The United States is still struggling with the economic recession. The Bush administration wrecked the economy which played quite an important role in the election of a Democrat president. Nevertheless, the U.S. could not leave the crisis behind with its new administration. Actually, the numbers are slightly better but the recovery is taking place at a slow pace. The voters underlined its inadequacy in the midterm elections by giving control of the House to the Republican Party. They may do the same for the Oval Office in 2012 as well.
The economy holds the top of the list as the most important problem of the country. According to a Gallup poll conducted on Jan. 7-9, 29 percent of Americans responded that the most important problem in the country is unemployment and 26 percent gave the answer of the economy in general. Thus, the main concerns pertain to the economy and this situation may continue for some time. Last week Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress that the recovery for the job market may take four or five years. From past experiences we know that the U.S. electorate tends to punish the incumbent presidents for bad economic performance and reward for their successes. Hence, the continuance of the current economic situation may end with a disaster for the Obama administration in the 2012 presidential elections.
In the parliamentary systems, the incumbent prime ministers may avoid the responsibility for economic failure in the coalition governments by blaming the other partners. Nonetheless, in the U.S., with the presidential system, the West Wing is almost always the clear address to be blamed for economic crises. U.S. voters punish the presidents in the elections even if the economic problems resulted from factors that are not under presidential control. For instance, the increased inflation during the Carter administration was mostly due to OPECs increase in the oil price but as the president he paid the price by losing the elections in 1980.
George H. W. Bush is another example for such punishment. Bush promised in 1988 that even in the case of repeated Congress pushes for taxes he would say, Read my lips: no new taxes. Yet, in order to cope with the budget deficit he had to break his pledge. According to the 1992 National Election Survey, seven out of 10 thought that the economy got worse during the Bush administration. In addition his opponent Bill Clinton campaigned heavily on the economy with his famous phrase, Its the economy, stupid! In the end, Bush lost his second chance to be elected despite closing the stage of the Cold War and ending the Vietnam trauma along with the Gulf War as foreign policy successes in his term. The Obama administration may face the same result with the delay of economic recovery. And the next president may well enjoy the recovered economy for reelection in 2016.
In the U.S., electoral behavior scholars suggest retrospective voting about the performance on economy. But there are examples of prospective voting as well. In short, the voters punish the incumbent for a bad economic performance but they also reward the presidents when they are successful. There are two major examples of this situation: the reelections of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. In the 1984 election campaign, Reagan reminded voters of the economic situation and reiterated the question that he wanted the voters to ask themselves before making their choice: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? And the majority of the voters responded to the question with Yes, which played an important role in defeating his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale. Clinton, in his first term, succeeded in upturning the economy. As Alvarez and Nagler pointed out, the perception of economic success played quite a significant role in Clintons reelection whereas in their hypothetical bad economic performance scenario he would have clearly lost the election to Bob Dole.
Is the economy, in short, the sole determinant of elections? Of course not! Economy is a vital factor but it is not the only or always dominant one. For instance, in the 2004 presidential elections the dominant issues were terrorism and moral values. The Sept. 11 trauma was still influential in that Bin Laden threats were increasing the security concern and the mission accomplished speech of the incumbent pointed to Bush as the better protector. Besides, the concerns on same-sex marriage and Bushs appeal to born-again Christians provided a mobilization of voters in favor of him. Thus, in the 2004 presidential elections economy performance was subordinated to the perceived performance about providing security against the threats to the country and identity.
Thus, in the case of threat, the voters primarily may evaluate the candidates for security reasons. Yet, at least for now there is not such a big threat posed to the U.S. Moreover, the public concern for terrorism is almost nonexistent. Thus, the economy seems to be the dominant theme in the 2012 elections. In retrospective or prospective terms the economy is a vital factor for the U.S. electorate. This is not simply because the Americans just think about their pockets. Indeed, Americans are mostly voting for the general well-being of the nation rather than their individual economic situation. But in either way the economy seems to play a significant role in the next presidential elections. Can the economy block the second term chances of the Obama administration? Yes, it can!
* This comment is first published in Hurriyet Daily News.
0 comments:
Post a Comment