Up front, let me be brutally clear: For reasons that have much more to do with my gut than with my brain, I think both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were reasonably good Presidents. Were either of them perfect? Hell no. Were they the best Presidents since the founding of the country? Absolutely not. But they each turned in respectable performances, and — on an admittedly selfish level — my thoughts about the future were generally optimistic and my good fortune was considerably advanced while they were each in office.
That said, I think my optimism during those years perhaps had more to do with these Presidents’ rhetorical flourish than with reality, and the progress in my personal (and familial) well-being had more to do with a combination of good luck, good upbringing, and old-fashioned hard work than it had to do with either man’s domestic policies.
Taking all of that into consideration, I’m baffled when I read columns like Paul Krugman’s yesterday, in which the always confrontational NYT columnist insisted (once again) on denying anything remotely good from Reagan’s tenure while pointing to many good things (sans one) during the Bill Clinton years.
Damozel has already offered her take on Krugman’s column. While she is, in her words, “not a Krugman apostle,” her experience during Reagan’s tenure jived with Krugman’s claims. I respect that. But my experience was much different, which proves nothing more than the conventional wisdom that most of us are (a) favorable toward Presidents who were in the White House during years when we/those-we-know did well and felt good about the future, and (b) unfavorable toward Presidents who were in the White House when we/those-we-know didn’t do well and/or worried incessantly about the next shoe to drop.
In turn, these varying perspectives beg two age-old questions, namely: “What is the scope of a President’s influence? And can any President single-handedly change the personal fortunes of a nation?” My non-expert answers: The president is (or largely should be) an inspirational leader, setting the tone for a nation, representing it well on the world stage, etc. Beyond that, he/she really can accomplish very little, and the lasting impact of his/her domestic policies will likely (a) not be realized during his/her tenure; and (b) even if they are, take a back seat to other forces beyond his/her control.
Case in point:
Krugman claims that “The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder … there was a boom in the mid-1980s … ” and “[w]hen the inevitable recession arrived [circa 1990-92], people felt betrayed.” I could apply the same gross generalizations to Clinton’s presidency. There was a boom in the mid-1990s and then, before the next President could complete his first year, the bottom fell out. Granted, part of that economic disaster was induced by the events of 9/11/01. But re-check the facts. The economy was in a serious slide before 9/11. So, was Bill Clinton to blame for the years of short-lived prosperity that rose and fell on the back of an unsustainable and eventually burst bubble? No. No more so than Reagan was to blame for the eventual run-out-of-gas events of the early 90’s.
Face it, folks: Economic cycles come and go. Presidents do what they can, but their influence is limited. Where Presidents stumble is the point at which they fail to inspire, the point at which they allow, enable, or directly contribute to counterproductive levels of division and bickering. Carter and Bush #2 did just that. One (Carter) seemed powerless to inspire and unite. The other (Bush #2) allowed Cheney/Rove to throw inspiration and unity out the window in favor of a strategy that was rooted in and drew its power from division and bickering. Reagan and Clinton, on the other hand, wielded the inspirational brush with great flare, prompting a nation (by and large) to re-conceive itself and believe (again) in its potential.
Similar traits make Obama such a tantalizing figure today. In turn, those traits make parallels between Obama and Reagan (and Clinton, for that matter) valid — regardless of how much the former may irritate Mr. Krugman.