-
It’s About the Legacy, Not the House
April 16, 2013 | 43 comments
-
Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own
March 13, 2013 | 205 comments
-
Football, Fairness, and Hayek
February 1, 2013 | 18 comments
-
An Elite That Still Reject Him
December 24, 2012 | 76 comments
-
Why Rice?
December 11, 2012 | 31 comments
Another Perspective
Rephrasing Reagan’s Question
It should be: Are you going to be better off in four years?
Republicans are increasingly confounded by Obama’s political resiliency despite economic adversity. Republicans’ response has been political obstinacy in the face of economic opportunity. If they want to win in November, what they need to do is accept the public’s verdict on the last four years and set their sights on defining the next four.
You cannot blame Republicans for being perplexed at the current presidential race. For the last four years, the economy has undergone its worst crisis and its worst recovery since the Great Depression. At the same time, the federal budget has produced the highest spending and highest deficits in America’s peacetime history.
Yet despite these dismal economic and fiscal results, Obama is at worst still locked in a presidential dead heat, when he should be, by all rights, political dead meat.
What gives? How when lesser downturns and deficits doomed earlier presidents — Carter and Bush I — is Obama enjoying two “get out of jail free” cards? Why is Reagan’s quintessential question for judging an incumbent’s tenure — “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” — not working this time?
The answer is that even though Republicans are attacking on the economy at the right time, they are doing so in the wrong way. This time the public has accepted the Administration’s response that the current economy is not this incumbent’s fault. And so, Obama continues to escape culpability for the current economy.
In response, Republicans should not give up on trying to tie Obama to the economy. But instead of seeking to tie him to its last four years, they should seek to tie him to its next four. They need to reframe Reagan’s question into: Will you be better off four years from now?
While Americans may disagree on who is responsible for the last four years, they agree on two things: These last four years have been dreadful and they will not tolerate four more of them.
And though Obama may have escaped responsibility for the past, he could not escape responsibility for the future, were he to be reelected. So why not pose that hypothetical situation to the public now? If Republicans made this seemingly small adjustment, several tough questions follow.
Have Obama’s policies worked? For Americans smarting after four years of low growth and high unemployment, they will be hard-pressed to answer “yes.”
If Obama’s policies of the last four years have not produced recovery, why will pursuit of the same policies over the next four do so? Einstein observed that insanity’s definition is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. The American people will get that.
After four years of the same policies, what can Americans realistically expect Obama to do differently over the next four years? Remember that for two of his four years, Obama had the greatest legislative control since Lyndon Johnson. Presumably, America has seen his wish list and Obama could have enacted it or did.
Republicans are correct that the economy is too potent a political issue to relinquish. But they have to accept that, if they can not carry the argument of Obama’s responsibility for the past four years, they need to change their approach.
Campaigns do not win presidential elections on style points. And you do not have to win every argument to win an election. But this argument on the economy, the Republicans must win, if they are to win this election.
The problem with rehashing the past is that to America it looks more like whining than winning. Drawing their economic questions into the future could restart the economy as the issue. The future is really what this election is about anyway. More importantly, it is what America is about. We have always been a forward looking, not a backward looking, country — there is a reason why Reagan ran on “morning in America,” not evening in it.
Looking back at the economy of the last four years sounds too much like partisan bickering, rather than the problem solving Americans want. They are not looking for a reason for the poor past, as much as a route to a better future.
Rephrasing Reagan’s famous question is not abandoning today’s economy as an issue. It is simply recognizing today’s politics as reality. By asking Americans if they will be better off four years from now under Obama, Republicans will be seizing both. After the last four years, few Americans can be sure they would be better off under Obama, and that is a risk they can not afford to take.
About the Author
J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Articles by J.T. Young
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/04/rephrasing-reagans-question
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- We Have Her Example
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The Great Train Robbery
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Joellen| 10.4.12 @ 7:07AM
Let's be honest - the Republicans, although not all, are/were afraid to go toe-to-toe with Obama. Last night Romney finally put the gloves on and truly outboxed Obama. However the fight is not over. More and more Republicans need to get out there and fight like Rocky Marciano - as a fighter he never retreated - ever. Allen West is the best example of how a Republican should be operating. The man has courage and defends America like no other right now. Maybe Romney should train with West - two more knockouts to go.
DTOM| 10.4.12 @ 9:30AM
Joellen,
Imagine for a moment that you are Joe Biden this morning. Consider Joe knows he is the Gaffomatic and that he will be debating the warm, friendly, data bank that is Paul Ryan. Last night Romney made it clear that there will be no McCainesque restraint on destroying little Mr. President. And Obama insulted Paul Ryan to his face in that Budget meeting on national television. And Paul Ryan's only opportunity to repay the little President's insult will be by destroying Joe Biden.
Time to channel Neil Kinnock, Joe? This next debate will be even better...
DTOM
PolishKnight| 10.4.12 @ 11:38AM
Here's what I "see" (imagine). Obama just woke up this morning with his busy presidential schedule (no sarcasm, I'm sure he has a lot of meetings) and he's got a copy of the NYT (that's a joke, he probably doesn't read that snobby rag) but rather the Washington comPost and it declares what he already knows: Romney beat him.
Over the next week or so, he'll have meetings with various advisers similar to a prize fighter about how to firm up his game. He's going to study for the next "bout", I'm sure. I hope Romney doesn't get complacent over this because the left will be hunting for bear. They'll prep the airwaves with key "spin" terms on foreign policy (Look for terms such as "Bush's wars", "outsourcing", "politicizing the tragedy in Libya", and "acceptance on the world (namely, European) stage") They'll set up the pins for Obama to walk up to and kick down. And Romney had better either have responses for those terms or ready to move onto something Obama doesn't want to hear (like what has he been doing about all this?) In other words, round 2 is coming up. But the good news is that the left isn't getting the knock out they craved and this undermines their polling shenanigans.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 10.4.12 @ 3:23PM
Romney did v. well:
but, please, before he gets to the point of penning his memoirs, ask him to do foreign policy better than Bush-- and that means Bush 43-- not 41.
Appleby| 10.4.12 @ 7:24AM
Romney (or any articulate, well versed person) one on one with Obama, without a Greek chorus of sycophants chanting "racist! homophobe! Islamophobe! Raaaaaaaaaaacist!" can beat him into the ground. If you've ever seen a spoiled five-year-old on his first day of school, when his patented shrieks are met -- not with Mommy's anxious rush to soothe him with anything he wants, but with a sea of faces, including the teacher's face, showing not approval but "shame on you."
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 10.4.12 @ 3:25PM
I don't give diddly about domestic policy, it's one statist taking from one group or individual and giving to another. Romney will not change that.
Von Mises Jr| 10.4.12 @ 9:11AM
What the hell is this guy Young talking about? He sounds like a government type. Don't look at the results, just tell me what you plan for the future.
fmm| 10.4.12 @ 11:12AM
Read his brief obit at the bottom of his article. However I believe he has a point in that adding what the future will bring to what the past has wrought should be quite effective.
Von Mises Jr| 10.4.12 @ 12:06PM
I think Mitt did a good job bringing his specific comments to a coherent conclusion. He talked about how raising taxes on top marginal incomes only punishes SMB that hires 25% of the people. He explained how Dodd Frank crated "too big to fail" socialism that caused unintended consequences. He said he would repeal ObamaCare and take the millstone off the necks of business.
Barry made no clear points in his rambling non sequiturs and Professorial musings.
DTOM| 10.4.12 @ 9:23AM
Mr. Young, you seem to perceive that Obama is in danger of winning this election. Are you succumbing to the cooked polling that the media is serving up daily?
Here's a very simple test to evaluate individual state polling: Compare the Obama percentage with his 2008 vote counts. In almost every instance, the polls showing Obama walking away with a swing state has him doing so with more votes than he got in 2008.
Do you really believe that Obama, after the 2010 elections, will out poll his 2008 singularity?
Remember in '08 he portrayed himself as the Great Uniter - now he is clearly the Great Divider.
And last night's debate will give pause to his water-carriers in the media- they now see that he is a loser, a loser to be shunned. To stay in the tank for him will be to destroy their last, solitary shred of credibility.
As Limbaugh says, 'If the media makes you, they can break you.' They did - they will, and soon.
How will the foreign policy debate go? Lying about Libya, etc...
There will be no Greek columns at Obama campaign headquarters Nov 6. They won't even bother ordering them, much less setting them up. Really.
Don't Tread On Me.
Von Mises Jr| 10.4.12 @ 10:14AM
Watch the rats fleeing the ship, DTOM. Obama should be asked how he concluded that the internet film maker was the source of the Benghazi torture, sodomy and brutal murder of our Ambassador by Romney in the debate on foreign Policy.
While he still feeds this to the idiots watching MSM, they moved on to blame the CIA. But I don't think our Intelligence Community is willing to take it in the shorts for the Community Organizer. Leaks are starting to happen and more will occur when Shrillary is put under Oath by the Congress.
So the latest ploy is to blame Schillary. BJ must not be happy. He wanted "Her Thighness" to run in 2012. This would sink her 2016 bid.
We are in for a cat fight between Shrillary and Obama, Mochelle and Jarret. There is something amusing watching liberal girls b!tch slapping each other.
BTW, has anyone heard from Perppy? I think it is lying under a bridge sleeping off a hangover.
Who Knows?| 10.4.12 @ 10:44AM
Of course, there is perception and there is reality.
This is so for each individual, and when you add up each person, there is also the macro perception and macro reality.
To boot, time = change means perception and reality are NEVER constant.
So, right now, October 4, 2012---can it really be October, already???---in the presidential race, most people agree that Obama is ahead. Perception, reality, who cares?
I’d bank on reliable sources, like Intrade, which has a very good history of predicting whatever. It has Obama as a 2 to 1 favorite. But, Romney is closing.
Here’s the reality. Obama is president. Romney is the contender. Period. They will both use all their power to persuade voters. Obviously!
But, wow man, is it ever hard to fathom that Romney trails Obama, given how disastrous the latter has been. Why, Mitt should be running away with the race.
I continue to think it’s the MSM, stupid.
What was the salient meme, aside from the actual debate, AFTER it ended---Chris Matthews’ rant! The leftist MSM went bonkers.
THEY are “in charge” of perception, to the extent that THEY in effect elected Obama. He’s THEIR puppet.
THEY pull the strings.
All bow down to Chris and Rachel!
JD| 10.4.12 @ 1:32PM
I am not perplexed by Obama's popularity in spite of reality. I understand it perfectly. He has redefined bad as good, and vice versa, and his media have led many voters to buy it.
The growth of government is seen as a good thing, "helping" us.
The prospect of raising taxes is also a good thing, because it will only hurt the rich, which is "fair".
The death of much of the private sector is the death of "greed and evil".
More social welfare is salvation.
Obama is popular because he has turned right and wrong themselves on their heads. If we don't understand that, we cannot counter it.
Occam's Tool| 10.4.12 @ 9:58PM
My final word on the Romney pasting of Obama in the debate. The only thing to compare it to:
http://www.cagepotato.com/knoc.....-mastered/