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.