I was appalled to read "Can Clinton Bring Us to the Table?" by Aaron Klein '98 [Oct. 7]. It clearly illustrated an example of inane thinking that often plagues today's political debates. The column is laden with numerous factual problems, as well as logical inconsistencies that I will reveal to Dartmouth readers -- Republicans or Democrats -- in the hope that they will seriously reflect upon their reasons for supporting either candidate.
One glaring flaw in Klein's argument is his tendency to mistake correlation for causality. For instance, he gives credit to the Clinton Administration for creating 10.5 million jobs. But just because his presidency coincided with the employment trend does not mean that Clinton's policy caused it.
Rather, such job creation came about because Clinton was voted into office when the American economy had recovered only slightly from the recession and it continued to grow strongly after he took office. In addition, the employment level, which normally reflects the size of the labor force, has risen simply because more and more women are now working.
Four straight years of deficit reduction can also be attributed to a factor generally outside the control of the Clinton administration: the remarkable uninterrupted economic growth. Although a combination of circumstances has contributed to the growth, if one were to credit anyone for the sound state of the economy, that would be Greenspan for his prudent monetary policy.
Another serious problem in Klein's column is its careless handling of facts. It is disturbing to observe his ingenuous reliance on sensational language to describe, for instance, Dole's proposal to cut the capital gains tax as a move that only benefits the rich. This is simply not true.
One of the main reasons behind the stagnation of the American economic growth in recent years is that capital formation, or plant and equipment investment, has declined. The key to high rates of such investment is savings, and the United States over the years has pursued various measures to discourage savings. The capital gains tax, along with other measures such as the tax on saving accounts, has only hurt the American people, rich and poor.
Besides, it is simply a myth that paper assets belong only to the rich. An increasing number of middle class Americans own stocks and bonds due to the change in corporate structure that has made stock options and private pension plans more popular.
Klein's point about the rise in drug use in the United States exemplifies another typical flaw in his logic. Apparently believing that the growing prevalence of drugs is inevitable, he implies that Jocelyn Elders' plan to legalize marijuana might be a good idea and that policies to prevent the increase of drugs have failed.
The problem with that argument is that he does not seriously think through what would have happened to drug use had the policies not been in place. He fails to consider the counterfactual. It could be that drug use would have skyrocketed without the policy. In such a case the policy was indeed successful.
In one example, Klein does consider the counterfactual but inaccurately. He criticizes Dole for attempting to cut federal research and development funding even though it has led to the creation of the internet. He fails to consider the possibility that the internet could have been discovered without federal funds by private organizations.
Mixed results on federal R&D fundings everywhere in the world lead me to believe that private organizations motivated by free market forces can decide what to research and develop infinitely more productively than government bureaucracies. The miserable failure of the colossal R&D fundings that involved the Japanese government's push for high-resolution television and European governments' efforts to develop the Concord are beautiful examples.
Mr. Klein apparently wants "national discussion, where all views can be discussed both openly and intellectually." If he were sincere about his intent, he might want to start by setting an example of how one can contribute to such discussion -- not by writing the kind of column he did, which only allows politicians to exploit the ignorant voters.
