Obama: blame and credit, credit and blame
Commenter “Richard” calls scathing attention to a meme that I’ve noticed becoming common among Democrats these days: “the Obama Recovery.”
Simply put, it is the assertion that economic effects are delayed in a very special fashion with Obama. Everything bad that happened to the economy during the 8 years of Obama’s presidency was Bush’s fault and was blamed on Bush, including the slowness of whatever recovery there was.. And everything good that might happen to the economy during Trump’s presidency (however long he may last as president) is to Obama’s credit, not Trump’s.
It’s really quite simple. Remember Marc Antony’s funeral oration in Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”?:
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar.
That’s what Obama said about Bush: the evil lives after him, on and on and on, making it impossible for successor Obama. And now the opposite for the legacy of Obama: any recovery under Trump is one owned by Obama.
Obama was the first president in my memory to blame his predecessor—pretty much incessantly—for what went wrong during his own tenure. It was actually one of the first things I ever noticed about Obama, back when he was campaigning in 2008, and it seemed unusual to me at the time, although now (unfortunately) we’ve gotten very used to it. In fact, I even coined a phrase for Obama back then: “the blame duck.”
What follows is the text of a post I wrote on the subject in July of 2010:
Abe Greenwald of Commentary puts his finger on one characteristic of Obama’s that strikes an especially discordant note: his repetitive need to pass the buck and make excuses.
It was one of the very first things I noticed about Obama, and it later moved me to coin the descriptive name for him that appears in the title of this post: the blame duck.
Here’s Greenwald on the subject of Obama’s excuses:
Imagine a man who is up for a sales job at a company in crisis. He tells his prospective boss that not only will he rescue sales but he’ll also lower costs, turn out a better product, get the competition to cooperate instead of compete, raise wages, improve the food in the company commissary, and redecorate the offices to boot. This man then gets hired. For a year, sales continue to lag, and everything else stays the same. The new employee explains that the guy who used to have his job left behind an unconscionable mess, which has made it very hard to do the things he had promised in the interview phase. After a year and a half, sales hit an historic low, the product is being recalled, competitors have formed a guild and are pulling ahead, everyone at the company has taken a salary hit, a few people have gotten food poisoning in the commissary, and the offices are more dilapidated than ever. On top of that, vendors can’t get him on the phone, he’s insulted his co-workers, and he’s taken more vacation time than the company allows. The boss finally asks him what’s gone wrong. “I could never have lived up to your expectations,” the man says.
It’s not just the blaming and the excuse-making itself, it’s the fact that such behavior is unprecedented in a president in my lifetime. What’s more, it’s that nearly half of the American public isn’t yet turned off by this sort of thing in a POTUS. Back when I was growing up, such an approach by a president would be unthinkable and even (yes, I know this isn’t PC) unmanly. It just wasn’t done; it was weak and unseemly and showed lack of leadership.
The fact that it now seems acceptable is probably a result of the decades-long abdication of the idea of personal responsibility, beginning in the school system with the self-esteem movement. Obama may be the first president who not only is a product of that system, but more importantly, was elected by people raised in that system. He knows his audience well.
Barry carried that off because he had the entire MSM carrying his water.
The MSM gave flattering judgments usually accorded dictators, kings and tyrants at every turn of his screw-ups.
Never take responsibility or admit your mistakes or accept defeat. The law student must always make an argument why it just ain’t so. Come up with a dozen excuses and go with the one that poll tests best.
The more curious thing is,
“… it’s that nearly half of the American public isn’t yet turned off by this sort of thing in a POTUS.”
I’d say that phrase puts it mildly. A great many actually embrace “this sort of thing.” My conjecture is that most of the latter group, at least the better educated ones, KNOW that it is crap and espouse it anyway.
I’d guess that for some it is akin to the extreme loyalty or fanaticism that so many profess for their favorite football team or other. For the religious true believers it is probably like being Col. von Stauffenberg planting a bomb that blows up Hitler and his top advisors. Sure planting bombs is bad, but we’re stopping fascism!
Yep, this is mainly a media enabled phenomenon. They furiously worked to portray everything Obama did in the most favorable light and we are now seeing in full glory how with Trump they take everything in the most negative light imaginable. This includes lying and a particularly annoying tendency to purposely misrepresent what Trump said. The biggest example of this remains his offhand joke during the campaign that he hoped the Russians could find the rest of Hillary’s lost emails. It was an obvious joke since the server had long been in FBI possession but this story still pops up now and then as some sort of proof of collusion or something.
In the here and now, we’ve got a president busily engaged in an edifying Twitter spat with Alec Baldwin.
I noticed early on that Obama was always a victim. When people always claim to be a victim what they are really saying is they are a loser. They can’t cope with and overcome adversity.
Just like the other boy-leaders (Trudeau & Macron) 0 should never had been granted a seat at the adult table.
That he was given that privilege twice & left such a mess on the table & floor around him should surprise no one.
His “parents” made all the excuses for him then & still do. Again to the un-surprise of all who knew what would happen when children run the show. Only term limits kept us from a Lord of the Flies re-make.
I think one of Obama’s greatest achievements is all the racial healing. He may be the world’s best community disorganizer.
The sooner the good is interred with Obama’s bones the better for everyone. Especially Michelle.
Obama is indeed “unmanly”. He is a spoiled mannish boy. All that is good flows from him and all that is bad belongs to others, despite the fact his fingerprints are all over the bad. He is the most dangeroud POTUS in our history. I could use stronger words to describe bho, but not in polite company.
Obama was the first president in my memory to blame his predecessor–pretty much incessantly–for what went wrong during his own tenure. It was actually one of the first things I ever noticed about Obama..
In your lifetime and my lifetime, yes. Before we were born, Hoover got quite a bit of blame for quite a long time.
Regarding the Demos changing their theme- well that is what they do. Recall how many different times in the last 20 years the Massachusetts legislature has changed the procedure for filling a US Senate vacancy.
On a related note, former President Bill Clinton has gotten a lot of credit for the good economy of the 1990s, when it would be more fair to say that he was just really lucky, and had the benefit of good timing (as has been true for his whole life, going from poverty in Arkansas to the Presidency). The reality is that any President would have done well in that period, with the digital revolution, the rise of the Internet, free trade, and the end of the Cold War.
There’s a lot of blame to go around for the 2008 financial crisis, and there are a lot of people who should have recognized the problem and dealt with it before it got that bad. Mr. Obama had the benefit of good political timing, and with no responsibility for the crisis.
To fairly evaluate Mr. Obama when he was in charge, it seems clear that he was more interested in fairness and redistribution, rather than economic growth. Increased regulations led to a slow recovery and lackluster growth (under 3% of GDP), for which he can be fairly held responsible. One can only imagine what might have happened if the Democrats had not lost control of Congress. Perhaps the average American voters had more confidence elsewhere.
Yankee, 10:13 pm — “Bill Clinton has gotten a lot of credit for the good economy of the 1990s, when it would be more fair to say that he was just really lucky, . . . .”
Ya think the 1994 “Contract With America” election, and the Gingrich Congress that it subsequently brought into power, might’a’ had a little sumpin’ to do with it?
The elephant in the room, which I’m really kind of shocked no one has mentioned yet, is race. Obama was the first black president. Early on, it became extremely important to assuage white guilt over racism in America’s past, that he be elected and then, once elected, not be criticized in ordinary terms.
Even now, it’s impossible to discuss him in, as I said, ordinary terms. Nobody wants to listen, or hear. And he succeeded in making any criticism of any black person, for anything, “racism.”
Be afraid, be very afraid, of Michelle Obama running for president in 2020. It may well be like Lurleen Wallace — the wife of George Wallace — down in Alabama, back in the day. Or Evita Peron. Nothing objective, no “facts” will matter. It’ll all just be about feelings. Feeling good.
Neo:
There’s a term for a delayed economic effect. Its called a Lagging Indicator:
Examples of lagging indicators are the unemployment rate and the GDP, as the article I linked to states.
So this is not a special concept dreamt up to help Obama. What we are seeing in the first year of the Trump Admin is indeed the effects of policy made under the previous admin. That’s why we saw them during Obama’s Presidency. They are as plain as day a continuation of a trend. Econ 101.
To be fair, there are also Leading Indicators, those that predict the future. The stock market is the most famous one. So the Dow’s new highs under Trump are indeed the result of Trump’s policies, even though those polices have not gone into effect and even though the Dow also hit new highs under Obama.
I think Trump is very much the cause of the recovery but not for the reason you might think. I think we have been following the FDR model of what I think of as regulated capitalism since the 30s. Every time the economy crashes we stimulate using Keynesian economic theory and put new regulations in place. Dot com bubble – bipartisan Sarbanes Oxley. Property bubble – bipartisan Dodd Frank. It has stopped working because the regulation is mostly ineffective and adds to the burden on the private sector. The cynical nickname for Sarbanes Oxley is “The Accountant and Lawyers welfare act of 2004.” And of course it requires another army of bureaucrats to scrutinise the regulatory paperwork prepared by the lawyers and accountants. BOTH Bush and Obama just let congress do its usual regulatory thing and managed to choke the economy despite putting unprecedented amounts of stimulus into it. It IS the Bush Obama recovery in one sense in that they put in the money to create the necessary stimulation and got 2%. All Trump did was take his foot off the brake that no one in our elites even understood they were standing on.
I’d pay good money to see Hillary debate Michelle. On a slightly more serious note, I’m not all that afraid of Michelle. Of course, I’m bad on judging Obamas. I though Obama taking money from someone who bombed the Pentagon would make him unelectable.
I was wrong.
Manju:
I’m aware of the lagging indicator as an economic theory and/or principle.
I am talking about the liberal way it’s been applied to Obama by the press, and the way Obama uses blame, a way that is completely different from his predecessors (in my lifetime anyway; I can’t speak for earlier historical presidents).
I’m not an economist, but I certainly have closely followed the economy, and Obama’s policies caused a lack of consumer and business confidence that Trump’s have changed into something more positive.
Statisticians have politics too, as do economists. And if you think they are completely objective in their work, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Isn’t it funny, Manju, how this delayed result of Obama’s policies started to occur almost immediately after Trump’s election?:
Of course you can, if you’re determined to do so—as you’ve proven.
Under Obama, by the way, there certainly was a recovery compared to the nadir of when he took office. But the recovery never really got going the way people expected it to, although the press tried mightily to convince us it had. Obama’s policies had a chilling effect on business, compared to what Trump has done—so far.
Which doesn’t mean things couldn’t go south in the future.
In re
blert Says:
March 2nd, 2018 at 3:32 pm
Barry carried that off because he had the entire MSM carrying his water.
Griffin Says:
March 2nd, 2018 at 3:43 pm
Yep, this is mainly a media enabled phenomenon.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0218/hanson020718.php3
Why FISA-gate is scarier than Watergate
By Victor Davis Hanson
Published Feb. 8,2018
“How does FISA-gate compare to Watergate and Iran-Contra?
Once again, an administration is being accused of politicizing government agencies to further agendas, this time apparently to gain an advantage for Hillary Clinton in the run-up to an election.
There is also the same sort of government resistance to releasing documents under the pretext of “national security.”
There is a similar pattern of slandering congressional investigators and whistleblowers as disloyal and even treasonous.
There is the rationale that just as the Watergate break-in was a two-bit affair, Carter Page was a nobody.
But there is one huge (and ironic) difference. In the current FISA-gate scandal, most of the media and liberal civil libertarians are now opposing the disclosure of public documents. They are siding with those in the government who disingenuously sought surveillance to facilitate the efforts of a political campaign.”
“There’s a term for a delayed economic effect. Its called a Lagging Indicator:”
There’s a term for such an argument in this particular case. It’s called “specious”. AKA “sheer sophistry”. AKA “wishful thinking”. AKA “stand by your man”…..
In the 10-year DJIA chart shown here…
http://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years
…we see that after the exploded bubble that helped propel Obama to the WH, the DJIA did make some impressive gains. (Some might claim that this was inevitable, but whatever the reason, they are impressive. And they occurred during the Obama administration.)
Note however (back to the chart), that for the last year-and-a-half of Obama’s presidency (from Feb. 23, 2015, when the DJIA was 18,116.84, to Nov 7, 2016, when the DJIA was 18, 259.60), the DJIA essentially flat-lined.
Once again: the DJOA essentially flat-lined (with dips and recoveries) for the last year and a half of the Obama administration.
And note that following Nov. 7, 2016 (i.e., following Trump’s election on Nov. 8, 2016) it shot up.
Maybe this was due to the natural exuberance in response to a new face in the WH. Maybe this was due to luck. Maybe this was due to TRUMP and a belief that he would end Obama’s hamstringing of the US economy. Maybe it was due to something else.
But to attribute it to a “Lagging Indicator” (given the general upward trend that occurred during the Obama administration before Feb. 23, 2015) is sheer sophistry.
Neo:
What an odd think to say to someone who just said this:
See last paragraph of my comment above.
Barry Meislin, let me know when you find whoever called the stock market a “Lagging Indicator”. I’ll help you beat the crap out of him. As I stated above:
Highlights added to aid reading comprehension.
Manju:
Not an odd thing to say to someone (you!) who had just said this: “What we are seeing in the first year of the Trump Admin is indeed the effects of policy made under the previous admin.”
My remark was not limited to your talking about the stock market. Here’s what I actually wrote to you:
You, however, added your own bracketed interpretation of my meaning, as follows: “Of course you can [argue with the results of the stock market under Trump], if you’re determined to do so–as you’ve proven.”
No, I wasn’t saying that you had argued specifically with the results of the stock market. I was saying you were arguing with results in terms of economic policy. I followed that by a discussion of the economic recovery under Obama, not the stock market specifically, which was not in any way the main subject matter of my comment to you.
“What we are seeing in the first year of the Trump Admin is indeed the effects of policy made under the previous admin. That’s why we saw them during Obama’s Presidency. They are as plain as day a continuation of a trend. Econ 101.”
Hmmm. What we—seem to—have here is a failure t’ communicate….
Have I really misunderstood/misconstrued your comment?
If so, apologies….
Pingback:House of Eratosthenes