The Strongest Argument for a Republican President

It comes from Scott Sumner (although that’s not what he’s talking about in the post):

What actually happened even was worse than my worst nightmare. We aren’t even recovering at 5%, a number that would now seem pretty good. In the 4th quarter of 2011 NGDP grew a measly 3.9%, a number which would normally be viewed as substandard, even if we weren’t in recession, even if we weren’t trying to recover. Ed Dolan recently suggested that trend growth has fallen to 2.3%, implying a 4.3% path for NGDP—but we’re even below that. And how did the press treat this disgraceful number? They called it “strong.” It represented “good news.” The economy finally seems to be showing some strength.

The emphasis is mine.

Why is low growth being treated as though it were robust? I think it’s because “the media” don’t want to be too hard on the president who, for all his shortcomings, would be better than any Republican.

Mr. Dooley (Finley Peter Dunne) once said:

Th newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ ligislachure, baptizes th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’ comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward

Whatever became of that press? Did it never exist? The press we’ve got tosses softballs to allies and tears out the throats of enemies. Instead of a Fourth Estate we’ve got dittoheads of the Left.

If the sitting president were a Republican, does anyone doubt that the press would savage him (or her) for the current state of affairs in the country and in the world? Fair or not? I like a press that has the same relationship to those in power that a mongoose has to a cobra. I don’t expect the press to be impartial but I do expect it to “speak truth to power” even if very softly.

It is impossible for a Chicagoan to believe that single party government solves all problems. It will merely move the field of battle and render the problems that exist even more intractable by putting them comfortably out of sight. A Democratic president and a Republican Congress worked well under Clinton (until it impeached him, that is) but that was a very different Democratic president and an even more different Republican Congress.

7 comments… add one
  • PD Shaw Link

    Or perhaps the national press corps is situated in the one part of the country in which economic growth is strong.

  • The cocktail party theory of reporting? What’s happening is whatever the people you run into at cocktail parties say is happening?

  • Ben Wolf Link

    I don’t recall George W. Bush being patricularly savaged by the press about anything. And no, I don’t think a Republican president would have a more difficult time of it; that dynamic went out the window a decade ago when Big Media willingly became stenographers for the powerful.

  • steve Link

    “If the sitting president were a Republican, does anyone doubt that the press would savage him (or her) for the current state of affairs in the country and in the world? Fair or not? ”

    Total nonsense. The second post-War recovery was the Bush recovery, and it was only possible with a fraudulent mortgage market. Very little criticism outside of Krugman and a few others on the left. The media concentrates on access. They are way too soft on all presidents.

    The real advantage comes into play if the GOp wins back the Senate. If that happens, the GOP gets rid of the filibuster, repeals the ACA, Dodd-Frank and cuts taxes. They will probably cut Medicaid some and maybe some non-defense discretionary spending. It wont accomplish much. They will have to decide if they want to govern. It might happen. History says not, but who knows.

    Steve

  • DaveC Link

    “If the sitting president were a Republican, does anyone doubt that the press would savage him (or her) for the current state of affairs in the country and in the world? Fair or not? ”

    Compare the national press and their reactions to neighboring governers Pat Quinn and Scott Walker. Which state is in worse shape: Illinois or Wisconsin, and which governer is getting the worse press nationally?

  • Total nonsense. The second post-War recovery was the Bush recovery, and it was only possible with a fraudulent mortgage market. Very little criticism outside of Krugman and a few others on the left. The media concentrates on access. They are way too soft on all presidents.

    Ironically I think it was Krugman who first suggested that the way to get out of the 2001-2002 recession was to create a housing bubble.

  • Icepick Link

    Andy, there’s nothing ironic about it. Whatever the Republicans are doing or advocating, Krugman will be against it.

Leave a Comment