The Democratic success counterfactual

Matthew Yglesias imagines a counterfactual in which the Democrats enjoyed more legislative success during Obama's first year in office:

If congress had committed itself to expeditiously enacting administration proposals on stimulus, on health care, on climate, and on financial regulatory reform the economy would be in better shape, Obama would be more popular, and congressional Democrats would be more popular.

Boosting the economy via a larger stimulus would likely have improved Obama's standing, and thereby the Democrats', but I'm skeptical that passing the other measures would have increased their approval ratings. It seems more likely that a series of liberal legislative victories would accelerate the expected shift in public opinion toward a preference for smaller government, and thereby reduce the popularity of Obama and the Democrats in the short to medium term.

Comments

[David]

Liberals rightly criticize "birthers" who believe, despite a lack of evidence, that Obama was not born in the US. Yet, these same liberals believe in the myth of a successful stimulus.

Obama's stimulus was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%, but instead drove it up to 10%. Bush's two stimuli failed to end the recession. FDR's stimulus failed to end the Great Depression. Many economist believe FDR's actions prolonged the Depression.

In the face of all these failures, can stimulus believers point to many more examples of successful stimulus programs? I don't think so. Like the birthers, they simply believe what they want to believe.

[Jon Greenbaum]

I don't know about health care and climate regulation but even the appearance of bold moves to cram down banking speculation and creatively cutting off bonuses would have gone a long way out here on Main Street. A lot of the hate juice comes from the free ride the bankers got.