HOW often have we heard this now ubiquitous expression in the political lexicon? The answer probably is more times than we can remember.
The phrase became part of political language during the 1992 presidential campaign, when James Carville, a strategist for the presidential bid of then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, wrote it on a whiteboard in Clinton’s campaign headquarters.
Carville’s message was simple--and perceptively correct: The electorate care first, second and third about the economy, as understood by how they were feeling about their own financial well-being. Everything else was just sideshow.
The power of this wisdom was clearly illustrated when upstart Clinton-–governor of the unfancied state of Arkansas–-successfully trounced George H.W. Bush, the hero of the first Gulf War. Clearly, when it came to choosing between heroism and one’s pocket, there was no question about which one comes out the winner.
In 2016, now-president Donald Trump used the same message, as he surprisingly pipped the wife of the president who successfully employed the economy strategy in the first place. Positioning himself as a successful business mogul, his promise to Americans was that his commercial expertise would be put to good use in raising the living standards for all Americans. And his supporters ate his message up, all the way from Little Rock, Arkansas to Rockport, Maine.
Two years on from his controversial election into the presidency, the person very few astute observers of American politics gave a fighting chance to win has successfully managed, not only to hold on to power, but consolidate his hold on the voting public. And central to his success seems to be that the message of “it’s the economy, stupid” seems to be resonating loudly, well over a quarter of a century since Carville first popularized it.
But the current prosperity, it seems, will hardly come at no future cost.
While Clinton’s economic prosperity was anchored on sound fiscal policies that benefited most--his democratic “baggage” of fiscal indiscipline notwithstanding--Trump’s is rooted in what can only be described as zero-sum, where some gain at the expense of others.
Think, for example, of his recent forays into global economics.
Seeing what he characterizes as an imbalance in the trading relationships between the US and its major commercial partners, his favorite threat has been to slap tariffs and other protective measures to tip the scales the other way. And yet, even to those not as astute in business as he claims to be, it is clear that some of his moves are creating long-term issues in America’s trading relationships.
Modern trade economics now tend to be built on the premise of mutual benefit. Both parties win together. The days of brute-force wheeling and dealing, where one side reaps all the benefit and the other comes away feeling less-than-satisfied, are long gone. Sure, it may work for a bit, especially when one party has a weak hand, but in the long run, it is most likely going to unravel.
Economic prosperity may keep a president in power, but how he achieves it will determine how he will eventually be remembered-–whether as a brilliant leader, or ultimately a stupid one.