| Election-year
economy
by David A. Keene
I was
asked some months ago by the proverbial "high administration
official" what the Bush administration ought to say about Democratic
charges that President Bush's economic policies were not producing
the jobs the nation needs. 
Remember all the talk about the "jobless"
recovery that allowed corporations to return to profitability without
generating new jobs? Bush was being compared to Herbert Hoover and
we were told that his policies were actually designed to encourage
American business to "outsource" jobs to places like India
and Mexico.
Democrats in general and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
in particular seemed almost ecstatic every time there was an announcement
that the economy was losing jobs or failing to produce new ones.
They knew, of course, that in presidential politics, James Carville
was right when he urged all who listened in 1992 that "It's
the economy, stupid."
I suggested at the time that since from all indications
the economy was turning around, no one should worry too much about
what was being said, because by November the voters would know whether
things are good or bad. People on their way to vote would either
have jobs or they wouldn't, and that, rather than Democratic or
Republican "spin," would make the difference.
We have been told for years that politicians and
their managers can convince voters that it's midnight at noon, but
they can't. It does take a little time for good or bad economic
perceptions to catch up with reality, but an economic turnaround
or collapse in the spring and summer of an election year can neither
be denied nor kept from voters on the way to the polls in November.
What's happening now as month after month of good
news comes out is reminiscent of the Democratic reaction to the
Reagan economy back in 1984. First, the Democrats of that era predicted
that the recession Reagan inherited would persist because of Reagan's
wrongheaded dedication to cutting taxes -- every believing liberal
Democrat knew wouldn't work.
However, when things turned around and the economy
began to pick up a real head of steam, Walter Mondale, the John
Kerry of the day, pooh-poohed the recovery. He proclaimed that while
the rich were benefiting from the tax cuts, the only jobs being
produced as a result of the Reagan recovery were for "hamburger
flippers."
Before it was over, Mondale was promising to raise
taxes and give the American people the sort of Democratic economic
policies he and his fellow liberals just knew that voters craved.
He lost 49 states.
This year Kerry is repeating Mondale's mistakes
of 20 years ago. He is going to have the same problem Mondale ran
into then. It is difficult, if not impossible, to convince people
that things are bad and getting worse in the midst of an economic
boom the likes of which we haven't seen since, well, the Reagan
years.
Kerry's problem is not unique to him or even to
Democrats. It is, rather, a reflection of the fact that to win,
a challenger has to convince voters that none of the policies the
incumbent is pursuing is working to solve whatever problems the
voters feel need to be solved. This isn't much of a problem if they
are not, in fact, working, but becomes much more difficult when
they are. Is it any surprise, then, that as the campaign gets under
way, bad economic news is, to the challenger at least, good news
because it strengthens his hand?
Think about it for a minute. Do you believe that
John Kerry is overjoyed at the news that Bush's economic policies
that he has charged for months cannot and will not work actually
do seem to be working? He was all set to argue during the debates
this fall that Bush cared less about working Americans than, say,
Herbert Hoover, and now he's got to search the statistics for bad
news that is becoming increasingly difficult to find.
It's the sort of thing that leads people to believe
politicians must live in a different world than the one around us.
David
Keene is chairman of the American Conservative Union and a Washington-based
government affairs consultant.
|
