimate of over 56 million abortions (as of a year ago) since Roe. We can debate exactly what that would’ve meant for labor markets, but it’s amazing in light of the argument that we always have over entitlements: that there are just too few young people to financially prop up older generations.
That’s not because those children were never conceived. It’s because they were never born.
Gilley has a really annoying habit of winning Ricochet.
I was too conclusory there, PB. To be fair though, your argument is a lot more sophisticated than that of most (or at least most visible) minimum wage proponents.
I have a lot more sympathy for your approach because you’ve actually considered the tradeoffs. Get it back from the payroll tax? It’s actually pretty appealing.
Two things though:
1. It’s a two-step process to cut payroll taxes. If you don’t simultaneously cut the benefits they fund, you just end up with entitlements we can’t finance.
2. Even setting that aside, it’s a one-shot proposition. Let’s say we make the switch this time: higher minimum wage, lower payroll taxes. Great. Where do we get the money from next time we want to hike the minimum wage?
I’m in deep sympathy with your concern about the moral hazard inherent in subsidies for the indigent. That — not to mention the reduced administrative costs — is why I’ve always been sympathetic to something like a negative income tax.