"It's the economy, stupid," was the mantra of the Clinton campaign in 1992. George Will (Real Clear Politics) shows us much the political environment had changed.
Last Sunday, eight Democratic presidential candidates debated for two hours, saying about the economy . . . next to nothing. You must slog to Page 43 in the 51-page transcript before Barack Obama laments that "the burdens and benefits of this new global economy are not being spread evenly across the board" and promises to "institute some fairness in the system."
I noticed this deafening silence recently, when I reflected that my friend Chad at CCK hasn't been running his usual "George Bush is despicable because of the economy" posts. This used to be a regular feature of our conversations. Chad would point out that income growth was sluggish (due no doubt to Bush's glee at starving orphans), and I would point out that we were recovering from a recession and that Bush would leave office with pretty much everyone better off than when he came in. George Will notices the same thing.
Early in George W. Bush's presidency, liberal critics said: The economy is not growing. Which was true. He inherited the debris of the 1990s' irrational exuberances. A brief (eight months) and mild (the mildest since World War II) recession began in March 2001, before any of his policies were implemented. It ended in November 2001.
In 2002, when his tax cuts kicked in and the economy began 65 months -- so far -- of uninterrupted growth, critics said: But it is a "jobless recovery." When the unemployment rate steadily declined -- today it is 4.5 percent; time was, 6 percent was considered full employment -- critics said: Well, all right, the economy is growing and creating jobs and wealth, but the wealth is not being distributed in accordance with the laws of God or Nature or liberalism or something.
It is obvious that the economic news is very good. If it weren't, the Democrats wouldn't be ignoring it.
Recent Comments