Somewhere around here I have a tattered copy of a paperback book, Through History with J. Wesley Smith, a collection of the 20th century cartoonist Burr Shafer’s cartoons, most of which originally appeared in the New Yorker. J. Wesley Smith was a nebbishy sort of character who pops up at all points of history, always saying something outrageous or in poor taste—the precisely wrong thing to say. In one of the cartoons the indomitable Mr. Smith is interviewing Mary Todd Lincoln. The caption is “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?” I believe that may be the origin of that particular remark.
It was what I thought of when I saw this headline at CBS News: “Republicans see U.S. as better off now than 4 years ago ahead of convention”. With the increase in unemployment occasioned by the U. S. economy’s having been put on hiatus for months, 180,000 people dead of COVID-19, many of whom might otherwise have been alive today, the sharp decrease in U. S. GDP of 2Q20 even if temporary, and American cities set ablaze, I don’t see how anyone regardless of political party could possibly think we were better off today than in August 2016.
Before assigning blame or providing a strategic answer, just look around you. By what empirical measure are we better off than four years ago? It beggars credulity.
Dave, you appear to be on the same bus line as the democrat hierarchy has been on, in the months leading up to the 2020 election.
They seem to have employed the COVID-induced economic numbers to undermine whatever success Trump’s economic policies or leadership managed to cultivate from January 2017 through January 2020. Perhaps, because of the public’s short attention span, continued TDS (no matter what shape the economy is in), or some people’s inability to see COVID as an intervening variable warrantIng consideration when judging the success or failure of an administration’s economical policy, the “Mrs Lincoln†ditty might fly. Otherwise, for others, who either personally experienced or saw real benefits arising from decisions made, policies enacted by the current administration BEFORE the virus tanked the economy, Mrs Lincoln’s theatrical comparison will have little relevance nor effect on their psyche.
Until March, Trump’s policies hd succeeded brilliantly. But covid, the lockdowns, and the riots have destroyed all he achieved.
I cannot for the life of me understand why you are a liberal Democrat. They are actually, literally plotting to kill you and your family. Your very life is at stake.
Having avoided new wars and winding down the current ones.
Remember Trump’s domestic adversaries include the neocon hawks in the Republican Party.
Situational economic analysis that does not control for black swan events is a bogus analysis. A more appropriate analysis might be to compare late 2008 numbers with current 2020 numbers, but even the dip in 2020 is far deeper and narrower.
I remember an example I read many years ago, where if you compared Germany’s economy in say 1939 versus it’s economy in 1949 (I might be off on the individual years quoted) the numbers were similar enough an alien economist who hadn’t visited the planet in ten years might conclude that nothing much happened in the intervening decade, when in actuality a devastating economic collapse followed by an even more devastating war knocked Germany’s economy flat twice and killed a quarter of its population.
Indeed, the question, “are you better off then 4 years ago” is Democrats strongest selling point.
But Direction + velocity is as important as the position.
I doubt any voter in Nov 1864 or 1944 would say they were better off materially then 4 years prior. Consider losing hundreds of thousands of young man, enforced rationing (WWII) or the physical devastation of the Civil War.
But voters considered the fact the Union were winning the civil war / WWII the more salient point in the picture.
That is what President Trump needs for reelection. He has to show he’s driving the country towards recovery/victory over the COVID-19.
Can Trump do it? He better hurry because time is running out.
Point rather than trend estimates will generally get you in trouble, except perhaps in politics. The chaos of 2020 and the associated “are you better off†slogan is of course why the Democrats have either supported or accepted the politically disruptive positions they have. Political gain is the whole point. Crass beyond words. I can see no purpose in discussion if this is not easily understood.
The only point of interest is whether there will be a backlash:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/the-thin-veneer-of-american-civilization/
I understand why Drew and jan want to change the subject. There are good ways and bad ways of answering polling questions. What respondents should have done is refuse to answer the question. It’s a trick question. The second best alternative would have been to give the honest answer: things are much worse than they were four years ago but that would present a strategic problem and, indeed, wouldn’t tell the whole story.
What they really want to say is that things are worse because of Democrats and would be worse still under a Democratic administration. That’s the case they should be making rather than trying to claim that we’re actually better off now than four years ago.
The question is intended to be a trend question rather than a point question. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. The times are difficult.
No, Dave. It’s not changing the subject. It’s not being a drooling fool answering a drooling fools question or proposition. You are being a pedant for focusing on the immediate situation without providing context. It’s a high school debaters proposition, and thinking people see right through the simplistic formulation of the question.
Wow! I made the point that trends are important long ago, but was told that didnt matter when it made Trump look bad. So look at the positives claimed for Trump. Unemployment, GDP growth. The UE rate under Trump fell at the same rate as it did under Obama. There is little evidence that Trump did anything that changed that trend. Much was made of GDP growth almost hitting 3%, but it was back down to 2.3% last year. The trade deficit. Increased until last year when it made a small decrease. Look at trade deficits over the last 20 years and small decreases are pretty common. No evidence that has changed. Business investment has not increased which you would have expected if changes in regulations or taxes were causing growth. His trade deals? Trivial changes made compared with prior deals, but then he wasn’t so much interested in a better deal just being able to say he got new ones.
So Trump was not a bad caretaker president. He maintained trends. However one of the measures of leadership is how you respond in a crisis. There he has performed poorly. So Drew is correct, context matters. In the context of a once in a lifetime international crisis Trump was inadequate. Now add on to that increasing our debt at a time when the economy was performing well, not addressing health care when he promised everyone would have better and cheaper health care, not addressing opioid crisis, not getting Mexico to pay for the wall and instead taking it from schools for military kids… Well, as i keep saying, he just hasn’t done much, except convince his fans he has done a lot. But then all they care about is as single point in time and not trends.
Steve
A guy goes to the doctor and the doc tells him he has cancer and 1-3 years to live, but I’ll treat you the best I can. Three years later he is pronounced cancer free, but as he leaves the doctors office he is hit by a bus.
At the funeral the guys wife is consoled, with a friend saying “at least the doctor got him 3 years.” The wife says “that doctor was no good, my husband is worse off today than when he was diagnosed.”
That’s why the whole “better off” ahem, analysis, is silly, without context.
The trend was good, and then COVID, to which the policy has been disastrous.
BTW – when I re-read my comment it might sound like I was aimed at Dave. (and not CBS “News”) Not the intent, other than to say that the point to point analysis is overly literal. Proper context would consider three good years, and then a black swan event. The literal interpretation is just pure politics.