During the debate with President Carter in 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan asked viewers what has become a classic campaign question: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”  Carter’s poll numbers tanked soon after the debate, and Reagan went on to win a huge electoral victory.

Ever since, presidential candidates have asked this question to get voters to think about hardships and harsh conditions that occurred during their opponent’s term. Former President Trump has been campaigning on the question to get us to conclude that Biden and Harris are responsible for causing high gas prices, high grocery prices, credit card debt, financial uncertainty, and other problems.  Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have turned right around to use the question to get us to conclude that Trump is responsible for a failed Covid-19 response four years ago in 2020.

As I watched these ads, I pondered the question that Reagan so famously posed.  It seems like a legitimate and common-sense way to get us to think about elections.  But the more I thought about the query, the more I wondered whether it is problematic and unfair.  Essentially, we are lured into concluding that if we don’t feel better off than we did four years ago it is the sitting President’s fault. This seems absurd because it incorrectly assumes that Presidents control everything that relates to our well-being. It also seems absurd because it implies that the only matter important in choosing a President is whether or not we are better off.

I decided to explore the Reagan question by evaluating its strengths and weaknesses in helping us determine our vote for President.  I’m sharing my analysis with you, including some suggestions about how we should be approaching the question when it is asked of us. I’ll close with some thoughts about a better way to go about evaluating and choosing a President.  

Abraham Lincoln, America’s greatest President, would not have passed muster under Reagan’s question.

Abraham Lincoln is widely regarded as America’s greatest President.  Shortly after he assumed office in March 1861, the Civil War started.  We all know the death, destruction, and economic suffering heaped upon America and Americans the next four years.

Lincoln ran for re-election in 1864, and the Civil War was still raging.  If Americans were asked, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”  they surely would have answered in the negative.  They suffered the death of family members, personal financial losses, widespread destruction of property, and great uncertainty regarding the future.  Instead of voting on the basis of whether they were better off than four years ago, Americans voted to continue the leadership of a President who fought to preserve the Union. Lincoln was re-elected in 1864 with a 212-21 electoral college victory and 55% of the popular vote. 

The example of Lincoln, our greatest President, tells us we should be choosing our President based on much more than whether we are better off than four years ago. We look to Presidents to take us through wars, terrorist attacks, pandemics, natural disasters, and recessions and other economic upheavals.  We may suffer greatly during such times in terms of personal finances and insecurity.  But we don’t simply abandon a President because we’re not better off. Dealing with exigencies and changed circumstances are key aspects of the President’s job. Also, those exigencies and changed circumstances may be what is making it impossible or difficult to make us better off.

The question is problematic and unfair because it lures us to assume that the President is responsible for causing everything that negatively affects our well-being. 

It’s not a problem to use the question to blame a President for something the President actually caused or created.  However, it’s problematic and unfair to use the question to blame a President for a condition simply because it happened during the President’s term.  Instead, there must be causation—there needs to be evidence that the bad results are due to something the President did.

If you look at both of the campaign ads linked at the beginning of this article, you’ll see that Trump blames the Biden Administration for high inflation, high gas and grocery prices, and our struggles to make ends meet. You’ll also see that Biden blames the terrible effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on Trump’s mishandling of the crisis.  Both of these portrayals are inaccurate on the matter of causation. 

While it is certainly arguable that Biden was partially responsible for high inflation, other factors were primarily responsible.  In addition, our Presidents have no control over gas and grocery prices, interest rates on credit cards, or other matters related to personal finances.  As to Trump, it’s certainly arguable that some of his actions may have contributed somewhat to the deaths and negative consequences of Covid-19; but it’s problematic and unfair to imply that Trump was the primary cause. 

The question is problematic and unfair because it doesn’t ask us to consider the changing external circumstances that may have made it impossible or much more difficult for the President to address hardships we face.

There can be no doubt that the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic threw a huge monkey wrench into the well-being of our country and its people.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans died, the economy and schools shut down, there was massive unemployment, and the quality of life changed for all of us. Three years into his term, Trump was dealt a massive crisis that affected his ability to keep Americans content and feeling they were better off than four years ago.  It would be problematic and unfair not to consider these changed circumstances in passing judgment on Trump’s performance. 

The Covid-19 crisis morphed as Biden came into office.  Supply chain problems, labor shortages, and other factors combined to create high inflation worldwide. Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine in February 2022 worsened the problem.  In the US and around the world, gas and grocery prices shot up, along with the costs of shelter, energy, and other commodities.  The Federal Reserve’s response to tame inflation—interest rate hikes—put immediate pressure on the personal finances of Americans.  All these changed circumstances affected Biden’s ability to keep Americans content and feeling they were better off than four years ago.  It would be problematic and unfair not to consider these changed circumstances in passing judgment on the Biden Administration’s performance.

The question is problematic and unfair because it lures us to assume the President should fix our hardships, even when there is little or nothing the President can legally do; and we also blame the President for hardships that are in fact caused by independent agencies not controlled by the President.   

Suppose high inflation develops and we all agree that it is totally caused by external factors (i.e., not the fault of the President).  When we continue to struggle with high inflation, we will not feel better off than four years ago and conclude the President is responsible.  We assume it’s the President’s responsibility to fix the problem.  In addition, when the Federal Reserve adopts a series of interest rate hikes to combat the high inflation, we feel the pinch in our personal finances. We will accordingly blame the President for not being better off, even though the President had no role in creating our financial stress.  It’s problematic and unfair to hold the President accountable for a problem (e.g., high costs of gas, groceries, and shelter) they are not legally authorized to fix.  It’s also problematic to hold the President accountable for the harsh effects of a solution adopted by an entity outside of the control of the President (the Federal Reserve).

The question is problematic and unfair because it’s also possible for us to feel we are not better off than four years ago because extremely favorable economic conditions happened to prevail at that time, and conditions happened to deteriorate during the sitting President’s term. 

Suppose a President takes office when inflation is low worldwide, gas and grocery prices are low, and the country is already enjoying very low levels of unemployment and strong economic growth (GDP).  After this President leaves office, suppose external economic conditions change, bringing high inflation, along with high gas and grocery prices. The new President clearly faces a tougher challenge. Yet in evaluating the new President, we won’t feel better off than four years ago and will thus vote for the opponent.   

Trump inherited a strong economy with low inflation, low gas and food prices, low unemployment, and strong economic growth. In fact, the whole world was enjoying these conditions along with America.  Inflation rates were actually lower at the end of the Obama Administration. Trump, in effect, enjoyed a tail wind when it came to these favorable conditions. While we tend to look back fondly on these conditions, it’s true that Trump was President; but there’s no proof that Trump was the main cause of these conditions.  In fact, the Federal Reserve hiked interest rates seven times between March 2017 and December 2018 to keep inflation under control during Trump’s term. Yet we could easily conclude we were better off four years ago compared to when Biden was in office. The problem is that Biden faced a much tougher challenge; and the good conditions that we enjoyed during Trump’s tenure were largely due to already-existing favorable conditions.  

If the Reagan question is problematic and unfair, what should we be doing and asking instead?

Whether or not you are better off than you were four years ago is a flawed, limited, and selfish formula for choosing a President.  Most Americans love their country and are willing to fight and sacrifice to preserve it.  We want leadership from our Presidents and expect them to help us get through exigencies such as wars, international disputes, internal rebellions, national emergencies, pandemics, recessions, high inflation, weather disasters and other hardships.  We know a President’s job goes far beyond worrying whether we feel better off than we did four years ago.  In fact, history shows we’ve been willing to pull together and sacrifice to help the country get through tough times.

If we are to overcome our current hyper-partisan political system that focuses on blame and division, we need to ditch the Reagan question. When an exigency occurs, our political parties and politicians should be coming together to ask how we can deal with it for the good of the people and the country. Exigencies present a challenge to America and Americans. We should appreciate and accept that dealing with these exigencies may involve hardship and sacrifice on our part.  It’s counter-productive and destructive when our political parties and politicians use an emergency to win elections and gain power instead of coming together to address the emergency. The Reagan question is one of their key tools to goad us into choosing sides based on whether we are better off or not.  It lures us to answer without considering the exigencies facing the country, changed conditions, and causation regarding blame or credit. 

But our political parties and politicians aren’t going to abandon the Reagan question; thus, how should we approach the question when they continue to foist it upon us?

Sadly, there is virtually no possibility that our hyper-partisan political system will ditch the Reagan question anytime soon.  We are going to continue to hear it again and again, and the emphasis will continue to be on assigning blame, winning elections, and each party attempting to assert its will over the other.

When confronted with the “Are you better off” question, here is a suggested framework you can use to answer it:

• First, when answering whether you are better off, interpret the word “you” to include the country and your fellow Americans.  Doing so recognizes that choosing a President involves far more than your own personal well-being.  It also means you are willing, at times, to endure personal hardship for the good of the country and its people.
• Second, make a list of changes in external circumstances, particularly exigencies, that occurred before and during the President was in office.  Was there war, recession, pandemic, high inflation, or other exigencies that you need to consider?
• Third, when deciding whether a President is responsible or deserves blame for a condition, you need to consider changes in external circumstances that may have made it impossible or much more difficult to address the condition.  Conversely, if a President takes credit for a positive condition, you need to consider the change in external circumstances that may have made it easier to address the condition.
• Fourth, if a President is blamed for a negative condition, there needs to be evidence that the President caused or created this condition. Conversely, if a President takes credit for a positive condition, there needs to be evidence that the President caused or created the condition. Simply because a condition happened during a President’s term does not prove the President caused it.
• Fifth, when deciding whether a President deserves blame for not fixing a condition, you need to ensure that the President has legal authority to fix the condition.  Conversely, the President shouldn’t be given credit for fixing a condition that, in fact, was fixed by an entity outside of the President’s control.
• Finally, when the negative effects of a condition are caused by an entity outside the control of the President, the President shouldn’t be blamed for these negative effects.

Americans need a paradigm shift to choose our Presidents on the basis of working together to solve our country’s problems instead of letting political parties and candidates preoccupy us with assigning blame in order to win elections and exercise control.

When it comes to solving our country’s problems and resolving differences—both of which are inevitable—we ideally need to be working together for common purposes.  Instead, in today’s America virtually every exigency has to be someone’s fault. We pin blame and claim credit so that we can win elections, gain control, and assert our will over one another.  We throw causation and external circumstances out the window.  Worse, instead of working together with the common purpose of addressing the exigency, we devolve into working at cross purposes and becoming even more divided. 

But we are capable of working together for common purposes and have done so at times. We just need the will to not revert to hyper-partisan blame game politics.  We can do so much better. Let me explain by taking us back to the Covid-19 pandemic.

A little over four and a half years ago, America and the rest of the world was beset by the Covid-19 pandemic.  It was a tragedy of epic proportions that caused millions to die, devastated our economies, disrupted our lives, and created despair and uncertainty.

Initially, Americans and our political parties were united in facing this exigency.  At the outset no one blamed President Trump for creating the pandemic, the recession, 23 million Americans out of work, unemployment skyrocketing to 14.8%, and hundreds of thousands of Americans dying.  Within a few months we adopted the bipartisan $2.2 trillion CARES Act to provide emergency medical support, and stimulus relief to assist those out of work and help struggling and failing businesses. Vaccine development was fast-tracked. 

Within a few months, however, there was growing dissention and finger pointing. The political parties and Americans became divided over how the virus was spread, mask mandates, school and college closures, business closures, and many other health protocols.  President Trump blamed the Democrats for crashing the economy, unnecessarily closing schools and businesses, and violating the personal freedoms of Americans.  Democrats blamed Trump for ignoring the science of Covid-19 and for exposing millions of Americans to the risk of infirmity and death.  Later, the parties and Americans became divided on vaccine mandates.

Additionally, as time went on, the economic effects of the pandemic began to morph.  Supply chain problems began to develop as businesses worldwide shut down because of the pandemic and labor shortages.  All around the world there were shortages of goods and services at the same time that most countries were providing stimulus checks to their citizens.  Thus, the exigency of high inflation began to take hold worldwide, starting in the summer and fall of 2021.  Inflation worsened in 2022, partially due to Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine. For example, here are inflation rates for various countries in 2022: Canada 6.8%, France 5.2%, Germany 6.9%, Italy 8.2%, the UK 7.9% and the US 8%. 

Rather than dealing with the problem of worldwide inflation as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, Republicans and former President Trump pinned the blame for high inflation on the Biden Administration, citing its stimulus package (American Rescue Plan Act), and other spending.  While countries around the world were dealing with high gas and grocery prices, Americans were told it was Biden’s fault. 

Ideally, Americans would understand that like the Covid-19 pandemic and the recession, the exigency of high inflation was not one person’s fault. Rather, it was an unfortunate and lingering aspect of the pandemic that America and its people needed to confront. Americans would also understand that the sitting President has no real authority to combat inflation, including prices for gas, groceries, and other commodities. This is the job of the Federal Reserve (Fed), an independent agency outside of the control of the President. 

Ideally, the American people would also understand that solving the problem of inflation couldn’t happen overnight and would involve some continued hardship and suffering on their part. The solution to high inflation involves tightening the money supply by raising interest rates. The Fed did this eleven times, starting in the March of 2022.  As a consequence, our credit card rates went up, we paid more to borrow money to buy a car or a house, and this further squeezed our personal finances. This tough medicine was necessary to tame inflation, and it worked.  In just over two years, inflation went from 9.1% in June 2022 to 2.5% in August of 2024. This is the fastest and most complete return of the inflation rate to normal levels in more than 50 years.

When all is said and done, America has taken great strides to cope with most of the exigencies emanating from the Covid-19 pandemic; both Trump and Biden deserve credit, and we can do even better if we focus on working together rather than on blaming one another in order to win elections.

In many respects Americans should be celebrating that most of the exigencies emanating from the Covid-19 pandemic—deaths, high unemployment, recession, school and business closures, denial of personal freedoms, high inflation—have been successfully abated.  Inflation is back to target levels, gas prices continue to fall, grocery prices have stabilized, unemployment is at very low levels, the stock markets are at record levels, economic growth (GDP) is solid, and the Fed has started to lower interest rates. In the coming months our credit card interest rates will fall, and it will be easier to purchase cars and homes.  

It’s time to stop picking our Presidents based on the question of whether we’re personally better off than we were four years ago.  It’s time to stop blaming Presidents for problems they did not create, especially national and worldwide exigencies that are often no one’s fault.  The same goes with respect to giving credit.  Let’s tell our political parties and politicians that we’re done with the politics of blame. Instead, let’s focus on the problems and our common interest in addressing them.  And let’s accept and embrace that at times we’ll have to endure hardship and suffering as the country addresses challenges that will inevitably come our way in the future.