Views » February 18, 2010
How to Beat the One-Term Blues
What helped Reagan and the country get out of the 1980-82 recession? Don't tell Republicans, but it was, in part, deficit spending.
Obama is dead meat. A one-term president. The Republicans will roar back triumphantly to take over Congress in November. They have “won the message” and are stronger than ever. Hmmm.
It’s true that Obama hasn’t had a great couple of weeks here, but as of this writing it is only February and as we all know, quite a bit can happen between now and November. Much of this doom and gloom prognostication is based, of course, on the dreadful unemployment rate, ongoing foreclosures, and utterly legitimate outrage on the left and right about the smugness and bloated paychecks of Wall Street types. But it also rests on the news media’s increasing addiction to speculation instead of reporting, to constantly trying to predict the future (which doesn’t cost much) instead of reporting in detail on the present or even reminding us of the past.
So let’s look back to a time nearly as bad as this, 1980-1982, known then as “the Reagan recession.” In 1980, Reagan got just over 50 percent of the popular vote, but roared in with 489 Electoral College votes. Then, in December, the country began plunging into a recession. Unemployment soared to nearly 10 percent in 1982, and it was coupled with an inflation rate of somewhere between 12 and 14 percent and interest rates that went as high as 21 percent. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates to fight inflation, and this eventually worked, but not until millions had lost their jobs and homes. By November 1982, the country was experiencing its worst recession since the Great Depression, with 17,000 failed businesses. Congress also increasingly deregulated the banking industry, including savings and loans banks (remember that scandal?), expanding their lending capabilities, which, guess what, led to speculative lending, especially for real estate. By the middle of 1982, 42 banks had failed–the most since the Depression; a year later, another 49 had failed.
So what happened in the 1982 midterm elections? Under the circumstances, and hardly surprising, the Republicans lost 27 House seats to the Democrats. In the Senate, the Democrats won one seat, leaving the Republicans with 54 Senate seats to the Democrats’ 46 (note, no “super majority” there!). And as for Reagan, whom we remember as the “Great Communicator,” his approval rating was a horrid 35 percent as he prepared for his 1983 State of the Union address. There was much talk of Reagan–Reagan!–as a one-term president.
What helped Reagan, and the country get out of this? Don’t tell the Republicans, but it was, in part, deficit spending, something Reagan in fact became known for. This public spending was as controversial then as it is now for not adhering to conservative fiscal principles.
But what happened? The economy started to improve, and by November 1983 Reagan’s approval ratings were back above 50 percent. And by October of 1984? Fifty-eight percent. As we all know, he whupped Walter Mondale, 59 percent to 41 percent, winning a whopping 525 electoral votes, making the notion of his being a “one-term president” seem absurd.
Now all this is forgotten as our ahistorical media seek to magnify conflict and disorder–their meat and potatoes–and suggest Obama is done for. It’s not that Obama and Congressional Democrats don’t have their work cut out for them. But according to the latest Gallup poll, Obama’s approval ratings are, as of this writing, back at 50 percent. He and the Democrats seem to be taking note of the 60 percent of Americans who believe the rich pay too little in taxes. Gallup reports that a May 2009 poll showed 69 percent of Americans support allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in December reported that 65 percent favor government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A December CNN poll found that nearly 60 percent favor stimulating the economy, even if it means less deficit reduction. All of these are part of Obama’s agenda.
So it’s really too soon to say it’s curtains for Obama. But as Robert Kuttner recently pointed out in The Huffington Post, Obama really does have to get over his bipartisan dreams. Did Reagan pander to Democrats? Nope. Obama should fight for his principles, lead Congress (where the Democrats, despite the election of Scott Brown, hold considerable majorities), and start hammering home that the Republicans are, indeed, the Party of NO, and if people don’t get a jobs bill, a decent healthcare bill, environmental reform and reform of the financial industry, then it’s the elephant’s fault.
Obama himself said in New Hampshire, “Suddenly everyone says, ‘Oh no, it’s over.’ Well, no, it’s not over.” Amen.
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Susan J. Douglas is a professor of communications at the University of Michigan and an In These Times columnist. Her latest book is Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism's Work is Done (2010).

SAVE 53% OFF
Reader Comments
What? You write: “...Obama hasn’t had a great couple of weeks here….” Ah, but guess what? He has had a godawful term so far, to wit:
A stimulus package he vowed would keep unemployment from going higher than 8 percent
Giving up a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, and getting nothing from the Russians in return
Working to put a missile shield in Romania, just so he can have his name on it
Bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York to stand trial
Dithering…YES, DITHERING…on Afghanistan
Screwing the Chrysler bondholders
An abominable health-care bill opposed by a MAJORITY of Americans
Hiring Janet “The System Works” Napolitano
Hiring Eric “Mr. Pardon” Holder
Hiring Tim
Posted by Jack Davis on Feb 18, 2010 at 1:24 PM
Ms. Douglas—
Suggest you read J. Anderson’s article in today’s Investor Business Daily.
The central tenet of your article omits a crucial fact: The average budget deficit under Reagan (during the Cold War, and always with a democrat controlled House of Representatives), was about 4% of GDP.
Under Obama’s (rosy) projected deficits, the average will be 9.3% of GDP, ie well in excess of twice as large as during the Reagan years. And that itself is according to Obama’s rosy forecasting of GDP growth and revenue which will probably not be acheived.
Obama is not merely the worst president ever, he is downright hostile toward this nation’s freedom and prosperity.
Posted by r moss on Feb 18, 2010 at 1:43 PM
When Reagan cut taxes in the 1980’s, the revenue that came in to the IRS actually increased (the inverse of this is what is happening in states like New Jersey, which have increased taxes only to see tax revenues fall as over-taxed taxpayers leave the state and take their money with them). The Reagan era deficits happened because federal spending went up even faster than the increase in revenue. Some of the economic boom resulted from more money sloshing around the system (resulting from deficit spending), but most of that boom resulted from the fact that the people had more money to spend (because the IRS had not taken it).
If Obama tries to raise taxes, he will see a decrease in tax revenues as lots of taxpayers find ways to beat the system. If he lowers taxes, as Reagan did, he will see the same success as Reagan did when the economy bounced back after the Carter recession, as businesses and consumers start spending more because they have more of their own money to spend.
One of Obama’s problems is that only about 20% of the population is left/liberal/progressive, while about 40% is right/conservative and about 40% is moderate/middle. If he keeps trying to push policies that the 20% on the left want him to push, the other 40% - 80% will oppose him, and he will not be successful. Reagan’s right-wing policies appealed to more voters because more voters are on the right than on the left.
Susan Douglas wrote: “If the people don’t get a jobs bill, a decent healthcare bill, environmental reform and reform of the financial industry, then it
Posted by Robert Lovell on Feb 18, 2010 at 6:32 PM
Let’s not jump to conclusions just yet. The Republicans also scored big in 1994, midway through Clinton’s first term. And yet he was able to win re-election in 1996. Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that Bush II would have won again in 2004, especially since so many were mad at him over Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps even his handling of th3 9/11 aftermath. We shall see.
Posted by beechnut79 on Jun 5, 2010 at 1:19 PM
Read this and weep:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html
My wife is a registered assistant to a local stock broker. Recently they have heard from three separate hedge fund managers (2 in the US, one in Europe) to get out of stocks and bonds (especially municipal bonds, which will be worthless after the municipalities run out of money), and commercial real estate (we can see all the empty storefronts for ourselves). So, the question was asked, what are you guys on Wall Street investing in for your own portfolios? Gold?
They all said the same thing, in slightly different wording: We’re buying arable farm land as far away from the major population centers as possible. Also gold. Also guns and ammo.
Ya think these guys might know something the rest of us haven’t quite figured out yet?
You know that famous old Chinese curse? “May you live in interesting times.” I’m afraid we are about to find out the hard way what that really means…
Posted by Robert Lovell on Jun 7, 2010 at 8:37 AM
extended discussion >>>Continued...
Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 7 posts.