Uneasy Days for the Economy

What happens when a nation with a “bootstrap” self-image settles into a state of uncertainty?

11-1-1977 Carter, Jimmy - Colorado Visits Credit: Denver Post
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
Feb. 27, 2014, 4 p.m.

Listen­ing the oth­er day to dis­cour­aging eco­nom­ic fore­casts from Alan Green­span and Larry Sum­mers, I was re­minded of the many polls show­ing that Amer­ic­ans worry their chil­dren won’t have the same op­por­tun­it­ies they did. To be clear, neither the former Fed chair­man nor the former Treas­ury sec­ret­ary was pre­dict­ing re­ces­sions or even down­turns. But there was little in their words to the Na­tion­al As­so­ci­ation for Busi­ness Eco­nom­ics to sug­gest that bright­er days are on the im­me­di­ate ho­ri­zon.

Their dia­gnoses and sug­ges­ted treat­ments of the eco­nomy wer­en’t ex­actly the same, but both non­ethe­less left the listen­er deeply un­settled. Sum­mers ar­gues that it’s been a long time since the United States had “healthy, strong eco­nom­ic growth in a full-ca­pa­city eco­nomy.” He ar­gues against cur­rent gov­ern­ment aus­ter­ity meas­ures, par­tic­u­larly at a time when the coun­try — he as­serts — des­per­ately needs an in­crease in con­sumer de­mand. He also com­plains that reg­u­lat­ory and policy re­straints have re­strained eco­nom­ic growth, spe­cific­ally point­ing to the fact that no new oil re­finer­ies have been built in the United States in dec­ades. Mean­while, aus­ter­ity has led us to a lack of pub­lic in­vest­ment; Sum­mers gives the ex­ample of the cur­rently dilap­id­ated Kennedy air­port in New York, at a time when bor­row­ing rates are un­der 3 per­cent, which would nor­mally be the per­fect situ­ation for gov­ern­ment to re­build in­fra­struc­ture.

Green­span ar­gued for the need for im­mig­ra­tion re­form, say­ing that de­port­ing il­leg­al im­mig­rants would lead to our eco­nomy “fall­ing apart.” On the oth­er end of the im­mig­ra­tion spec­trum, he said, the H-1B pro­gram for ad­mis­sion of highly skilled work­ers is im­port­ant be­cause “we can’t staff the high-tech needs of our coun­try with the kids com­ing out of our high schools.” Yet, the pro­spects for im­mig­ra­tion re­form in the House, des­pite the back­ing of lead­ing Re­pub­lic­ans, are prob­lem­at­ic at best, due to en­trenched op­pos­i­tion with­in the GOP base.

At the same time, and more broadly, Amer­ic­ans are wor­ried about where our coun­try is — and seems to be — headed. A Wall Street Journ­al/NBC News poll in May 2012 asked, “Do you feel con­fid­ent or not con­fid­ent that life for our chil­dren’s gen­er­a­tion will be bet­ter than it has been for us?” Only 30 per­cent of re­spond­ents felt con­fid­ent, while 63 per­cent in­dic­ated they were not. A New York Times/CBS News poll taken in Janu­ary of this year asked, “Do you think the fu­ture of the next gen­er­a­tion of Amer­ic­ans will be bet­ter, worse, or about the same as life today?” Only 20 per­cent said bet­ter, 53 per­cent in­dic­ated worse, and 25 per­cent said about the same. In late 2012, a USA Today/Gal­lup poll asked, “In Amer­ica, each gen­er­a­tion has tried to have a bet­ter life than their par­ents, with a bet­ter liv­ing stand­ard, bet­ter homes, a bet­ter edu­ca­tion, and so on. How likely do you think it is that today’s youth will have a bet­ter life than their par­ents?” At the time of the poll, the pub­lic was evenly split, with 49 per­cent say­ing likely, and 50 per­cent in­dic­at­ing that im­prove­ment was un­likely. Res­ults differed widely based on ex­actly how the ques­tion was framed, but at best, in what has his­tor­ic­ally been one of the most in­her­ently op­tim­ist­ic na­tions, at least (roughly) half of the pop­u­la­tion is doubt­ful that things will be bet­ter for suc­ceed­ing gen­er­a­tions.

Put­ting the deep con­cerns of two of Amer­ica’s bright­est eco­nom­ists to­geth­er with a troubled, even ap­pre­hens­ive pub­lic, par­tic­u­larly one that is wor­ried about the op­por­tun­it­ies of fu­ture gen­er­a­tions, brings to mind the word com­monly at­tached to Jimmy Carter’s pres­id­ency — “mal­aise.” Al­though he didn’t ac­tu­ally use the term, the sen­ti­ment from that time seems rel­ev­ant today: A coun­try that fash­ions it­self as a “boot­strap” na­tion with bound­less op­por­tun­it­ies is now settled in­to an un­cer­tainty about the fu­ture and about our role in the world.

A Gal­lup Poll re­cently asked Amer­ic­ans, “Do you think lead­ers of oth­er coun­tries around the world have re­spect for Barack Obama or do you think they don’t have much re­spect for him?” Just 41 per­cent thought that for­eign lead­ers re­spec­ted Obama; 53 per­cent said they did not. Ob­vi­ously, re­spond­ents’ party af­fil­i­ation mattered; among Demo­crats, 69 per­cent said Obama was re­spec­ted by the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity, while 28 per­cent thought he was not. Among Re­pub­lic­an re­spond­ents, only 19 per­cent thought he was re­spec­ted, while 77 per­cent re­spon­ded in the neg­at­ive. Most im­port­ant, among in­de­pend­ents, only 34 per­cent said they be­lieved Obama was re­spec­ted, while 57 per­cent thought he was not — a pretty tough in­dict­ment.

With a pres­id­en­tial cam­paign to be­gin a year from now, one must con­sider how these fears and ap­pre­hen­sions may mani­fest them­selves as Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans be­gin the pro­cess of se­lect­ing their nom­in­ees. While the cur­rent polit­ic­al en­vir­on­ment is not ex­actly like what the coun­try faced in 2008 — after Leh­man Broth­ers fell, the stock mar­ket crashed, and the re­ces­sion be­came evid­ent — 2016, it seems, is shap­ing up to look more like 2008 than any oth­er re­cent elec­tion year. This is likely to have a pro­found ef­fect on the de­cision-mak­ing pro­cess for voters on each side, but it is im­possible to tell now what those ef­fects will be.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.