An article in the Hindustan Times (November 6) speaks of the reaction of Americans in India to the Obama election victory. In particular, Renee Nielsen, chairperson of Republicans Abroad, India, was disconsolate. Understandably so, of course. But she said that the Obama victory "is the wrong result for America and India. A Republican President is far better for India economically."
This, because "a Republican fully free market economy is preferable to protectionist Democrat policies."
This is an argument I've heard a lot, both leading up to and after the election. The reporter who wrote the article, when I called to speak to him, told me there has been plenty of commentary on these lines in India since the election.
Now again, I can understand a Republican saying that Obama's win "is the wrong result for America". Her candidate lost, after all.
But where's the evidence to make the rest of this argument?
Where's the evidence to say "a Republican President is far better for India economically"? Has Bush been good for India economically? Was Republican President Reagan "far better for India economically" than Democrat President Carter?
Besides, has the American economy under Bush been a "fully free market" one anyway? And whether it was "fully free market" or not, should we not judge this Republican economy by its condition today, when it lies in tatters? And if we do that, just how is it "better for India economically"?
Pat on the back to the person who can explain all this, who can give me persuasive evidence that Republicans are better for India than Democrats.