Opinions

History shows we should wish for another Democrat as president this Christmas

The Christmas holiday is mostly over, and with it the persistent refrain of "Jingle Bells," the overeating of irresistible cookies and treats, the patience of department-store Santa Clauses and the orgy we call Christmas shopping. The usual complaints about the "commercialization" of Christmas have again fallen on the closed ears of the American consumer, especially those with children, for whom this holiday seems especially designed. Christmas is a secular celebration, like it or not; it's a cultural and commercial icon that a great many Americans would have trouble relating somehow to the birth of the baby Jesus.

The buying bacchanalia may represent a corruption of the meaning of the season but it's hard to fault a society that spends such a big chunk of its annual gross domestic product on a day dedicated to buying things for other people, except perhaps the 1 percent of that society for whom buying presents is a chore since they own almost everything in America already.

Just how big a chunk of GDP is that? Though the final numbers will be a while accumulating, it appears Americans will have spent this year about $600 billion on Christmas, on average $781 per adult, according to a Gallup poll, although that's an average that's skewed somewhat since it includes that top 1 percent. That $600 billion may not seem like much out of an economy whose GDP measures more than $16 trillion. But it's a whole lot when measured against the 50 percent of American adults who earned less than $28,031 last year, as reported by the Social Security Administration. Collectively, we invest a great deal of money in Christmas, and the economic health of this year's is reflective of the current sturdy economic recovery engineered by the Obama administration.

That the economy should boom during a Democratic administration is counterintuitive for some, for it's axiomatic in supposedly knowledgeable circles that Democrats, once elected, enact progressive economic agendas, including tax increases and expansion of government programs, that inhibit business and investment. On the other hand, everyone knows that Republicans encourage investment by cutting taxes and curtailing the sorts of regulations that burden business. Except that what everyone knows simply isn't true.

James Carville published a stunning essay in mid-December showing that prospects for economic growth are vastly superior under Democratic regimes. Since Obama took office, the Standard and Poors 500 index has risen 115 percent, the Dow Jones has seen a growth rate of 146 percent and the Nasdaq is up 188 percent. Under Obama, the major stock exchanges have gone up an average of 142 percent. Under Reagan over the same period of time, they rose only 88 percent. The average stock market gain under the post-Depression Democratic presidents through this point in their terms has been four times greater than the average gain under the Republican presidents over the same time, 133 percent to 33 percent.

Moreover, as Princeton professors Mark W. Watson and Alan Blinder reported recently, under Democratic rather than Republican presidents the U.S. economy grows faster, produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and generates higher stock market returns (Mark W. Watson and Alan Blinder). One would think the 1 percent -- and everyone else -- would want a Democrat in office not just for next Christmas but for the ones afterward as well.

But the illusion that Democrats inhibit economic growth is strong, just like the illusion for young children that it's Santa who brings all the presents. And there's a lot of what analysts of human activity call "mimetic behavior," the practice of adopting ideas, symbols or practices, the things one "believes," from others, often so as not to be the odd person in the crowd, the one who doesn't agree with what everyone else agrees with. After all, not everyone has the time or patience to be an economist.

ADVERTISEMENT

Truth is a strange bird: It's often not what we expect it to be or what we want it to be. In 1969 Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner published "Teaching as a Subversive Activity," in which they argued students should be taught to ask questions, not parrot answers, a good way to shatter illusions. Not all illusions are bad, of course; take Santa, for example. But as is so often said, truth truly is stranger than fiction.

Steve Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.

Steve Haycox

Steve Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

ADVERTISEMENT