One-Term Obama?
The Politico features a recent discussion by two writers for the New York Times:
White House reporters for The New York Times predict that the market collapse will force President-elect Barack Obama to abandon for now many of his campaign promises.
If his stimulus plan “doesn’t work out, he may very well be a one-term president,” said Jeff Zeleny, who covered Obama’s campaign. “It’s hard to imagine that he could be reelected if the economy’s in the exact same position four years from now.”
“A lot of the things he said on the campaign trail you can now dispense with,” said correspondent Peter Baker. “For the moment he has to focus on the economy.”
The reporters, gathered at a Sunday afternoon panel at the New York Times Center in New York City, largely concurred with the assessment that turning around the economy now trumps the issues Obama focused on from the stump until the market meltdown in August.
Baker suggested Obama would tackle smaller-scale issues related to his major agenda items as a kind of political “down payment” on his promises, for now would retreat from even some of his firmest pledges.
“You’re not going to see universal health care, I don’t think, this year,” Baker said. “You’re not going to see a cap on carbon emissions, as he has promised, probably, this year.”
No universal health care or cap on carbon emissions this year? Thank goodness! But what about the larger premise here? Is Obama a one-termer?
I doubt it very much. Yes, Zeleny is correct that Obama would not get a second term if the economy didn’t improve by November, 2012. That would be quite remarkable…and if that were the case, we really WOULD be in the middle of a second great depression. But I know of no one who is predicting this downturn will last THAT long.
The far more likely scenario is that Obama will benefit from excellent timing. He takes office near the bottom, then things gradually start picking up near the end of 2009. By the end of 2010, we should be in a full-blown recovery.
Any guarantees of that? No, of course not…but it seems a reasonable prediction, and it fits pretty much with the economic consensus. And under that scenario, and barring a major surprise (let’s hope there are no more 9/11-type disasters, much less a Katrina), it’s hard to imagine Obama NOT getting a second term.
On a whole different level, though, it’s absurd to speculate on a second term yet – the man hasn’t even been inaugurated!…
Good lord, the man isn’t even in office yet and we’re speculating on the conditions that would lead to him not being elected to a second term?!? Must be a slow couple of days for the pundit crowd. Setting aside my surprise and irritation at these speculators, I would agree with you Mark that expectations are being set so low for President Obama that it will be difficult for him to eff it up. Then again, the voters are a fickle bunch… who knows what they will choose to blame him for in four years.
Using the same logic, FDR would have been a one term President.
Obama has one thing going for him. He’s lucky. Every phase of his career has been helped by great good luck. His timing is superb. Bush brought the Iraq war to a successful conclusion, so he doesn’t have to make good on his promises in that area. The financial crisis of 08 killed McCain’s chances of the presidency. The current financial situation prevents him from fulfilling his other crackpot ideas: reduced emissions, universal medical care, and other disasters.
It’s a whole lot better to be lucky than smart. I just hope the country shares his phenomenal good lluck.
“Luck happens when preparation meets opportunity.” – you make a mistake if you deny him credit for being prepared.
“Bush brought the Iraq war to a successful conclusion”
*ahem*
I disagree with the premise of this post. There have been extended economic slowdowns in the past, the late seventies comes to mind. Three things will contribute to the economic slowdown continuing:
1) The massive amount of money poured into the economy by the Fed and the TARP program will cause massive inflation within a year or two.
2) The economic stimulus package, a disaster in the making, will actually cause the economy to slow down due to it’s anti-growth nature
3) Democrats will over-reach and create policies that slow down the economy.
What will likely happen is that there will be a brief uptick, in which Obama will claim victory and achievement, and then the actions of this past year and the upcoming Democrat congress will catch up with him, leaving the economy in a Carter-like malaise by 2012. Of course, a lot can happen, but this is the most likely scenario.
As far as the FDR / Obama comparison left by Peter, Americans are a lot less patient than they were in the past. The late 20th century and this whole decade showed Americans unprecidented prosperity, which they have gotten used to. If things don’t change inside a year, people will turn on Obama, as there were many people who hesitatingly voted for him because they wanted change, but were/are not Obama-believers.
Serious people are worried about deflation. No one sees any danger, at least in the short term, of inflation.
Aside from the large chunk devoted to tax cuts, which, because of their lower “multiplier”, have less stimulative effect than direct spending, how is the package “anti-growth”?
We should be so lucky.