During the Presidential campaign in the late summer of 2008, a Reuters/Zogby poll returned the finding that most Americans – as in 89% of likely voters – somehow believe that one of the primary responsibilities of the President of the United States is to “manage the economy.” In that poll 49% of likely voters rated John McCain as more able in that department, while 40% said Barack Obama would be better.
Surely that odd finding is another consequence of asking the wrong question the wrong way, so perhaps more than 11% of likely voters are fairly aware that the POTUS doesn’t manage the economy as part of his (or someday maybe, her) job description. but judging from how little (and poorly taught) civics is included in a public school general education these days, maybe this misconception is just that widespread.
As Gene Healy wrote at the time in The Cult of the Presidency…, “Our system, with its unhealthy, unconstitutional concentration of power, feeds on the atavistic tendency to see the chief magistrate as our national father or mother, responsible for our economic well-being, our physical safety, and even our sense of belonging.”
In February of 2006, when the inevitability of burst bubbles of debt and oncoming serious recession/depression became too obvious for those paying attention to ignore, Robert J. Samuelson wrote in defense of increasing finger-pointing toward the G.W. Bush White House for Newsweek magazine -
We have a $14 trillion economy. The idea that presidents can control it lies between an exaggeration and an illusion. Our presidential preferences ought to reflect judgments about candidates’ character, values, competence and their views on issues where what they think counts: foreign policy; long-term economic and social policy – how they would tax and spend; health care; immigration. Forget the business cycle.
Now that the “deepening recession” of 2006 has resulted in the complete financial failure of the world economic system in September of 2008, there’s a lot of talk from pundits and the public about what Obama can or should be doing, but the president has no direct control over the Federal Reserve, no control at all over Wall Street or the insurance industry, and basically no control over how much of his budget gets enacted by Congress – where the 1-2% of it that qualifies as discretionary spending gets spent.
He can appropriate emergency funding (if the Fed and Wall Street agree) for stimulating the economy, he can lobby Congress to support deficit spending policies while making promises about the things he really does have control of – like our current ~$10 billion a month commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan – and he can plead with or bamboozle the public over the airwaves to go along. That’s about it.
So buckle up for the ride, it may get rougher before it gets smoother.