Big Sky Cairn

Whether we are currently experiencing a technical recession or not isn’t really the point. The point is, it feels like we are, and when it comes to the economy, feelings are often more important that cold data. Feelings dictate actions and actions determine the economy - not the other way around. The fact of the matter is, the solution to economic downturn is rarely some tax stimulus or grand government plan, but it’s the restoration of confidence (sometimes sparked by a stimulus or government action) which leads to the willingness to spend money which restarts the grinding of economic gears.

Of interest to me, however, is the question over which party, Republican or Democrat, a struggling economy benefits in November. The Helena Independent Record weighs in on this question while reporting “more bad news” on Montana’s economy.

The poor economy, perhaps even more than the record of the current president on the war, the response to Katrina, and so on, may turn the tide to Obama, even in Montana. It surely doesn’t help Republican John McCain to have an important economic advisor — Phil Gramm — who insists the economy is fine and people should just get over it. Now, that is stupid.

But why? Why the presumption that a poor economy turns the tide toward Obama? The traditional philosophy is that if things are going bad, voters react by throwing out the bums in charge. The IR is probably proposing the result of an anti-incumbent sentiment that has resulted from the Bush Administration. History also seems to support this hypothesis: based on economic distress, 1980 has a Republican beating a Democrat (Reagan over Carter) and 1992 has a Democrat beating a Republican (Clinton over H.W. Bush). In this case, one would assume that the non-incumbent wins.

This isn’t the whole story - since in both of those circumstances, the losing candidate is also the incumbent. It’s easier to tie the weak economy directly to someone who’s policies have their name on them. The question is what happens when two non-incumbents square off in a soft economy.

In 2000, the dot-com bubble burst and the United States was in a recession. President Clinton was term-limited, so two new faces were on the ballot: George W. Bush and Al Gore (while I acknowledge that Al Gore was tied closely to the Clinton Administration, he ran hard and fast away from that association and later blamed his decision to abandon Clinton for his eventual loss). In 2000, when the economy was struggling and there wasn’t an incumbent to cast down from Mount Olympus, the Republican won.

Of course, it’s not that simple, because Bush’s win is also a Democrat (incumbent party) loss, so this evidence supports an expanded “throw the bums out” hypothesis which includes visiting the sins of a leader on their party. The point, then, is not to use history to determine who wins because of the economy - I think there are too many variables to make that hypothesis provable. The point, is the eliminate history as a deciding factor.

Which leaves us with issues. And on issues, when it comes to the economy, Republicans win. Republicans win on taxes when the average American is finding it harder to get by and Democrats support the largest tax-increase in American history. Republicans win on energy, when the most visible impact of the economic stress are at the gas pumps and Democrats are in the pockets of environmental radicals. Republicans win on optimism - something that cannot be underrated at a time when people are worried.

So who benefits if the weak economy gains prominence as a litmus test issue? There’s a debate to be had, for sure. Which makes me wonder… why does the Helena IR just assume that a weak economy turns Montana over to Obama?

Because the Helena IR is just another liberal rag, totally in the bag for the Democrat party? Duh.