Amid the search for the spirit of Democrats, we need to rethink Obama’s presidency

Several deaths were written about the reason for the loss of Kamala Harris. Democrats should have been a preliminary election. Joe Biden should have been left soon (or not at all). Democrats have lost contact with the working class. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was right. and so on.

The only thing that has been suspicious of doubt, however, is the presidency of Barack Obama. In fact, there is a general feeling that the Democratic Party needs to find the next Obama to defeat the right. But Obama’s presidency must be re -examined in this search for a democratic soul.

While he was wandering in Harris in 2024, Obama claimed that the economy before the rule was Donald Trump, the credit for his economy was “really”. But what about the economy of 2010, with approximately 10 percent of unemployment? Or from 2013, with 7.4 percent of unemployment? Wasn’t this Obama’s economy too?

After the 2020 elections, I wrote an article that Joe Biden would work well to remember Obama’s presidential mistakes and are not shy with his economic policies. I said that the rise of tramp was largely driven by economic factors. Although the economy was working relatively well by the time Trump was elected in 2016, the recovery from the global financial crisis was slower in modern history when it came to the labor market.

It took about 10 years until the unemployment rate decreased to pre -stagnation levels. The workforce sharing rate is not recovered. Obama allowed banks to escape from the financial crisis safely, while failing to help homeowners to back down from home prices and high debt burdens. I have argued that the social and economic destruction caused by the crisis is the main reason that the Democrats lost many voters (and thus the elections) to Trump in 2016.

I sent the key to a liberal friend who admired him, but I warned that he would not be published in any main outlet. Obama was still great and beloved among Democrats. Any criticism for him will not see light today. She was right.

Of course, Obama was not much different from the democratic administration that preceded him – Bill Clinton. While Obama’s presidency was marred by the failure to face the global financial crisis, Clinton dismantled the protection of new deals in a proactive manner and signed NAFTA. He boasted about the achievement of a government surplus, which means that the government was getting more out of the economy than it was. In other words, American families and companies combined were funded by Clinton’s surplus by managing the deficit.

Although the Clinton star has faded, Obama still shines brightly. Democrats may argue that there is not much Obama that could do it differently, given the republican resistance. The problem is that he did not really try. Larry Samars chose the director of the National Economic Council. It is now known that the summer has sabotaged the largest financial stimulation that could have made a big difference in the recovery path. (As the Covid crisis has shown, rapid recovery is possible with appropriate economic policies.)

Priority has not been given to help home owners. Obama argued that we were “out of money” and we answered a good mind over the financial austerity, claiming that the federal government had to tighten its belt as the living families were. He chose the path of the two parties and the increase, which led to the tremendous opportunity for the gradual reform provided by the crisis.

The Times called for the FDR and another new deal. Instead, we got more third.

The paradox is that former President Joe Biden’s economic policies were better than Obama and Clinton’s policies. However, Biden also failed to achieve many of his promises to his campaign: raising the minimum wage, student debt, and most importantly, made some social programs in the era of the epidemic (such as expanding tax credits for children and food assistance) permanent. He also failed to obtain new social programs such as Universal Pre-K and paid vacations. As a result, the Americans temporarily got a glimpse of what a good government safety net seems to be, then lost it immediately.

Although it is possible to blame inflation to some extent in the election results, the seeds of economic dissatisfaction threatening to make the Democratic Party ancient times have long been planted. The party’s institution wanted to believe that the 2016 elections were homosexual. This position is no longer eradica. Without a difficult axis towards progressive economic policies, the 2020 elections may end as external.

Yeva Nesisyan Associate Professor and Head of Economics Department in Franklin and Marshal College.