The “Obama paradox” and Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman, on the seeming “paradox” between President Obama’s accomplishments and his popularity:

The line goes like this: The administration has had multiple big victories in Congress, most notably on health reform, yet President Obama’s approval rating is weak. What follows is speculation about what’s holding his numbers down: He’s too liberal for a center-right nation. No, he’s too intellectual, too Mr. Spock, for voters who want more passion. And so on.

Krugman’s take: there’s no paradox. It doesn’t matter what else the administration has done: only the economy matters.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Krugman on that point. There’s no paradox. The economy, stupid, is it. And it’s bad, so the dominant party’s chances are also bad.

But: Krugman also craps on the idea that the administration’s uber-liberal policies have anything to do with Obama’s numbers and/or his party’s chances. Which, y’know: what?

On the same note, Krugman blames Obama for not deficit-spending another trillion dollars or so, which in turn places me in another uncomfortable position: defending Obama’s relative fiscal responsibility. Relative, that is, to Krugman.

Here’s the deal, whether or not Krugman knows it/wants to admit it: Americans reflexively don’t trust the government. Even when living off the government cheese. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi triumvirate is pushing through big legislative changes, which Americans traditionally find frightening. And they’re doing all this while Americans are already skittish because of the economy.

See, you can’t just accomplish things. You have to accomplish things that don’t make the American public say: wait…what?

Bad economy, plus a push to massively increase the size, scope, cost, and power of government, equals a dissatisfied electorate. The bad economy may be the main thing, but it would be ignorant to ignore the rest. Krugmaniacal, even.

Via Memeorandum.