Life at ground level
The economy, the Democrats, and "the historical meat grinder"
Life at ground level
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
The Sunday print column, tweaked and updated:
Pass the word, the great recession is over.
What, you haven't heard? Notwithstanding last Friday's dismal report on the latest job losses, various economic gurus are talking about a strong third-quarter rebound, the Dow continues its sluggish upward creep toward 10,000, and a former Reagan economic whiz named Michael Muzza declares that America has already commenced a "moderately vigorous recovery."
But, in terms of President Obama's political health, and the Democrats' prospects for success in the 2010 congressional races, upbeat macroeconomic statistics really don't mean squat. Voters won't believe that the economy has truly begun to rebound until they can see tangible evidence with their own eyes.
It won't be enough for the Democrats to argue that conditions would have been worse if not for the $787-billion economic stimulus package; lots of economists happen to support that argument, but the average voter lives at ground level. For most people, the recovery won't seem real until the vacant corner store has a new occupant and a "hiring now" sign on the glass; until the jobless spouse in the den is going out the door every morning with a new work bag; until it's a hassle once again to find a parking spot at the mall; until the price tag for fixing the porch seems doable, and the contractor who does the work is again swamped with other bids.
Until such time as these things happen, Obama and the Democrats will be treading on thin ice in the long march to the '10 elections. This might be arguably unfair - the economy went bad for a host of well-known reasons, and presidents are often at the mercy of economic trends beyond their control - but that's politics. Inevitably, the party in charge is held accountable when times are tough...or, more importantly, when times are perceived as tough, no matter what the graphs look like. As Tom Cole, a GOP congressman and strategist told the press the other day, "It is the Democrats' turn to go through the historical meat grinder."
Presidential approval ratings tend to rise or fall in accordance with the jobless rate. Obama's have been no different; since last January, the drop in his thumbs-up rating has closely tracked the rise in the jobless rate. If the current jobless rate persists well into 2010 - indeed, the Congressional Budget Office is predicting that next year's rate will average 10.2 percent, and one top economists sees the rate peaking at 10.5 percent next June - Obama may be hard pressed to post decent numbers of his own.
The ongoing health care reform debate is obviously crucial to the president's long-term political standing; if reform dies this year, the Democrats will pay a price at the ballot box next year, because the party's base will be too angry to vote. But ultimately, the pocketbook issue matters more; as Bill Clinton's team famously said back in 1992, "It's the economy, stupid."
Hart Research Associates, a Democratic polling firm, has just released a snapshot of
the current national mood: Sixty-one percent of Americans say they are close to somebody whose hours or wages has been cut; 57 percent are close to someone who has been laid off; 44 percent of households have suffered either a layoff or a cutback in hours/wages. Most importantly, 85 percent of Americans say we're still in recession.
And most people may hew to that belief well into the '10 campaign season. Obama and the Democrats, seeking to defend their hefty congressional majorities, will argue that the key economic indicators are trending upward - and that may well be true. But, among voters, there is typically a time lag between reality and perception.
There is no more vivid example than the misfortunes that befell the first President Bush back in 1992. Many of you may recall that we suffered a bad recession during Bush's term, notably in 1990. The top wonks decreed in March 1991 that the recession was officially over, and kept saying so all year long. In macro terms, they were probably right. But at street level, they were perceived as wrong - because the stores stayed empty and the jobless rate continued to rise.
Bush's first stop on his ill-fated '92 re-election trail was the New Hampshire primary. But nobody there believed the recession was over. I covered that primary; while doing so, I rode around with Republican voters in the town of Salem. The mini-malls were barren, except for the signs: For Sale, For Lease, For Rent. To my hosts, this was all tangible stuff; they didn't care what the wonks said.
I rode at one point with a nice young couple, the Bensons. Their kids - three-year-old Michael and two-year-old Brian - had picked up the vibe. I took notes. Michael told me, "I don't buh-weeve this. There's nothing in the stores. I just hate when they do that." And Brian chimed in, "Me too hate it."
The next day, a grown-up Republican named Al Sack (who had been sacked five months earlier, and hadn't worked since), told me that he planned to vote against Bush because of the recession. In his words, "I don't give a rat's damn who's to blame, he's the president."
It may be no different for Obama and the Democrats, barring any street-level evidence during the next 13 months. (Already, the Republican message is, "Where are the jobs?") There certainly won't be any tangible progress on the health care front, because even if historic reforms are enacted, the key provisions aren't slated to kick in until 2013 - a fact that has been seriously underreported). So the big question, between now and November '10, is whether Obama can successfully plead for patience on the economy until a recovery feels tangible and perceptions accordingly change.
One potential Democratic upside is that they won't cough up control of the House next year unless they suffer a net loss of 40 seats; even if they're still saddled with a perceived recession, it's hard to envision that scenario. They could easily lose two dozen seats (so say the political forecasters), and that makes sense, historically speaking. Ronald Reagan's Republicans lost 26 seats in November 1982, when the jobless rate was nearly 11 percent. (Indeed, tracking all the midterm elections since World War II, the party that controls the White House has lost an average of 24 House seats.) But the problem for Obama, in our hyper-polarized era, is that even a Reagan-style loss would be spun by his foes as a massive repudiation.
Well, he asked for this burden. Not long ago, he told a Michigan audience, "I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, 'Well, this is Obama's economy.' That's fine. Give it to me."
To which I say, be careful what you wish for.
-------
With respect to the outbreak of triumphalist cheering in right-wing circles last week, when the news broke that America had lost its bid to host the 2016 Olympics:
Granted, we know by now that conservatives have conditioned itself to hate anything that Obama is for...but seriously, do conservatives truly believe that it's politically wise to behave as if they are rooting against America?
swedesboromike : Oh, and one more thing. Coulter's COMPLETELY wrong - not that you care. She got her "facts" from a 2006 US News and World Report article. Does this sound familiar? "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates." Perhaps she should have credited USN&WR. In any case, ALL of those countries (including the US) and the entire EU all use the same standards, the WHO standards. They have used them since the late 80's. To repeat, Coulter would have a point - if she wrote this in the 70's. Perhaps you should actually do a little fact checking yourself before naively believing something you read on the internet. For the record, the WHO definition of live birth is "Live birth is the complete expulsion orextraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached; each product of such a birth is considered live-born."— still_independent- Spending cuts must accompany tax cuts to make them deficit neutral that is true and I have no problem with it. Cut, cut, cut the federal budget. Hold all colas to 0% for all federal programs and salaries for 2 or 3 years. Find that $500 Bil in waste in Medicare but then don't spend it, save it. Repeal what's left of the stimulus package and save that too, must be $600-$700 Bil left or so. Raise the age of retirement for SS to 70 for full benefits, etc. Entitlement spending will doom the federal budget for decades if nothing is done, everyone agrees on this, but we either fiddle around the edges or add other entitlements outright. It just doesn't make any sense. Tax cuts do spur economic activity and cause companies to hire employees and are a more direct way to 'stimulate' the economy than anything the govt. can come up with, but corresponding spending cuts are needed to make it deficit neutral, if that is your goal:)— NEPhilly
- Dick writes about "the outbreak of triumphalist cheering in right-wing circles last week." I confess to not having listened to or read everything said by conservatives about the Windy City not getting the Olympics, but what I did read/hear was the opposite of "cheering" that defeat. E.g., Hugh Hewitt said he was rooting for Chicago and was disappointed it wasn't chosen. And although it was under-reported by the mainstream media, Chicago's citizens weren't 100% in favor of having the Olympics there. I think I saw one report that had them evenly split.— pj katauskas
- Again, the righties here get it shamefully wrong: “So much for the notion that opposition to healthcare reform is gaining around the country. According to Gallup, momentum is clearly on the side of those in favor of reform. Americans' views on healthcare legislation have shifted modestly over the past three weeks, with a slight plurality (40%) now supporting the passage of a new healthcare bill, and with fewer (36%) saying they oppose a new bill. When the leanings of those without an opinion are taken into account, 51% of Americans favor or lean toward favoring a bill, while 41% oppose it or lean toward opposition -- a more sizeable gap in favor than three weeks ago. While a plurality of Americans, excluding leaners, previously opposed healthcare reform by a narrow 40 percent to 38 percent margin, current polling has those numbers flipped, and then some, with 40 percent supporting reform and just 36 percent opposing it -- a net swing of 6 points in just three weeks. When leaners are thrown into the mix, the results are similar: Opposition to healthcare reform is on the decline. In September, supporters of healthcare reform led opponents by a slim 50 percent to 47 percent margin. Today, that lead has grown to 51 percent to 41 percent -- a net 7-point increase for the side of reform. Although not everyone on Capitol Hill may be listening, the American people are speaking, and what they are saying is that they support broad-based reform of the nation's healthcare system.”— In on IT
- Still Independent- From what I understand the WHO Infant Mortality rates were not implimented until 2006. So the question is what stats is the WHO using for infant mortality. Over what time period? The broader point here is that the US Healthcare system is not sub-standard compared to European countries. In fact it is quite the opposite. Which is why anyone who can afford so, comes here for life saving treatment. Insurance and the quality of our healthcare are actually two different things. When you get sick you see a doctor not an insurance company.
- I think the point most overlooked by this article is the "instant gratification" comments. The policies are 'working', but in the progressive sense. If your car is going 60 mph, and you press the brakes, it takes time to stop. While slowing down, you continue to travel. And if you need to turn around, it take time to turn the car around and accelerate again. With the economy in the condition it was in, we needed time to recover, and Obama's administration repeated frequently that it would get worse before it got better. It isn't fun for anyone, but no one can recover the economy in such a short time. We will get out of this, just not tomorrow, next week or even this year.— JustaGuy
- swedesboromike: well, I could post you a link to their 2001 report covering Europe, so no, they started well before 2006. And you can speak to the "broader point" all you want, which I'll address in a moment. You kept harping on the Coulter article. It was completely wrong. Please don't be like Tom and continue to defend it. As to the broader point, out healthcare system may be better or worse. Show me some data. Even if it is equivalent to European ones, it achieves this at a MUCH higher cost. And even if you could prove our healthcare system was "superior" (which is a meaningless term - in what ways?), if it's only superior for those that can afford it then it's not a very good system. IMHO, for extreme, cutting edge, life-saving (and ridiculously expensive) procedures we are the class of the world. For routine, run-of-the-mill yet potentially fatal illness, we are so-so. Unfortunately, 90% of us will only ever need the latter.— still_independent
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- 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
