In a provocative post, Berean Bert Wheeler suggested that there is not much difference between Republicans and Democrats, at least economically.  I understand the urge to think this, and I certainly agree given my frustrations with both parties; “a pox on them all.” But to say there is no real substantive difference between the parties is really to say, “I don’t like politics.”   My response:  who really does?  But not liking politics doesn’t mean there aren’t  profound differences between the parties, sometimes more so and sometimes less so.

For those that think there are no differences between the two, I answer with two words:  Barak Obama.  Will anyone really say there are not substantive differences in the economic policies of Mr. Obama and either Mr. McCain or Mr. Romney?  For Bert, would you really say there was no real difference between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan’s policies?  On each of these individuals we could go in depth with numerous substantive differences that have meaningful economic consequences.  For just one, consider the regulatory approaches of Mr. Obama which are (at least) contributing to the “new normal” of 2% growth, rather than a historical 3%.  This is leading to stagnating/declining median income and little job growth (well below historical standards in business cycle recoveries).  Tell the people that don’t have a job now because of Mr. Obama’s policies there is no difference.   Many of those people voted overwhelmingly yesterday that they do believe there is a difference–and they asked for change.

But let’s go further with Bert’s point.  I have heard the “no difference” between the parties for years, with many suggesting a moral equivalence between the two approaches.    Given Republicans also do “crony capitalism” and so do Democrats, they are the same.  But this is like saying because jaywalking and murder are both crimes, there is no difference between the two.  I think the better analogy is President Eisenhower’s warning to us about the growth of a military-industrial complex.  While the U.S. had such a complex, the U.S.S.R was a military-industrial complex.  As Arthur Brooks of AEI said, crony capitalism is the codependent wife of statism.  Given the Democratic party’s complete commitment to growth in government, they are naturally going to support more cronyism–they just don’t see it as cronyism.  Rather, it is “investing in America.”  Democratic cronyism offers distorting economic effect by picking winners and losers (e.g., so coal is a loser and anything green energy is a winner) whereas much of the Republican cronyism may be to create tax cuts that are applicable to anyone similarly situated.  In general, economists consider the distortionary effects of government much less when they apply to everyone (so a tax cut or hike that affects only a few is much worse than one that is broad-based).   I for one consider Republicans efforts to allow people to keep more of their own money to be categorically different than Democratic efforts to take from one group to give to another–categorically different from both a moral and economic perspective.  While the response might be: “the difference is just a matter of degree, not of kind,” I have to say that when the differences in degree get to be so large, its almost as if there is a difference in kind.

OK fellow Bereans, your chance to weigh in.  Is there not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties?