Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

. Last Updated: 07/27/2016

Against Terrorism and Hitchhiker Syndrome

They started arriving literally before the dust had settled. The Washington Post dubbed them "hitchhikers" -- people who want to use the patriotic bandwagon as a vehicle for their favorite policy proposals. To its credit, the Bush administration has for the most part been cautious about letting the hitchhikers on board. But will that restraint last?

The most vocal hitchhikers are conservative pundits, who within a day of the terrorist attack were urging the administration to use the occasion to ram through tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations, drilling in the Arctic and so on. This drive reached a sort of climax in the already notorious Wall Street Journal editorial of Sept. 19, which added appointments of conservative judges to the list of goodies the administration should grab while the grabbing is good.

Some politicians took heed. Representative Bill Thomas, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, rushed to prepare legislation cutting the capital gains tax; he was ready to put that legislation in play just days after the terrorists struck but was somehow dissuaded. And a good thing, too: That tax cut was a terrible idea, which would have done little to stimulate the economy, would have greatly worsened the long-run budget prospect and would have given the lion's share of its benefits to a tiny, wealthy, minority.

As I said, the Bush administration has been pretty good so far about rejecting the hitchhiker strategy; sadly, the official who was least restrained was the one with the best policy proposal. Robert Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative, did himself and the nation no favor when he appeared to demand "fast track" negotiating authority on the grounds that it was part of a counteroffensive against terrorism.

It so happens that free trade is one issue on which the administration is mostly right and many Democrats are wrong. That does not excuse Zoellick's exploitation of a national crisis. Indeed, he has made it that much harder for well-intentioned free traders to defend their position, now that their cause has been tainted by his opportunism.

The big question -- in its way as big a question as what military action the United States will eventually take in Afghanistan or elsewhere -- is whether politicians of both parties (for there are liberal hitchhikers too) will understand that in times like these the national good requires a special effort to avoid not just the reality, but even the appearance of political profiteering.

On economic policy the signals are mixed. Capital gains tax cuts have, it seems, slipped off the agenda. But some administration officials continue to push for a cut in corporate profits taxes, an almost equally bad idea that shares the same defects: It would contribute little to the economy in the short run, would seriously hurt the long-run budget picture (the most widely circulated proposal would, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, cost $900 billion over the next 10 years) and would deliver its benefits mainly to the wealthiest families.

To give corporate lobbyists what they want now would give every appearance of using a national emergency to reward political allies; that in itself would be a reason not to cut corporate taxes, even if the proposal were not such a bad idea.

In the aftermath of the outrage of Sept. 11 the administration has extraordinary freedom of action. But freedom, as always, comes with responsibility. Those whom we trust to look after the national interest must watch what they say and do, lest it seem that the nation's trust has been abused.

Paul Krugman is on the editorial staff of The New York Times, to which he contributed this comment.