I try not write about politics because it’s just a show designed to entertain the high-IQ masses.
However, reading all of last weeks blog posts during a very long plane ride, I noticed that either Matthew Yglesias hijacked Half Sigma’s blog or vice versa. They both endorse Mitt Romney and hate Herman Cain. (If you want examples peruse the archives, I’m too lazy to dig for links)
The level and intensity of agreement among these two is strange.
Assuming that Yglesias and HS are different people, I’d guess that Yglesias likes Romney because Yglesais wants a government run by technocrats and Romney is the ultimate technocrat. HS likes Romney because Romney has a high IQ, which is apparently sufficient in his estimation.
Another comment that I’ve seen, particularly from John Derbyshire, is that Herman Cain would be likely to get rolled by the bureaucracy, whereas Romney would be less so.
I’m sorry to say that we’ll roll either of them, however, my intuition would be precisely opposite Mr Derbyshire’s.
Here’s an example. The other day I was listening to a podcast from The Economist. Their position on the troubles with Europe is essentially: we don’t like bailouts, but if Europe sovereigns and banks don’t get bailed out, we’re headed for a massive depression. This being The Economist, this is the official position of anyone who is not a knuckle-dragging idiot.
I think this analysis is horseshit, but setting that aside . . . Imagine if a bunch of high-level American and international bureaucrats are sitting a briefing with Romney and they lay out this situation and recommend bailout to avoid the second great depression. Romney would be reading confirming analysis in The Economist, the WSJ, and the NYT. I’m 100% sure that Romney bails out Europe. The whole structure of the bureaucracy is designed to make guys like Romney dance. He wants to be popular, he wants to do the smart thing, he wants to think of himself as a little tough. He’s the perfect politician and the bureaucracy pwns politicians.
Cain would be a tougher nut to crack (if only cause he’s much less predictable), but he’d still crack. Frankly, if the bureaucracy decides to do something, it’s not even clear how the President could stop it. He could slow it down, but that’s it.