The Presidential Personality Economy

[Texsox]

I was just thinking about the leadership traits and personalities of the past few Presidents and have this observation. I am using the concept of saving for a rainy day and the fact we save when we see clouds and spend when we see sunshine.

 

Carter was a bright, decent man but his Presidency was mired in a recession and the hostage crisis. The American public never sensed he could lead them to something better. Economu limped along with people saving, not spending.

 

Reagan shows up with confidence, a swagger, a look the Evil Empire in the eye and not blink. He, and we, dream big dreams, we feel good and start spending. The economy goes up. It wasn't only policy initiatives, they only had a small part in it, maybe not at all. It was Reagans personality that drove the boom. I'm confident, I'm bullet proof, I'm buying a new car, house, and jelly bellys.

 

Then Bush 41. Man he seemed tired before he got in office. He wasn't President Reagan, and I doubt anyone could have been. Confidence lagged as did personal spending.

 

Clinton arrives to the beat of Fleetwood Mac. After a decade of old guys in office, the bulk of the populations has a sax playing, rock loving, charismatic leader. Face it, a lot of ladies thought Hillary was the luckies gal in the whole development. We spent. The sunshine was out, we were feeling alive and good. Nothing was going to destroy that mood, not even the growing threat of terrorism that was knocking at our door.

 

Now we have Bush 43. Damn he's likable but about the most intellectually challenged President in a while. He entered office after a court ballot battle, without the popular vote. He was not Clinton, and in many ways that was good, but he failed to energize the masses. Voters don't look to "leading economic indicators" to determine if they buy that new car, a new wardrobe, etc. They look internally and how they feel.

[mreye]

I was just thinking about the leadership traits and personalities of the past few Presidents and have this observation. I am using the concept of saving for a rainy day and the fact we save when we see clouds and spend when we see sunshine.

 

Carter was a bright, decent man but his Presidency was mired in a recession and the hostage crisis. The American public never sensed he could lead them to something better. Economu limped along with people saving, not spending.

 

Reagan shows up with confidence, a swagger, a look the Evil Empire in the eye and not blink. He, and we, dream big dreams, we feel good and start spending. The economy goes up. It wasn't only policy initiatives, they only had a small part in it, maybe not at all. It was Reagans personality that drove the boom. I'm confident, I'm bullet proof, I'm buying a new car, house, and jelly bellys.

 

Then Bush 41. Man he seemed tired before he got in office. He wasn't President Reagan, and I doubt anyone could have been. Confidence lagged as did personal spending.

 

Clinton arrives to the beat of Fleetwood Mac. After a decade of old guys in office, the bulk of the populations has a sax playing, rock loving, charismatic leader. Face it, a lot of ladies thought Hillary was the luckies gal in the whole development. We spent. The sunshine was out, we were feeling alive and good. Nothing was going to destroy that mood, not even the growing threat of terrorism that was knocking at our door.

 

Now we have Bush 43. Damn he's likable but about the most intellectually challenged President in a while. He entered office after a court ballot battle, without the popular vote. He was not Clinton, and in many ways that was good, but he failed to energize the masses. Voters don't look to "leading economic indicators" to determine if they buy that new car, a new wardrobe, etc. They look internally and how they feel.

Great post! There's probably a lot of truth behind this theory. I've got something to think about today...besides work, I mean.

[mreye]

Also, wasn't that pretty much Ozzie's plan this year with the Sox?

[southsider2k5]

Honestly I would go as far to say that Jimmy Carter was probably the last President that didn't commit some kind of a felony while in office. After seeing the volunteer work and humanitarian work that he has done since leaving office, it is too bad that his Presidency didn't turn out better.

[Texsox]

Honestly I would go as far to say that Jimmy Carter was probably the last President that didn't commit some kind of a felony while in office.  After seeing the volunteer work and humanitarian work that he has done since leaving office, it is too bad that his Presidency didn't turn out better.

I think Carter's personal integrity and intelligence paralysed him. He knew there were ways to negotiate with the terrorists and have the hostages released, and it would have given him a chance to be re-elected. He choose not to, knowing there is no end to the negotiations. Reagan's administration made a different decision for what was in the greater good. I'm not certain if it is fact or opinion that he knew the arms for hostages deal was happening (I believe he did). I also believe he knew that the American people would have made the switch if they knew.

 

I also thought realized that Reagan benefited from a long line of less than inspiring Presidents. Besides Carter, we had Ford. I cannot remember which is Ford and which is Chevy Chase. How many times did Ford hit his head on Air Force 1? Then Nixon, then a guy who couldn't even win his own parties nomiation for re-election. Talk about being the right guy (Reagan) in the right time and place.