Instapundit linked up this analysis of John Kerry's proposed trade policies, which I think highlights a real and crucial difference between the candidates:

Trade advisors to the Kerry camp have announced that labor and environment issues will be "front and centre" in Kerry Administration trade policy. This distinguishes it from Republican trade policy. A reasonable person would ask why a trade policy would not have trade "front and centre". Labor and environment would not be front and centre of homeland security policy. Why is trade policy different?

This is one of the main reasons I'm voting Republican, even though GW is still a technocrat, albeit one of a different stripe. Many will disagree with the points made in the article, passionately at that, but these are the same people who will decry the ballooning federal deficit while simultaneously calling for increased social spending. You can't have it both ways, and the fact that Democrats advocate positions that try means they will always lose my vote.

Yes, free trade can mean cruel trade-offs. It can sometimes cost friends and loved ones jobs, force families to relocate, and cause stress and emotional trauma. Unfortunately every other alternative is worse, especially in the long run. Japan's been in a recession for more than a decade because the government refuses to let businesses fail. The French are happy their unemployment rate has fallen to 9.1 percent. Argentines are still recovering from a government-engineered collapse that turned them from fat cats to paupers in less than a week.

No, it's not perfect. It never will be. But until the other side comes up with some new ideas instead of simply peddling old ones wrapped in new ribbons, I'll call their policies what they really are... utopianism.

I guess the ultimate irony is that Moore's book is satire.