Sacrilege on Sunday - no comments

Are Republicans good for the world's poor?:

The Republicans have in the past spent more on aid than the Democrats: Todd estimates that, based on past averages, the success of the Democrats in the mid-terms will cost Africa about $800 million.

I think we forget the importance of the evangelical movement in the Republican coalition; and that the churches have continued to press for more aid for the developing world. Furthermore, on trade policy, the Republicans are routinely less protectionist and less mercantilist than the Democrats.

All of which shows that we should not make simplistic assumptions about politics in other countries.

I had a discussion with Tyger, and others, about this on his blog yesterday, but I think it's worth bringing up here as part of a general mission to challenge political stereotypes. I'm interested in whether the above analysis is true or not, not who produced it. If it isn't, let it be refuted, and/or placed in an appropriate context. If it is, well, I think that matters in itself, also because who knows what other issues we might have to look at afresh if we lay down our stereotypes?

Update: Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. I've now replaced a bit in the last paragraph.