I know, I know. But populism isn’t a cure-all, and it’s worth pointing out that with all the Harry Truman comparisons that the economy helped rescue Truman, and his reelection isn’t proof of the power of forceful rhetoric:
Harry Truman, who ran against an unpopular “do-nothing Congress” like the one we have today, is kind of the patron saint of unpopular presidents seeking reelectionn — one whose defeat seemed so certain that a newspaper announced his opponent had won when he hadn’t. But as Brendan Nyhan notes, Truman isn’t a particularly good example of a president defying the sort of economic headwinds Obama faces today. At the time GPD was growing at more than six percent — which would ba an absolute miracle given the state of the economy today. As Nyhan writes, “while the idea of the underdog Truman fighting against the “Do Nothing Congress” sounds inspiring, the success of Truman’s re-election campaign was driven by the state of the economy.”
So we don’t know if the Truman prescription will really work for Obama. The question is, at a time when the economy is terrible, is it possible for Obama to foist the blame on to Congress, and by implication on to Republicans?
At the same time, Obama’s new rhetorical posture is definitely an approvement over his previous “grown up” deference to the GOP. If there is higher growth in 2012 — just not enough to secure an easy Obama victory — marginal factors like campaign rhetoric may turn out to matter. So it’s probably good news that the president has returned to defending the positive role that government can and has played in American life. At the very least, if he loses, he’ll go down fighting.
It’s also possible that the GOP nominates a terrible candidate who implodes, but as I’ve said before I wouldn’t bet on that either. The numbers right now just don’t point towards a second term for the president.
