‘Bidenomics’ bites the dust

Gerald Ford banned the use of the term “détente” in his 1976 campaign due to the policy’s increasingly negative connotations in the minds of voters.

Forty-eight years later, Joe Biden, a first-term senator when Jimmy Carter beat Ford and now an improba- ble president seeking a second term, has apparently ordered that the term “Bidenomics” be laid to rest due to the increasingly negative connotations it provokes in the minds of voters.

Biden’s die-hard supporters, always eager to suppress or spin any bad news that could be conceivably traced back to Biden in a fashion that might help Donald Trump, claim that people are doing just fine under Biden, but the people themselves apparently see it differently: According to the most recent Gallup poll, Biden has by a considerable margin the lowest approval ratings for a president at this juncture in a presidency since they’ve been tracking such things, with handling of the economy the greatest complaint.

The idea of putting Biden’s personal stamp on a bad economy, and then continuing to try to convince the public that it wasn’t bad, was a gift to his opponents custom-fit for any bumper sticker (my favorites are the ones with Biden pointing a finger and saying “I Did That,” with the “that” something bad).

When people are having a difficult time buying houses and cars and making the payments on those they might already have (or even the insurance), you try various tactics, including blaming others for the hard times, deflecting attention onto more favorable issues, or perhaps, if you’re more honest than Biden ever has been, just acknowledging the pain, admitting to some mistakes, and promising to work harder.

What you don’t do is give it all your name and brag about how great it is. And then dismiss the sticker shock in the grocery checkout line and at the gas pump as figments of ignorant people’s imaginations (the three headlines under the “U.S. Economy” section in RealClearPolitics’ news tracker at the time of writing were “For Renters, Chances of Owning a Home are Going from Bad to Worse,” “Inflation Drives Young Americans to Credit-Cards to Cover Costs,” and “Big Brands Feeling Pinch as Higher Costs Drive Consumers Away”).

There is thus something both amusing and pathetic when Democrat mouthpieces like Paul Krugman tell people who claim to be hurting that they aren’t.

The last incumbent Democrat seeking reelection, Barack Obama, also presided over a weak economy, but successfully persuaded voters that it was more George W. Bush’s fault than his.

Biden will get no such pass, in large part because he’s given the public a stiff middle finger in response to their complaints.

When it comes to the political consequences of economic conditions, most people don’t feel high unemployment because the vast majority remain employed. They don’t necessarily cheer on job creation when most of the jobs are part-time and because, again, they already have one. And they don’t pay that much attention to the stock market because they don’t have much invested in it.

One could go further to note that the chaos at the border might be laid at Biden’s feet but doesn’t as badly affect those living hundreds of miles from it. Crime is another Biden soft spot but tends to disproportionately threaten those living in inner urban areas that vote overwhelmingly Democrat anyway.

Even foreign-policy debacles like Afghanistan have limited impact on electoral outcomes because our limited attention span regarding foreign matters tends to consign them to the periphery of the public’s radar.

Which leaves inflation and its demoralizing impact on the daily lives of Americans. It can’t, unlike Afghanistan or crime or the border, be ignored or spun, or even shored up by friendly media coverage. Because it affects everyone, especially those at the middle and lower ends of the socioeconomic ladder, it can’t be lied about or finessed in any way. People feel and suffer from it on an hourly basis, when doing just about anything that involves money, goods, and services.

When it comes to inflation, it seems that at every juncture where a decision could have been made that would have had the effect of reducing or increasing it, Biden chose the latter, despite what just about everyone except Democrat sycophants was predicting would happen, which was an eruption of inflation.

It was as if the Biden team were trying to repeal the sturdy laws of economics, or, worse still, had never learned them in the first place.

I’ve changed my mind: Up to only a few weeks ago I thought Biden would win reelection despite his deep unpopularity. The Democrats have a vastly superior turn-out-the-vote machine, including in terms of mail-in and early voting, lots more campaign funding, and an unprecedented level of media support (to the point where much of what used to be called the “mainstream” media is now little more than the unapologetic propaganda wing of the Democratic Party).

And then there’s also the possibility that his opponent might be a convicted felon by November.

But the hunch is that none of that, even taken together, is going to beat inflation.

And when Trump returns to the White House, Biden and “Bidenomics” will and should be blamed.