It’s like deja vu all over again. A Republican is in the White House. A Democrat named Clinton hopes to replace him. The American economy is humming along just fine. But, the challenger repeatedly charges the economy is in the tank, or moving head-long in that direction, and a significant portion of voters accept the argument. 1992 or 2007? And the answer is: both!
Bill Clinton pulled off one of history’s biggest upsets when he ousted President Bush 41. Immediately after Saddam’s “Mother of all battles” turned into a desert rout, George H.W. Bush’s approval number was above 90% with the next election less than two years hence. Most pundits believe then little-known Governor Clinton won the Democratic nomination because real powerhouses in the Democratic Party decided to sit out the 1992 election, reckoning Bush was unbeatable. However, the Clinton/Gore team expertly used the only issue available to them, a sluggish economy, to eclipse the apparently invincible incumbent. Remember, “It’s the economy, stupid!” It was a masterful performance.
“The worst economy in fifty years” was the main Democratic talking point of 1992, uttered so often is became a standard of American political jargon. The reality was starkly different as the economy grew at just under 2% during 1992, a fact still shrouded due to Clinton’s relentless trashing of the nation’s financial condition. President Bush’s fumbled responses were used by Clinton to portray the President as “out of touch” with Americans struggling to make ends meet. The economy had slumped in 1991, losing 0.8%, but that didn’t qualify as the worst economy in a decade, let alone fifty years. In 1980 the GDP slid 1.3% and in 1982 lost another 1.4%. Moreover, an economic adjustment was due after the Reagan boom years. Nevertheless, many average Americans came to believe we were in the midst of an economic crisis, and a plurality voted to let Bill fix the problem.
Now, Hillary is at it again. A quick once-over of her campaign website reveals the 2007 version of her husband’s “the economic sky is falling.” A few samplers: middle class families “feel like they’re standing on a trap door, just one pink slip or one medical diagnosis away from falling through and losing everything.” Hillary speaks ominously of “economic challenges in the face of deepening anxiety about our economic outlook.” “The next president will be a steward of our economy at a time when the bills from eight years of neglect and mismanagement will be coming due. He – or she – will have to turn our nation and our economy around.” Echoes of 1992 reverberate around the website, on campaign fliers, and of course throughout the former first lady’s speeches. The Clinton campaign modus operandi always centers on helpless Americans anxiously awaiting a Clintonesque rescue. But, do Americans really need an economic Savior?
There are major differences between the campaign issues of 1992 and 2008. Foremost is the asymmetry of the Iraq experiences, quick and utter victory in 1992 contrasted with the current dreadfully long and still in doubt struggle. Terrorism as we now know it was not on the political radar screen in 1992. And significantly, there is no contemporary Ross Perot on the horizon. Another major difference is the respective economic landscapes. America experienced a sight recession in 1991 and a tepid recovery in 1992. Now, and for the past several years, Americans are enjoying a robust economy, despite the doom and gloom regurgitated by CNN et al. Today’s financial numbers put the lie to Hillary’s rhetoric.
“GDP grew by 3.9 percent in the third quarter (‘faster than expected,’ according to the New York Times). Productivity surged 4.9 percent in the third quarter, the fastest pace in four years (‘far better than had been expected.’ noted the AP). 1.25 million non-farm jobs have been created since January, 8.4 million since 2003. In fact, GDP is up 18.5% since Bush took office.” To be sure, there are daunting economic issues facing the country. Energy dependence, foreclosures, and ever-growing debt — public and private — need to be addressed. But the economy does not need to be turned around, unless of course we’d like to lose ground.
The Clintons thrive on dredging up pathetic examples of financial woe. In coming months we’ll hear about widows unable to afford heating oil, retirees having to choose between food and medicine, and…you know the spiel. In a nation of 300 million souls, someone is always down on their luck, no matter what the nation as a whole is experiencing. Hillary will parade the downtrodden before hushed audiences, proclaiming she and she alone can right the cruel plight of solid citizens “abandoned by President Bush.” Never touching the subject of personal responsibility, she will outline yet another big government fix sure to solve America’s problems. It remains to be seen how many will be fooled again.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy in Politics