confused, but not that confused

Anyone who ventures to interpret the mood of the country is wading into roiling waters. Still, I note for “progressive” Dems that—Americans are allergic to “income redistribution” as a means of fixing the economy.

Gallup:

When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today’s consumer, Americans overwhelmingly — by 84% to 13% — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

As the numbers indicate, the sentiment crosses party lines:

Americans’ lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.

There’s even more bad news for “progressives”: about half of all Americans think that the government is already interfering too much in the economy:

A separate question finds Americans more likely to believe government is doing too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses (50%) as opposed to saying government should do more to solve the country’s problems (43%). This broad question is not directed specifically at the economy, but reinforces the general idea that many Americans are leery of too much direct government intervention in fixing the country’s problems.

This philosophical issue appears to divide Americans by both political party and income groups. Republicans think the government is currently doing too much, by 72% to 24%; independents are split, with 47% saying the government is doing too much and 44% saying it is not doing enough; and Democrats say the government needs to do more by 58% to 36%.

Actually, this isn’t only bad news for certain Democratic politicians (namely, “good government” types); it should also send a signal to the MSM, which relentlessly peddles the line that we Americans are perpetually the victims of bad government, unprincipled politicians, nefarious conspirators who secretly serve the interests of a foreign power, oil barons, crony capitalists, etc. That message is getting tiresome, and besides—the people aren’t buying it.

Dennis Jacobe, who wrote up the results of the Gallup report, concludes with only a hint of optimism for “progressives”:

In sum, free-market advocates can take considerable solace in Americans’ overwhelming belief that the government should not focus on redistributing income and wealth, but on improving the overall economy. And, to a lesser degree, Americans also believe government continues to do too much — not too little — to solve the nation’s problems. On the other hand, the economic turbulence of 2008 could end up getting government into significant new income and wealth redistribution programs unless the Treasury and the Federal Reserve act soon to stabilize and reduce today’s unmanageable food and energy price increases.

In other words, just as “another 9/11 would be ‘good’ ” for John McCain’’s presidential prospects, Jacobe says that the roiling markets could be “good” for Obama’s presidential prospects (and thus for “progressives”). That’s what he says, without spelling it out.

However, take note: Lawrence Kudlow, if I read him correctly, seems to agree that the government should do something. :

On the day after an unusually important Fed policy meeting both gold and stocks severely rebuked the central bank’s decision to take no action in support of the weak dollar or to curb rapidly growing inflation.

Gold spiked $30, a clear message that Bernanke & Co. won’t stop inflation. Stocks plunged over 200 points, an equally clear message that the Fed’s cheap-dollar inflation is damaging economic growth.

These market warnings are two sides of the same coin. Inflation, which is caused by excess dollar creation, is the cruelest tax of all. It is a tax on consumer and family purchasing power. It is a tax on corporate profits. It is a tax on the value of stocks, homes, and other assets.

Crucially, the capital-gains tax — the most important levy on all wealth-creating assets — is un-indexed for inflation. Hence, long before Barack Obama or Congress can legislatively raise the capital-gains tax rate, rising inflation is increasing the effective tax rate on real capital gains. That’s an economy-wide problem.

So, no, we’re not a nation of commies. We like the free enterprise and free market system. But under the pressure of economic turmoil—which may endure for a sustained period—some of us will feel compelled to push for our government to do something.

What would Obama do (with or without excessive turbulence)? Paul Krugman (who was once a vocal Obama skeptic) still doesn’t know:

Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination. Most notably, he has outraged many progressives by supporting a wiretapping bill that, among other things, grants immunity to telecom companies for any illegal acts they may have undertaken at the Bush administration’s behest.

The candidate’s defenders argue that he’s just being pragmatic — that he needs to do whatever it takes to win, and win big, so that he has the power to effect major change. But critics argue that by engaging in the same “triangulation and poll-driven politics” he denounced during the primary, Mr. Obama actually hurts his election prospects, because voters prefer candidates who take firm stands.

In any case, what about after the election? The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn’t too clear about what that change would involve.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that Mr. Obama really is a centrist, after all.

One thing is clear: for Democrats, winning this election should be the easy part. Everything is going their way: sky-high gas prices, a weak economy and a deeply unpopular president. The real question is whether they will take advantage of this once-in-a-generation chance to change the country’s direction. And that’s mainly up to Mr. Obama.

Um, no. It’s up to voters, who will decide if they’re willing to go with a “change” candidate who doesn’t clearly spell out what he wants to change and how it will affect them.

And the Republicans seem to have settled on their line of attack, and it has nothing to do with Americans’ feelings about the role of government in fixing the economy. Instead, it’s that staple of old politics [e.a.].

Sen. John McCain’s allies have seized on a new and aggressive line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama, casting the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee as an opportunistic and self-obsessed politician who will do and say anything to get elected.

I guess Obama is not exactly believable as the Messiah anymore. Not only that. We still don’t know who he is, apart from being a star—someone upon whom we can project our own fantasies.

Jennifer Rubin expresses it a little differently, but she gets to the heart of the matter:

It is remarkable that now two savvy guys like Krugman and Brooks can’t figure out what Obama is. And neither seems to be playing coy to make a rhetorical point — they really don’t know.

But maybe that’s no accident. Obama has told us there is no there, there. In his book he wrote: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” So perhaps searching for Obama’s “core” is a fool’s errand. He is glib and clever and seized upon a clever formulation (Agent of Change) to attract young and idealistic people longing for meaning. But perhaps that is all there is.

We don’t know how he will act under pressure and in real circumstances demanding definitive action because he has never developed, stuck with and acted upon a fixed set of principles. So voters will have to figure out for themselves which polar opposite vision of Obama is the real one. The fact that both could be in contention is startling and sobering.

Feh—not that sobering. Obama is no Manchurian Candidate. He is a pragmatist (though so far only in the service of his own political career, and not in the service of any principle or platform or policy prescription), and he has supreme confidence in his own judgment (and in his temperament). He’s just trying to be all things to all people.

Will it work?

Who the hell knows?

I think all feelings of panic (on both sides of the aisle) are misplaced.