WSJ.com is available in the following editions and languages:
Thank you for registering.
We sent an email to:
Please click on the link inside the email to complete your registration
Please register to gain free access to WSJ tools.
An account already exists for the email address entered.
Forgot your username or password?
This service is temporary unavailable due to system maintenance. Please try again later.
The username entered is already associated with another account. Please enter a different username
The email address you have entered is already in use.Please re-enter the email address.
From time to time, we will send you e-mail announcements on new features and special offers from The Wall Street Journal Online.
Create a profile for me in the Journal Community
Why Register?
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
As a registered user of The Wall Street Journal Online, you will be able to:
Setup and manage your portfolio
Personalize your own news page
Receive and manage newsletters
Receive and manage newsletters
Keep me logged in. Forgot your password?
Digg
Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, is a former White House correspondent with two decades of experience covering Washington government and politics. Click here for Mr. Brown’s full bio.
As crazy as it sounds given the yawning ideological gap, the Obama White House has always embraced the comparison with Ronald Reagan.
Sure, the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue welcomed the comparison with the Gipper’s communication skills and his ability to win votes from those who normally voted for the other party.
But what really made the Obama White House happy was the view, shared by many Republicans thinkers, that the natural business cycle meant the economy inevitably would be on better footing by the time President Barack Obama stood for a second term, just as it did for Mr. Reagan when he sought a second term.
But in the minutes of last month’s Federal Reserve meeting, made public last week, was this ominous forecast: It could be five or six years before the economy fully recovers from its current ill health. Bear in mind that this comes from the men and women whose job it is to create the best possible economic environment. A full recovery would probably bring unemployment down to around 5%, roughly half the current jobless rate.
The line got relatively scant attention; the headlines went to the Fed slightly lowering its growth forecast.
Expecting an Economic Recovery
Even though all sides expect big Republican gains this November, in part because of the lousy economy there has been little talk about Mr. Obama’s vulnerability in 2012. Much of the reason for that relative optimism for Mr. Obama has been based on the expectation of economic recovery.
If that expectation is unfounded, however, President Obama’s re-election odds might be longer than conventional wisdom has had them.
The public remains pessimistic about the economy and the tepid recovery hasn’t helped. But, another five years until a full recovery would almost certainly exhaust voters’ patience.
Of course, a month is a lifetime in politics, so 28 of them until November 2012 would be forever. Anything can happen in the interim.
The White House had better hope the Fed's timetable is wrong. Otherwise, it is difficult to see how the president’s argument — the economy is getting better and George W. Bush is to blame, anyway– would stand that test of time.
All in the Timing
At this point, Mr. Obama’s overall job approval numbers are in the mid to high 40s - neither terrible nor tremendous. Polls shows Americans still blame Mr. Bush more than Mr. Obama for the economic mess.
A CBS News poll released last week found that about half the American people think the bad economy will last another two years. Half think it will last more than two years. CBS didn’t ask if they thought it would last five or six years. Frankly, that is a lot longer than most people can get their arms around.
Despite Mr. Obama’s mediocre poll numbers, most of the smart money has continued to see him as likely to win in 2012. That's partly because no Republican on the horizon is well-known and well-liked enough to look like a future president.
That, of course, does not mean one will not emerge by 2012. And if economic conditions are poor enough, that will certainly make it easier for one or several to step up.
Or, after the Democrats absorb an expected defeat in the midterm congressional elections this November, the economy could turn upward and prove the Fed to be too pessimistic. If so, that could bail out the president’s re-election prospects. That’s what happened to Mr. Reagan.
Reagan's Example
His Republicans took a shellacking in the 1982 midterm elections, which came as the country was stuck in a steep recession with an unemployment rate that was higher than today's 9.3% rate.
Mr. Reagan spent most of 1982 mired in the lows 40s in his job approval rating from the public. That’s few points lower than President Obama's current rating. Mr. Reagan bottomed out at a 35% approval rating in Gallup in January of 1983, but then the economy and the public view of it turned up.
Less than two years later, Mr. Reagan was re-elected. He carried 49 of the 50 states with a campaign theme of “Morning in America,” reflecting the public’s sunny view of the economy in November of 1984.
Until recently, both Republican and Democratic insiders had looked at the Reagan experience as the likely one for today’s economy.
But if the Federal Reserve turns out to be on target, both the economic and political conventional wisdom need reappraisals.
Write to Peter Brown at peter.brown@quinnipiac.edu.
Yahoo! Buzz
MySpace
Read Full Article »