More than 2,000 words on Barack Obama’s political troubles, and Politico’s top editors never once address this basic truth: The economy isn’t any good and unemployment is high, and as long as those two things are true, the president isn’t going to be very popular -- and many economists and liberals (Paul Krugman, for one) said last year that the stimulus package needed to be much larger in order to provide the needed boost to the economy. There is plenty of reason to believe they were correct.
That’s fairly simple, really. Yet in purporting to explain Obama’s political trouble, and dissatisfaction among liberals, Politico’s top editors touch on everything except this obvious truth. His speeches aren’t good enough! His staff isn’t nice enough to reporters! He’s a “big-government liberal”! The White House failed to clear Senate primaries for its favored candidates!
No. It’s fairly simple, really: President Obama and the Democrats are struggling politically because the economy isn’t any good and unemployment is high. What should they have done differently? They should have done more to improve the economy; last year’s stimulus should have been bigger, for one thing. Speeches, kindness to reporters -- basically, everything Politico focuses on -- that’s all comparatively insignificant.
That’s fairly simple, really. Yet in purporting to explain Obama’s political trouble, and dissatisfaction among liberals, Politico’s top editors touch on everything except this obvious truth. His speeches aren’t good enough! His staff isn’t nice enough to reporters! He’s a “big-government liberal”! The White House failed to clear Senate primaries for its favored candidates!
No. It’s fairly simple, really: President Obama and the Democrats are struggling politically because the economy isn’t any good and unemployment is high. What should they have done differently? They should have done more to improve the economy; last year’s stimulus should have been bigger, for one thing. Speeches, kindness to reporters -- basically, everything Politico focuses on -- that’s all comparatively insignificant.
Back in January, Politico's John Harris (co-author of today's piece) demonstrated the same lack of understanding of what matters, as I noted at the time:
One question this raises: What exactly is the value of a publication that calls itself “Politico” if it is blind to such obvious realities about politics?Harris writes that a key lesson of [Bill] Clinton's [post-'94] comeback is to "Find a way to talk about the economy." Strangely, he makes no mention of a more important lesson: Find a way to fix the economy. Indeed, he ignores the concept that actual economic conditions have something to do with electoral results.
Comments