imreallyperplexed
Council Member
With Congress back in session and the State of the Union address tonight and the Florida primary next week, it is fair to say that the campaign season will now be in full swing. One thing that I am sure we well here over and over from the Republican side is some refrain on Sarah Palin's "How's That Hopey-Changey Thing Going for You?" schtick. So I think that it is worth reviewing a little history from 2008-2009.
It is a fact that the Obama campaign developed the Hope and Change campaign theme in 2007 in a very different political and economic environment than was in place when Obama took office in late January 2009. In particular, Obama secured the nomination in June of 2008. Though there were clouds on the horizon over the summer of 2008. the economic tsunami of 2008/2009 hit the country with the collapse of Lehmen Brothers in September 2008 and was just building up steam in November 2009 when Obama was elected. This economic tsunami continued to wreak havoc until the summer of 2009 when a very tepid and slow recovery began. It was a single economic tsunami that occurred over the end of an old administration and the begining of a new administration.
The point here is that "hope and change" looked very different before September 2008 than it did after September 2009. Events matter. "Hope and change" as it was presented in the primary contest between Clinton and Obama was not totally fitting for a post-Lehmann Brothers economic environment. An FDR-like "There is nothing to fear but fear itself" type slogan might have been more appropriate. (Of course, FDR came into office in 1933 when the original Wall Street crash was in 1929.)
In any case, a question that I ask myself as someone who did vote for Obama in 2008 is, given that the economic tsunami occurred, how did the U.S. economy and the Obama Administration perform and would John McCain and a Republican Congress have done better? So I look at the real numbers, In January 2009, the economy lost 750,000 jobs and GDP was shrinking at a rate of 6%/month. In December 2011, the economy added 200,000 jobs and was growing at a rate of 2%/month. Now, people can argue that the economy could have bounced back more swiftly. Maybe. (But New Orleans is STILL recovering from Katrina 7 or 8 years after the event.) Whether or not that is the case, I feel quite certain that John McCain would be bragging about that kind of performance (and I grant that Democrats would probably be talking about how terrible the economy was.) All that said, though I still think that there is a long way to go, I do think that the worst is over and things are headed in the right direction. I also believe that President Obama deserves SOME (but not ALL) credit for this. (I am also certain that there are some on the right who vehemently disagree with me on this and that is fine.)
So, for me, the real economic question is who do I think is likely to do best to spur long term, sustainable economic growth over the next four years and establish robust economic recovery. I see three basic alternatives - the mainstream Keynesianism of JFK and Bill Clinton, the mainstream supply side approach of Reagan and Bush. or the "gold standard" approach of Ron Paul. Obama represents the mainstream Keynesianism of JFK and Clinton. Romney and Gingrich represent the mainstream supply-side approach of Reagan and Bush. Ron Paul is Ron Paul. I am much more comfortable with the mainstream Keynesianism of JFK, Clinton, and Obama. But there is plenty of room to debate the merits of the three approaches. It will be interesting to watch the debates develop as events unfold.
It is a fact that the Obama campaign developed the Hope and Change campaign theme in 2007 in a very different political and economic environment than was in place when Obama took office in late January 2009. In particular, Obama secured the nomination in June of 2008. Though there were clouds on the horizon over the summer of 2008. the economic tsunami of 2008/2009 hit the country with the collapse of Lehmen Brothers in September 2008 and was just building up steam in November 2009 when Obama was elected. This economic tsunami continued to wreak havoc until the summer of 2009 when a very tepid and slow recovery began. It was a single economic tsunami that occurred over the end of an old administration and the begining of a new administration.
The point here is that "hope and change" looked very different before September 2008 than it did after September 2009. Events matter. "Hope and change" as it was presented in the primary contest between Clinton and Obama was not totally fitting for a post-Lehmann Brothers economic environment. An FDR-like "There is nothing to fear but fear itself" type slogan might have been more appropriate. (Of course, FDR came into office in 1933 when the original Wall Street crash was in 1929.)
In any case, a question that I ask myself as someone who did vote for Obama in 2008 is, given that the economic tsunami occurred, how did the U.S. economy and the Obama Administration perform and would John McCain and a Republican Congress have done better? So I look at the real numbers, In January 2009, the economy lost 750,000 jobs and GDP was shrinking at a rate of 6%/month. In December 2011, the economy added 200,000 jobs and was growing at a rate of 2%/month. Now, people can argue that the economy could have bounced back more swiftly. Maybe. (But New Orleans is STILL recovering from Katrina 7 or 8 years after the event.) Whether or not that is the case, I feel quite certain that John McCain would be bragging about that kind of performance (and I grant that Democrats would probably be talking about how terrible the economy was.) All that said, though I still think that there is a long way to go, I do think that the worst is over and things are headed in the right direction. I also believe that President Obama deserves SOME (but not ALL) credit for this. (I am also certain that there are some on the right who vehemently disagree with me on this and that is fine.)
So, for me, the real economic question is who do I think is likely to do best to spur long term, sustainable economic growth over the next four years and establish robust economic recovery. I see three basic alternatives - the mainstream Keynesianism of JFK and Bill Clinton, the mainstream supply side approach of Reagan and Bush. or the "gold standard" approach of Ron Paul. Obama represents the mainstream Keynesianism of JFK and Clinton. Romney and Gingrich represent the mainstream supply-side approach of Reagan and Bush. Ron Paul is Ron Paul. I am much more comfortable with the mainstream Keynesianism of JFK, Clinton, and Obama. But there is plenty of room to debate the merits of the three approaches. It will be interesting to watch the debates develop as events unfold.
