If you could pick one phrase from the Clinton presidency that has remained a staple in our political culture, it would be the wry phrase: "It's the economy, Stupid." Of course, Clinton did not invent the idea of focusing on the economy to win elections. Almost every successful president in our history did the same thing. This is because when the economy is good, most of the time a president gets reelected and his party does well. When the economy is bad, most of the time he loses and his party loses. There have been a few exceptions and caveats. For one, the electorate doesn't expect miracles. In fact, if they believe the other party is primarily responsible for the economic woes of the country, they give great leeway to the other side to fix things.
There is no doubt however, as I said in my last post, that this election was a referendum on President Obama and his party and their body of work since 2008. In 2008, we were in a recession. While we are not technically in a recession now, economic growth has been anemic at best. Since 2008, our economy has grown, on average, at 1.5% with significant real (as opposed to monetary) inflation of common every day goods like milk and oil. Now, compare that to the Clinton years where we experienced 3.8% growth with 2.5% inflation across the board; and the Reagan years, 3.8% growth and roughly 4% inflation. Even if you blame Bush and excuse the first two years of the Obama Administration, you still only get GDP growth of 2.2%. Under Reagan, taking out the first two years of the "stagflation" he inherited from Carter, you get approximately 5.8% growth.
President Obama and the Democrats have underperformed and, no matter how convincingly they may lay the blame at the feet of Bush, the voters no longer believe them. It is their economy, their policies, their agenda and their governance that has led to an unsatisfying economic recovery. Exit polls show that 78% of Americans are "worried" or "very worried" about the future of the economy. Compare that to 2008, during the height of the financial crisis. When President Obama took office, 81% of Americans were worried or very worried about the future of the economy. That is only about 3% higher than it is now - six years later. Ironically, in both elections about 65% of the voters believed that the economy was the top issue. That is notwithstanding the fact that President Obama and the Democrats declared victory over the recession four years ago. Obviously, Americans disagree.
The primary problem is not that President Obama inherited "the worst recession since the Great Depression." The primary problem is that he and his party were decidedly not focused on the economy, opting instead to pass the Affordable Care Act, a slew of new regulations, and precious little else. Then there was the campaigning. President Obama has relentlessly pursued the opposition throughout his six years in office, making every effort to show the world how stupid they are and how inferior they are to him. Predictably, they never wanted to work with him.
The most recent example of this was the White House luncheon during which the President met with Republican leaders. They retired to a private room to discuss ways they might work together. According to one Democratic aide in attendance, while the Speaker of the House was discussing a topic that is supposedly at the top of President Obama's agenda, immigration, the President said "I'm running out of patience." Really? "Running out of patience" is something I typically reserve for my children, not the Speaker of the House, and it is exactly that kind of clumsy interpersonal exchange that ensures everyone (except his closest allies) will just stand around and wait for him to further implode. He will achieve nothing.
In the final analysis, real policies and real governance can effect positive change. Clinton governed effectively. Reagan governed effectively. Policies were devised, implemented, tweaked and sometimes discarded. Reagan had to work with a Democratic Congress to pass his legislation. Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress to pass his legislation. In fact, the real irony is that Clinton worked effectively with many of the same Republicans that Obama now cannot bring himself to even eat lunch with. It is unlikely that these Republicans have changed that much. It is much more likely that Clinton knew how to be effective and Obama does not.
The last six years have been a grand experiment in modern government. President Obama and his advisors theorized that, really, Presidents can't do very much. They can make speeches and they can propose legislation, but the real work has to be done by the Congress. In accordance with that belief, they theorized that the best possible strategy to effect "change" is to campaign for broad ideas 24/7. It feeds into the 24/7 news cycle and it doesn't obligate him to govern anything more than his staff. "Keep it simple, Stupid." What we've learned from this experiment is that we do not like our leaders to be perpetual campaigners. We want them to govern. We may not always agree with the approach, we may stand in opposition to certain policies, but in the end, we want our government and our President to effectively address and attempt to resolve the nation's problems. In 1948, Harry Truman famously campaigned against the first "do nothing Congress." The Republicans just effectively beat the first "do nothing President." Let it be a lesson to both parties in all branches of government. You must govern, and you must govern effectively.
No comments:
Post a Comment