Opinion

Anatole Kaletsky

Would Romney be better for Europe?

Anatole Kaletsky
Nov 1, 2012 11:51 UTC

Looking at the opinion polls, there is no contest for which of the presidential candidates would be better for Europe. In a survey published this week by U.K.-based YouGov, 90 percent of European voters said they would support Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. But does this lopsided support correspond to the true interests of Europeans?

The numbers are not entirely surprising. The Republican stance on emotive social issues such as abortion, healthcare and environmental protection create an almost unbridgeable cultural divide for many Europeans. On foreign policy, there are understandable fears in Europe that a Romney administration would downgrade the United Nations, increase the risks of war in the Middle East, or possibly provoke confrontations with Russia over Georgia or NATO enlargement.

However, if we focus on the issues that are preoccupying Europeans now en masse — global economic stagnation and the deepening euro crisis — then we reach a different conclusion. Maybe Europe should root for Romney, despite his social views.

Romney’s election could help the European economy and the euro for three reasons. The first is Romney’s tough Russia and China rhetoric. This could allow European companies, which already export two-and-a-half times as much as their U.S. rivals to China and eight-and-a-half times as much to Russia, to become even more dominant in these markets.

The second is Romney’s tax policy. Amid the many vague economic promises from both candidates about creating jobs, closing tax loopholes, balancing budgets and so on, only one stands out for its specificity, and makes its implementation after November 6 very likely: Romney’s commitment to cut income and corporate tax rates by 20 percent. It may be, as Mr. Obama has argued, that such huge tax cuts could not conceivably be offset by savings in public spending or tightening loopholes. But Romney has strongly suggested that he would cut taxes anyway, relying on a Keynesian argument that any resulting deficits would be temporary and would eventually close through faster economic growth.

To escape the Great Recession, embrace contradiction

Anatole Kaletsky
Oct 18, 2012 16:39 UTC

Where will jobs and growth come from? As we enter the fifth year of the Great Recession, people all over the world are asking this question, but their political leaders are not providing any convincing answers, as has been made obvious in the U.S. presidential debate and the European Union summit this week.

The second presidential debate started with Jeremy Epstein, a 20-year old college student, pointing out that he had “little chance to get employment” and asking the two candidates for some reassurance and an explanation of how this would change. Mitt Romney offered lots of reassurance but not much explanation:

“I want you to be able to get a job. I know what it takes to get this economy going. I know what it takes to create good jobs again. I know what it takes to make sure that you have the kind of opportunity you deserve. When you graduate … in 2014, I presume I’m going to be president. I’m going to make sure you get a job. Thanks, Jeremy. Yeah, you bet.”

  •