TNR - The Partisan Economy

Josh Patashnik of The New Republic wonders about opinion polls that show a widening divide on the economy.  Briefly, the graph indicates that during the Clinton years
both Republicans and Democrats thought the economy was pretty good and there was no clear gap between the parties; under Bush, Republicans more favorable view of the economy than Democrats.

Mr. Patashnik suggests some explanations:

There are a couple different explanations one might offer. It could be, like Nolan McCarty and his pals argue, that there's a connection between growing income inequality and growing partisanship--or it could be that the polarizing impact of the Iraq war is spilling over into other areas, as respondents simply view this question as a proxy for "do you support President Bush?". It's also possible that the partisan difference during the Clinton years was simply abnormally low, as Democrats (who would normally be inclined to give the economy lower marks than their GOP counterparts) rallied to Clinton's side out of partisan love, buoyed in part by an era of (comparatively) widely shared economic growth. Either way, the gap's fairly large.

Let me toss out a few other thoughts.  First, as to the possibility of partisan cheerleading - note that in 1992, a period Clinton calmly described as the worst economy since the Great depression, there was a notable partisan divide.

Secondly, although it pains Dems to remember this, the Clinton economy was also the Gingrich-Dole economy - Congressional Republicans were more aggressive budget-balancers than Clinton, so both parties had something to root for; that has not been true under Bush, except for those few Dems who think Pelosi-Bush have worked miracles.

Last thought - on the subject of partisan cheerleading, disconnected fantasies and economic outlooks, check out this recent Slate article on "The Clinton Fallacy":

But there is evidence that Clinton's unmatched popularity among blacks confused many about the true economic impact of his presidency. In a 2005 article I co-authored in the Journal of Black Studies, I analyzed five national surveys from 1984 through 2000. The data show that nearly a third of black Americans held false understandings of black economic conditions during the Clinton years. By the time Clinton left office, many African-Americans incorrectly believed that blacks were doing better economically than whites. In the '80s, barely 5 percent of blacks believed blacks were economically better off than whites. By 2000, nearly 30 percent of African-American respondents believed that blacks were doing better economically than whites. This belief is simply wrong.

I don;t for a moment think blacks are peculiarly gullible; I do think people believe what that want to believe, which right now means Dems want to believe that under Bush, the end is nigh.

I COULDA GOOGLED:  Michael Barone tackled all this and more just a few days back, and cites a Pew Research Center from Jan 2006, "Economy Now Seen Through Partisan Prism".  Here is Pew on the notion that rich Republicans see a better economy than poor Democrats:

Republicans have significantly higher household incomes than either independents or Democrats, but at every income level Republicans are much more likely to say that the economy is in good shape. Even among those with household incomes of at least $75,000, more than twice as many Republicans as Democrats express a positive view of the economy (65% vs. 31%). Independents' opinions of the economy, again regardless of income, are much closer to those of Democrats than Republicans.

Let's cut back to Barone:

There is a divergence here between Democrats’ and independents’ assessments of their personal economic condition, which have generally been positive, and their assessments of the economy as a whole. It’s hard to resist the conclusion that when Democrats—and, in 2004-2006, independents—were responding to questions about the condition of the economy, they were actually responding, “I am a Democrat,” or, more emphatically, “I hate George W. Bush.”

I am sure there is cheerleading on both sides.

Comments

[PMII]

Isn't the answer that a high % of democrats don't pay taxes either because they don't work or earn very little and chose to live off the sweat of others? These people would never say the economy was good.

[Forbes]

Well. I recall in the 2000 campaign when Dick Cheney made some comments noting the weakness of the economy, he was excoriated in the media for "talking down the economy"--as if his observations were unAmerican.

Today, it's open season to discuss the recession we're not experiencing--don't let the facts get in the way of how you "feel" about it.

Partisan? You decide.

[MikeS]

By traditional measurements such as GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, etc. the economy has been very healthy. It has grown since the last quarter of the Clinton recession that ended in Sept. 2001. So, in the traditional view, one side is right and the other is wrong.

1992 some new metrics gained political influence, and a narrative was created around them. Listen to Mario Cumo
give that narrative. 'warning this is not for people with weak hearts!'

There is a bit of confusion about the performance of the lower income groups. Thomas Sowell gives an explanation that I like here

[Kevin T. Keith]

I can't fathom the logical leap here:

There is a divergence here between Democrats’ and independents’ assessments of their personal economic condition . . . and their assessments of the economy as a whole.

It’s hard to resist the conclusion that when Democrats . . . were responding to questions about the condition of the economy, they were actually responding . . . “I hate George W. Bush.”

[emphasis added]

Isn't it a much more reasonable conclusion that upper-income Democrats make a distinction between their personal interests and the interests of the nation as a whole - a distinction that is absent from Republicans' assessments of the national economy? Democrats who are doing well still recognize that others are not, and that that is a telling indicator of the state of the economy overall. Republicans who are doing well, and, as Republicans, live in a world that consists of themselves and their friends only, not only couldn't care less about other people's suffering, but actually believe that those other people aren't even part of the equation that describes the economy as a whole. For Republicans, if they themselves are doing well, then everyone who matters is doing well; for Democrats, there's a bigger picture.

As for blacks' assessments of the economy under Clinton, the responses quoted are wrong on the details, but may reflect a broader perspective that in itself is right. It's true that blacks as a group were not doing better than whites as a group, under Clinton or at any time. But it is also true that blacks as a group were doing better than before, relative to whites, under Clinton, and have suffered staggering reverses under Bush. Blacks may have been accurately perceiving that their economic second-class status was improving rapidly under Clinton, and exaggerated that into a belief that they had actually surpassed whites; that latter conclusion is wrong, but the perception that drives it was not. The point is moot now, however, thanks to Bush.

In short, the "partisan" perceptions you note seem to me to be accurate perceptions of broad-picture economic trends, in at least some cases. The difference between parties is not a measure of their members' partisan loyalty, but seems in every case to be a measure of Republicans' refusal to acknowledge the truth about the economic underclass that invariably deepens and expands under Republican policies.

[Clarice]

Dear Kevin:
I couldn't disagree more.
TM's account leaves out the role of the media which as the Dem running dogs do their part, by front page articles suggesting men, women and their pets are being tossed out on the street homeless everytime their is a Republican in office.
Last week the LATimes went to a large homeless encampment and while it couldn't find A SINGLE person there because of the failing subprime market (something revealed at the end and not on the front page where the story begins), suggested it was about to fill up because of the falling market.
Today the Wa Po does much the same thing. This time they found one man who has mental problems and been in shelters for years and a young couple where the wife had stopped working when her toddler was born and her husband (described as a carpenter) had lost work because of the housing market turndown. I will tell you that the job market here is booming, and I am certain there is a great deal more to the latter's story than was reported.
In any event, as TM has documented , the media has been yammering about two Americas and income gaps and recession from the moment of Bush' inauguration. Not so much when Clinton was President.

Sowell's piece is good, but leaves out the fact that most as the bottom as recent immigrants who, if they show more grit and ingenuity that the Post's couple, will surely not be at the bottom in a couple of years.

[Clarice]

***theRE is a Republican in office.****

[JM Hanes]

Kevin:

The disparity between the personal sense of well being vs. general outlook is not confined to uppoer income brackets, but you've managed to illustrate the Democratic view pretty accurately: it's all about stereotypes and perceptions, not facts.

[Clarice]

**that most aT the bottom aRE recent immigrants**

(Goog grief!!)

[Rick Ballard]

"(Goog grief!!)"

Taht's what I say!!

Damned Priveew.

[Clarice]

LOL--Re-reading Kevin (who I assume is a prog), I learn that like my now deceased M-I-L, the problem with progressives is that they are "too good".

[MikeS]

Isn't it a much more reasonable conclusion that upper-income Democrats make a distinction...

No, it is not reasonable because it is not supported by the facts. An analysis of the data by any reasonable person will demonstrate that income disparities are not growing (except in the instance of CEOs vs the rest of the world), Which is a necessary premise for your conclusion.

The disagreement between parties is the result of a perpetual campaign to sell the rich vs poor narrative. It goes on every day and today you are part of it.

[sbw]

My comment got caught in TM's spam filter, so I put it up at my place under Why aren't punctured balloons flying?

What we have now is the "reality hasn't bit me in the butt yet, so why should I care" economy, fed by politicians who are, themselves, -- and take your choice here -- too lazy to learn, mendacious, or both.

Meanwhile, they get away with it because the press has not done its job publishing the numbers that educate citizens about the economy: ...

[MayBee]

But it is also true that blacks as a group were doing better than before, relative to whites, under Clinton, and have suffered staggering reverses under Bush.

Oh really, staggering losses?

[Sue]

It's perception. In poll after poll, people from all political stripes respond that they personally are doing okay but when asked about the economy in general, they respond negatively. Now why on earth would they do that? When the stock market was reacing historical highs, no on noticed. At least not when Bush was president. They took note when Clinton was. For instance, to this day, every farmer in our county will tell you that Clinton was the greatest president ever. And every damn one of them are no longer farmers. They lost their farms while Clinton was in office. Our main street shut down. Hardly any businesses survived, because our local economy ran off the dairy industry. In the 1990s, our town looked like a ghost town. Today, under Bush, we have a thriving economy. Almost daily, our local newspaper touts the amount of sales taxes we have collected and the low unemployment rate for our county. Historically low. And the damned economy sucks. All because a bunch of people who had no business purchasing homes they couldn't afford, lied, in large numbers, about their income and assets to obtain the loans in the first place, and can't now pay them back. Perception.

[Rick Ballard]

SBW,

That's an excellent piece. I don't know if you read the comments at Mark Perry's place but the contortions and gyrations that the neo-marxists go through are pretty amusing at times.

[Pofarmer]

"For instance, to this day, every farmer in our county will tell you that Clinton was the greatest president ever."

What the hell county are you in? The farm economy sucked under Clintoon. Even the most partisan are willing to admit that, I would think.

[Donald]

A 90 percent (Rounded off) record of electing a party that promises much (Chickens in pot's, healthcare (!) and that white dude's fortune), but delivers "change" is a pretty damned good example of "gullible" if you ask me

[Eric]

From John Lott's Freedomnomics, pp 186-187 :

Economist Kevin Hasset and I studied media bias between 1985 and 2004 by analyzing how the media presented economic data such as the unemployent rate, gross domestic product (GDP), reail sales, and durable goods. Here, there is little ambiguity over what the "objective" news is: it's the economic number itself and how it has changed over time...

Even after accounting for whether the economy was in an upswing or downswing at any given time, the headlines were more positive during Clinton's presidency than during any of the Republican administrations. This bias--the difference in positive headlines during Democratic and Republican presidencies for the same underlying economic news--meant that headlines were between 10 and 20 percentage points more positive during a Democratic presidency. Headlines about economic news also became relatively more positive when Democrats controlled Congress, but reached their most negative when Republicans controlled both the presidency and the legislature.

Among the top ten individual newspapers, we found strong evidence that the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, and the Washington Post were much more likely to portray economic news positively during a Democratic presidency...