Kerry and Bush are tied at 44 percent of nation-wide RV’s, with 11 percent unsure, according to an Investor’s Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP Poll conducted 9/22-27.
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
July 21: Don’t Dismiss the Power of Inflation Politics
All the talk of renewed inflation brought back some terrible memories for me, and I wrote about them at New York:
When I was a freshman college debater at Emory University in the fall of 1970, the national debate topic was not Vietnam, but the desirability of wage and price controls. Little did we know that just months ahead a Republican president would impose a wage-price freeze, long the anti-inflationary prescription of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But the surprise known in financial circles as the “Nixon shock,” nearly a half-century ago (on August 15, 1971) showed how pervasive the fear of inflation — running at just over 5 percent in 1970 — had become.
That’s ancient history now, even to those of us who remember the double-digit inflation of the late 1970s, and the particularly horrid scourge of “stagflation” (high inflation and unemployment simultaneously). Inflation seems to have been tamed by wise monetary policies. The periodic warnings from 21st-century conservatives that low interest rates and federal budget deficits would create inflation didn’t much bother me. It was like hearing an old priest chant a forgotten litany in a lost language — just one among many ritualistic arguments for the tight credit and reactionary social policies these people favored instinctively as a sort of class self-defense posture.
The current surge in consumer prices doesn’t necessarily change that picture; the current post-pandemic (we hope) economic environment was sure to produce a spike in wages and prices that cannot be projected into a future where something approaching normalcy will surely return (though the real-estate bubble is indeed troubling). But now I am beginning to hear echoes of the inflation panics of the not-so-distant past, which make me tremble.Like Tim Noah, I suspect there may be a generational lapse in understanding the politics of inflation:
“I don’t care to be condescended to by a bunch of Gen Xers and Millennials about my ’70s-bred fear of inflation. It feels too much like the condescension we Boomers directed toward Depression babies whenever they warned us that we were playing with fire in deregulating the financial markets. Poor dears, we thought, traumatized for life by the 1929 crash and one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.
“The Depression babies turned out to be right, of course.”
Noah makes it clear he’s not arguing inflation per se is bad for the economy. It is, however, bad for progressive politics, and not just because “stagflation” probably killed the Carter presidency and ushered in the Reagan era far more than the Iranian hostage crisis or other better-remembered Democratic foibles. The deflationary economic strategies of the 1980s weren’t called “austerity,” but rather a corrective for undisciplined policies that fed wage and price spirals which in turned hammered the value of savings, the living standards of those on fixed incomes, and the political case for federal domestic spending.
Most lethally for progressivism, the conservative supply-side tax-cutting when combined with inflationary fears can create enormous pressure for public disinvestment and the shredding of safety nets (which is why reactionaries happily labeled the intended result “starving the beast”). We are still living with some of the long-term consequences of anti-inflationary backlash. As Noah points out, California’s Proposition 13 ballot initiative in 1978 and similar “tax revolts” were a by-product of price spirals that boosted tax assessments on property and income alike.
But sometimes lost in an examination of the right’s exploitation of inflation fears is the abiding fact that the left has no clear prescription for dealing with it, either, other than by denying its existence or significance (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly). Ironically, that was made most evident by the supposedly illiberal Richard Nixon’s surprising use of the great liberal instrument for taming inflation.
The veteran ex-conservative economic and political analyst Bruce Bartlett has penned an exceptional explainer on the background and consequences of the “Nixon shock,” particularly its international dimensions, and the role played by Treasury Secretary John Connally, who like his boss and ally Nixon was more focused on short-term politics than on long-term economic realities. What’s clear is that Nixon was convinced a recession induced by the Eisenhower administration and its Federal Reserve Board appointees designed to kill inflationary pressures also killed his 1960 presidential candidacy. As prices spiked in 1970, he was terrified the same thing could happen in 1972.
Nixon had inherited (and temporarily extended) an income-tax surcharge from LBJ that was designed to pay for the skyrocketing costs of the Vietnam War, but its effects were limited. So with his signature televised bombshell reveal (the one he deployed a month earlier to announce his trip to China), amid great secrecy, Nixon rolled out a combo platter of initiatives to fight inflation and international economic instability. They included a suspension of fixed currency exchange rates and the convertibility of the dollar to gold (to head off a raid on gold supplies triggered by a British demand for a major conversion); an import surcharge (to prevent a worsening of the trade balance); and most significantly for most Americans, a 90-day freeze on wages and prices to be followed by an indefinite period of controls by federal panels.
As political theater, Nixon’s speech announcing a “new economic policy” was, well, Nixonian. He began with dessert: an assortment of tax breaks and job-creation incentives balanced by mostly unspecified spending cuts; only then did he mention the wage-price freeze. After promising to “break the vicious circle of spiraling prices and costs,” Nixon moved on to his international proposals, which he downplayed as “very technical,” while assuring viewers that “if you are among the overwhelming majority of Americans who buy American-made products in America, your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today.”
Nixon’s wage and price controls were initially very popular (as polls had told the White House they would be) and did indeed hold down inflation through the reelection year of 1972, when Nixon won his famous landslide reelection over poor George McGovern, in part by goosing federal appropriations to create a mini-boom. By then the administration had moved on to a more discretionary system for regulating wage and price increases, which generated rumors of employers currying favor with generous donations to CREEP (the Committee to Reelect the President), the notoriously corrupt operation heavily complicit in the Watergate scandals that brought down the Nixon presidency. Between the suppressed and eventually unleashed inflationary pressures and the oil-price shock Nixon’s international economic policies helped create, the country paid a very high economic price for the brief respite from inflation the wage-price freeze earned him. He sowed the wind with even greater inflation, and his successors Gerald Ford (whose feckless “Whip Inflation Now” campaign was widely mocked) and Jimmy Carter reaped the whirlwind.
Before you dismiss these events from 50 years ago as irrelevant, consider how much Nixon’s short-sighted approach sounds like something President Donald Trump might have done if inflation had became a political problem during his tenure (or in, God help us, a future term). Indeed, any president mulling Nixon’s choice of recession-inducing fiscal or monetary policies might be tempted to resort to the easy-to-understand, if dangerous, strategy of wage and price controls in which the pain is mostly back-loaded, particularly in or near an election year. Old folks remember how it preceded Nixon’s landslide 1972 win, followed by a decade of economic pain and multiple decades of political misery for progressives.
Smooth Jazz,
I would acknowledge that there were some polls that seemed to show some momentum for Dubya, but I will stick to my point that the name recognition of Gallup makes them a little more influential than other polls. Thus I think a careful critique of their process is warranted.
It is interesting that the election is soooooo close that even the polls themselves are competing.
I do like ARG and Zogby, but I do consider other polls as well.
I also get the sense that besides political junkies like us, many people are just now taking a close look at the race and I think that this will bode well for Kerry. They already know ( and don’t like) GW.
True Believer
I don’t know what to make of Zogby, as his polling techniques differ significantly from most others. Sometimes he’s right, sometimes he’s wrong. Nobody’s perfect.
But I don’t buy the theory that he intentionally biases his polls (pre-or-post 9/11.) And as to the idea that he’s in the tank with the Democratic party, I might remind everyone of the 1996 election, when his surveys showed Bill Clinton winning with a significantly lower margin than other polls forecast–and Zogby was correct. (In fact, if I recall correctly, the weekend prior to the election he had Clinton’s margin shrinking to a dangerously low 2% or so over Bob Dole.) The GOP at the time hailed him as the best pollster in the business. Maybe he’s adjusted his methods since, but I don’t think he’s deliberately cooking the numbers just to favor Democrats.
pro-Kerry — then your average is more like 3-4 points than 6-9.
Posted by km at September 29, 2004 11:17 AM
The bigger picture on all of these results are that
Bush has not moved above the 47% approval rating
month after month for the past year, if you take out
the discredited media polls.
Three other factors, the past three presidents elected by the electoral college have not been
re-elected, no president with an approval rating
below 50% has been re-elected, and no president
with negatives on the economy and war has been
re-elected. The electronic media is doing it’s best
to put the best face on this story. The true strory is that Bush is in big trouble and lack of media coverage is the major factor dragging down Kerry.
Even with all of the misinformation coming out of the electronic media, Bush’s poll standings show
how much effect the 2000 election has on the voters
perceptions. If the new voters can overcome all
of the obstacles being thrown in their way Kerry
will win easily.
Km, Point well taken, but small (3-4) leads in general translate into decisive Electoral College victories, ie 300 EC votes for the winner. Whether GWB wins by 3-4 or 6-9 makes no difference to me.
Omar,
That was prior to 9/11 when Zogby was widely viewed as a balanced pollster. Since then he has aligned himself more closely with the views of his brother Jim, the President of a Bush hating Arab organization in the US.
As a case in point, Zogby completely blew the 2002 midterms: He had Dems Mondale (MN), Cleland (GA) & Carnahan (MO) all winning by comfortable marginsl, but they all lost.
A final point to consider regarding Zogby: A few months ago he suggested the race was Kerry’s to lose and has been making very Pro Kerry comments ever since. It’s in HIS interest to tilt his poll to match HIS pre-ordained POV.
Apparently in Smooth Jazz’s world, any poll that doesn’t show a substantial Bush lead favors Dems.
We’ve clearly got two universes of polls going on out there — one assuming a whopping GOP-ID-ing edge, and one assuming 2000 status quo. The first batch are bad news for Bush, since an incumbent really needs to crack 50% or he’s in trouble; the second group say he’s home free (though with the lowest re-elect percentage of any incumbent since Truman). It’s possible on or other of these sets of polls will break decisively before Election Day, but more likely, we’ll be in the dark till returns start pouring in.
I’m not sure the general public pays as much attention to polls as we do. The newly registered voters in lower income areas wouldn’t even have the time, trying to make ends meet. Now, if only Bush’s goons will let them vote!
i think this attack on Zogby is unwarranted. Zogby got the last 2 presidential elections dead on.
Smooth,
I certainly wouldn’t characterize ARG as a Democratic poll — I thought the opposite was true.
Additionally, if you throw in Rasmussen, Economist and Fox News — all of which are Bush by two or less, and none of which can be accused of being pro-Kerry — then your average is more like 3-4 points than 6-9.
New Economist poll is also a dead heat — 46-46.
I like their poll because it has such a large sample (about 2500), which for a nationwide poll is good.
Here’s the link:
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/YouGovM.pdf
True Believer,
I hear you, but consider this: Wash Post/ABC, CBS, Pew, AP and Battleground, all came out with results similar to Gallup – GWB up 6-9 points among RVs and a similar margin among LVs. You can trash Gallup all you want, but if ALL other polls taken at a similar time show a similar result, then there is a degree of finality that is taking over, notwithstanding the offensive against Gallup.
At the same time, I would be careful about cocooning yourself with results from ARG & Zogby ONLY as the panacea of all credible polls. These entities are arguably Dem leaning, so you focus on them exclusively at your peril. At a minumum, I would average those 2 with all the other public polls to avoid getting false comfort from sympathetic Kerry surveys only.
Great points by Steve.
Very unfortunate that Gallup is such a “brand name” that the general public accepts their information without question.
Will be interesting to see if MoveOn’s anti-Gallup ad has any effect on the polling industry.
I am very hopeful that the Zogby-Arg polls will be more accurate and lead to a big election-night surprise for Kerry.
True Believer
There has been a lot of discussion
over how polls are skewed but even
the NYT article on Gallup doesn’t
begin to touch on the systematic
disinformation that comes from
the media reading the Gallup polls
along with the GOP talking points
right off the prompter.
It used to be the CIA’s job to
influence elections overseas.
Now Porter Goss has been charged
to merge all the intelligence
agencies together.
As we observe CIA disinformation
activity in Iraq begining to be
a factor in how people vote
in the US its worth noting
that how the polls are reported
is a self fulfilling prophecy.
The GOP uses pre-emptive strikes
to paint Kerry into corners where
he can’t get his message out
Issue: Bush is a deserter in time of war
PES: swifties
Effect: Vietnam and candidate service
records are old news, everybody served
honorably.
Issue: Republican Lies
Example: Bush inherited a recession
Tax break helps economy (as we can see)
War on Terror becomes Patriot Act
Exchange Freedom for Security
Unilateral urgency of WMD’s
becomes Liberate Iraq from ruthless dictator
who tortures people in Abu Garoube
becomes bring Democracy to the Near East
becomes nation building Bush campaigned against
becomes to argue not to stay the course in the
face of an unwinnable and disastrous popular
uprising and civil war is unpatriotic
becomes polls show American voters still
support Bush on issues of terrorism and Iraq
PES: Kerry is flip flopper
Effect: Long list of Republican Lies to itemize
becomes Kerry changing his mind
about what the issues are.
Issue:Anybody but Bush
PES: Kerry is a weak candidate
Effect: Internal Democratic
anybody but Kerry
weakens base support,
Bush is perceived as strong
and effective rather than
stubborn and incompetent
Issue: Debates
PES: Bush is ahead in the polls,
Kerry as underdog needs to win
Effect: post debate spin builds on
pre debate polling
It’s like that
Gallup, Strategic, Vision,
Survey USA, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN,
Time, Newsweek, the Washington Post
all use the same old discredited
methodology.
Zogby, ARG, Rasmussen, TIPP/CSM,
and others that match their sampling
to the actual demographics get
better results.
Having polsters, pundits and
reporters less knowledgable about
the election than the people
who get their information from
the net is something new.
The next step would be to get to
the point where what we know
get’s disseminated with the same
force as cable news and radio.
Talking points should be poll
skewing not rules of debate.