Not if the statistical measures used by our government continue to be bent to make direct comparison impossible. From the Libertarian Ayn Rand, we got Objectivism, which I prefer to call ‘Capitalism Gone Wild.’ Ronald Reagan defeated Carter by using a Misery Index Carter himself had highlighted in 1976, which measured inflation and unemployment, combined.

The table below comes from Wikipedia, showing how presidents have fared in these economic metrics, but the ratings (based on their index average) are simply, wrong.

Why are they wrong? Because, as the Wikipedia entry noted “The data for the misery index is obtained from unemployment data obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor and Inflation Rate from Financial Trend Forecaster. The exact methods used for measuring unemployment and inflation have changed over time.”

More accurately, the measurements have been changed - purportedly to advance accuracy - yet in practical terms, it’s helped to hide the bad news. For example, longterm unemployed people no longer get calculated into the unemployment statistic. As a result, these changes, most of them occurring from Reagan on, can’t be compared directly to the older numbers. This is consistent with the basic Reagan philosophy of Feelgoodism. In application, it means that if we pat each other on the back and say “Everything’s great” enough times, we’ll feel better, despite the fact that things are getting economically suckier.

Don’t misunderstand: the economic advances of the 1990s were real, compared to other presidential terms from 1980 to the present. But they weren’t as great as many thought. They represent only the first period since about 1972 when wages slightly exceeded inflation, using the pre-1980 measurements.

A big part of the misery highs Ford and Carter experienced came from the impact of the recently ended Vietnam War plus the creation of OPEC. Energy costs - not labor - have been the major driver of inflation since. And the most effective control on those costs was the Carter decision to sell AWACs to Saudi Arabia. By improving their defense systems, a strengthened alliance was created and the Saudis have responded by being the major moderating influence on global oil prices since.

9-11 changed that, even more than the global demand for oil driven by the growth of the economies of China and India. Not only did the Saudis sense the alliance was fraying -for good reason because of the terrorists they spawned and funded - but once Bush decided to go after Iraq (which had no ties to 9-11 except in Bush propaganda), that’s when the oil prices spiked up considerably.

Even in the early days of that conflict, the Saudis mouthed good intentions that haven’t been delivered. They’d reassure us prices would hold or drop to $40/bbl, then $50, then $60, before they quit the pretense entirely and raked in all the profits instead. No matter how many times Bush has kissed the Saudis and held their hands, they really haven’t been Bush’s best friends at all. And is it such a wonder?

Bush helped increase Iran’s influence and brought a revival to Shia power, a chief regional competitor with most of the Middle East, which is Sunni. (And for novices, Hezbollah and Hamas are Shia terror orgs, while Al Qaeda is Sunni). Clearly, our national interests aren’t served enhancing either side of that divide. It’s better to advance secularism in Middle East governments, more than democracy or Bush’s preference of puppetocracy.

Meanwhile, back at the Misery Index, the bad economic news continues to be hidden. Kevin Phillips has a new book out, an article in the May issue of Harper’s, and provided a taste at the Huffington Post three days ago.