Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
A Keynesian is something, you either are one or you are not. You can not be both a Monetarist and a Keynesian, there is no coherent center between the two. Given, Keynesians argue aggregate demand can be managed and monetarist argue that it can not be, a compromise or a hybrid of the two is failure. Because no matter which side is correct, the compromise solution can not solve the problem.
|
Both Obama and Bush have used Keynesian strategies. Both Canada and the United States are quite familiar with them, just as they are familiar with monetary policies. Most advanced economies are mixed economies, and so you don't even need to be a centrist to use both strategies.
Quote:
|
Bill Clinton shifted from the left to the right. given that shift he was able to work with the Republican Congress. Bill Clinton, cut taxes, reformed welfare, passed NAFTA, cut federal spending, passed a crime bill, reduced government bureaucracy, and some would argue he reduced regulations. That sounds pretty right wing to me.
|
This is mostly true. Bill Clinton was mostly centre-left until he lost the House, after which he became centre-right. It's not uncommon to see liberal/progressive politicians shift around the centre. I wouldn't call Clinton a conservative, however. At best, he was able to bridge the gap between liberalism and conservatism through compromise and appropriation. He's not the only liberal/progressive to do that. Canadian politics is filled with it.
NAFTA was started by conservative Canadian and American leaders (Mulroney/Bush Sr.) and was finalized by liberal Canadian and American leaders (Chrétien/Clinton). There were renegotiations in between.
The Liberal Party of Canada has been known to go on a platform that includes tax cuts as well. Obama has cut taxes.
Clinton balanced the budget and eliminated the deficit. The Liberals are champions of a balanced budget, and have been known to cut spending to achieve it.
This is centrisim, my friend.