Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Bootleg Obama Merchandise: An Appre… | The Tuesday Morning News »

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

2012 Re: Are We Better Off Than We Were Four Years Ago?

Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:58 AM

Paul Ryan, the Republican nominee for vice president, delivered a sharply critical speech here today, telling thousands of supporters that they "weren't better off" than they were four years ago. "The Jimmy Carter years look like the good old days compared to where we are right now," he quipped, invoking the name of a president often regarded (at least by Republicans) as a spectacular failure.

Going back to Jimmy Carter might spark a few geezers, but not much more. The comparison is more a sign of desperation than anything else. Abortion is not working, war is not working, hiding your taxes is not working, racism is not working. What can we do next? Maybe something a little more abstract with a historic ring to it. Yes, recall the ghost of Reagan. Recall soft Carter, who had a hostage crisis on his hands, a bungled military mission, and a resentful intelligence community. Were you better off? But if the job report is solid on Friday, this approach will hit a wall. Also, Obama is likely to regain all the jobs that vanished when he took office. The "better off" game is really risky. It has, under the current economic climate, a high chance of backfiring.

FacebookShare

Comments (6) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Paul Ryan is 42 years old.

Since the metaphor makes sense to him....

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on September 4, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Republicans are "the base alloy of hypocrisy".

Posted by Pope Peabrain on September 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Were people better off at the end of GW Bush's first term?

He got re-elected.

The "are you better off" schtick is by no means a sure bet.

Posted by Urgutha Forka on September 4, 2012 at 9:15 AM

It's all about getting rhetoric to stick. You don't have to actually know anything about the Carter years, you just have to know Carter bad, Reagan good.

When they ask "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" they're not really asking if you personally are better off. Plenty of people are actually better off, or at least in the same position, especially considering the number of jobs gained over the past 4 years... 9% unemployment is not good, but that means there's still 91% of people either working or who are not looking for work. If you lost your job and went back to school, are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? What if you got a government loan for it?

No, they want you to answer the question based on your idea of how the overall economy is doing right now. The question is really a tricky way of getting people to answer "Are you content with the economy right now?" It's like with public schools- most people (outside of really terrible districts) tend to think everyone else's school in the nation is doing terribly, but theirs is okay. We tend to think every one else's congresspeople are horrible, but ours is one of the good ones. It's all about how you frame the debate and if you can convince people that overall everyone is doing terribly, even if most of us are hanging in there.

Posted by madcap on September 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM

The Democrats should absolutely welcome a conversation about 4 years ago as the Republicans are peddling the same bullshit that they were peddling 4 years ago, the same bullshit that tanked the economy 4 years ago. They are the ones that benefit from the two week attention span of idiot swing voters so you might think they would think twice about jogging the memories of that segment of the population.

Posted by Rhizome on September 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Four years ago we were bleeding 750,000 jobs every month.

Right now we're creating 250,000 PRIVATE SECTOR jobs every month.

Any questions, insane America-hating Republicants?

Posted by Will in Seattle