When voters today are asked what they think the important issues are in the upcoming elections, the economy typically is near the top of their list. The economy may be the most important immediate concern for those who are unemployed or supporting families on below-poverty-level incomes. However, I doubt that many believe either presidential candidate will do much to solve their economic problems.
Some of the rest of us may feel the economy is the cause of our problems, but it’s not. In 2011, nearly 90% of Americans had incomes higher than middle-class global incomes. Only 7% of people in the U.S. were in the middle-income category, 3% had low incomes, and only 2% were poor by global standards [link below]. Our economic advantages are likely even greater today.
We complain about grocery prices but spend half of our food dollars eating out, where nine of ten dollars pay for service, not food. We complain about gasoline prices but the interstate highways are overcrowded, particularly around holidays. We complain about housing prices but people flock to places where builders can’t keep up with the demand for luxury apartments and “mac-mansions.” We can’t seem to make ends meet at home, but the airports, hotels, and cruise boats are full of travelers.
I am not minimizing the real problems of those who must choose between buying food or medications or paying the rent or utility bills. That just doesn’t include the vast majority of voters in the U.S.
Most people don’t vote for or against a presidential candidate because of what they think they will or won’t do to make them better off economically. They vote for candidates they can identify with at some personal or emotional level, someone who understands people like themselves, their problems, and aspirations. They vote against candidates they find offensive, who don’t seem to understand or care about them or people like them.
Some people may vote for presidential candidates who they think will benefit them personally. But I think the vast majority of people vote for those who they believe will reflect their social and ethical values in governing the nation.
So why do people say that the economy is one of their top political concerns? I think it’s because it’s too difficult and personally revealing to explain the real reasons they plan to vote for or against a particular candidate. It’s just easier and more socially acceptable to say you are concerned about the economy. Different opinions concerning which candidate has the best economic policies can be explained logically and rationally.
“It’s the economy, stupid!” This phrase was coined by James Carville, Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign director. It was a strategy to convince voters that George H. W. Bush couldn’t be trusted because he had violated his “read-my-lips” promise not to raise taxes. He also reduced government spending, which led the country into an economic recession. Carville sensed that Clinton could discredit Bush and win the election by focusing on the economy. He was right!
The Clinton administration kept the Bush tax increases in place and imposed additional tax increases on those with higher incomes. Clinton also continued reducing government spending for social programs, instituted welfare-to-work programs, and “ended welfare as we knew it.” The continuation of Bush’s “failed economic policies” created budget surpluses for the Clinton administration. Clinton also followed Reagan’s deregulation of the savings and loan banks by deregulating the financial markets, setting the stage for the “great recession” of 2008-2009.
Al Gore and John Kerry weren’t defeated by George W. Bush because of their economic policies. It was probably Gore’s association with environmentalism and Kerry getting “swift-boated,” or discredited as a war hero. Obama didn’t defeat McCain or Romney because of his economic policies but because the nation thought it was ready for a president who could heal the political divisiveness. It wasn’t.
Trump didn’t defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016 because of his economic policies. Many people were unwilling to vote for a woman, and a lot of people just didn’t like Hillary. I obviously don’t know the real reasons past presidential candidates have won and lost, but I seriously doubt that any election was decided by differences in economic policies.
The presidential campaign of 2024 is like two groups of kids competing for a neighborhood playground that has all sorts of “fun stuff” to play with. One group grew up here and has enjoyed the playgrounds since they were toddlers. They make and enforce the rules of behavior that keep the playgrounds enjoyable for them. However, they have been enjoying it less lately because another group of kids has been hanging around the playground, wanting to play with “their stuff.”
Some of these other kids are from the neighborhood but many have recently moved in from elsewhere. They look different, talk differently, think differently, and act differently, even the kids from the neighborhood who play with them seem different. “They don’t belong here. These other kids are trying to take over ‘our playground.' They are going to play with our stuff and change our rules, and may not even let us play here anymore. More and more of these ‘other kids’ keep moving into our neighborhood.” The kids who have been playing there feel resentful, threatened, even angry. They are afraid of losing their playground and their way of life.
However, this big strong, tough kid shows up at the playground one day and offers to help them protect it from all of those “outsiders.” He has a lot of stuff he has taken away from other kids, so he must be big and tough enough to do whatever he says he can do. He is not a very nice kid and doesn’t play fair, but sometimes cheating is okay if losing is not acceptable. “It’s our playground, and he is going to take it back for us. He is going to make it great again. Even if he takes over the playground and doesn’t let us play here, we don’t want these other kids to have it.”
This story may sound childish, but I don’t have any grown-up explanation for what’s happening in America today. After Trump’s last debate performance, it is obvious that his supporters aren’t concerned about his economic policies or even his ability to articulate coherent thoughts. He sounded defensive, threatened, and angry but frightened of losing.
The government is trying to take away his freedom and give the nation to a bunch of “outsiders” who don’t belong here. Harris represents these outsiders, these “different” people, who are destroying the nation. I suspect many of Trump’s supporters identified with him personally and emotionally and could care less about his plans and policies for health care, the economy, securing the border, or anything else.
When voters are asked today why they plan to vote for Trump or Harris, I doubt that many are giving their real reasons for preferring one over the other. Their real reasons are personal and emotional. They don’t want to be labeled as emotional or irrational, so they say: “It’s the economy.” But it’s not.
John Ikerd
https://www.pewresearch.org/.../how-americans-compare.../...