US Performance Versus Peers

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

I agree that Democrats have a lot of trouble making their case. I'm not sure exactly why that is, but I suspect it may have to do with the left's comfort with nuance/discomfort with oversimplification, versus the right's comfort with oversimplification/discomfort with nuance. That gives Republicans a natural kind of message discipline. They see the world in black and white, so it's easy for them to make an untroubled case that their guy is great and the alternative is a nightmare, whereas those of us in the left can't resist muddying our rhetoric with inconvenient facts.

As for Clinton's success, I suspect he got some of that rhetorical flourish from James Carville. If you read his book "We're Right, They're Wrong" it's a master class in how to brag up your own side's accomplishments while tearing the opposition to shreds.

LeRoy: This has been a persistent complaint on my part, too. The Republicans are ALWAYS describing themselves as 'the pro-growth party', and the Democrats, well, the Democrats just sit there and take it on the chin, instead of hammering back. The end result is that a goodly chunk of the public starts to think of the Democrats as 'the anti-growth party'. And never mind the overwhelming statistical evidence that the Democrats are BETTER for long-run economic growth than the Republicans. Republican policies are NOT 'pro-growth'. They are 'pro-enriching the already wealthy at the expense of the middle class'.

Like Fairsheet, I hope Bill Clinton will do what he can to destroy this myth in his speech next week.

[Oh, and I meant to add that James Carville's new book, It's the Middle Class, Stupid, is probably very good, although I haven't had the time to read it yet....]

 

[degsme]

Thanks, D. If you were up for crunching the GDP numbers (which is still going to be a lot of work), I'd love to see it.

Its not that much work as I've done it before.

One of the interesting bits of data is German GDP vs. US GDP in the GWB time period

US GDP growth underperformed historic averages by 22% (2.6%)
Germany's GDP Growth outperformed the USA by 35% in the same period

And this despite a much more intrusive regulatory system in germany
Much much much stronger labor rights
and much higher taxes.



NOTE - the underperformance IGNORES the 2007-2009 crash and the 2001 recovery. It just looks at the 2002-2007 GROWTH period.

 

[Arkady]

One thing that might be fun is to try to project where we'd be today if we'd stuck with Democratic leadership from the start of the New Deal to today. Obviously, that's unrealistic in real-world terms, but it would make a neat demonstration. For example, what is average annual median real household income growth under all Democratic presidencies in that era? Presumably, quite a bit more than under Republican ones. So, what if we'd had the Democratic rate during the Republican eras? I'm guessing there would be some dramatically different numbers today -- for example, a median household might be making $100k instead of $60k. You could similarly project Democratic job creation rates across Republican eras and figure out what the unemployment rate would be. And you could do similar things to figure out where poverty would be, the deficit/surplus, and so on.

In the real world, some of those projections aren't going to work out (you probably couldn't sustain Democratic job creation averages for that full time without reaching beyond full employment). But it would at least suggest how much better off we'd be, as a nation, if we didn't keep slumming with the GOP.

 

[Arkady]

By the way, you're a constant source of interesting information to me. I've got this half-baked idea of starting a Huffpo-style site someday, and collecting the best people I've encountered online to contribute weekly columns, for a cut of any advertising dollars (which, presumably would be a pittance, but it would be more about getting the message out there). I think you'd be great for it.

 

[fairsheet]

As I see it, there're a coupla things that prevent we Democrats from tooting our own econonic horn. One's structural. The other' ideological. The first is that even in the most prosperous of democratic/capitalist societies, there will always be a bottom 20%. Uless everyone's at exactly the same level, this is uavoidable. The bottom 20% tend to be part of the Democrat's base. SO......if a Democrat says things are going "well", he risks alienating those at the bottom. And the second - ideological problem.....is that. Still think we Democrats have a hard time admitting that "doing well" is a good and righteous goal in and of itself. We prefer to "feel" that if we happen to be doing okay, it's only the unintended byproduct of our "sacrificing" so's others might do well.

 

[Arkady]

It's akin to the famous statement by Eugene Debs:

"While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

 

[fairsheet]

It's akin to the famous statement by Eugene Debs:

"While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

And in conclusion - - as a proud Democrat - I HOPE I don't appear to be suggesting that these "problems" I allude to, are fundaments that we Democrats must somehow disabuse ourselves of. I'm just thinking we have to find more effective ways of "marketing" ourselves!

 

[Arkady]

Agreed. I think I, personally, got better at it after reading Carville's book ("We're Right, They're Wrong"). One thing I think he did that was particularly clever is how he formatted it, as a kind of guidebook for responding to right-wing blowhards at the next family picnic (something that's got to be particularly near to his heart, given who he married). He formatted it so that he provided the right-wing talking point, then two liberal responses. The first was the quick response, for when all you can politely slip in is a cutting quip that takes the right-winger's argument down fast. Then the second was the more detailed response, complete with references and numbers, for backing up the material in the quip. I think that's an outstanding approach -- focus on having the flash and delivery to sell your side to the centrists, but then have the deep knowledge to back it up if the other side dares go after your short-form critique.

 

[degsme]

Agreed. I think I, personally, got better at it after reading Carville's book ("We're Right, They're Wrong"). One thing I think he did that was particularly clever is how he formatted it, as a kind of guidebook for responding to right-wing blowhards at the next family picnic (something that's got to be particularly near to his heart, given who he married). He formatted it so that he provided the right-wing talking point, then two liberal responses. The first was the quick response, for when all you can politely slip in is a cutting quip that takes the right-winger's argument down fast. Then the second was the more detailed response, complete with references and numbers, for backing up the material in the quip. I think that's an outstanding approach -- focus on having the flash and delivery to sell your side to the centrists, but then have the deep knowledge to back it up if the other side dares go after your short-form critique.

Now you just added a book to my reading list. Its the short quips that I could do more with.

 

[Arkady]

Now you just added a book to my reading list. Its the short quips that I could do more with.

Same here. I'm good with the numbers and references, but I'd seem like some mutant Asperger's type if I launched into a PoliticalJack-style diatribe in everyday life. So, it's useful to have the quip handy, knowing I already have the goods to back it up if challenged.