What if McCain had won?

As an ardent leftie who was deeply gladdened by the election of Barack Obama in 2008, it pains me to say this. But the US, and by extension the world, would possibly be a better place if he'd lost.

This is through no fault on the Democrats' side. Indeed, it's a result of the profound irresponsibility of the modern Republican party, and their contempt for the conditions of the majority of their constituents.

Broadly speaking, US Democrats, whether they're in the White House or not, want to keep the country functioning. Attacking the other party is a second-order concern. Whereas US Republicans, whether they're in the White House or not, want to attack the other party. Keeping the country functioning is a second-order concern.

This isn't just my polemic speaking. The Republican leader in the Senate--who these days almost counts as a voice of moderation in his party--considers making Obama a one-term president his chief priority. This, amidst the worst economic downturn in the US since the great depression.

For Republicans, the recession really doesn't seem to matter much. Judging by their laser-like determination to cut back on welfare spending at this desperate time, they appear to see it as a sort of healthy kick up the backside for an idle lumpenproletariat, in accordance with the bonkers 'philosophy' of their idol, Ayn Rand. So, naturally, damaging the other party comes first.

Look at the votes that Democrats took towards the end of the Bush term and I think you see a different attitude. They supported, en masse, the first round of stimulus in early 2008, although it mostly consisted of tax cuts so was (a) less stimulative than benefit payments and (b) mostly helped Republican constituencies. They backed the first TARP bill giving $700 billion to bail out the banks, though it went completely counter to their own interest-group needs. It was the Republicans who voted TARP down and sent the markets into a tailspin. And bear in mind these difficult votes were in support of a President with popularity figures in the teens, as opposed to Obama's figures still in the mid-forties.

The Democrats did these things because they have an interest in a functioning economy. If the economy doesn't work, their voters suffer, whereas, as we've seen since 2008, most Repuiblican interest groups will get on just fine. So I don't think we'd have seen the Congressional intransigence under a President McCain that we've seen under Obama. (Remember that under the US system, nothing gets done without Congressional approval.)

I think that, if the economy was still looking febrile in 2010, a President McCain would have likely proposed a second stimulus, knowing that weak economies are fatal for Presidents and stimulus money makes midterms voters happy with the governing party. Most Republicans would have backed it to help out their man, and most Democrats would have gritted their teeth and backed it to help the economy.

I think that the political atmosphere wouldn't be dominated by the hard-money craziness that even the White House now seems to believe, but instead by the Milton (Friedman)-(Maynard) Keynes consensus that guided Republican economic thought until Obama's inauguration. As a result, I think the Federal Reserve would have felt more free to pursue expansionary monetary policy to stimulate the economy. Unemployment would likely be lower and demand higher, and the whole global economy would be on a slightly sounder footing.

That doesn't mean I'd necessarily encourage progressives to vote Republican in 2012. A strain of lunacy has taken root in the modern Republican party that wasn't there before. But with a match-up of a vaguely sane* Mitt Romney who has a chance of running the country, and a Barack Obama who will have his every move opposed vociferously as the first step on the Road to Serfdom, you're tempted to wonder: wouldn't it be better to go with the one who is capable of governing?

*I know he's said plenty of insane stuff, but everyone knows he has zero integrity and will say anything to get elected. Not normally an endorsement, but it counts as a positive for Republicans these days.