November 08, 2008

Better for India

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.

11 comments:

Sidhusaaheb said...

Well, considering the effect the republican president currently in office has had on the US economy and, consequently, on the Indian economy, the argument does not appear to be all that convincing.

Anonymous said...

The line of argument that places the state of the US economy squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans is hard to accept too..


Z

Dilip D'Souza said...

The line of argument that places the state of the US economy squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans is hard to accept too.

Point well taken, Z. Dem shoulders are guilty too.

Still, I'm asking about this business of Republican Presidents being better for India. Is there any evidence of that or is it just a thing to say?

zap said...

Yes surely Dem shoulders are guilty as well.

As for whether the line about the Republican's being better for India is true - Frankly, I don't know. Some digging is warranted, though I am pretty sure it wont give us an absolute answer either way..

Z

Rahul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Dilip:

The article at
http://www.swaminomics.org/articles/20081026.htm
is about McCain vs Obama vis-a-vis India.

Perhaps some of that might
generalize to Dem. vs Rep. vis-a-vis India.

Anonymous said...

The article title is:

Where McCain scores over Obama (October 26, 2008)

Rabin Stephen said...

to even get into this line of discussion would mean that the choice of the american president would impact to some level (major or minor) the growth of the indian economy. Thats BS.

sm said...

hi

if you see the hisotry of last 50 years you will see that repulican or democrat they just talk sweet without any resutls .
eg.is bill clinton what he did nothing ,bush what he did nothing
in that like obama what he will do ?-------
see you later
mit

http://realityviews.blogspot.com/

Nilu said...

Yes, a Republican is better for India. Republicans kick Moslem ass. So, it can only be good for India.

Anonymous said...

nilu,

do you think now democrats will kick ass of hindus?