The financial crisis, which led to the recession from which the U.S. still has not recovered, began after the 2008 presidential campaign was well underway. Some have asserted that the economic crisis played a key role in President Barack Obama's election. This is something of an overstatement. While the crisis, and the recession that followed, helped the challenger, Obama was the clear frontrunner by late summer of 2008. Other than John McCain's surreal and brief suspension of his campaign allegedly to devote his attention to the crumbling economy, the recession played a relatively small role in the 2008 election as much of the storylines around the two candidates, such as the historic nature of Obama's campaign and the widespread frustration with the Bush administration, had been established by the time the economy took its sharpest downward turn.
President Obama took office at a time when addressing the problems caused by the recession was the paramount issue facing the American people, after running a campaign that for the most part was focused on a nebulous notion of change. Perplexingly, much of the attention paid to the fallout of the economic crisis was oriented around the finance sector, rather than on jobs, which was, for many American citizens, the biggest issue facing their communities following the economic crisis.
Jobs were, therefore, not a major focus of the 2008 campaign, but given the relatively high, and stable, unemployment numbers since Obama took office, one might expect jobs to be a major part of the 2012 campaign. As the 2012 election approaches, however, is it becoming very likely that another presidential election will occur without a strong emphasis on jobs. This is quite extraordinary given the relatively high unemployment rates and widespread concern over jobs and joblessness.
It is obviously in the interest of the American people for jobs to be at the center of the upcoming presidential election. If both candidates, and parties, focused on job creation during the campaign, offering competing visions to address the issue of job creation, than the issue that dominates the lives and outlook of many Americans would get the attention it deserves. A campaign in which joblessness is viewed as a central problem that needs to be addressed is not likely because, while it may be what the people want and need, it does not help either of the major parties, or their likely, and in the case of the Democrats, all but certain, nominees.
If the economy turns around and starts adding jobs in substantial numbers, pushing the unemployment rate below 6 percent for the first time since before the economic crisis began in earnest, President Obama will be able to tout a tremendous success story and will be reelected easily. This, however, is extremely unlikely to occur. It is far more likely that the unemployment rate will remain at or around 9 percent, as it has for most of Obama's presidency. In that scenario, Obama will have almost no incentive to emphasize jobs in his campaign because the emphasis would do little more than underscore Obama's inability to solve this extremely pressing problem during his first term.
Obama's incentive for campaigning on issues other than job development, barring a genuine economic recovery, is clear and not unreasonable. The Republicans are likely to focus on issues other than jobs for a different set of reasons. For the Republicans, the economic crisis and the recession that followed was never really seen as being primarily about jobs, unemployment or the economic grievances facing ordinary people in the U.S. Instead, Republicans saw the recession as yet another example of the problems of big government and made deficits, rather than jobs their primary concern.
The Republican job creation strategy in 2012 will likely be the same as what it has been for most of the last several decades -- more tax cuts for the richest Americans. This, according to Republican dogma, will lead to businesses magically creating more jobs. It is not clear that even most Republican candidates believe this anymore, but because there has never really been an alternate Republican job creation plan, it is likely that the party's candidate will simply focus on other issues, like the debt and creeping socialism.
The likely absence of any meaningful, or even less than meaningful, discussions of jobs and job creation during an election that will probably occur in the middle of a prolonged period of widespread unemployment is a good indicator of the problems of the political system and of the disconnect between political elites and the citizens they claim, or seek, to represent. It also suggests that, at least at the elite level, there is a growing acceptance of widespread unemployment, as few believe anything can be done to bring these jobs back. This might be the worst election news of all for the American people.
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
I see freedom really be threatened-though I'm not a tea party fan...
If we continue to allow multi-nationals to create products overseas using slave labor and outside of envoirnmental regulations and sell those products here they will never create jobs here.
Im not saying that multi-nationals cant manufacture overseas,im just saying they cant manufacture overseas and sell here without tariffs and taxes being applied to their goods.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/03/how-nation’s-only-state-owned-bank-became-envy-wall-street
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/bank-of-north-dakotasocia_n_463522.html
There's plenty of federal funds available for the wealthy, far more than they could ever need. The problem is, economics has become a zero sum game. It doesn't matter how many people suffer, or whether the results being promoted or the model being touted is actually sustainable. The only thing that matters is whether or not the policy cuts into the bottom line or quarterly profits.
The same goes for government spending; if it promotes short term profits, then it gets funded. If its a matter of concern to future generations, like health care, infrastructure or green technology, it gets ignored. Our entire system depends on a perpetually increasing system of graft and corporate subsidies. That's a problem.
There are those who earn wealth from capital management and flows and advising those processes. The current world order benefits them greatly.
Then there are those whose worth is determined by the output value of their labor and that value is determined in a complex global equation where they are in direct comeptition with sweat shops in china india and elsewhere.
Actions taken to benefit the second category of wealth earner and create jobs for average and the majority of americans will decrease the wealth generation and accumulation ability of the first class of wealth generators. Even though such changes would minimally impact that ability they are unpalatable to the elites who live and profit off serving that top category as the high paid intellectual servants.
Boston MassachuseÂtts,
House lawmakers voted overwhelmiÂngly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financiallÂy strapped cities and towns.The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in MassachuseÂtts was led by Democrats who have traditionaÂlly stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.
What it should do is get out of the way. No more bailouts, no more confusing thousand pages of tax laws and no more outlandish requirements for employers *cough health care bill* Only then will private businesses be able to thrive.
War is the ultimate use of government power. Why is this not issue Number 1.