One of the oddest things about the American electorate, to me, has always been the peculiar notion that Presidents control the economy. This to me has long seemed like an odd notion because, if you study our system as it's structured today, Presidents really have terribly limited influence on it.
For example, though conservatives like to blame Jimmy Carter for the bad economy of the late 1970s, this is a bum rap. He was in office too little time to have a major effect on it, and policies he put in place actually helped the economy after he left office. Indeed, he was the man who put Paul Volker in charge of the Federal Reserve, and it was Volker, not Reagan, who had the most to do with the monetary policies that resulted in economic improvements we saw in the 1980s.
Presidents make a difference in the economy generally by either proposing bold, sweeping, radical changes--which they almost never do--or by making comparatively minor contributions with tax and regulatory policy. And whatever they do, it generally takes a minimum of one year to have any effect at all, and more realistically 2-3 years before any impact is really measurable. And that effect, whatever it is, is usually small.
Yet Gallup notes once again that about 4 in 10 Americans think that a President's most important job is managing the economy.
I understand why politicians want us to buy into this. When times are good, Presidents want to take credit for it. When times are bad, their opponents want to blame them for it. Ultimately though, woudln't it be healthier if we all stopped acting like the economy is something the President controls? What, do we think the man sits in the White House fiddling with knobs and levers? The most important economic factors are things that no President could ever control, unless we became a fascist dictatorship or a communist collective or something.
The older I get, the more bemused I become by this viewpoint.
Out of curiousity, has that number gone up or down over time? If it ocillates, are there any correlations?
I think that Reagan's presidency was responsible for that view, at least for many people.
Reagan did make radical changes which had a big effect on the economy. While he certainly does not deserve all of the credit for the economy that sprang up during his administration, he did make an impact.
The democrats and many economists built up Reagan's role in the economy early in his administration by citing his economic ideas and policies and tieing them to him. Of course, they did that because they thought those policies would fail and stifle the economy.
At the same time, Reagan campaigned on the economy. He set ambitious economic goals and he achieved most of them.
With boths sides building Reagan up as the man responsible for the economy, is it any wonder that people laregly credit him with having a huge impact?
In most cases, the President has about as much control over the economy as the Pharaoh did over the annual flooding of the Nile (which irrigated the crops). I must say that I have little respect for those who vote primarily on the basis of economic issues -- especially when they sneer at "single-issue" voters who vote primarily on the basis of moral issues.
I find it curious that presidents recieve either the credit or the blame for the state of the economy when they generally don't have much say in it.
So, I completely agree with Dean on this one. My high school history teacher informed me that for the last 50 years or so, if the economy is good, the incubent wins, and vice versa. (has anyone seen research that confirms this?)
I would agree regarding direct influence, but not otherwise.
FDR is credited with ending the Great Depression by nearly everyone. What's in dispute is how he ended it. Did the New Deal really turn the economy around, or was it the World War II buildup?
Similarly, how much of the malaise-ridden '70s was caused by overmeddling in things like energy policy, a practice started by Nixon and largely reversed by Reagan?
We are not a command economy, but influential people are such precisely because they have influence. So, I would temper your statement to suggest that, when people assert that a President has affected the economy, they should be required to prove it.
Of course, proving anything in the economic sphere is itself a trick. Which leads us, basically, to the status quo, where Presidents tout their (unproven) positive influence on good economies, and their opponents condemn their (also unproven) negative influence on bad ones.
I should also point out the two fundamental principles whenever anything is or isn't working:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
"If it is broke, a swift kick can't make it any worse."
Thus, people are loath to change what works, and eager to change what doesn't. Apply that to the economy and Presidential elections, and you get a pretty good explanation of why people vote the economy the way they do.
Well, that is a good point, Jeff. So I dunno, maybe I should temper my remarks.
Still, I'm usually annoyed when I hear people talking as if the President sits in some sort of control room, carefully spinning dials, flipping switches, and issuing commands to corporate CEOs....
You mean he doesn't???? Damn. No perks to that job.