Trump's taking his trademark "heads I win, tails you lose" approach to economic analysis again. Surprised? Me neither.
The former president has perfected what might be called economic cherry-picking—claiming every positive economic indicator as his personal achievement while fastidiously directing blame for any negative metrics toward President Biden. It's selective attribution at its finest.
I've been covering political economic messaging since the Obama years, and there's something almost... refreshing... in the brazenness of this particular strategy. When unemployment hits record lows, it's clearly Trump's lingering policies. Inflation problems? All Biden. Stock market soars? Trump's business acumen. Market dips? Biden's incompetence.
Look, this kind of economic scorekeeping isn't new in politics. Every administration does some version of it. But the current iteration has reached such cartoonish levels that it deserves special recognition.
The reality (boring as it may be) is that economies don't operate on electoral timetables. They're messy, stubborn beasts influenced by countless variables—monetary policy, global trade patterns, technological disruptions, demographic shifts, consumer confidence, and yes, occasionally, presidential policies.
Remember the pandemic economy? That catastrophic 15% unemployment spike happened on Trump's watch—not because he personally caused it, but because, well, global pandemic. The recovery that followed benefited from actions taken by both administrations, plus the Fed's extraordinary measures, plus trillions in bipartisan stimulus.
(I spoke with three economists last week who all made variations of the same point: attributing complex economic outcomes solely to whoever occupies the White House is intellectually dishonest, regardless of which party does it.)
The inflation story is similarly complicated. Was it caused by Biden's American Rescue Plan? Trump's CARES Act? The Fed's easy money? Supply chain disruptions? Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Consumer behavior changes? The answer is... yes. All of the above, in varying degrees.
Presidents love pretending they've got their hands firmly on the economic steering wheel. They don't. They're more like passengers offering suggestions from the backseat while millions of businesses, consumers, and global factors actually determine direction.
What's particularly rich about this whole situation is watching both camps play the identical game from opposite sides. Biden claims credit for job creation while blaming Trump for any lingering problems. Trump claims credit for recovery foundations while blaming Biden for anything unpleasant.
This selective attribution doesn't just insult our intelligence—it actively harms public understanding of economics. It reinforces the myth of presidential economic omnipotence and transforms substantive policy discussions into team sports.
The nuanced view? Both administrations had successes and failures. Policy effects are complicated and often delayed. External factors frequently overwhelm presidential decisions. But that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, does it?
In the end, this whole episode reveals something fundamental about political economy: it's frequently less about actual economic analysis and more about crafting narratives that serve political objectives.
At least there's one economic indicator that remains absolutely stable across administrations: the consistent ability to grab credit for anything positive while dodging responsibility for anything negative. That particular metric has shown remarkable bipartisan stability for generations.
