In a print column yesterday, I suggested, in the spirit of contrarianism, that your typical U.S. president is a hostage of the economic cycle, rather than its master.
In this era of the imperial presidency, many Americans tend to assume, erroneously, that a chief executive blessed by boom times deserves most of the credit, and that if the economy is rotten, he deserves the brunt of the blame. But, as I sought to point out, reality is far more complicated, starting with the fact that presidents don't even have the clout to rein in the stubbornly independent Federal Reserve, which basically sets the nation's monetary policy.
That's as far as I took the theme in print, where space is finite. But here's an ancillary irony: Even though presidents truly lack the clout to change the domestic economy, the condition of the domestic economy is often a major factor in the selection of presidents. In good times, voters tend to reward the incumbent party; in bad times, voters tend to reward the out party.
If that's still true, one would assume that the prevailing winds of 2008 favor Barack Obama...unless he fails to heed the dangers that often stalk Democrats in the dog days of August.
One prominent political forecaster is economist Ray Fair of Yale. He argues that voter behavior is closely tied to the health of the economy (or lack thereof); by measuring various economic indicators - such as Gross Domestic Product, the economic growth rate in the first three quarters of an election year, and the rate of inflation - he claims to be able to roughly predict the popular vote of the two major party candidates. His record hasn't been perfect, but, on the average, he has come within 2.5 points of the winning candidate's popular vote share dating back to the 1916 election. (Some of his ruminations are here, for those of you who like this stuff.)
Naturally, Fair has a take on 2008. His current prediction is that, given the weak performance of the economy, as evidenced by the tepid GDP growth in the first two quarters of the year (0.9 percent and 1.9 percent), the election in November will be won by Obama. Fair sees a three-point Obama victory, 51.5 to 48.5 percent. (That would hardly be a landslide; on the other hand, the last time a Democrat managed to break 50 percent was 1976.)
The big question, however, is whether Americans in 2008 will vote their wallets and pocketbooks - assigning blame, as Fair sees it, to the incumbent party's nominee - or whether they will continue to confound conventional wisdom, as they have so often in this campaign season.
Indeed, one of the key reasons for McCain's recent barrage of attacks on Obama is his urgent need to change the traditional paradigm. His strategists are well aware that the sour economy hampers their prospects, especially since McCain is widely perceived in the polls as ideologically sympatico with the incumbent president of his own party; and since McCain himself has admitted that "the issue of economics is not something I have understood as well as I should."
Hence his need to make the voters focus on something besides economic anxiety. The obvious alternative - for a McCain attack team now dominated by Karl Rove alumni - is to shred the opponent's persona...and suggest, for example, that Obama is merely an uppity arrogant airhead celebrity who wants to lose a war.
And that's just for starters. It's August now, the traditional Democratic disaster month. Michael Dukakis was destroyed in August '88, when the GOP painted him as a water-polluting, insufficiently flag-waving, rapist-enabling wussy; his response at the time was zilch, because he refused to believe that voters would buy the caricatures. They did. And 16 years later, in August '04, John Kerry was transformed by the Swift Boaters from war hero to fraud; his response at the time was to embark on a wind-surfing vacation. His people said virtually nothing for several weeks, because they refused to believe that voters would buy the caricature. They did.
Obama now faces many potential dog day afternoons. His current line is that he is "disappointed" in McCain for launching such attacks, but I doubt that a mournful sigh is sufficient to stop further shelling from the McCain war room. Clearly he will need stronger weaponry if he wants to survive the ides of August. Contrary to what some of the economic forecasters believe, I find it hard to imagine, in this unconventional campaign season, that swing voters will tilt Democratic merely because of the sluggish quarterly growth rates in the GDP.
- The liberal definition of "attack ad" or "personal attack" is any ad or statement that criticzes a liberal. Libs are all torqued up about the Spears/Hilton ad because it is effective. It brings into focus the style over substance argument against Obama by grouping him with two people who are the very definition of style over substance. It's a good ad. jmc
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
As an aside, yet another article comparing Obama to Bush: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/02/AR2008080201687.html bon
I am shocked and amazed. Finally a print column and a blog post with only a slight tinge of liberal bias (imperial presidenct...they can now listen in on your phone calls). Polman really hit the nail on the head with both of these items. Bush even said in a press conference that if he had a magic wand he would wave it and reduce the price of oil, but he can't. I believe he got mocked by both the press and the Democrats for that remark. However, except for tax policy and government spending, the President really has little impact on the economy....because if they did, as pointed out in the print column, why would there ever be a bad economy? As to yobill talking about presidents needing to compromise, that is true. But they should be able to admint that they are changing their position to compromise. A spokesman for Obama this morning on "Morning Joe" on the all Obama channel (MSNBC) actually said Obama coming out in favor of drilling now "is not really a change in position". Why can't this guy ever admit to anything except that he is always right and if you think he changed his stance you just weren't listening? tom - wilmington, de
As the the article, I think Hillary Clinton is somewhere screaming "I told you so!" After a week of being ripped apart, the best Obama and his team can come up with is that McCain is a tool of big oil? Where is the innovation from this campaign? Who would have thought McCain's campaign would be the one breaking new ground while Obama seems to be running a decade in the past? bon
Well it is now that people start focusing on the candidates so it is the time to start defining them. The central message of McCains ads is if there is any substance, qualifications to be President, Commander in Chief behind the larger than life image Obama and his media enablers have pushed so far. Goes to his core and Americans understand is a legitimate question. When Obama campaign said McCainn was confused, losing his bearings, not qualified to be President just because whe was shot down in Vietnam I did not see all this outrage. Media double standards and people see that. It is a contested race and will get very heated, bet on it. Obamas background is not known to most Americans, will and should be exposed and it wont be pretty jjfalcon35
OK, maybe its true that Presidents can't control the economy, but it seems too extreme to say that they have no influence. Surely a policy as foolish and irresponsible as cutting taxes while conducting two wars, thereby producing the largest deficit in history, has some causal relationship to the sad state of our current economy. While a President may not have personal power to cure a sick economy, the last seven years clearly demonstrate that he has plenty of power to damage a healthy economy. Bill B
Bill B: Spending more while taxing less is a bad policy, yes. McCain has opposed Bush on spending, left and right, for 7 years though. These high profile political fights are one of the reasons the liberal attempts to declare McCain the same as Bush have not worked. The public knows McCain is better on federal spending than Bush, so Bush's greatest weakness does not have much of an effect. (In the interest of fairness, Bush's spending did not lead to the economic troubles of today. Economies ebb and flow. It is not the end of the world.) bon
Comment removed.
Obama has an ad out there calling for a windfall profit tax. He should know that EXXON last year paid more than $29.84 BILLION in federal taxes last year. Also, the last time a windfall profit tax was enacted on "BIG OIL", back under the steward one James Earl Carter, it was an economic disaster and resulted in almost no revenue being generated from the tax. Finally, the fact that we have now the highest tax collections flowing into the treasury ever in history shows that the problem was in spending, not in tax revenue. The top 1% of wage earners in 2006 paid more than 40% of all taxes, up from 20% of all taxes in 2000. So apparently the "tax cuts" for the rich has them paying more in taxes. We need to reign in spending, which will not happen under Obama. tom - wilmington, de
Wait a second guys and gals. You mean to tell me spending under McCain will be better than with Obama? By pursuing the same foreign agenda as his predecessor? By not understanding the linkages of the dollar, interest rates, lax regulation of complex financial instruments, the role of the Federal Reserve? Without a sound banking system, nothing else is possible. Nothing. JeffA
Let them have the windfall profit tax. Americans will see how this socialist tricks backfire with higher gas prices and added costs to businesses who will not get those reabtes jjfalcon35
There is no doubt that the oil companies will just pay the higher taxes and not pass any costs on to the consumer. jwad56
When you run an increasingly large deficit, the value of your currency (the dollar) goes down. This means it takes more of those dollars to buy things on the international market --- like oil. yobill626
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
- December 2011
- August 2010
- August
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008







