| [an error occurred while processing this directive] |  |  |
 |  | |
| ||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
 Recent commentary from National Journal: Media: Vive la Difference (November 5, 2002) The recent news about the International Herald Tribune says something about its two owners. By William Powers. Social Studies: Goodbye, Jesse Helms. Conservatism Won't Be Missing You (November 5, 2002) Reagan and Helms both defied received opinion. But Reagan changed that opinion, whereas Helms deepened it. By Jonathan Rauch. Legal Affairs: How the Supreme Court Hurts Moderate Politics (November 5, 2002) A succession of well-meaning but clumsy rulings has encouraged political gerrymandering. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Political Pulse: Frightful Possibilities (October 29, 2002) It could happen: Control of the House and Senate may not be decided until well after Election Day. By William Schneider. Media: Hard News for Hard Times (October 29, 2002) The news values of the 1990s—personality, ideology, scandal for scandal's sake—are now passé. By William Powers. Wealth of Nations: Rules Are Rules, Even If They Are 'Stupid' (October 29, 2002) Why should the Americans care about Europe's misguided budget system? Because it's harming not just Europe, but the United States and the rest of the world as well. By Clive Crook. Legal Affairs: Is There Freedom To Associate With Terrorists? (October 29, 2002) There may be a risk that the war on terrorism will lead the government into guilt-by-association excesses akin to those of the McCarthy era. But so far the administration has not crossed that line. By Stuart Taylor Jr. |
Political Pulse 
Fretting Over the EconomyThe public's mood is shifting rapidly in a direction that cannot be good for the president's party by William Schneider .... Voter anxiety is rising. Is it because of snipers, Iraq, the war on terrorism? No, it's something else, stupid. Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D., got it right when he said, "I think the American people fully appreciate the magnitude of the economic problems we are facing." When President Bush took office in January 2001, 82 percent of Americans thought the economy was in good shape, according to a Gallup Poll. At the end of 2001, only 50 percent thought economic conditions were good. In late September, that number was slightly higher, 54 percent. But as of late October, just 41 percent of Americans felt positive about the nation's economy—a 13-point drop in just one month. For the first time since Bush took office, fewer than half of Americans say the economy is in good shape. The public mood is shifting rapidly in a direction that cannot be good for the president's party. In last week's Time/CNN poll, when people were asked to choose the most important issue in their vote, the economy, at 41 percent, overshadowed everything else, including the war on terrorism (23 percent) and Iraq (9 percent). Altogether, twice as many voters cited domestic issues as foreign policy issues. Here's another bad sign for the GOP: The proportion of Americans who say the country is heading in the right direction has dropped to 49 percent, the first time it's been below 50 percent since 1994. In the past, that number has proved to be a pretty good indicator of election outcomes. Here are some years when that number was over 60 percent: 1984, 1988, 1996, and 1998—all good years for the party then in control of the White House. That number was under 50 in 1980, 1982, 1992, and 1994—all bad years for the party in the White House. Uh-oh, is George W. Bush turning into his father? In some ways, yes. In 1992, 68 percent of Americans said they thought President George H.W. Bush was not spending enough time dealing with domestic problems. Now, 61 percent say the same thing about his son. But in another way, the Bushes are not alike. In 1992, a year after the Persian Gulf War, 50 percent of Americans said they thought then-President Bush was spending too much time on foreign policy. Only 28 percent say the same thing now about his son. September 11 made a difference. Americans don't fault the current president for spending a lot of time on world affairs. They just wish he'd spend more time on the economy. The question of the moment, of course, is whether all this economic anxiety will pay off for Democrats at the polls. It ought to. House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., framed the issue in the time-honored way when he said, "I think everybody today ought to ask themselves a simple question: Are you better off than you were two years ago?" Among all registered voters in the Gallup Poll, Democrats have a 9-point edge in the nationwide congressional vote, 50 percent to 41 percent. But among those most likely to vote, the Democratic lead shrinks to just 3 points, 49 percent to 46 percent. Republican-leaning voters appear to be more motivated. And in a midterm election, motivation and turnout are everything. What do Republicans have to motivate their voters? President Bush. What do Democrats have? The economy. Is that enough for the Democrats? Maybe not, because Democrats still have two problems. One is their message. It's not clear what Democrats are proposing to do about the economy. It's pretty clear what many Democrats would like to do: Repeal the tax cut. But they can't say that, because Republicans have a time-tested response. President Reagan first used it in 1985: "I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers. Go ahead. Make my day." Do Democrats have a Plan B? On October 10, Daschle described "a very overt plan" to deal with the economy: "First, pass unemployment compensation [extension legislation].... Second, pass financial assistance to the states.... Third, let's have an economic summit.... And finally, if I were the president, I would ... find some new advisers." Not a lot there for Democrats to rally 'round. Democrats have another problem—the messenger. Elections usually revolve around a personality. In 1994, the mood was anti-President Clinton. In 1998, it was pro-Clinton (and anti-Newt Gingrich, then speaker of the House). Do Democrats have a defining personality to rally 'round? Gephardt and Daschle are moderately popular. But a lot of voters don't know who they are. Voters certainly know former Vice President Gore. But Gore, like Clinton, evokes a sharply divided reaction. Bush's popularity remains high. That is why Republicans are determined to have Bush define this election. Is there a risk that, by going out on the campaign trail, Bush will spur more Democrats than Republicans to vote? Not really, because Democrats are split over him. So is there any reason to believe economic discontent will deliver for the Democrats next week? Only one: It always has in the past for the party out of power—even if that party doesn't have a message or a messenger.
What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. Copyright © 2002 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved. | [an error occurred while processing this directive] | ||
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Back Issues |
Forum |
Site Guide |
Feedback |
Subscribe |
Search
| ||||
