Monday editorial: The Gipper’s question
In a 1980 presidential debate, Ronald Reagan famously demolished then-President Jimmy Carter with a question directed at the American people:
“Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores?” he asked. “Is America as respected throughout the world as it was?”
Given the circumstances, the question was devastating. At home, we had stagflation and a looming recession. Abroad, Iranians were holding American hostages, and we seemed helpless to free them. That November, Mr. Reagan won in a landslide.
With George W. Bush in his eighth year in office, Republican strategists should pray that Americans don’t ask themselves those same questions. The parallels with 1980 are getting uncomfortable.
The Pew Research Center and the Gallup organization recently polled Americans on this question: “Are you better off now than you were five years ago?” Only 41 percent said they were doing better; 31 percent said they were worse off. Forty-one to 31 might look like pretty good numbers for Mr. Bush. They are not.
“Fewer Americans now than at any time in the past half century believe they’re moving forward in life,” the Pew Center reported. Since the early 1960s, the “doing better” numbers generally have hovered just above 50 percent, while “doing worse” have stayed in the mid-to low 20s.
Many Americans have reason to feel disheartened. The great American economic engine that raised living standards for most Americans through the 1980s and 1990s stalled earlier this decade.
Median income is the best measure of progress for average families. In 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, median income was lower than it was in 1999, adjusted for inflation.
The economy grew during most of those years, but average Americans didn’t benefit. The economic fruits of growth went to the very rich and to corporate profits.
In Illinois, for instance, the average family in the lowest fifth of the income ladder saw its annual income, adjusted for inflation, drop by 20 percent. Income for the middle 20 percent of families stayed the same, while the top one-fifth saw a 20 percent rise in income. And these numbers, as crunched by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, understate the income of wealthy families because capital gains are not included.
American families are ill-prepared for a recession. Back in the 1980s, the average debt of a middle-income American was about 45 percent of income. Now, it’s 119 percent. The typical family today cannot put any money into savings.
Big mortgages on big houses are the rule. With housing prices falling (down 4 percent in St. Louis County in the last year), it’s become very difficult for families to tap home equity for emergency funds.
Meanwhile, inflation marches on while jobs get harder to find. Consumer prices are up 4 percent over the past year, led by a 32 percent rise in gasoline prices. Food was up 4.6 percent. Overseas, the $12 billion-a-month war in Iraq shows no sign of ending.
The American economy remains in much better shape than it was during Mr. Carter’s presidency, when inflation hit 14 percent and unemployment was 7.8 percent. Today’s jobless rate is 5.1 percent, but the numbers of unemployed are growing.
The initial hands-off approach Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, took to the housing crisis — “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly” — played to very bad reviews among working-class Americans.
On Friday, he revised his thinking and advocated a plan that might help 200,000 to 400,000 “deserving” homeowners. More than 1.5 million other homeowners — presumably “un-deserving” — are expected to face foreclosure this year. Mr. McCain better hope no one asks them the Gipper’s question.
So according to the poll 52% said they were better in 1980 and Governor Reagan still won (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/793/inside-the-middle-class).
First the poll must be severely flawed the editors cite the answer to this specific question as the reason Reagan won yet more than have of Americans responded in the affirmative.
Second, party politics today consists of one group saying, usually without much evidence, that you are, in fact, worse off while the other has to try and defend how well off you are. A poll is certainly no measure of how well off you are and neither is the consumer price index (the cost of an HD television is no measure of my well-offness). The products available today, especially pharmaceutical ones, are much better than they have been previously, so even if the cost of those products rises, it doesn’t matter, because you are buying better products and your standard of living improves, no matter who is in office.
Third and most important - how well off you are, no matter how you determine it, is no measure of the performance of government. How well off you are is a measure of your own performance in life. Government is not a tool to grant anyone privilege over any other person. Like President Kennedy once said “Ask not what your country can do for you.” Government should be measured by how well it protects your life liberty and property.
Finally, When Governor Reagan asked Americans, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” he did intend to say, if you answered negatively, I will take from the most productive 20% and give their money to the bottom 60% to make them better off. He was understood to mean - I will take away excessive taxation and entitlements to give you the chance to better your own life.
John,
You said it well!
Well said, John. Unfortunately most folks would rather let the PD and NBC news form their opinion than to actually study the underlying issues and think for themselves.
Very good comments john. I agree with everything you said. sometimes we tend to blame everything on government when we need to be doing more ourselves.
The Democrats don’t ASK if people are better off now than they were four years ago. They TELL them, that in every way, they ARE worse off than they were four or eight years ago. Then, they tell them again and again and again and again.
Obama even tells them that it is because of their “bitterness” about their plight, that they turn to religion, believe in the second amendment, or are against illegal immigrants or international trade.
Michell Malkin has said;
“In a single sentence where Obama called small-town Midwestern voters overly religious bigots who cling to their guns out of frustration with George Bush, the Democrats have decided to build their defense on “bitter”. Here’s the original remark:
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
But that’s intellectually dishonest. Let’s break this statement into its component insults:
“[T]hey cling to guns…” Cling to guns? Americans have “clung” to guns since the founding of the Republic. It’s such a core value to this nation that its founders placed it second on the Bill of Rights, right after freedom of speech and religion. Speaking of which …
“or [they cling to] religion …” People don’t become religious because the economy hits a few bumps in the road. Obama may have chosen his religion based on politics, but most people follow a religion out of a deeper sense of spirituality. I can’t think of a more condescending and contemptuous analysis of religious dedication than this statement.
“or [they cling to] antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment…” Small-town voters are bigots and xenophobes; there’s no other way to read the first part of this statement. The second part, about them being “anti-immigrant”, is a non-sequitur. They may be anti-illegal immigrant, but that’s a far different issue. Obama offers no proof that small-town voters are xenophobes, but the Frisco audience didn’t demand any, either. It’s part of their own bigotry that makes them see middle America in those terms.
“or [they cling to] anti-trade sentiment …” And this is just jaw-droppingly hypocritical. This comes from the same candidate who opposes the Colombian free-trade agreement and wants to throw NAFTA out the window. Who’s clinging to anti-trade sentiment? Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Big Labor.
It would be difficult to be any more condescending or insulting in so many ways to so many voters in a single sentence. It reveals a deeply elitist and shockingly callow candidate. It’s the “Let them eat cake” of 2008.”
Are you serious? Why not blame the Democrates for the economy. After all since they’ve taken back the Congress and the Senate,our economy has been falling into a recesion. Blame the republicans I think not .By your standards, one can see the blame being directly related to the Democrates. Your editorial staff is a joke!
Are you serious? Why not blame the Democrates for the economy. After all since they’ve taken back the Congress and the Senate,our economy has been falling into a recesion. Blame the republicans I think not .By your standards, one can see the blame being directly related to the Democrates. Your editorial staff is a joke!
Rich - You get a gold star for that one. The Democrats took control of Congress based on a pile of promises, none of which they have fulfilled. That’s why Congressional job approval ratings have tracked consistently lower than those of President Bush (link to polls is below), something most media outlets have scrupulously avoided mentioning. In the most recent polls, Bush’s approval rating was at 35%, a dismal number to be sure, but far ahead of Congress’s 23% rating.
It may be a bad year for Republicans, or it may be a bad year for Democrats. But it appears that the best either party can hope for is to gain power because America hates them less than the other party. That’s a pretty pathetic mandate.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
“Are you better off now then you were five years ago?”
You mean can I spend more than I make on junk that, for the most part, I don’t need or can’t afford? Do you mean can I still use my house as an ATM to buy the junk I want and still see it’s equity go up? Well then the answer to those questions are always no.
Far too many Americans, think the govt owes them everything and that they should have everything whether they can afford it or not. Gas goes up fifty cents but do they cut back to compensate? No. Do they put off a purchase of the idiotpod, cell phone, No.
Our govt cant live within a budget, why should Americans think they should either.
Glad we are saving our money. When the govt comes and tries to get it however, I’ll be at the ready w/ my guns. Unless they are coming for those as well.
AJ,
I think you nailed a big part of our problem. “Personal responsibility” is a thing of past!