Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Salon - Now it's official: Obama is another Reagan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Amerigo Vespucci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 10:51 AM
Original message
Salon - Now it's official: Obama is another Reagan
Friday, Oct 8, 2010 10:32 ET

Now it's official: Obama is another Reagan

By Steve Kornacki

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/08/obama_unemployment_midterms/index.html



The monthly jobs report released this morning should pretty much seal Democrats' midterm election fate. There will be no more reports between now and November 2, so today's data essentially represents the final pre-election word on the status of the American economy. And as my colleague Andrew Leonard wrote earlier, the combination of 9.6 percent unemployment, paltry private sector growth, and alarming layoffs at the state and local government levels (the result of federal austerity) means that "the incumbent party is going to pay the price in a few weeks."

Today's report immediately calls to mind the final pre-election data before the first midterm of Ronald Reagan's presidency, which was released in the first week of October 1982. I've long argued that Reagan's first two years in office provide a nice parallel to Obama's. Both men came to office under similar circumstances and both initially enjoyed stratospheric popularity, with most Americans badly wanting to believe that their new president could and would fix their woes. In this sense, the "stunning" decline in Obama's political standing these past 20 months is no surprise at all. The same thing happened to Reagan, and for the same reason: a seemingly intractable recession that raised economic anxiety to levels not seen in decades. It didn't matter that Reagan tried to turn on his charm and reassure Americans with promises that his program would soon turn the tide. As unemployment climbed, voters tuned him out.

For Reagan, the final nail in his party's midterm coffin came with the final pre-election unemployment report, which showed -- for the first time since the Great Depression -- joblessness reaching over 10 percent. He tried mightily to put a positive spin on the data (noting, for instance, that the economy was showing positive growth), but almost no one in the media or the general public was willing to buy in. It's jarring, in fact, to go back and read the coverage that surrounded the release of that '82 jobs report; the same dispiriting conclusions that experts are now drawing about why this recession is so different (and worse) than previous recessions were drawn back then, too. Consider this passage from a New York Times story in early October '82; tweak a few names and numbers, and it could just as easily be written today:

The Reagan recession, in fact, has begun to shatter the almost blind faith among economists and many others that this recession, like its forebears, will inevitably be followed by recovery. Despite official data showing two quarters of modest growth -not the four quarters President Reagan heralded Tuesday night - the economy has failed to spurt ahead as many had anticipated it would by now.

Furthermore, there has been a relentless stream of negative economic indicators in recent weeks -from ballooning auto inventories to rising initial claims for unemployment insurance to the disappointing decline in the Government's index of leading indicators for August, which reversed a four-month climb. And it is widely expected that, within days, the Labor Department will report that unemployment has risen to 10 percent - a mark unequaled since the Great Depression.

Even more ominous to some are the growing doubts about whether the mechanisms of economic recovery will - or can - operate as they have in other postwar business cycles. Some economists fear that financial illiquidity, both in the United States and around the world, and the Administration's continued determination to stick to its current economic policies, could hinder, or even prevent, recovery from taking place.

''What's different this time from other postwar business cycles is that usually Government policies are aimed at supporting recovery, and this time they are not,'' said Jeffrey Sachs, an assistant professor of economics at Harvard University.


That was the environment that caused Reagan's party to suffer a drubbing in the next month's midterm elections -- a drubbing that was immediately followed by months of speculation about whether Reagan would decide not to run again in 1984 (and whether he'd be challenged in the GOP primaries if he did).


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. This points to why the Obama administration should have followed Krugman's advice early on
and supersized the stimulus package. They're screaming about the deficit in any case. Once the deal was done, there was no going back for an increase. Big time missed opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Exactly.
I'll take Krugman's advice over any of the WH Advisors advice, any day. I wish POTUS did the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creon Donating Member (723 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. I agree
The Governement should have listened to Krugman. Krugman is one of the very economists who have good and workable ideas about getting the economy going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFLforever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Krugman's plan didn't require congressional approval
Obama's did...that's the key difference in its size.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. "Obama is another Reagan" - what horseshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiras De Carne Seca Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The article makes some valid points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FirstTimeVoterAt37 Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Please
Maybe in the fact they're both carbon-based lifeforms. I was around for Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiras De Carne Seca Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. I was around for Reagan too. So what? It doesn't change that the situation
is similar to that which Reagan faced. The article isn't saying anything other than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. the article points out that the situation both Reagan and now
Obama found themselves in are remarkably similar. It doesn't make a comparison of the two policy wise, where, of course, they differ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. No shit. Reagan was an empty cowboy hat who already had Alzheimer's in 1980.
Plus he was a mean, ignorant old man. President Obama couldn't be more different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just One Woman Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. I disagree
Wise up. Look at the big picture. Look at what this man has done in just two short years. We are getting the change, if but slowly. It is up to us to step up the pace. We knew there would be back-lashes and compromises. There is just too much to correct to get it done in in a magical moment. Stop following the polls that are just there to sway you. As long as polls are behind the times in technology, we will not get a true picture. Stop dreading and start boasting about all the accomplishments. Not only will you feel better, you will help your own cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
7. As long as there is a 49 state landslide for Obama at the end of the rainbow, that's fine w/me
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
8. Bull SHIT!
The only way Obama is like Reagan is that they both held the same office and they were both from Illinois, sort of in both cases.

The rest is total horse shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Citizen Worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-08-10 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. Nice sleight of hand on the part of Salon. Blaming the current economic restructuring on Obama is
the same as laying the blame on Bush, although Bush certainly accelerated the decline. The problem is a failed economic model based on "free trade" and no taxes on the corporations and the top quintile. Real income has not increased since 1973. That's 37 years of stagnation and decline in large part due to trade policy. Until these policies are reversed it's only going to get worse. Unemployment will continue to increase, along with homelessness and poverty.

It's the failed economic model and not one or two individuals. However, I don't believe Obama agrees thus the failed model will continue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC