With the next presidential election looming, I’ve been pondering the question of what makes the difference between a one-term president and a two-term president. Is it training, the power of incumbency, or perhaps just the luck of the draw? Or is it a question of which marketing guru produces the best ads to sway that portion of the electorate that chooses quickly based on scant evidence? It is terrible to contemplate that fate or luck plays such an important role in the history of our country, but I’m afraid to some extent that it does.
Consider a popular two-term Republican president, Ronald Reagan, who served from 1981-1989. His formal education ended with a college degree, and his early career was in acting. Perhaps it is his career choice that made him a more effective leader. The economy has always been an important aspect in any presidential election, and Reagan’s initial election benefited from a poorer than normal economy under his predecessor. In order to get the economy moving in 1981, Reagan pushed a tax reform bill through Congress that lowered tax rates for everyone, including reducing the top tax rate from 70% to 50%. The economy improved.
In 1986, Reagan again got Congress to lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans to a top rate of 28%. The top earners got to keep 42% more of the money they earned than they had only five years earlier. This is the kind of tax cut favored by the current Republican Presidential Candidate who assures us that it will create more jobs. How many of you recall your history concerning what happened?
The stock market crashed in 1987, likely due to increased speculation. The Savings and Loan crisis resulted from deregulation of the industry combined again with excessive speculation on ill-conceived investments. The U.S. Federal Deficit soared to triple the level it had been when Reagan took office. However, Reagan remains a historically admired former president.
Reagan’s successor was his former vice-president, George H.W. Bush, who managed only a single term as president from 1989-1993. The son of a U.S. Senator, Bush had a strong education and a record of public service that should have made him one of the best prepared person to ever lead his country. He served as a U.S. Congressman, was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, an envoy to China, Director of the CIA, and finally served eight years as vice-president.
Concerned by the rising federal deficit, Bush reneged on his campaign pledge to not increase taxes. A wave of corporate downsizing increased unemployment in the middle class (a stronghold of Republican voters) and the economy faltered. Bush began negotiations on what was to become the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was supposed to increase employment opportunities throughout our hemisphere.
In the midst of the country’s economic malaise, the leader of Iraq decided he would like to have the oil produced by his neighbor, Kuwait (an ally of the U.S.). Bush committed American troops and material to rescue the small but wealthy country from its invader. After a conflict lasting a mere 100 hours, the goal of the offensive had been achieved, victory was declared, and Kuwait was liberated. Unlike most modern day conflicts, this one had a clear goal and a viable exit strategy. The electorate was duly impressed. Bush advisors looked at his soaring approval ratings and assumed that reelection was in the bag.
However, a struggling economy still plagued the incumbent leader of the free world. The Democratic challenger to Bush in his second campaign was a young former governor with an energetic and intelligent staff, who were focused on the economy. In addition, a crazy-smart Texas billionaire decided to mount a third-party challenge. The combination of these factors doomed Bush the Elder’s chance for a second term.
Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was a former Governor of Arkansas, a Yale Law School graduate, a Rhodes Scholar, and served two terms as U.S. President from 1993-2001. During his time in office, Clinton passed NAFTA, passed welfare reform, but failed to pass his initiative to reform health care. In addition, he was able to pass tax cuts for the poor and for small businesses, while increasing taxes on the top 1.2% of earners.
Although his tenure was plagued by scandals (real and imagined) and lapses in moral judgment, the economy boomed under President Clinton. The country experienced three consecutive budget surpluses for the first time in many years over the period 1998-2000. At the end of his two terms, an ABC News poll summarized his presidency as "You can't trust him, he's got weak morals and ethics – and he's done a heck of a good job."
Which brings us back to the beginning. The man in the White House before Reagan was one-term Democrat President Jimmy Carter, whose Secret Service nickname was “Deacon” reflective of his high moral standards. Carter served from 1977-1981 and was educated at the U.S. Naval Academy, then served in the Navy as a nuclear power expert. He was a successful young Georgia Governor before his election, and won a Nobel Peace Prize for his diplomatic efforts.
Carter was helped into office by the after effects of the Watergate Scandal that plagued the Republicans under former President Nixon. High inflation was the primary problem under Nixon and his successor, President Ford. Continued “stagflation” is also what helped to push Carter out of office.
Bad luck was also a factor in Carter failing to achieve a second term. In 1979, religious extremists took over Iran, and seized the staff of the U.S. Embassy there, holding them hostage until 1981, the day Reagan took office. The continuing energy crisis damaged the economy, and the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island didn’t help matters for Carter.
Carter’s entire Presidency might have had an entirely different outcome had a planned rescue of the Iran hostages not failed in April of 1980. A success would have bolstered his image, but its failure doomed his presidency, and helped elect Reagan.
So what is the difference between a one-term president and a two-term president? It doesn’t seem that training is a dominant factor. Situational luck appears to figure strongly into things. Bush might have had a second term if third-party challenger Ross Perot hadn’t entered the race. Carter might have survived to a second term if the hostage rescue attempt had succeeded. But overall, as a prescient Clinton staffer once observed, in the race for U.S. President “it’s the economy stupid.” The electorate is easily swayed, and a strong economy tends to help the incumbent remain in office.
So now we must choose again if we are to reelect a sitting president, or get someone else to take the reigns of power. President Obama inherited a massive economic mess from his predecessor, Bush the Younger. He is struggling to revive the economy, with some efforts on his part being thwarted by a minority of Republican Senators through the use of filibusters, who would gladly see the economy tank in order to regain power. His opponent, Romney, offers hope for a revived economy that rests on tax cuts for the wealthy. These cuts are supposed to create jobs, but as history has shown, such cuts typically result in increased speculation in financial markets, followed by burst bubbles and a ruined economy (see the results above for Reagan’s second tax cuts).
But as I’ve said before, our electorate is not well grounded in historical facts, but more easily influenced by a thirty second TV ad. Campaign money is flowing into both candidates’ coffers in record amounts, promising an outpouring of new ads unlike any election we’ve yet to witness. Wouldn’t it be nice to make your selection on the facts, based on sound education instead of mindless propaganda? I think so. Consider telling your elected representatives that we need significant campaign-financing reforms. Let’s become better informed. It might make a better country for everyone.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
No comments:
Post a Comment