« NYTimes article on cost of healthcare reform | MiddleClassBill's Blog | Senator Boxer - try some etiquette lessons »
Liberals versus conservatives
A new Gallup poll shows that "Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% moderate and 21% liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the US since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004".
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx
These results show, in my opinion, that America is a center-right nation. It also highlights the impressive personal victory of Obama's election but it was not an ideological turning point for America. It also highlights that the Republican party is in significantly worse shape than the conservative movement.
Our President is extremely popular and I do not underestimate the value in this. He is both liked and trusted by the public, which gives him the latitude currently to act in ways that others could not. And Obama is exceptionally good at making his policies sound different than they are. Still, Obama is governing to the left of where he ran, in a nation that is significantly more conservative than it is liberal. So while much of the public has been willing to defer to him so far, I do not think the public's patience is endless. If Obama's policies are seen as starting to contribute to our probems rather than solving them - and the staggering deficit and debt we are seeing are going to trigger some unpleasant outcomes and choices - the political climate can change very rapidly. There's only so long that unemployment can rise but he can claim that he has "saved" jobs. There's only so long that people can think that their taxes aren't going up - just wait for the day that your healthcare benefits start to be taxed and your utility bills go through the roof because of the new cap-and-trade taxes.
The President remains in a very strong position, but he is far from invincible.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx
These results show, in my opinion, that America is a center-right nation. It also highlights the impressive personal victory of Obama's election but it was not an ideological turning point for America. It also highlights that the Republican party is in significantly worse shape than the conservative movement.
Our President is extremely popular and I do not underestimate the value in this. He is both liked and trusted by the public, which gives him the latitude currently to act in ways that others could not. And Obama is exceptionally good at making his policies sound different than they are. Still, Obama is governing to the left of where he ran, in a nation that is significantly more conservative than it is liberal. So while much of the public has been willing to defer to him so far, I do not think the public's patience is endless. If Obama's policies are seen as starting to contribute to our probems rather than solving them - and the staggering deficit and debt we are seeing are going to trigger some unpleasant outcomes and choices - the political climate can change very rapidly. There's only so long that unemployment can rise but he can claim that he has "saved" jobs. There's only so long that people can think that their taxes aren't going up - just wait for the day that your healthcare benefits start to be taxed and your utility bills go through the roof because of the new cap-and-trade taxes.
The President remains in a very strong position, but he is far from invincible.
Advertisement
It's not nearly so clearcut:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018628.php
June 16, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's more clear-cut than you're willing to admit, along social issues and everything else.
June 16, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, label drift occurs.
June 16, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls are funny things. Questions can be framed and the data can be interpreted to reach any conclusion desired. If anything Americans might view themselves as conservative as in 'cautious' as opposed to being on the political right.
June 16, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Bill,
I think that Liberals vs. Conservatives may be less relevant than Money vs. Not.
What for instance is a Conservative and what is a Liberal?
Each person asked will have a different perception of the meaning of those labels.
Polls are polls.
June 16, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls are polls...unless it's a poll that shows Obama leading McCain...and then it shows that America is completely behind everything that Obama says!!!
June 17, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If Obama's policies are seen as starting to contribute to our probems rather than solving them - and the staggering deficit and debt we are seeing are going to trigger some unpleasant outcomes and choices - the political climate can change very rapidly."
That won't much matter, so long as Republicans don't have answers any different from those which have ALREADY brought us the ugly situation you describe. The GOP "strategy" of rooting for the failure of the nation - which effectively is indistinguishable from the failure of Obama's policies - won't lead the country back to the GOP. That's why Republicans have to come up with serious policy alternatives that aren't a rehash of disastrous Reagan/Bush policies.
June 17, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love how you just throw around generalities (talking points?) of how GOP strategies or ideas are just the "same old thing". And also, somehow it was the GOP's ideas that "brought us the ugly situation". No one is rooting for the failure of our nation. None of these statements are accurate but you've raised too many points to discuss any one in detail. I'd be happy to debate them if you wanted to create a separate blog.
Such thinking is why I feel that people have such blinders on. People are so rooted in their party. There are plenty of good policies that past presidents did, including Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc, etc.
Today there are plenty of good ideas that conservatives such as Paul Ryan are putting forth which sound a lot better to me than running an average trillion dollar deficit every for the next 10 years.
June 17, 2009 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the 2009 GOP economic prescription in an nutshell:
1. Capital gains tax cuts.
2. Inheritance tax cuts.
3. Laissez-faire free-markets.
It's the same as since 1980. It's the same as what brought us to the edge of economic precipice where we standing on now. As far as the national debt is concerned, Ronald Reagan's "conservative" policies added more to the debt than had all the Presidents before him, combined. G.W. Bush's "conservative" policies added more to the national debt than all of the presidents before him, combined, including Reagan. The ONLY president in the last 30 years to reduce the debt was Democrat Bill Clinton.
I did not say that all of what Reagan did was bad, although, I do think a good case could be made for that being true about G.W. Bush. What I said was that the very outcomes which you expressed concern that Obama's policies will produce have already been produced by Regan's and Bush's policies. Only a hypocrite, Bill, would express concern about what Obama's policies might bring, and then get self-righteous even huffy when someone points out that Reagan and Bush policies have already produced exactly those outcomes.
Yes, ideological blinders are a hell of a thing. One often doesn't recognize wearing them, even when firmly strapped around one's head - I'm over here, Bill. Whether Paul Ryan, or Ron Paul, or whomever has any genuinely fresh ideas or not won't matter so long as Rush (I want the U.S. President to be a failure) Limbaugh, Dick (deficits don't matter) Cheney, Newt (I'm for whatever positions will win me the 2012 GOP nomination) Gingrich, Sarah (damsel in distress) Palin, and John (bomb, bomb, Iran) McCain are the loudest mouths in, and the accepted leaders of, the Republican party.
Oh, and, I love how you dismiss my points as inaccurate, and then, rather cowardly, claim there are too many to refute. That's weak, Bill.
June 17, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think that cap gains cuts, inheritance tax cuts and "laissez faire" brought us to the "edge of economic precipice"?
The cause of the crisis wasn't the items you mention above, but rather very cheap and seemingly unlimited credit which resulted in a lot of bad housing loans.
If you're going to blame the Bush policies, then you have to explain how this crisis happened globally. Bush wasn't President of the World. And Europe's banks, for example, are much more heavily regulated and had the same (if not worse) problems as the US banks.
June 17, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch. That's a typo. I had meant, debt, but wrote, economic.
Tax cuts, as you correctly indicate, are not the whole story of Reagan's and Bush's fiscal sins. The other half was their massive spending increases, yes? As for laissez-faire free market philosophy, it formed the basis for those unsecured derivative debt instruments, aka, Credit Default Swaps, which mutated the mortgage crises into the greater personal and commercial credit crises. Thanks, for highlighting the example of credit, Bill, it helped prove my point.
Lastly, the issue isn't about what I blame Bush for. It's about you expressing concern that Obama's policies may leave the nation standing on a dark fiscal corner without acknowledging that Reagan and Bush have driven us there already. Can you admit that, Bill? Can you admit that Reagan and G.W. Bush have been the two most fiscally irresponsible presidents ever? Obama may, or may not end his presidency in their league. That remains to be seen. Reagan's and Bush's presidencies are in the history books and a matter of reality.
June 17, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Massive spending increases? The deficit and debt as a % of GDP during Reagan and Bush were in line with other periods of history. So no, I don't think you can blame Reagan, Clinton, or the Bush's "spending" on the current crisis.
As for CDS's, it's hard to respond to specific points because you didn't make any. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by your claim that CDS "mutated the mortgage crises into the greater personal and commercial credit crises". When the housing market declined, problems in the CDS market drove three things: 1) Companies like AIG suffered because they couldn't honor contracts they had written; 2) some institutions didn't want to lend to others that potentially had big CDS exposure and 3)writers of CDS protection were forced to sell other assets to raise cash for margin calls.
Despite these issues with the CDS market, they did not cause the crisis. And like other trades, a CDS trade has a buyer and a seller, so for everyone that lost money in the CDS market, others made money. It's a zero sum game.
Derivatives have been around for decades and trading OTC. While not perfect, I don't see how they caused the crisis.
And to answer your last question, I do not think that any Bush or Reagan policies are what put us into the current crisis. Not to sound repetitive, but this was a global crisis that was driving by cheap credit and lots of bad housing loans.
I asked you some questions in my prior post that I am anxious to see your answers. I've done my part responding to yours
June 17, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The deficit and debt as a % of GDP during Reagan and Bush were in line with other periods of history."
Now, you're being (purposefully, I think) evasive. You made no assessment of Obama's policies w.r.t. % of GDP. You only wrote about Obama increasing the problem. I quote you here, "If Obama's policies are seen as starting to contribute to our problems rather than solving them - and the staggering deficit and debt we are seeing are going to trigger some unpleasant outcomes and choices..." So yes, Bill, I can and do blame Reagan and Bush, and so will you, unless you're the hypocrite I suspect that you are. Nice disingenuous attempt to include Clinton with Reagan and Bush, you wish. They couldn't have been more opposite of each other as far as fiscal responsibility.
Bill, you are perhaps, the most obtuse mind here at TPM. Of course, you must realize what I meant about by CDSs. As the hidden risk (hiding risk was the whole point of the instrument) of CDS became apparent it triggered the larger constriction in other credit markets. Lenders couldn't assess their true exposure, their risk, and so, cut back lending even in markets where the could properly assess their risk. While not the only reason, CDSs were the trigger.
"Derivatives have been around for decades and trading OTC. While not perfect, I don't see how they caused the crisis."
CDSs had their genesis in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act signed into law by Clinton in 1999. It effectively repealed the depression era Glass-Steagle act separating commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies. Phil Gramm's act precipitated the failure of, and multi-hundred billion dollar government bail-out debacle at AIG, for example. Maybe, start by reading this, Bill: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html?pagewanted=all
Back to my original point, I asked if you could admit the actions and results of Regan and Bush which are a matter of historical record before attacking Obama for what has not yet happened. Since you will not even admit to recorded facts about Reagan and Bush you reveal yourself to be zealously ideological, or worse. If you can't even admit simple, if inconvenient, truths is there any point to anyone debating you at all, ever?
June 18, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully disagree. (I won't be insulting and use words like obtuse.) I'm still waiting to hear how these "Bush" policies caused all the problems with the European banks and their housing markets.
As for CDS, please don't believe everything you read in the NYTimes.
CDS's did not have their "genesis" with the GLB Act. They were around before it. And it was a very small market back then in the mid/late 90s.
So please explain to me how the GLB Act was the genesis of CDS. You mention the repeal of the separation of investment and commercial banks. But I don't see how that's relevant. Both commercial banks and investment banks were dealing in derivatives prior to the GLB Act.
June 18, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You claim offense at my description of your mind being obtuse, but what better description is there? I finish this poor excuse for a debate, by repeating the final sentence of my most previous comment:
If you can't even admit simple, if inconvenient, truths is there any point to anyone debating you at all, ever?
June 18, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could at least have the courtesy of answering my questions. I answered yours
June 18, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense, you have not answered mine. You have evaded answering my central question, which is:
Can you admit that Reagan and G.W. Bush have been the two most fiscally irresponsible presidents ever?
How about you have the courtesy of answering that question.
June 18, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction - I have provided answers to your questions but you don't deem them acceptable. You have not tried to answer the ones that I posed at you - 1) If Bush/Reagan are responsible for the current mess then why is this a global crisis where the heavily regulated European banks got into just as much trouble as the US banks did? How is their housing bubble also Bush/Reagan's fault? 2) What exactly does the repeal of Glass Steagall/GLB Act (commercial vs investment bank activities as you cite) have to do with the CDS and larger derivative markets? How was GLB the "genesis" of CDS when CDS existed before GLB was passed?
As for Reagan/Bush -
Reagan spent a lot of money on defense which thankfully ended the Cold War. He also inherited a terrible economy and decided to cut taxes which were as high as 70%. These tax cuts helped the economy grow throughout the rest of the 80's. Unemployment also dropped from roughly 8% in 1980 to under 6%. There was also an acceleration in household income growth. And during the 1980's, public debt only got as high as 40% of GDP. The long-term post WW2 average is approximately 43%.
As for Bush - his economic policies were helpful in turning around the 2001-2002 recession that started in early 2001 and was made worse by 9/11. However, the consequences of the housing bubble and credit crunch were issues that overwhelmed his economic policies towards the end of his second term.
The ratio of debt/GDP at the end of 2008 was roughly 40%, which again is close to the post WW2 long-term average. These levels are alot better than the current CBO forecast for the next 10 years where public debt will rise to 82% of GDP by 2019. Yikes.
But like I said, neither Bush nor Reagan were "fiscally irresponsible" nor can they be blamed for the current downturn that we are going through now, which was caused by alot of supposedly smart institutions buying very speculative real estate loans that they thought were money good. Oops.
June 18, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And around [yawn] we go again. As I said, either obtuse, zealously ideological, or worse. Hopeless in any case. Sayonara, Bill.
June 18, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So that's your MO? You throw out talking points that you can't back up or really discuss in any depth? You throw out comments like the "genesis of CDS" or "deregulation" but aren't really sure what you're talking about. All you can do is point me to a NY Times article. That's too bad.
June 18, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, this will be my last comment on this. I don't know why I'm sending it because you only continue to prove that you are either, obtuse, zealous or dishonest. Before you squeal, like some stuck pig, that I'm calling you names you has better learn the difference between name calling and behavioral description.
I've been asking you to admit that Regan and Bush have been the two most fiscally irresponsible presidents as a test. To see whether you could concede a simple truth. Could you admit that water is wet and the sky is blue. Wee, you have provided me that answer. You cannot. Therefore, nothing would be accomplished in debating you on any more complex points. Nothing.
In order for others to be open to truths which might be contained in your points, YOU have to be open to the truths which may be contained in the points made by others. You have demonstrated here, time and again, that you cannot do that. In general, this is the fatal flaw of today's conservatives. Their inability to admit error or imperfection. To admit fallibility, either in philosophy or in result. Such are the characteristics of minds which are obtuse, zealously ideological, or worse. 'Nuff said.
June 19, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would you think that Reagan and Bush were so fiscally irresponsible?
And please answer my questions about the CDS market and the GLB Act.
June 19, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
[whistling the Jeopardy! theme song]...wondering if New10 actually knows what he's talking about or if he just cites NY Times articles without doing his own research.
New10 must be very happy that President of the "World" George Bush is out of office so he no longer can create a world crisis and wreak havoc on European banks that he has no control over. Or maybe New10 is so quiet because he realized that credit derivatives have been in existence well before the Graham/Leach/Bliley Act supposedly created them.
All work and no play makes New10 a very dull boy...
June 19, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are LIES, DAMN LIES and Statistics. These numbers you quote are... well.... you know Statistics.
June 17, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
But of course if the poll is Obama leading McCain in last year's race, then it's reliable
June 17, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink