But I’d like to highlight that Broder’s argument shows how thoroughly out of tune he is with the macroeconomic effects of [...]]]> David Broder’s October 31^st op-ed on how Obama might spark an economic recovery by preparing for war with Iran has received much derision from various quarters (summarized in today’s Daily Talking Points).

But I’d like to highlight that Broder’s argument shows how thoroughly out of tune he is with the macroeconomic effects of government spending, and that this isn’t the first time he’s linked war spending to FDR’s New Deal.

Dean Baker at the Center for Economic and Policy Research debunks Broder’s assumption that war spending is different than any other kind of public expenditure.

Baker writes:

Sorry Mr. Broder, outside of Fox on 15th the world does not work this way. War affects the economy the same way that other government spending affects the economy. It does not have some mystical impact as Broder seems to think.

But Broder does seem to see a “mystical relationship” between wars and boosting the economy. 

In an August 2003 oped in The Washington Post, titled “W’s New Deal?,” Broder wrote:

Roosevelt made his changes under the spur of the Great Depression and World War II. Bush has the impetus of 9/11 to thank for the doctrine of preemptive wars, used to justify the attack on Iraq, and for the creation of the Homeland Security Department, one of the biggest restructurings of government since the New Deal.

I can’t say for sure how the creation of the Homeland Security Department and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq measures up to the New Deal in terms of total spending. But remember, President Bush’s term ended with the start of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. So it’s tough to say that Broder’s bizarre endorsement of war spending works out for the better.

Broder concluded in 2003 that the risks are high and success is not guaranteed when pursuing a policy of public spending on the scale Bush advocated in 2003 or FDR employed during the Great Depression. Having seen how the Bush administration ended–an administration with no shortage of war spending–it’s astonishing to see Broder rehash this argument.

Despite winning support from neoconservatives like Cliff May, Broder’s logic has been ripped to [...]]]> In Monday’s Talking Points, I chronicled some of the initial responses to David Broder’s Washington Post column this past weekend. Broder suggested President Obama could revitalize the economy by going to war with Iran. The responses were mostly negative:

Despite winning support from neoconservatives like Cliff May, Broder’s logic has been ripped to shreds by the commentariat, who say the idea emanates from an economic “loon tune land,” “a unique blend of moral depravity and intellectual laziness,” a “ridiculous idea” put forward by a “moral degenerate,” “ill-informed and morally bankrupt,” “intellectually lazy to the point of near-dishonesty, as well as mind-bogglingly belligerent,” “the most insane op-ed I’ve ever come across,” and “stupid enough when Elliot Abrams wrote it in August.“

Those posts, though not credited by name in the Talking Points, are from (in order): Dean Baker, Joshua Holland, Matt Duss, Steve Walt, Helena Cobban, Barry Eisler, and Marc Lynch.

Michigan Professor Juan Cole was not included in the round up simply because I had not gotten around to reading his piece yet. But he should have been.

Cole emphasizes that he doesn’t believe “Broder’s generalization about war and economic expansion holds up to critical scrutiny.” He considers that any modicum of economic gain from war with Iran will be far outweighed by the negative effects of a confrontation which could result in a spike in oil prices, at the least.

Cole writes (with my emphasis):

The Iranians cannot actually close the Straits of Hormuz, which are 26 miles wide. But they do not have to. All they have to do is contribute to another oil spike (which benefits them in a way that cutting off oil does not), and make covert trouble and tie us down like a hapless Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians.

I can’t think of anything that would be worse for the US economy, or for Obama’s prospects for a second term, than going to a war footing with Iran. And, my own experience is that if you go to a war footing with a country, you have to be prepared for things spinning out of control and into actual war. Since Americans go running to their congressmen demanding a repeal of the Bill of Rights every time there is a little pipe bomb somewhere, anything that might cause terrorism on US soil is deadly to our over 200 year old Republic. My guess is that a third war right about now, for the reasons outlined above, would just about finish us off as a nation.