David Frum writes:
Last week’s grim unemployment news again confirms the current downtown’s miserable status as the worst recession since the Great Depression itself.
This “great recession” has harshly reshaped the lives of tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of million of people around the world. And yet in one way, it has had surprisingly little impact: We have not seen the kind of upsurge of anti-system political radicalism that might have been expected to follow so painful a shock. . . . The public by and large has been trusting and accepting of established institutions and traditional leaders.
Why?
Frum’s answer:
Barack Obama. Elected just weeks after the crash, he switched the public mood. Discredited leaders were replaced, a flurry of new initiatives launched – and poll measures of public optimism surged. With so many Americans expecting a rapid turn-around and restoration of fortunes, why waste energy being angry?
He illustrates with this time series:
and then discusses implications for the future.
I have a couple thoughts of my own.
1. The 1982 recession was pretty bad, and at the time, President Reagan was pretty unpopular, and my impression at the time was that he was being slammed in the evening news five days a week. In addition, the Democrats’ economic policy was viewed as discredited: again, in my recollection, the Democratic plan seemed to revolve around Tip O’Neill making sure that Social Security wouldn’t be cut. But I don’t recall a lot of anti-system political radicalism then. Maybe part of the problem was that there were no obvious bad guys. I mean, what were people supposed to do? Egg Paul Volcker’s house?
2. The path from anti-system activism to results isn’t so clear. Using campaign funds to target members of Congress in marginal seats–that might work–but do street demonstrations (from the Million Mom March to Tea Parties) have much effect?
3. I do wonder why left-wing congressional Democrats aren’t more actively pursuing populist measures. If anything, I’d think this would benefit Obama. Then he’d be able to more effectively position himself as the voice of moderation, no?
There’s a lot to think about here, and this isn’t a topic I know much about. Maybe John, Lee, and the others know more about research in this area.
