![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Oh, yeah -- that's going to hurt McCain
I had suspected it, but this poll from CNN confirms it -- most people think that the Iraq War is part of why the economy is tanking.
Regardless of whether it's true (I happen to think it is, but I'm sure it will be argued), it's a very potent weapon for the eventual Democratic nominee. An argument that boils down to "Your War is why Americans are losing their jobs" is wildly over-simplistic, but likely to hit home quite effectively. McCain has put his entire reputation on the war, and while he may be able to sway people on the moral argument, I suspect that winning the pragmatic one is going to be a lot harder. The more people think about this link, and see McCain's justifications for the War, the crankier they're likely to get. Even Clinton can argue that she's been trying to disengage for a good while now, and that that might have spared the country the worst of the economic impact.
(Of course, this assumes that the economy is still in recession in November. I suspect that it will at least be perceived that way, even if a turnaround has started by then -- it takes time to shift the public perception, and I don't expect this particular setback to be either mild or quick...)
Regardless of whether it's true (I happen to think it is, but I'm sure it will be argued), it's a very potent weapon for the eventual Democratic nominee. An argument that boils down to "Your War is why Americans are losing their jobs" is wildly over-simplistic, but likely to hit home quite effectively. McCain has put his entire reputation on the war, and while he may be able to sway people on the moral argument, I suspect that winning the pragmatic one is going to be a lot harder. The more people think about this link, and see McCain's justifications for the War, the crankier they're likely to get. Even Clinton can argue that she's been trying to disengage for a good while now, and that that might have spared the country the worst of the economic impact.
(Of course, this assumes that the economy is still in recession in November. I suspect that it will at least be perceived that way, even if a turnaround has started by then -- it takes time to shift the public perception, and I don't expect this particular setback to be either mild or quick...)
No doubt about it
I don't think there can be any doubt it's part of the problem. The only room for argument is over how much of the problem it is. The war roughly doubled the price of gas, after all. Also, by driving up the public debt, it reduced foreign confidence in the dollar, which has driven down the value of the dollar and driven up the price of imported goods.
Oh, and the war, and Bush's menacing stance toward Iran, inspired Iran to start selling oil in euros, which further weakens the dollar.
Re: No doubt about it
The war certainly hasn't helped, by tightening political and economic concerns in the Middle East, by channeling our own sources and reserves more towards the military sector, by increasing our international debt (again, China as the fastest growing giant comes into play here), and by frittering away a lot of political capital. The economic downturn, not entirely tied to the war, is also having a negative effect on the pump prices. Unfortunately for us, oil prices are also the foundation of transportation costs, which in turn affect almost every sector imaginable.
Re: No doubt about it
<research, research>...you may be right. Invading Iraq took two million barrels per day off the market, but that's only about 10% of OPEC's total. It's still true that the war is part of the reason prices have gone up; but it may not be the biggest reason.
Re: No doubt about it
To be fair, it isn't the biggest reason -- China's voracious consumption is probably biggest, and the return of OPEC's nerve as a cartel is probably next. But the war probably has done much to stiffen OPEC's spine, so even there it's had a negative impact...