Michael Kinsley had some spare time while watching the Democratic National Convention and had a brain storm. Why not download economic data and see if the economy performs better under Democratic Presidents or Republican Presidents.
Kinsley found the following:
It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win in a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. (The underlying data can be downloaded at www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/index.html.) Real growth averaged 4.09 percent in Democratic years, 2.75 percent in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44 percent, on average, under Republican presidents, and 5.33 percent under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87 percent of the gross domestic product, compared with 19.58 percent), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76 percent for the Democrats, 14.97 percent for the Republicans).What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81 percent on average, compared with 4.85 percent). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans than Democrats (2.74 percent of GDP versus 1.21 percent). Republicans won by a nose on government revenue (i.e., taxes), taking 18.12 percent of GDP, compared with 18.39 percent. That, of course, is why they lost on the size of the deficit.
Is that Kinsley guy smart or what?
Posted by Dwight Meredith at August 8, 2004 10:55 AM | TrackBackNice work, Dwight.
Here's the thing, though. Democrats prior to roughly the 1972 presidential election (and quite possibly up to the 1994 Congressional election) universally stood as the party of the New Deal, and later, the Great Society. Democrats were not squeamish about big-time tax and spend distributional programs that had the virtue of being big-time popular: social security, followed by Medicare/Medicaid.
Oh- Food Stamps is a really good program too-- and I submit, pretty popular. AFDC got too complicated -- and frankly, stirred up too much of a tinge of racism to be popular-- but the Dems failed to jump on how CHEAP it was (around 1% of the fed. budget)-- and hence, given its value-- keeping the poorest of the poor fed, housed and clothed- it really was a bargain.
The fact is, spending big-time money on things like old age pensions and government health programs is actually EFFICIENT: it means employers can devote more wage money on cash wages, and less on pension plans (or, we would hope on health insurance). Canada is now competing very well with us, because ITS employers know that the state (province, actually) is carrying the ball on health insurance. While their taxes are higher-- they are not RADICALLY higher. It means that the GOP sado-monetarist policies: largely devoted to dismantling the social safety net to put money in a few people's hands-- is inefficient, which is why you see the numbers you do.
See-- the Democrats were about the big picture stuff- not targeted tax breaks or school uniforms-- but big stuff. The stuff a nation of conscience does in the face of opponents who like things Dickensian.
Well, Dickensian conditions are actually not efficient in the macro: while some people make out like bandits (generally, these people behave very much like bandits), most people, in miserable conditions, spit out far lower economic output than if things are, in general pretty nice.
A lesson of the new deal lost on, well, Republicans, and for a while now, Democrats too. It looks to me like John Edwards, at least, understands this. He's using code words-- but what he seems to means is the Great Society and the New Deal better not be dismantled any further. We need to go back on that path.
Now, if we can just get that clarity into general Democratic policy, I think we'll get somewhere. We can start with remembering that while "liberal" may now be a dirty word, liberal policies are POPULAR. Its time to stop running away from them.
Hey, weren't you supposed to call this weekend? :-)
Posted by: MB at August 8, 2004 10:04 PMYes i was. Sorry. School starts tomorrow and we have been scrambling to get ready. Soon, I promise.
Posted by: Dwight Meredith at August 8, 2004 10:28 PMI vaguely remember someone (perhaps you?) writing about a year or so ago that even if you lag the accounting by two years (to take into consideration the argument that Dubya's problems are really Clinton's)Democrats come out ahead in the historical data. True?
Posted by: plunkitt at August 14, 2004 08:03 PM