It’s the economy stupid

“It’s the economy stupid.”

– Mantra of Bill Clinton’s 1992 Presidential campaign

“You can’t beat somebody with nobody.”

– Popular American political adage

“All politics is local.”

– Longtime Boston politician and Speaker of the House of Representatives “Tip” O’Neill

Those axioms encapsulate three of the traditionally most important themes in American politics, and the 2012 Presidential election campaign, which is already in full throttle will be testing them.

“It’s the economy stupid.”

James Carville, Bill Clinton’s Presidential campaign manager, posted that statement on the wall of campaign headquarters to remind everyone that amid the myriad issues that waft through a Presidential campaign, the one that matters most is the economy. If times are tough, voters are inclined to throw out the incumbents. If the economy seems to be perking along, voters are wary of changing horses in midstream and more likely to leave the incumbents in office. There are always other issues, but the bottom line is that people vote their pocket books.
That’s why the Obama Administration is breathlessly following economic statistics. They’ve tried to blame the financial crisis and recession on the deregulatory policies of former President George W. Bush and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. And while they may have succeeded in blaming their predecessors for the problem, the Obama Administration goes into the election having had four years to mount a solution.
However, as 2012 began, the glass was half empty. The financial crisis is largely over, and while housing is still in the doldrums, the financial system is no longer being propped up by the government. The economy has been eking out tepid growth. But the unemployment rate – the economic statistic that is most relevant to most people – remains at a high level. While the Administration is arguing that things would have been even worse were it not for its sage policies, things are not so good.
The Administration has a few other things going for it, like getting Osama bin Laden. But what it views as its crowning achievement, healthcare reform, is uninteresting to most Americans. Liberals applaud the achievement of a longtime Democratic Party goal – extending health insurance to millions of additional Americans. But these benefits go largely to the poor and the young – who don’t vote in great numbers — and they have had little impact on most voters, who already had health insurance.
Similarly, while the U.S. is winding down its involvement in Afghanistan, the U.S. has entered another of its intermittent periods of quasi-isolationism, and events in Europe and elsewhere often seem to be of limited interest.
So throughout the run-up to the November elections, the Obama Administration will be reading and spinning the economic statistics. There needs to be positive growth, but it doesn’t have to be substantial. What the Administration needs most is a clear and steady decline in the unemployment rate. If unemployment is unequivocally falling, and people are getting jobs, voters will feel better about the Obama Administration; if the dial is not moving, they will be angry.
Ditto the stock market averages. The numbers of Americans investing directly in limited, but millions of Americans are exposed to the stock market through investments in mutual funds and through their retirement savings plans. When the market is going up, they demonstrate what economists call “the wealth effect.” Although they may not be touching the additional money in their portfolio, they feel more prosperous. And they will look more kindly on an incumbent President.

“You can’t beat somebody with nobody.”

While Axiom I is critical, Axiom II is also highly important. If the economy were to be doing just OK in November, and if the Republicans were to nominate an attractive candidate, Obama could easily be beaten. Even his most ardent supporters would admit his achievements are limited and his leadership is sometimes disappointing. But the Republican race has been populated by a decidedly peculiar group of candidates. It is increasingly likely that Mitt Romney will win the nomination, and, to be sure, he has a fairly distinguished resume. The problem is that like the first George Bush, he is a moderate masquerading as a conservative, and the Republican Party is increasingly a party of conservatives. They know that Romney is backpedaling like crazy from the moderate positions he had espoused as governor of Massachusetts.
If Romney gets the nomination, he will appeal to middle of the road voters, but he will get only tepid support from many conservatives. Indeed, many conservatives may not vote. And some think Ron Paul will run as an independent and siphon off a substantial number of votes. True ideologues never want the lesser of two evils; in fact, they want the greater, on the theory that this will only demonstrate the wisdom of their cause and hasten their path to power.
Still, Romney is a reasonable candidate, and the Obama administration’s dream has been that someone else wins the nomination. One by one the Republicans have gone through a series of arch conservatives, and each has been found wanting, to say the least. Governor Rick Perry of Texas proved himself to be an intellectual lightweight. Michelle Bachman harbors some decidedly strange views. Ditto Ron Paul, who is a staunch libertarian. Herman Cain, a pizza magnate, turned out to have engendered a series of sexual harassment allegations. John Huntsman, a former Ambassador to China looked like he would be a great candidate – in theory. He’s moderately conservative, seasoned, articulate, and handsome, but nonetheless he never caught on with the voters.
As each of these alternatives to Romney faltered, Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House of Representatives, enjoyed a resurgence. But his personal life is decidedly sordid for the party of family values, and he quickly faltered. Then Rick Santorum had his moment in the sun after some good results in Iowa. But he combines a modest resume with a fervor on moral issues that will turn off moderate voters.
So Obama will either face a potentially attractive candidate who will have trouble energizing his own party or a potentially weak candidate who will not be able to win over crucial independent voters.

“All politics is local.”

While the first two shibboleths are as true as ever, the third seems to be weakening. America is a very mobile country. People move far and often. In places like Atlanta, seemingly half the population has arrived there from somewhere else for career reasons, and they will move on if they get a better job or when it comes time to retire. As a result, voting patterns are changing in many ways. The once solidly Democratic South has become Republican; the suburbs are increasingly becoming Democratic; blue collar workers are voting Republican; Catholics are voting Republican; etc., etc.
But more fundamentally, the issues that resonate around the country are less local. Yes, hard core local issues can be important. If Obama closes a big air force base near a small town, local voters will be angry. But in a more general way, voters are increasingly thinking in national terms. They view the Presidential election in terms of national issues – chiefly the economy, but also war and peace, and they’re less inclined to ask what have you done for me lately.
Yes, the voting system continues to be localized: U.S. voters are actually choosing electors who vote in the electoral college, and these electors are selected on an all–or-nothing fashion: A candidate who gets 51 percent of the votes in a state gets 100 percent of their electoral votes. This creates an emphasis on thinking of the election on a state by state basis and focusing on winning certain key swing states.
While the building blocks are localized, however, the issues have become more national. The candidates will continue to pay lip service to local issues and local populations, but both the candidates and the voters are primarily motivated by national issues. Both the Tea Party on the right and Occupy Wall Street on the left are about national issues, not local ones. Things like fixing the local bridge and expanding employment at the biggest local factory and saying nice things about Poland in cities with sizable Polish populations continue to be part of the American electoral process. But pervasive media coverage means candidates must constantly be talking to the nation, not to localities.
Assembling a winning majority by building a coalition of America’s endless roster of interest groups is too difficult. Presidential politics is increasingly national and wholesale, not local and retail, and as a result both parties know that the Clinton campaign was right: It’s the economy, stupid. However, the Republicans still have to learn that you can’t beat somebody with nobody.
##