Adam Smith Institute

How do you ostracise 30 million people? One simple way is to explain that, "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom... freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." This is what Mitt Romney fundamentally did when he uttered those lines in his speech on the presidency and its relationship to belief. The Economist this week draws attention to the fact that there is a forgotten mass of people within the US who's votes are hardly ever courted.

Currently around 10 percent of Americans class themselves as being agnostic or atheist, a figure that has doubled in ten years. Unfortunately for them though they are a disparate group, and they are increasingly being forgotten. Especially as politicians are becoming more than happy to clothe themselves in religiosity as a way of proving that they are trustworthy and honest. (Even though the innumerable scandals prove that many are ordinary fallible human beings.)

Those who have no religious belief need to join together and begin to ask tough questions of those seeking election to office. There is a rightful place in the political arena for them, especially as a voice against those who seek to hold back scientific advances in the name of religion.

Mitt Romney et al. need to realise, as George Bush did, that even people without faith are Americans and that they, and their views, need to be incorporated into campaigns and politics. Religious belief, or lack of it, should never be a reason for exclusion from the political process. Having said that, we are surely light years away from ever seeing an unbelieving president.

Not long ago Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator and Law & Order star, was the great hope of many US Republicans, who excitedly compared him to Ronald Reagan and willed him to run for president. But since announcing his candidacy, Thompson's campaign has been lacklustre at best. Yet the criticism most often levelled at Thompson – that he is just a TV personality – is unfair.

If anything, his policy platform and his commitment to small government principles are stronger than his competitors', while it is his media skills that have proved surprisingly disappointing.

His tax plan illustrates this perfectly. Having announced the policy on Fox News, he didn't make a single public appearance for three days and his plan sank without trace, which is a great shame, since it is extremely promising and would undoubtedly appeal to Republican voters if only they knew about it. Thompson would permanently extend the Bush tax cuts (which have done much to keep the US economy afloat) and reduce corporation tax from 35 to 27 percent – a vital move for America's global competitiveness. The death tax would be abolished, as would the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was meant to hit the rich but now catches countless middle-income Americans in its net.

Best of all, Thompson proposes a new, alternative income tax code, which people could choose to opt into. Instead of the complexities of the existing system, people could choose a simple $15,000 personal allowance, paying 10 percent on their next $35,000, and 25 percent on everything over $50,000.

Eventually, I suspect most people would opt for this simpler tax code, and the US would have shifted to a simpler, flatter tax system without ever fighting major political battles over the removal of popular complexities. It's a clever policy, and one that could work this side of the Atlantic too.

It goes to show: Fred Thompson has plenty of potential. He just needs to raise his game before it's too late.

Kimberly Strassel, in the Wall Street Journal, and Quin Hillyer, in the American Spectator, have good pieces on Thompson here and here.

The Campaign for Fighting Diseases, run by Philip Stevens (formerly of the ASI), does excellent work on health policy issues in the developing world. Most recently, they have been pointing out the flaws in the World Health Organization's approach to climate change.

Although WHO claims that climate change is responsible for all manner of health threats to the developing world, the evidence suggests this is not the case. Take malaria – contrary to NGO claims the geographical incidence of malaria seems to have little to do with climate, relating more to the wealth of a country than to its temperature. Malaria existed in Europe throughout most of history, and it was not a change in temperature than eradicated it, but economic development and its consequent change in land use.

Another example is natural disasters. We are always hearing that climate change is going to cause more natural disasters and kill lots of people (particularly in the developing world), but deaths from climate related natural disasters have in fact fallen dramatically since the 1920s. This is purely the result of economic growth and the technological advances it has brought.

The point is clear: rising wealth will reduce the incidence of malaria and lessen the human cost of natural disasters in the developing world, regardless of climate change. You would think, then, that the WHO would be doing everything it could to promote the economic development of poor countries. Yet the global emissions caps they advocate would undoubtedly hurt the poor by retarding their economic growth.

The WHO should forget environmentalism and focus on the real barriers to good health in poor countries. The taxes and tariffs many governments impose on medicines would be a good place to start.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and Republican presidential hopeful, has enjoyed buoyant support in the key early states in the primary calendar – due in large part to his social conservatism. However, the boost in support for the blues-guitar playing Baptist minister Mike Huckabee has seen some of his popularity ebb away. The main problem seems to be Romney's Mormonism, which troubles many American voters. Last week he sought to put this behind him, with a speech only a few miles from where JFK allayed concerns about his membership of the Catholic Church in 1960.

The thought of a candidate giving a major campaign speech about their religious faith is troubling to many Europeans. However, the word ‘Mormon’ was used only once in the 20-minute speech, in which Romney focused more on the relationship between faith and public life than on his own religious convictions. As Joe Loconte wrote in response to Romney's speech, the purpose of American secularism "is not to quarantine religion from public life, but to protect the religious liberty of people of all faiths, or none." So just as Romney promised not to serve any one religious or interest group while in office, and demonstrated clear enthusiasm for the institutional separation of church and state, he simultaneously promised not to separate America from "The god who gave us our liberty".

Romney went on to tell of the strong admiration he had for every faith he had encountered, and how he wished that aspects of them were present in his own. In his most confrontational moment, he warned of the perils of an established state religion, pointing to Europe where he claimed that magnificent cathedrals had become little more than a "postcard backdrop" thanks to government dominance.

Clearly, the primary goal of this speech was to diffuse Christian concerns about Romney's Mormonism just a month before the primary selection process begins, but it also offered a brave and refreshing explanation of the place for religion in a structurally secular country in which faith remains an important part of many people’s lives. It remains to be seen whether Romney has overcome his doubters, but if he has, the Republican race could be blown wide open.

Committed to a meritocratic society, many States in America allow nearly anyone with the filing fee and handful of supporters to run for office. This is, of course how a body-building actor and a professional wrestler filled the governorships of California and Minnesota.

In 2008, comedians have taken over as the joke candidates, as Al Franken becomes increasingly serious in his bid for Senator in Minnesota and Steven Colbert’s short presidential campaign dies in South Carolina. Both men, comedians and commentators adored by the left, began their campaigns mocking the process, but ambiguous about their true intentions. Colbert feigned seriousness until the end, but Franken has begun to act like a real candidate and looks more like a serious candidate and threat to Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. However, as he picks up the traits of a classic candidate, one wonders: has Franken taken his candidacy to this level to further mock the others, or is he now seriously considering himself as running for office and unfortunately slipped into the characteristics he once so mocked?

Nevertheless, people frustrated with government originally loved Colbert and Franken because they mocked the process. Once comedians actually join in the fray, they lose their appeal. As Franken’s candidacy becomes more viable and he slips into the traditional candidate image, what more does he have to offer the people?

Support for those who mock the process show the frustration and dissatisfaction of most people with government administration. Comedians are meant to continually poke leaders with a stick, not become them. An attempt like Franken’s shows the problems inherent to government, that even the most stinging commentators will fall in line with the election and governing machine when placed in the position. In reality, the process needs its commentators, because it's so difficult to check the power of government from inside.

In addition to issues like foreign policy and taxation, energy (and its illegitimate cousin, environmental policy) has become a central figure of campaign platforms and stump speeches for US presidential candidates. Classically, Republicans want to increase domestic fuel supply primarily as an aim of foreign policy, while Democrats want to pursue ‘alternative energies’, mandating better fuel efficiency and stricter emissions limits for environmental reasons.

However, candidates from both sides have failed to grasp the economic realities of the situation beyond their own pandering positions. Even as oil prices stretch up to $100/barrel, most Americans still drive personal cars as their primary or only means of transport. And while factions remain that advocate environmental standards or nationalist economic policy, most Americans aren’t ready to drastically change the regular functioning of their lives for far-reaching government agendas – all they really value is lower gas prices.

The National Center for Policy Analysis has found that a major and overlooked culprit of high gas prices is not foreign oil or greedy companies but the lack of refineries, a result of clean air legislation and ethanol quotas which creates a bottle-neck in petrol production. Republicans, usually in favour of the de-regulatory policies that would increase the number of refineries, choose instead to advocate policies in line with their foreign policy, while the Democrats are apparently yet to meet an environmental regulation they don’t like.

Once again, the presidential candidates have passed over sound economics in exchange for manipulative policies that achieve their own foreign and domestic goals, leaving the American voter in the dust.

A friend working for a French-based bank was asked by a French colleague about holidays. The conversation went as follows:

French colleague: "How many holidays a year do you have?"

UK Friend: "23 days. How about you?"

French colleague: "I am embarrassed to tell you."

UK Friend: "No, go on."

French colleague: "I have 10 weeks off."

UK Friend: "10 weeks!"

French colleague: "But you have public holidays, of course, as well."

UK Friend: "Don't you have Bastille Day, Christmas Day, Easter holiday and so on?"

French colleague (with a shrug): "Everyone has those."

In fact the French have 11 public holidays a year, compared to 8 in the UK. The above conversation really took place, and is not a 'joke of the day.' It does, though, raise the question of why the French economy is not a bigger joke than it is.

The position of most US presidential candidates on illegal immigration seems to be, "We don't want you here, but once you're in we'll help you out." Most of them, except for the far-left Denis Kucinich, voted for the security fence along the southern border, while Edwards, Obama, and McCain have supported bills to let illegal immigrants in-state tuition at state universities. Most candidates have also voted for President Bush's guest worker programme, which would allow current illegal immigrants to come out into the open, work seasonal jobs and then return home. But apart from this guest-worker programme, most of the policies supported by the candidates are the opposite of what America needs.

If we are to treat the labour market like any other market, workers should be able to cross borders just like any other good in a free trade system. Workers come to America to pick up jobs that the nation requires, like fruit picking, but have been priced out of the American labour market by the minimum wage. The construction of a fence or other measures to curtail this practice mean that the symbiotic relationship between American industries and illegal workers has begun to break down, with the possibility of harming the American economy more than most people realize.

However, this economic thinking is far from the mindset of most Americans, who fear the threat of illegal immigrants both in terms of national security and their own jobs. Granted, workers function a bit differently than goods like bananas or car parts, possibly demanding health care, education, and other social services. But the reactionary position of most Americans toward immigrants means our candidates support policies in line with similar thinking, no matter the economic story. In reality, their position should be, "we do want you here to take those jobs that we don't want, but we won't help you out if you choose to come and then can't support yourself." Assuming that the workers cross the border to gain better employment than they could at home, a policy like this would benefit all parties involved.

A few weeks ago Rachel wrote a blog suggesting that presidential hopeful Fred Thompson might be just the small-government type the Republicans need. We were immediately inundated with comments saying 'What about Ron Paul?' Well...

He is certainly the subject of much conversation in libertarian circles, and has even hit the headlines a few times recently. He managed to raise more money in a single day than any previous presidential primary candidate. His website is getting more traffic than all his Republican opponents combined, and significantly more than any of the Democrats. He even won a New York State Republican straw poll. Granted, only 61 people voted, but Paul deserves to be taken seriously.

He's got some good policies too. He wants to abolish most of the federal government along with the taxes that sustain it, and return to limited constitutional government. He wants to protect and strengthen property rights, and extend personal freedom by rolling back the Bush administration's more invasive and illiberal legislation.

I'm not 100 percent convinced by his platform, however. A more pragmatic US approach to foreign policy would be welcome, but Paul's isolationism is a step too far. His opposition to multilateral trade liberalization and immigration also worry me, since both are vital to the promotion of free trade and international development. As for a return to the gold standard, it's just not feasible – especially with a major economic downturn on the horizon.

The biggest problem with Ron Paul though is simply that he can't win. He will not win the Republican nomination, and if he stands as an independent he will only ensure a left-leaning presidency. It's a shame really – policy differences aside, a libertarian president would be a wonderful thing.