The best republican candidate? Barack Obama

I have one candidate left to analyse, and then I compare them all. I reach a surprising conclusion...

Jon Huntsman is the last candidate I am analysing. He did not fight the Iowa caucas, but will be fighting New Hampshire. He is easily the most electable of all the candidates - by which I mean the best placed to win the actual election, not the primaries. He doesn't have many stupid ideas, and he would probably be a safe pair of hands. This is not to say that he would do nothing - and he has even stated that he favours some kind of healthcare system (not as good as "Obamacare" but not far off). On social issues, he is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, but not as vociferously as most of his peers. He is a diplomat, but he is also a businessman, and as such he combines an approach that accommodates working with everyone with some actual experience on job-creation. His economic policy does favour the rich (he's a Republican with a billionnaire dad, you can't expect miracles) but he has promised to close tax loopholes, which is important.

The way Huntsman really stands out from his peers is that he has a track record in actually making progress (not least as ambassador to China) and an outlook that allows for cooperation with the other side. It's quite easy to picture Huntsman in the White House, and everything we know about him suggests he would be a fairly average president, possibly even quite a good one with all his foreign policy experience. Therefore, if you're going to support a republican, then support Huntsman.

However, why not look at the alternative? Barack Obama. A man who envisages your country as one where everyone is born equal, one where the poor can fall ill and get to see a doctor, one where your country works in the world as a mediator but without pointing guns around and making things worse. I cannot understand why any of this would fail to appeal. Obama's vision isn't about removing your American dream (where anyone can make it big) and replacing it with communism (or some other word that conjures negative images in your minds that aren't anything to do with the meaning of the word). On the contrary, he epitomises the said American dream.

Being a republican isn't supposed to be about taking important decisions away from women whilst also taking away everything in the state except that which benefits the very rich. It is supposed to be about allowing individuals to have as much freedom as possible, without letting anyone fall too far behind. The social security provision isn't only moral, it is an economic necessity. We must allow everyone in the world to have access to healthcare, or we run the risk of some little child who would one day grow up to be a great leader, or solve a great problem, dying before they get the chance. If you look at the infant mortality rates in the USA then you can imagine just how many of those little children would have been able to make a positive contribution if given the chance. The same is true of education, and other aspects of welfare. You need social security in order to maximise economic output - it isn't wishy washy liberalism, it's cold hard economics. The liberalism bit is nice too though, if you really think about it.

The thing is, the candidates all go against the very foundations of republicanism. They are trying to remove personal freedoms: choices women make, freedom of association. At the same time, they are proponents of economic policies which fail to maximise the productive potential of your economy. In fact, if you look at Barack Obama's record, it is clear that he is the candidate in this race who combines the greatest personal freedoms with the soundest economic policy.

If the Republicans nominate Huntsman, then Obama should be worried, because Huntsman is electable. If America elects Huntsman, America would do fine, but not excel. If the Republicans nominate someone like Rick Santorum, then America should be very careful not to elect him, because the consequences would be bad for true republicanism, and bad for Americans. So actually, if you are a true republican (as opposed to someone who just has a gun fetish) your best candidate is Barack Obama.

Republican Nomination - Michele Bachmann

Any Americans out there? Let's assess who you should support for the Rebublican nomination, if anyone.

Michele Bachmann is up first. She isn't going to be President. If you support the Republicans then you should hope she doesn't get the nomination and if you're a Democrat then you need to start canvassing support for her in the primaries because she would lose in the actual election. Why? The gaffes. She's made many and she'll make more. For some reason the media love gaffes and so they can matter more than substance. It's just as well though, because her substance is "restore our economy and create millions of new jobs, repeal Obamacare and its unconstitutional mandates, achieve deep spending cuts to reduce America's debt, strengthen the family and defend marriage, and rebuild respect for America as the shining city upon a hill." "Achieve deep spending cuts" does not tally with "create millions of jobs." This is a woman who is about spending cuts and protectionism in order to achieve economic growth. What creates growth? Government spending and trade! AD=G+C+I+(X-M) A fall in spending (G) and trade (X-M) means a fall in AD which means a reduction in economic output, not a restoration.

She is also pro-life and anti-gay marriage. A woman who wants a "limited government" which does very little except control what a woman does with her uterus and who is allowed to marry whom. When did reproduction and love become the concerns of the state anyway? The state must do everything Michele doesn't want it to do (economic regulation, economic stimulus, healthcare, social security) and nothing that she does want it to do (barriers to trade, shoving it's nose into private relationships).

The New Year

In his New Year message, the Prime Minister has said that 2012 will see the Olympics and the Queen's Jubilee help get the country "up to strength." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16378577)

Unfortunately for the PM, this is a gamble and an untruth. The untruth first: The Jubilee may well be a lot of fun and all that, but with an extra bank holiday it will economically do more harm than good. I don't think there should be an extra bank holiday for it. Last year the excuse given for a dismal second quarter was the extra bank holiday, so the same PM making a statement now saying that doing the same thing (day off to watch a very lovely lady in a very nice hat) this year will help the economy when it hindered it last year is amnesic at best.

The gamble is of course the Olympics. Quite possibly, we'll get a massive economic boost from it like Barcelona and Atlanta did. More probable I fear is that we will end up like Athens in 2004. We are, like they were, a country with fewer resources to throw at the event and a worse infrastructure to cope with it than many others. We have already had most of the benefit to the economy from the spend on construction and it didn't manage to stop the utter collapse of the construction industry in this country over the last few years. The regeneration of poorer areas on London didn't manage to stop the riots so I don't suppose we can call that a complete success either. All we can hope for now is a load of tourism off the back of the games. The hope is that millions of people will watch a congested, smoggy city fail to cope with the strain and thus decide that it would be a nice place to come on holiday. I hope I'm proven incorrect - look at Greece now.