Signs are abundant that the American economy is finally heating up — the hypercharged stock market, the robust growth in housing prices, a steady decrease in the jobless rate — but, so far, instead of champagne, the White House keeps bringing buckets of cold water to the party.
The administration isn’t ready to start celebrating openly yet — and its reluctance has to do with a real fear of getting burned.
Internally at the White House, the recent torrent of good news has sparked a discussion about when and how President Obama should start revising his economic narrative to make it clearer to the American public not only that it’s safe to start exhaling a bit, but also that it was his administration’s policies that made it so. In other words, when does this president get to claim a little credit and start doing some serious legacy-building?
As the administration turned to 2014 business, there was no Wolf of Wall Street chest-thumping over the good economic news, no sense that a turning point had been reached. “We could be an administration that just comes in here and tells you nothing but the good news,” Gene Sperling, Obama’s outgoing chief economic adviser, told reporters this week, as he discussed those whom the recovery has “left behind.” Later in the week, the president himself convened an event at the White House designed to showcase Americans who are still “struggling.”
No one wants to see a mended economy more than this White House, which has been drowned in muck since the moment Obama took office. Without that as the main focus of his presidency — and GOP opposition — the environment could improve for more-assertive climate-change policies, as well as for immigration reform, aides say. Both are tougher sells when the public believes times are hard. Obama could also finally see movement on long-sought agenda items involving transportation, infrastructure, and pre-K education, says former Obama administration economist Jared Bernstein.
And then there are the potential political gains. A revived economy could boost Democrats in the 2014 midterms, provided the numbers improve quickly enough. It could also lift the fortunes of the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, whether it’s Hillary Clinton or someone else — much as George H.W. Bush benefited in 1988 from a strong economy and Al Gore nearly did in 2000. Moreover, says Jeremy Bird, a former Obama campaign strategist, the GOP, deprived of its top talking point, would have to develop a new message. “That changes the entire dynamic of the 2016 race,” says Bird, whose consulting firm has been retained by a pro-Clinton super PAC.
So why the Debbie Downer act? “This is an economy that’s done a lot of head fakes,” Bernstein says. Back in 2009, the administration was derided for suggesting that “green shoots” of a comeback could be seen sprouting. More recently, in the context of the 2012 campaign, the White House had to wrestle with how aggressively to declare the country repaired. At times, the plodding economic numbers didn’t align with the rhetoric. “The caution is warranted,” Bernstein says.
That’s particularly true since simply setting the clock back to 2006 isn’t good enough. Obama, aides say, is in a box partly of his own making. The president has been beating the drum on issues such as income inequality and the eroding middle class since before the downturn. That means his benchmarks for success are harder to reach.
Clearly, though, the White House has some work to do when it comes to convincing Americans they should view Obama as the recovery’s architect: An ABC News/Washington Post poll last month found that a majority of Americans (55 percent) disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy, even as that same poll showed an increasing number (59 percent) are personally feeling the effects of the recovery — and even as half still blame George W. Bush for the recession. While the president’s concern about the recovery not trickling down to everyone is justified, it appears that those whose fortunes are improving aren’t giving him the credit. (Granted, Republicans are less likely than Democrats to concede Obama anything on this score.)
The White House also knows that if it wants to build consumer confidence, Americans need to hear the good news, too. And Obama does tell that story: He prefaces almost every speech he makes with a stream of recovery stats. But it’s never the central point. And it doesn’t counteract, or even really contradict, messages like the one Mitch McConnell repeated this week when he ambled to the Senate floor to talk about the same people the president admits are struggling, for the purpose of highlighting what his office called “five years of failed Obama economic policies.”
That tension in the president’s message — between pragmatism about the slow, not necessarily linear march to recovery and optimism about renewed prosperity — will likely emerge full flower this month in Obama’s State of the Union address, when he’ll be under pressure to reassure the nation about its health. Before then, Obama is expected to unveil a series of small-bore initiatives, all of which will remind the public that the president remains in fix-it mode when it comes to the economy.
Bird lauds Obama for not declaring victory too soon. “There’s a lot of integrity in that,” he says, adding that the president’s leadership “has been about the long game.” That indeed may be to his credit, but the problem with playing the long game is that you end up relying on history to vindicate your approach. The White House may want to think about speeding up that process a bit. After all, people love a good redemption story.
What We're Following See More »
"A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 34% of registered voters think the three presidential debates would be extremely or quite important in helping them decide whom to support for president. About 11% of voters are considered 'debate persuadables'—that is, they think the debates are important and are either third-party voters or only loosely committed to either major-party candidate."
Will he or won't he? That's the question surrounding Donald Trump and his on-again, off-again threats to bring onetime Bill Clinton paramour Gennifer Flowers to the debate as his guest. An assistant to flowers initially said she'd be there, but Trump campaign chief Kellyanne Conway "said on ABC’s 'This Week' that the Trump campaign had not invited Flowers to the debate, but she didn’t rule out the possibility of Flowers being in the audience."
NBC's Lester Holt hasn't hosted the "Nightly News" since Tuesday, as he's prepped for moderating the first presidential debate tonight—and the first of his career. He's called on a host of NBC talent to help him, namely NBC News and MSNBC chairman Andy Lack; NBC News president Deborah Turness; the news division's senior vice president of editorial, Janelle Rodriguez; "Nightly News" producer Sam Singal, "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd, senior political editor Mark Murray and political editor Carrie Dann. But during the debate itself, the only person in Holt's earpiece will be longtime debate producer Marty Slutsky.
"The House passed legislation late Thursday that would prohibit the federal government from making any cash payments to Iran, in protest of President Obama's recently discovered decision to pay Iran $1.7 billion in cash in January. And while the White House has said Obama would veto the bill, 16 Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the measure, 254-163."
In contrast to Hillary Clinton's meticulous debate practice sessions, Donald Trump "is largely shunning traditional debate preparations, but has been watching video of…Clinton’s best and worst debate moments, looking for her vulnerabilities.” Trump “has paid only cursory attention to briefing materials. He has refused to use lecterns in mock debate sessions despite the urging of his advisers. He prefers spitballing ideas with his team rather than honing them into crisp, two-minute answers.”