Divided Democrats

Here is a interesting juxtaposition of economic views from Democrats offering advice. Columnist James Klurfield uses a new book by former Clinton administration official Paul London to describe how much better private competition is than government for providing economic growth:

One of the lessons I've learned over the years is that we're usually better off when the market is allowed to make economic decisions as opposed to the government.

Maybe that comes from spending a good part of my professional life watching how and why government makes decisions. The reality is that government is inherently less efficient than the marketplace.

There is just no substitute for the discipline imposed by competition, no matter how noble or altruistic the motives of a government agency - and more times than not the government agency is motivated by non-economic considerations such as patronage or how to promote an elected official's career rather than some higher principle of public good.

I was thinking about this recently because of a provocative new book by Paul A. London, "The Competition Solution." London, who was deputy undersecretary of commerce for economics and statistics in the Clinton administration (and is a Great Neck native), argues that the great force in the American economy over the past two decades has been the unleashing of competition in major industries from automotive to steel, transportation, communications and trade.

Although he is a Democrat, London says what his research has demonstrated is that, over the long haul, members of both parties have sided with these outsiders, including foreigners, when these outsiders challenged the big, entrenched, sometimes oligarchic interests in the country. And that has resulted in competition, innovation, increases in productivity and the amazing growth of the 1990s.

That notion runs counter to the conventional wisdom that big, powerful special interests dominate our politics, whether it's the Detroit automakers, Pittsburgh steel or organized labor- all of which have doggedly opposed free trade agreements.

Contrast that with the advice of Democratic political pollsters James Carville, Bob Shrum and Stanley Greenberg in this memo on how to reclaim the white Catholic vote. They advise Democrats to demonize the wealthy and big corporations.

The choice is clear. The Democrats can preach the truth about economics and the benefits of freedom and competition. Or they can continue to push discredited falsehoods about tax cuts for the wealthy and evil corporations. Truth or Slander? What is good for the country or what is good for Democrats' election prospects?