Or 'Kerry isn't the answer'
Since so few readers of The Telegraph have a vote in Tuesday's presidential election, it might seem impertinent or redundant for this newspaper to express a preference in the knife-edge contest between George W Bush and John Kerry. But the economic, military and diplomatic power of the United States is so great - and its links with this country so intimate - that it is important to ask which of the candidates would govern America in a way which better served the British national interest.
Last year, Britain's exports to the US were worth more than £29 billion; American firms invested more than twice as much in this country as they did in any other. It is essential, therefore, that whoever wins on Tuesday has the firmest commitment to free trade. Mr Bush, it must be said, blotted his record in this respect with the deplorable steel tariffs imposed by the US during his period of office. But Mr Kerry goes much further down the protectionist route.
Although the Democrat candidate has a respectable voting record on free trade, his choice of running mate - the arch-protectionist John Edwards - scarcely inspires confidence. Ominously, Mr Kerry has promised a 120-day review of all existing US trade agreements. In an astonishing comparison with the most famous traitor of the American Revolution, he has launched savage attacks on "Benedict Arnold CEOs" for "shipping American jobs overseas". Such callow economic illiteracy is a depressing step back for the Democrats: Bill Clinton's dedication to the completion of the North American Free Trade Agreement was exemplary. By campaigning alongside Mr Clinton in the last days of the contest, Mr Kerry tried to signal that he shares the values of the last Democrat President. To adapt the famous put-down of Lloyd Bentsen: "Senator, you're no Bill Clinton." |