Since Tuesday’s big Democratic electoral victories, I’ve been seeing some speculation to the effect that the 2024 election may be marked by a reverse coattail effect: that President Biden, whose poll numbers have supposedly been weighed down by a bad economy, may be lifted up by local candidates who have been racking up wins over social issues.
Well, I’ve been delving into some economic and political history — which is, after all, most of what we have to go on in such matters — and I’m having some problems with this narrative.
First, Biden is not, in fact, presiding over a bad economy. On the contrary, the economic news has been remarkably good, and history helps explain why.
Nonetheless, many Americans tell pollsters that the economy is bad. Why? I don’t think we really know; what we can say is that historical experience throws some cold water on one popular view about the sources of American discontent.
Finally, could Biden have pursued alternative policies that would have left him in a better political position? The lessons of history suggest no. If economic perceptions are a big problem for Democrats next year (which remains far from certain), this may be more a matter of bad luck than of bad policy.
Start with the state of the economy. The simple reality of the past year or so is that America has accomplished what many, perhaps most, economists considered impossible: a large fall in inflation without a recession or even a big rise in unemployment. If you don’t trust me, listen to Goldman Sachs, which on Wednesday issued a report titled “The Hard Part Is Over,” noting that we’re managing to combine rapid disinflation with solid growth, and that it expects this happy combination — the opposite of stagflation — to continue.
What went right? Back in 2021, Biden administration economists published an essay on historical inflation episodes, arguing that the closest parallel to current events was the inflation surge after World War II, which subsided after the economy resolved wartime disruptions and readjusted to peacetime production. That analysis looked much too optimistic for a while, as inflation went much higher for much longer than the Council of Economic Advisers expected.
At this point, however, with a soft landing looking ever more plausible, it seems as if the council, while it underestimated the size and duration of the shock, got the basic story right.
Yet voters aren’t happy. The most widespread story I’ve been hearing is that people don’t care about the fact that prices have been leveling off; they’re angry that prices haven’t gone back down to their prepandemic levels.
This makes some psychological sense. As of September, consumer prices were about 19 percent higher than they were on the eve of the pandemic. Average wages were also up, by about the same amount, and wages for nonsupervisory workers (the great bulk of the work force) were up considerably more. But human nature being what it is, it’s natural for people to feel that they earned their higher incomes, only to have inflation snatch away their gains. And lecturing voters about why that’s the wrong way to think about it is not, shall we say, a promising political strategy.
But here’s where my historical doubts come in.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a temporary surge in prices that leveled off but never went back down. The same thing happened after World War II and again during the Korean War, the latter surge being roughly the same size as what we’ve seen since 2020. Unfortunately, we don’t have consumer sentiment data for the 1940s, although some political scientists believe that the economy actually helped Harry Truman win his upset election victory in 1948. But we do have such data for the early 1950s, and it suggests that people were relatively upbeat on the economy despite higher prices. Why should this time be different?
Also, it seems worth noting that many voters have demonstrably false views about the current economy — believing, in particular, that unemployment, which is near a 50-year low, is actually near a 50-year high.
Whatever is really going on, was there something Biden or the Federal Reserve could have done that would have mollified voters?
Here’s how I think about it: The supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic made it inevitable that prices of some goods would rise sharply. The only way to have avoided overall inflation would have been to force major price cuts for other goods and services.
And everything we know from history suggests that trying to impose deflation — falling prices — on large parts of the economy would have had disastrous effects on employment and output, something like the quiet depression Britain inflicted on itself after World War I when it tried to go back to the prewar gold standard.
So what’s actually going to happen in the next election? I have no idea, and neither do you. What I can say is that if you believe that Biden made huge, obvious economic policy mistakes and could easily have put himself in a much better position, you probably haven’t thought this thing through.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Elections - nytimes.com
