Obama Can Emulate Reagan's Esoterica to Break the 7.2 Percent Spell
Published in Creaders
(China) on 2 September 2011
by (link to original)
The New York Times already warned Obama in June by quoting historical data that indicated that, after Franklin Roosevelt, no president could succeed when the unemployment rate is over 7.2 percent. Since World War II there have been three presidents who ran for a second term when the unemployment rate was more than 6 percent, including Carter and Bush, who both failed. When Bush was running for reelection in 1992, the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent and the little known Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton, defeated him with one phrase: “It’s the economy, stupid!” Facing Republican candidate Perry’s attacks about creating jobs, Obama seems to be following on the same disastrous road as Bush.
Although there have only been seven presidents since World War II to seek reelection and the sample is too small to draw a meaningful conclusion, Obama’s team obviously knows that the unemployment rate is a major issue. They consulted Michael Beschloss, a historian who specializes in presidents’ history. Beschloss suggested a possible solution based on Roosevelt’s campaign in 1936 and Reagan’s in 1984, both of which were successful during economic depressions, when the unemployment rate was over 7.2 percent. The strategies used by these two were the same. They both emphasized that even though the economy was not good, it was improving. Meanwhile, they attacked their competitors’ economic suggestions as the continuance of former failure that would only make things worse. Take Reagan, for example. During his election campaign in 1984 against Democrat Mondale, he turned the election into a referendum for former Democratic President Carter.
However, emulation for Obama is not easy. Reagan’s first term in office showed economic increase and an unemployment rate that had declined from 10 percent. The economy hasn’t improved at all since Obama took office in 2009; the unemployment rate has steadily increased from 7.8 percent since January 2009. What’s more troublesome is that his major competitor, Texas governor Rick Perry, has a selling point of having created jobs. Perry bragged that he maintained a low tax rate under reasonable supervision in his term, attracted business to Texas and increased employment. From the depression in June 2009 to this July, around 299,800 jobs were created in Texas, making up 43 percent of all jobs created in the U.S. in the same time period. Furthermore, the unemployment rate in Texas was 8.4 percent in July, which was lower than the 9.1 percent national unemployment rate.
This doesn’t mean that Obama cannot win again. His priority is to come up with some ideas to improve the economy next year in order to persuade voters to vote for him. He may also need to hope that the halo of his competitor’s achievements fades a bit. Perry has already become the target of attacks. The media has started to examine the “Texas miracle,” suggesting that jobs created by Perry were all low paying and that the recent economic advantage in Texas was due to the price increase of oil, meaning that Perry is only enjoying the outcome without having worked for it. Additionally, the current unemployment rate in Texas was still the highest since 1987. The Republican establishment and right-wing tea party movement have also been targeting Perry. The tea party criticized Perry for his employment stimulation building a “big government.” Establishment members like Karl Rove attacked Perry for his criticism that the Federal Reserve was taking the populist route, calling his remark “unpresidential.”
Although there have only been seven presidents since World War II to seek reelection and the sample is too small to draw a meaningful conclusion, Obama’s team obviously knows that the unemployment rate is a major issue. They consulted Michael Beschloss, a historian who specializes in presidents’ history. Beschloss suggested a possible solution based on Roosevelt’s campaign in 1936 and Reagan’s in 1984, both of which were successful during economic depressions, when the unemployment rate was over 7.2 percent. The strategies used by these two were the same. They both emphasized that even though the economy was not good, it was improving. Meanwhile, they attacked their competitors’ economic suggestions as the continuance of former failure that would only make things worse. Take Reagan, for example. During his election campaign in 1984 against Democrat Mondale, he turned the election into a referendum for former Democratic President Carter.
However, emulation for Obama is not easy. Reagan’s first term in office showed economic increase and an unemployment rate that had declined from 10 percent. The economy hasn’t improved at all since Obama took office in 2009; the unemployment rate has steadily increased from 7.8 percent since January 2009. What’s more troublesome is that his major competitor, Texas governor Rick Perry, has a selling point of having created jobs. Perry bragged that he maintained a low tax rate under reasonable supervision in his term, attracted business to Texas and increased employment. From the depression in June 2009 to this July, around 299,800 jobs were created in Texas, making up 43 percent of all jobs created in the U.S. in the same time period. Furthermore, the unemployment rate in Texas was 8.4 percent in July, which was lower than the 9.1 percent national unemployment rate.
This doesn’t mean that Obama cannot win again. His priority is to come up with some ideas to improve the economy next year in order to persuade voters to vote for him. He may also need to hope that the halo of his competitor’s achievements fades a bit. Perry has already become the target of attacks. The media has started to examine the “Texas miracle,” suggesting that jobs created by Perry were all low paying and that the recent economic advantage in Texas was due to the price increase of oil, meaning that Perry is only enjoying the outcome without having worked for it. Additionally, the current unemployment rate in Texas was still the highest since 1987. The Republican establishment and right-wing tea party movement have also been targeting Perry. The tea party criticized Perry for his employment stimulation building a “big government.” Establishment members like Karl Rove attacked Perry for his criticism that the Federal Reserve was taking the populist route, calling his remark “unpresidential.”
Previous article![]( "Obama Has His Back to the Wall")
