There’s actually a good reason why Republican candidates might want to avoid talking about the economy, both in televised debates and on the campaign trail more broadly. That’s because it’s hard to run against the economy these days, at least given the numbers.
Despite nearly seven years of stewardship by a supposedly crypto-socialist president, the U.S. economy is looking — dare I say it? — pretty good.
That's from Catherine Rampell in the Washington Post and it's a good survey of the economy going into the 2016 election.
But there's more to it than just wanting to avoid running against this economy. I've been writing for a good long while about their actual desire to run on foreign policy:
As we’ve seen many times over the years, foreign policy and national security are particularly tricky for Democrats even when one is a certified war hero like John Kerry (or even John Kennedy). Even the hardcore Cold Warriors of the Democratic Party suffered for the fact that the right had associated them with socialism during the Great Depression and turned that into sympathy for Communism. By the time the ’60s were over, they were routinely portrayed as cowardly and treasonous for opposing the Vietnam War and characterized in “feminized” terms such as “weak” and “emotional.” (Here’s a particularly crude example of the genre of recent vintage.)
All Democratic politicians have had to fight that stereotype ever since then. And all Democratic presidents have struggled while in office to deal with it. Even the dramatic killing of Osama bin Laden under President Obama failed to stop them from calling him a weak and feckless leader, even to the point where they are willing to risk nuclear war to make their point. This dynamic has, over time, succeeded in making Democrats more hawkish and Republicans downright reckless.
So where does this leave Hillary Clinton? She seems to have as good a resume for the Commander in Chief job as any woman could have with her close proximity to power in the White House for eight years, her eight years as senator and four years as Secretary of State. The only thing missing is a stint in the armed forces — which is also missing on the CV of most of the Republicans presenting themselves as fierce warriors, so it should be no harm, no foul there. (The exceptions being Texas Governor Rick Perry, a pilot in the Air Force, and South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham, a member of the Air Force JAG corps.)
But stereotypes are very hard to dislodge; even with her reputation for toughness, and despite her sterling resume, Clinton will be pushing against something very primal. The Republicans know this, which is why some of us have been pretty sure they would try to frame this election as a national security election if they could. And they are. Those elections always give them an advantage in any case, and if a woman is the standard bearer it stands to reason that advantage would be even greater.
But what about the women voters who will presumably be less prone to follow such stereotyping? Unfortunately, it’s not a simple case of men being sexist. As Heather Hurlburt points out in this article in the American Prospect, we live in anxious times, and in anxious times, women can often revert to stereotypes as well:
Gender politics magnify the electoral effects of anxiety in two ways. First, in surveys and other studies, women consistently report higher levels of anxiety. In fact, women poll twice as anxious as men, largely independent of the specific topic. Women are more concerned about security, physical and economic, than men. According to Lake, Gotoff, and Ogren, women “across racial, educational, partisan, and ideological divides” have “heightened concerns” about terrorism. Those concerns make women “more security-conscious in general and more supportive of the military than they were in the past.”
Walmart-sponsored focus groups found women expressing a significant and steady level of anxiety over the months preceding the 2014 midterms. At one session, the explanation was Ebola; another, ISIS—whatever had most recently dominated cable-news headlines. The pollsters interpreted the responses as “emblematic of anxiety they feel regarding other issues, including national security, job security, and people ‘getting stuff they aren’t entitled to,’ such as health care and other government benefits.”
The majority of voters express equal confidence in men and women as leaders, but when national security is the issue, confidence in women’s leadership declines. In a Pew poll in January, 37 percent of the respondents said that men do better than women in dealing with national security, while 56 percent said gender makes no difference. That was an improvement from decades past, but sobering when compared to the 73 percent who say gender is irrelevant to leadership on economic issues.
That isn’t inevitable, of course. A lot depends upon the individuals who are competing for the job. And from the looks of the GOP field there aren’t many who come across as great warrior leaders who can lay claim to any particular national security experience.
But as much as foreign policy and national security will likely be issues, so too will all those other anxiety-producing problems. And in that respect, Clinton is likely to be in much better shape than the Republicans who are retreating to their standard playbook organized around lowering taxes and regulations as the elixer that cures everything. It’s unlikely that anyone, much less working women, will find that to be soothing in these anxious times.
That was written before Sanders got into the race and he is focusing intently on these economic issues and Democratic women are responding to that.
And it must be noted that Republicans love reflexive, muscular warmongering. The notion that Rand Paul represents more than a tiny percentage of them on these issues is a beltway fantasy. After the Bush debacle they were forced to retreat from that for a while but they are back at it with renewed vigor. This is a foundational issue for the Republican party and one that unites their coalition. So regardless of whether a woman was running on the Democratic side, they would be pushing these security issues, because that's what they always do. They would simply feminize the male candidate. (Look how they talk about Obama...)
I honestly believe the main reason (aside from his somnambulant personality) that Jeb! is having a hard time finding support so far is because Republicans just don't want to be reminded of George W. Bush. They are anxious to seize the national security issue and he just brings up a bad taste in their mouths. And he simply cannot find a reasonable, believable way to deal with that. They want a fresh warmonger without the Bush baggage. They may have to settle for him but I don't think they'll like it much.
.