Blog @ MoreWhat.com

On the one hand it is understandable that ordinary citizens would hold money matters as central to their thinking especially in an election year. On the other hand that thinking may be flawed and the average voter may be selecting a candidate based on something over which they have little or no control. It is again the MSM who is fanning the economy flames in this election. If it wasn’t obvious to you in months past it should be now. The coverage if you can call it that is now all Obama, all the time with constant reminders that the economy is the big issue.

It’s not the economy, stupid!!! The MSM knows that wallet issues are sensational and drive readership, viewership and ad revenue. They are supporting the notion that the 2008 US Presidential election is all about the economy. Early in this campaign season when it appeared the war in Iraq would be the central issue in the election the MSM supported the notion that everything was wrong with Iraq and the GOP was to blame. The Democratic party Presidential contenders were all about immediate withdrawal and their surrogates like MoveOn were shamelessly attacking General Petraeus with outrageous insults. When they learned that immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster they all changed their tune and MoveOn became silent. Now they push the economic issue as the war issue failed them.

The excerpt and link below suggests a realistic view on the economy and the President’s limited influence over it. Something lost on most MSM treatment of the topic now that election day is so close.

No matter which party you belong to, or which Big Idea or school of economic policy you subscribe to, one thing is clear: Globalization has overwhelmed Washington’s ability to control the economy. Whether you’re a Republican supply-side tax-cutter, a Wall Street deficit hawk of either party, or a Silicon Valley techie type, your preferred levers of economic policy just don’t work as well as they once did.

As recently as 10 years ago, the U.S. economy was still relatively self-contained. Then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan–often called the most powerful man in the world–could be sure that the U.S. economic machine would eventually respond when he called for higher or lower rates. Tax and spending decisions made in Washington could set the course for growth, while economic events in the rest of the world, such as the Asian financial crisis of the mid-1990s, were felt as minor bumps.

That has changed. Since 1995 imports have risen from 12% of gross domestic product to about 17%. And foreign money finances about 32% of U.S. domestic investment, up from 7% in 1995. In other words, the U.S. is more open to the global economy than ever before, and the links run in both directions. Now many of the levers affecting the U.S. economy are located not in Washington but in Beijing, London, and even Mexico City.

Below is another reference to why the economy is not something a President can control. While it is true that Presidents like to take credit for a good economy and their opponents like to tag them with responsibility for a bad one the fact remains they have little to do with it beyond a mistakenly perceived connection.

It Ain’t the Economy, Stupid
Why no president can control our $14 trillion engine

As the economy weakens and the campaign intensifies, we’ll hear more of James Carville’s familiar refrain: It’s the economy, stupid. Well, it ain’t or, at least, shouldn’t be. I’m not claiming that Carville is wrong about voting. People vote their pocketbooks. In the latest Washington Post-ABC NewS poll, the economy overshadows Iraq as the most important issue by 39 percent to 19. What I’m saying is that this sort of voting is shortsighted. It rewards or punishes candidates for something beyond their power.

A surprising report from a member of the MSM questioned the value of the economic issue in an election some time ago. But of course the topic is receiving another type of attention lately.

Economy May Not Influence Election As It Has in Past
Polls Contradict Forecasting Models

Economists who say economic conditions can be used to explain the outcome of almost every presidential election since at least the 1950s are perplexed.

The character, personal attributes, history and experience of candidates should be placed more prominently in the mind of voters before casting their vote. If you review economic events throughout the last few decades you will find that Presidents had little to do with it and we all survived just like we will this time. The short sighted view of the economy as the central issue in this campaign only serves the left in dismissing and distracting from the flaws of the Obama candidacy. Voting merely on economic matters and supporting Obama for that reason will render those voters accomplices in the single largest scam ever perpetrated against the public in the US.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 21st, 2008 at 1:20 pm and is filed under Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, McCain, obama. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.