The fine line between optimism and denial

Posted at 8:59 AM on February 5, 2011 by Bob Collins (14 Comments)
Filed under: Politics

I don't usually write about Sarah Palin -- there are plenty of people who already do that for a living -- but I was taken this morning by her comments honoring the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan, who was able to lift America's spirits by saying things were pretty good, when they really weren't.

It's a perfect example of how the "mathematics" of the state of the economy are heavily influenced by the "emotion" surrounding it.

Mrs. Palin says America "is on the road to ruin," called the present course "insane," and said the answer lies -- at least partially -- in more oil drilling.
After the speech, Reagan's son said his dad and the former Alaska governor have nothing in common. Then, again, Ron Reagan and his dad didn't have much in common either.

Still, it's an interesting contrast in how politicians frame reality.

Let's trot out -- again -- one of my favorite political ads of all time.

It is, as the title of this post suggests, a fine line between the power of optimism and denial of reality and -- for sure -- plenty of people in 1984 said President Reagan was spending his days in the latter. But Roosevelt did the same thing when he told us there is nothing to fear "but fear itself." In reality, there was plenty to fear.

Reagan's America was coming out of 16 months of recession and people were going back to work -- slowly. The unemployment rate had reached 9.7 percent, and had dropped to below 8 by 1984.

Mr. Reagan's ad said the inflation rate had dropped to "about half of what it was four years ago." But that, too, was a twist because it doesn't point out that half of 11% is a crushing rate of inflation. In the same period he was comparing the unemployment rate (pointing out that more people than ever had gone to work that day), inflation had actually doubled. But, he was right, it was still much lower than the 11 percent of his first year in office.

The ad said "more people are buying new homes." That's true now, too. But that doesn't mean the housing industry isn't an economic basket case.

The famous ad did not address the primary issue addressed by Mrs. Palin -- debt. In the period the ad assesses, the public debt had nearly doubled. Roles were reversed back then. Democrats argued the debt would kill us (and some still argue it did). Republicans assured that "Reaganomics" would have a payoff to it.

But none of that mattered. The goal was simply to get people to believe in a particular reality. And they did. Just as they did last night when Mrs. Palin got a standing ovation.

If one is tempted to believe it's morning in America now, it is. If one believes we're on the road to ruin, we are.

---

Comments (14)

Great piece, Bob. The country loved uncle Ron - even though he wasn't very smart, lied a lot, and had a lot of friends that were crooks - because he told us what we wanted to hear. We were #1! And it was true on a lot of levels.

Politicians and governments lie. About statistics and their relevancy, and a helluva lot more. Alert the press! :-)

In a culture that does not accept anything but first place, but where only the illiterate and those who primarily value military strength still believe that we're widely dominant, how is a leader to inspire ?

Posted by Jim Shapiro | February 5, 2011 1:01 PM

---

No Jim, the country loved Ronald Reagan because he fixed the mess Jimmy Carter left us with. Remember 12% interest rates and 14% inflation?

But wait there is more.

Before Reagan, the left in America was ready to concede Asia, South America and Eastern Europe to communism. Reagan and Thatcher turned that around and freedom prevailed.

As for Ms. Palin, like Reagan she realizes that the fate of the country depends on core values and optimism. I will give you a contrast that illustrates the problem we face in America today.

During the time that Reagan launched the turn around on Communism, Alice Palmer (Barack Obama's political mentor) traveled behind the Iron Curtain to Prague to attend The World Peace Council, an event planned and controlled by the International Department of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

While she pranced in the shadow of Soviet tanks that were occupying the city, the future president of the Czech Republic, Valclav Havel wasted away in prison blocks away and the Soviet repression of Afghanistan was going full tilt. By the way, she was not there to criticize the Soviets, that would have landed her in jail. She was there to criticize a horrible place called America.

One can only hope that Mr. Obama and the left has matured somewhat since then. But it is things like that which make Ms. Palin come across as cold-stone rational.

Posted by GregS | February 5, 2011 2:28 PM

---

Bob writes
"If one is tempted to believe it's morning in America now, it is. If one believes we're on the road to ruin, we are."

And GregS provides the example. Thanks Greg.

Posted by bsimon | February 5, 2011 3:48 PM

---

GregS - Thanks for telling us why the country REALLY loved uncle Ron.

And Mrs. Thatcher really loved him too. In spite of her famous comment, "Poor dear. There's nothing between his ears".

Regarding Obama's "mentor" and her visit to then-Czechoslovakia, while Havel was imprisoned: Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of that. I'm a huge Havel fan too.

His motto was "Truth and love must prevail over lies and hate." Just like you and Sarah, huh Greg?

By the way, Alice Palmer endorsed Clinton in 2008, not her fellow commie/ brother in melanin Obama. I'm sure there was some Stalinist rational though.

Posted by Jim Shapiro | February 5, 2011 9:23 PM

---

"By the way, Alice Palmer endorsed Clinton in 2008, not her fellow commie/ brother in melanin Obama. I'm sure there was some Stalinist rational though. - Jim Shapiro"

Uh Jim, there is just so much you do not know. why is it my job to educate you?

After losing her bid for Congress, Alice Palmer asked Barack Obama to step aside so she could return to her old seat in the State Senate.

He refused. She challenged him in the primary and he had her nominating petitions nullified in court.

She never forgave him.

Posted by GregS | February 6, 2011 8:29 AM

---

"The goal was simply to get people to believe in a particular reality. And they did. - NEWSCUT"

Narrative will always trump the facts, because facts are bloodless and all too often contradictory. It is the narrative that provides a framework to interpret facts - and therein is both best and worst of the media, religion, politics and ourselves.

Posted by GregS | February 6, 2011 8:59 AM

---

//No Jim, the country loved Ronald Reagan because he fixed the mess Jimmy Carter left us with. Remember 12% interest rates and 14% inflation?

Jimmy Carter was one of the worst president I've ever survived -- and I survived Nixon. But to be fair, the problems began earlier. Inflation was at 9% under Ford when the '78 election was held... and reached 11.8% under the gentleman's watch.

Not sure how much of that had to do with needing to pay for Vietnam. A ton of it had to do with the Arab oil embargo.

I don't pretend to understand everything about the economy, but I know it's a collaborative international effort not easily given to the science of 30 or 60 second commercials.

Posted by Bob Collins | February 6, 2011 10:22 AM

---

Gregs - Thanks for the further information on Palmer and Obama. I'm always open to learn new things.

My intended point with the Stalinist quip is that it makes no sense to paint the current commandante -in -chief with the right-wing's tired but still favorite frighten the public "COMMUNIST!" brush.

Perhaps I should have been more obvious and mentioned the wall street and bank bailouts and who he has appointed, but I didn't think that was necessary.

You're clearly a fairly intelligent guy, albeit a bit predictable and rather weak on the compassion side.

What I don't understand is why you support politicians of less than average intelligence who propagate cruel, short-sighted policies.

Is it a plug your nose and swallow machiavellian thing?

Please educate me further, oh great spleen venter.

Posted by Jim Shapiro | February 6, 2011 12:06 PM

---

Contrast Carter's "malaise" speech to Reagan's "morning in America" campaign. The difference was not just two conflicting images of America, but two contrasting approaches to problem solving.

Carter focused on guilt and blame - like a Southern Baptist preacher. Reagan spoke of new horizons and opportunities - like the pioneer he often portrayed.

Posted by GregS | February 6, 2011 12:14 PM

---

Well said, Greg. Any man who can wield a metaphor like that can't be all bad :-)

Posted by Jim Shapiro | February 6, 2011 1:52 PM

---

This discussion sheds light on how little the president actually has to do with the economy. We just need someone to blame I guess.

Posted by brian | February 6, 2011 5:54 PM

---

Well said, Brian.

Relevant comic: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/12/27/

Posted by Tyler | February 7, 2011 8:42 AM

---

the problems began earlier. Inflation was at 9% under Ford when the '78 election was held

Not to be picky but Gerald Ford was out of office almost 2 years by the time the '78 midterms were held. I assume you meant the '76 election.

Posted by JackU | February 7, 2011 12:39 PM

---

"This discussion sheds light on how little the president actually has to do with the economy. We just need someone to blame I guess. - Tyler"

Whether a president has the power to alter the nation's economic course is not important. The role of the president is far more powerful than making technical choices.

For instance, on one extreme, we had FDR sitting down with a jittery nation to talk them through catastrophe with his fireside chats. On the other extreme, we had Gerald Ford pinning a Whip Inflation Now (WIN) button to his plaid blazer.

If we were to place Reagan on this continuum, he would rank right up there with FDR. In fact, in many ways Reagan was FDR, though a conservative one.

When scholars look back on history, they will see FDR and Reagan as bookends. One began the expansion of government, the other began the contraction of government.

Reagan's role in ending the progressive push toward European Socialism is why he is so vilified by the left. However, in twenty-five years, when the post-war affluence in America and Europe has dissipated and China is in ascendancy.... Reagan will have been proved right.

We can already see this as Greece, Spain, France, Ireland and Portugal prove that government constituency buying is simply not sustainable.

Posted by GregS | February 7, 2011 7:13 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories