Dick Morris And Eileen McGann: Pessimism: Obama's Political Ally
[Mr. Morris was an adviser to Bill Clinton for 20 years. He is the author of "Condi vs. Hillary." Mrs. McGann, an attorney and consultant, is a CEO of VOTE.com and LegislativeVote.com. She works with Mr. Morris on campaigns and around the world, specializing in using the Internet to win elections.]
President Obama has won the peace prize, but nobody thinks he deserves the Nobel in economics. Despite $800 billion of economic stimulus and the accumulation of a $1.4 trillion deficit, he has been unable to lower the unemployment rate below 9.8%.
So why, after nine months of Obama, do voters, in the latest Rasmussen poll, still blame Bush - and not Obama - for the economic situation by 55-37? How can Obama skate by without having to account for the failure of his economic program?
Liberalism, particularly in economics, is usually protected by a bodyguard of pessimism. When government intervention and spending fails to yield the predicted results, month after month and year after year, the left sells the notion that these are tough times and that we need to lower our expectations.
In the late 70s, for example, the mantra that “less is more” gripped policy makers. America was in late middle age and facing its decline, inevitable (and even healthy), we were told, after its artificial post-World War II dominance.
Then came Reagan who showed us all how unrealistic were these diminished expectations and how they could be put to shame if the private sector were truly unleashed. Margaret Thatcher taught the same lesson to British pessimists, clucking at the decline in their island’s fortunes.
In the early and mid nineties, austerity was the order of the day as President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich vied with one another to eliminate the deficit by cutting spending. But when Clinton and Newt slashed the capital gains tax instead the economy soared and the deficit - once ticketed for eradication in seven years - dissolved in eighteen months...
Read entire article at DickMorris.com
President Obama has won the peace prize, but nobody thinks he deserves the Nobel in economics. Despite $800 billion of economic stimulus and the accumulation of a $1.4 trillion deficit, he has been unable to lower the unemployment rate below 9.8%.
So why, after nine months of Obama, do voters, in the latest Rasmussen poll, still blame Bush - and not Obama - for the economic situation by 55-37? How can Obama skate by without having to account for the failure of his economic program?
Liberalism, particularly in economics, is usually protected by a bodyguard of pessimism. When government intervention and spending fails to yield the predicted results, month after month and year after year, the left sells the notion that these are tough times and that we need to lower our expectations.
In the late 70s, for example, the mantra that “less is more” gripped policy makers. America was in late middle age and facing its decline, inevitable (and even healthy), we were told, after its artificial post-World War II dominance.
Then came Reagan who showed us all how unrealistic were these diminished expectations and how they could be put to shame if the private sector were truly unleashed. Margaret Thatcher taught the same lesson to British pessimists, clucking at the decline in their island’s fortunes.
In the early and mid nineties, austerity was the order of the day as President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich vied with one another to eliminate the deficit by cutting spending. But when Clinton and Newt slashed the capital gains tax instead the economy soared and the deficit - once ticketed for eradication in seven years - dissolved in eighteen months...