Voters' Doubts About Sharing in Prosperity Send a Danger Signal
You don't have to be a political pundit to know that next month's elections aren't about the economy. They're about Iraq, mostly; congressional scandals, secondarily; and a host of regional and local issues after that.
Still, there's something unnerving about watching an anti-incumbent tidal wave roll in at a time when the economy, by most macro measures, is cruising. Unemployment is at a historic low -- 4.6% -- and inflation remains under 3%. The big economic bugaboos of earlier this year -- rising interest rates and soaring oil prices -- have both eased off. Even the Dow Jones Industrial Average is hitting historic highs. Yet a majority of voters who responded to last week's Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll say they disapprove of President Bush's handling of the economy.
Some of this may be the normal noise of midterm elections, when national economic performance is less important than other things. Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 in the midst of an economic expansion. Unemployment that September clocked in at 5.9% and inflation at about 4% -- not as good as today, but not bad.
TALKING BUSINESS
Email
business@wsj.com and read reader comments Saturday at WSJ.com/TalkingBusiness.Still, the economic backdrop for election 2006 should raise a warning flag about the future. Large numbers of Americans seem to have lost their belief in John F. Kennedy's famous aphorism that a rising tide lifts all boats. "They know the economy is white hot," says political analyst Charlie Cook, "but they also know they aren't in it....There's a feeling that some people are getting theirs, but we aren't getting ours."
There's a well-known litany of reasons for that. Median earnings have been growing at a disturbingly slow pace, even as profits and high-end pay have soared. Health-care costs are not only increasing, they increasingly are being paid by consumers, not by employers or the government. Pensions are disappearing, as is job security -- and any sense of long-term loyalty from employers. As pollster Peter Hart puts it, "there's no gold watch" waiting at the end of a career these days. He cites a cartoon in which the boss says: "Mr. Jones, the reason we are letting you go is because you've given us the best years of your life."
VIDEO REPORT
Inflation is under three percent, employment is at an historic low and the stock market is soaring. But the WSJ's Alan Murray says a lot of Americans aren't riding the economic wave and may protest at the voting booth.Meanwhile, a thin slice of America is enjoying unprecedented prosperity. CEO pay is one of the most visible manifestations, rising in the past decade at triple the rate of the median worker's pay. In my home town of Greenwich, Conn., skilled financiers bring home eight- and nine-digit paychecks, unimaginable in the not-so-distant past. Americans have never been big on the politics of envy, in part because they hoped someday they would join those at the top. But increasingly, they wonder whether the economic game is rigged, and whether all these riches are the result of backdated options or insider trading or some other trickery that doesn't benefit them.
The danger for business is that the broad social support for pro-business and pro-market policies that has characterized American politics for a quarter century or more could be breaking down. You see tame hints of that in popular Democratic proposals for a minimum-wage increase or for government negotiations to push down drug prices.
A much stronger dose comes from Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown -- who is given good odds of winning his challenge against Ohio Senator Mike Dewine. He calls for renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Permanent Normal Trade Relations agreement with China. "This election's a referendum on the special-interest stranglehold in our government," Rep. Brown said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press."
"The drug industry always gets its way, the HMOs always get their way, the oil industry always gets their way, the big companies that outsource jobs always get their way. Who's fighting for the middle class?"
A Democratic wise man told me recently that if he were asked what economic platform would offer a Democratic presidential contender the best chances of success in 2008, he would have to say it's an antitrade, antiglobalization, anti-immigration platform. For now, none of the best-known possible Democratic candidates -- Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore or, the latest fad, Barack Obama -- are taking that tack. But the problem here isn't Democratic leaders. It's Democratic followers. If the reservoir of dissatisfaction grows strong enough, it's only a matter of time before some candidate figures out how to tap in.
The election in 2008 could be the one where economic issues come back, and with an antibusiness vengeance.
经济繁荣？与我无关！
即使你对美国政治并无多少研究，你也能预见到在下个月的中期选举期间，经济不会成为主要话题。最有可能成为争论焦点的首先是伊拉克问题，其次是国会丑闻，然后是美国的一系列地区性问题。
不过，目前多数宏观指标均显示美国经济运行很顺利，在这种情况下看到社会上涌现出反对在任政府的浪潮多少有点让人沮丧。毕竟，失业率处于4.6%的历史低点，通货膨胀仍控制在3%以下。今年初扰动市场惶惶不安的两个作怪的家伙──利率上升和油价暴涨──也都已偃旗息鼓。从股市上看，道琼斯指数更是创下了历史新高。不过，上周接受《华尔街日报》/全国广播公司(NBC)新闻频道联合调查的受访者大多表示，他们并不欣赏布什总统处理经济问题的方式。
中期选举时，国内经济表现往往显得不如其他话题那么重要，所以，选民的这种反应在一定程度上或许也是正常现象。共和党1994年从民主党那里夺得国会多数议席的时候，美国经济也是正在扩张。那年9月美国的失业率是5.9%，通货膨胀率是4%，虽然不如今天，但也还不差。
不过，2006年选举期的经济背景应该能为未来的前景敲响警钟。许多美国人似乎已不再相信约翰?肯尼迪(John F. Kennedy)的那句名言：水涨众船高。政治分析师查理?库克(Charlie Cook)说：大家都知道现在经济很繁荣，但他们也知道，这跟他们大多数人无关......大家有一种感觉，那就是：的确有些人是得到了他们那份，但我们什么也没得到。
之所以会有这种感觉，个中的一系列原因众所周知。虽然企业利润以及高层管理人士的薪酬在急速膨胀，一般公众的收入水平增长之缓慢却让人不安。医疗保健成本在上升，而且消费者个人负担的比例也在增加。
退休金在减少，同样在下降的还有人们的工作安全感，还有，雇主们再也感受不到来自雇员的长期忠诚。正如民意测验专家彼德?哈特(Peter Hart)指出的那样，如今，在人们结束一段职业生涯的时候，再也没有金表之类的荣誉纪念品在等着你了。他提到一部卡通片里一位老板对员工说：琼斯先生，我们之所以让你离开，是因为你已经把你生命里最宝贵的时光给我们了。
与此同时，少数美国人却在享受从未有过的荣华富贵。首席执行长们的薪酬就是最明显的证据之一，过去十年，他们的薪酬增长速度是一般员工的三倍。在我的家乡康涅狄格州格林威治，资深的银行家们能拿回八位甚至九位数的工资单，这在不久之前还几乎是不可想像的事。
美国人一向不喜欢嫉妒那些出色的人，这在一定程度上是因为，他们自己也希望有朝一日能出人头地。但现在，他们越来越怀疑游戏是不是被人操纵了，那些暴富的人是不是因为拿了做了手脚的期权、或有内部交易行为、或是参与了其他普通人沾不到光的“把戏”。
美国商界面临的一个风险是，社会上对保护商业和自由市场的政策（四分之一个世纪以来，这一直是美国政治的一大特色）的普遍支持可能会逐渐崩塌。对于这一点，你可以从民主党提出的受到普遍欢迎的上调最低工资标准、要求政府就压低药品价格进行谈判的议案中看出一点温和的暗示。
更强烈的表示来自民主党众议员谢罗德?布朗(Sherrod Brown)，外界认为他在中期选举中很有可能击败俄亥俄参议员麦克?德万(Mike Dewine)。布朗呼吁重新就北美自由贸易协定(North American Free Trade Agreement)和对华永久正常贸易关系协议(Permanent Normal Trade Relations agreement with China)展开谈判。布朗在接受全国广播公司“Meet the Press”栏目采访时表示，这次选举可以视为是“对我们的政府里特殊利益集团的一次全民公投”。
他说，制药行业总是随心所欲，医疗保健组织(HMO)也随心所欲，石油业也是这样，那些将业务外包出去的大公司也是这样。那么谁来为中产阶级争取权利呢？
一位民主党智囊人士最近告诉我，如果有人问他，什么样的一个经济平台能为民主党人在2008年的大选中带来最好的成功机会？他只能说，最好是一个反贸易、反全球化、反移民的平台。
眼下，可能参加竞选的民主党知名人士──如希拉里?克林顿(Hillary Clinton)、约翰?克里(John Kerry)、阿尔?戈尔(Al Gore)及最近引起很大关注的巴拉克?奥巴马(Barack Obama)──无一准备走这条路线。但现在的问题不在这些民主党领袖人物，而是民主党的追随者们。如果这种不满情绪积聚到足够程度，那么早晚都会有某位候选人要拿它们说事。
不过，到2008年大选的时候，经济问题有可能杀将回来，成为主流话题，反对商业的人士将迎来他们的复仇机会。
Alan Murray
