Steven Landsburg: the piling continues

Over at Crooked Timber it's been 'Pile on Steven Landsburg Week' (as Daniel Davies dubbed it; a longish week, perhaps, but there you have it). First John Quiggin took Landsburg to task for his silly-clever counterintuitive argument that George Bush's tax cuts are unfair to the rich. Then Daniel, in two posts, took him to task for some writings on the purported game-theory implications of quantum theory.

Well, I don't know if the piling-on was merited. I quite see (and basically agree with) John's point; but then, I like silly-clever counterintuitive arguments, even when I don't buy them (they can, after all, help us to see our own arguments from another perspective, the better to reject what we don't buy). And the quantum thing generated a massive exchange of comments, largely between Daniel and Landsburg himself, that began interestingly enough but soon degenerated into what one neutral observer described as an argument over terminology marked by unsympathetic arrogance on the part of both protagonists. I wondered: is it really worth getting into a digital pissing-match for all that?

I wondered, that is, until Landsburg persuaded me, in Slate, that a bit of piling-on is in order.

As it did four years ago, Slate has asked its editors, contributors and staff to reveal how they will vote in the US presidential election, and why. Nobody will be surprised to learn that the people behind the journal break overwhelmingly for John Kerry. Of the few who will vote for Bush, most will do so for reasons that I can understand if not share. (They typically look something like this: 'For all his faults and errors, Bush has persuaded me that he understands the threat posed by militant Islamism; Kerry hasn't.') Landsburg's reason is rather different: his vote for Bush is a blow against racism.

Landsburg takes a courageous stance by announcing that he would vote against Bush had Bush chosen Klan leader David Duke as his running-mate. Happily, Bush has managed to avoid doing so. But Kerry (so Landsburg feels) has done the moral equivalent: he has chosen John Edwards.

Not that Edwards is a racist, strictly speaking. But he is, so Landsburg, a xenophobe of a different kind. As racists wish to discriminate against blacks in hiring, so does the protectionist Edwards wish to discriminate against foreigners by erecting trade barriers. I will confess that I was not able to see how Edwards plans to use tariffs and the like to keep foreigners from marrying Americans, or to prevent them from exercising a vote they don't in any event have, or to lynch them. But let's not worry about that, for we don't need to to see that Landsburg's argument is ludicrous.

Let us look at the evidence in the light most favourable to the accuser. Let us assume that Edwards is a protectionist and would, if he could, make the USA a fortress impenetrable to imported goods and services. Even granting this to Landsburg, how on earth can he equate protectionism and racism? Protectionism is very bad economic policy. But it can make good tactical political sense (as Landsburg's preferred candidate, with his steel tariffs, farm supports etc. is very well aware). Globalisation does bring disruption along with its benefits. The shade of David Ricardo may assure us that there will be, for all the disruption, a net benefit on the whole. But that is cold comfort to me, if I am a steelworker who has lost his job because (say) Koreans and Indians can make steel more cheaply than I can. As such a steelworker, I'd be tempted to listen to a protectionist. Trade barriers would disadvantage foreign firms (and domestic consumers of steel)? So what? At least I might keep my job.

Now as it happens, though I'd understand the steelworker, I'd think him very wrong. But not morally wrong, at least not on anything near the scale of a Klansman. All he's doing is trying to shield himself from competition -- an ignoble impulse perhaps, but a very human one. He is not asserting the genetic inferiority of the foreign steelworker; he is not lynching him. If Landsburg really thinks protectionism just a variant form of racism, he must not understand why racism is so pernicious.

But remember, he's not primarily talking about protectionism. He's talking about why he'll vote for Bush rather than Kerry. If Kerry succeeds, it is he, not Edwards, who will be president. Kerry will set (or try to set) economic and trade policy. Edwards will preside over sessions of the senate (showing up twice in four years should suffice) and try to be alive should Kerry die mid-term. Vice Presidents, simply put, don't have very much to do. Dick Cheney takes a notoriously active role as VP, more so perhaps than any of his predecessors. Yet even he has signaled pretty clearly that he disagrees with his boss's stance on gay marriage; still, it's his boss (as Cheney says) who sets the policy. I have qualms about what Kerry's trade policy will look like -- it is the biggest problem I have with him. I suspect some part of it will turn out to have been mere electoral rhetoric (and I hope it is a large part). And I'll concede arguendo that Edwards is a stronger protectionist than Kerry. Even so, Edwards is not going to be ring-fencing America any time soon.

But this argument -- Edwards Is An Evil Protectionist -- is the best argument Landsburg can muster for voting Bush. It's a weak argument in vacuo. And it isn't in vacuo. Trade policy is certainly an important issue, but it is far from the only issue. I can quite understand those who make the war the paramount issue of the day. If that's what they think, of course, then I'd say they are dreadfully misguided in voting for Bush, who has made an infernal dog's breakfast of it and seriously harmed American interests into the bargain. But I can at least respect the fact that they have focused on what is certainly one of the major issues and can very plausibly be viewed as Issue No. 1. One may argue that [Bush] [Kerry] will make a better fist of bringing order to Iraq and combatting terrorism on the wider global stage. Alternatively, one may argue that [Kerry] [Bush] will better reign in America's huge deficit and return the economy to Clinton-era prosperity. Perhaps one might argue that the one candidate should be favoured over the other because of the judicial appointments he will make -- a legacy that will long outlast his tenure in office. There are all sorts of things one might argue. But if your argument is that Bush should be favoured over Kerry because the latter's running-mate is too protectionist, then you must believe the highly implausible: that (this one point aside) it will make no difference whether America elects John Kerry or George Bush. Or else you're just being counterintuitive silly-clever (and not terribly clever at that).