editorial

The question "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" has become a staple of American political discourse, frequently wielded by candidates as a blunt instrument to gauge voter satisfaction. It’s simple, memorable, and effective on the surface—but also profoundly flawed. By asking this question, we risk oversimplifying the enormous complexities that influence people's lives, many of which lie entirely outside a president’s control. As a measure of leadership, it fails to account for the nuances of governance in an interconnected world where national leaders must navigate global forces beyond their reach. In 2024, this question is more misleading than ever.

Context Matters: The Extraordinary Crisis of 2020

To properly understand why this question is ill-suited as a measure of presidential performance, we must first consider the extraordinary context of 2020, a year marked by unparalleled challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally disrupted life in ways we hadn't seen in generations. By March of 2020, the United States was in the grips of a global health crisis. Over a thousand Americans were dying each day, hospitals were overwhelmed, and lockdowns paralyzed the economy. Social gatherings were forbidden, businesses shuttered, and schools moved online. Basic goods like toilet paper became scarce as panicked consumers cleared shelves. Civil unrest, spurred by deep racial and political divisions, erupted across major cities, adding to the tension and uncertainty.

In this context, the question of "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" takes on a different meaning. For many Americans, the answer is undoubtedly "yes," but not because of any miraculous policy achievements. Rather, the passage of time has brought us out of the most intense phases of crisis. The pandemic, though not completely eradicated, no longer defines every facet of our lives. Lockdowns are over, the economy has reopened, and society has resumed some semblance of normalcy. But to attribute these improvements entirely to a president—whether current or former—is an oversimplification. The resilience and recovery are due to a combination of scientific breakthroughs, global public health initiatives, and the natural recovery that follows global catastrophes.

The Limits of Presidential Power: A Multitude of Global Factors

While the presidency is undeniably a powerful position, it is not omnipotent. Much of what influences Americans' day-to-day lives is shaped by forces far beyond the control of the Oval Office. For example, one of the most persistent issues today—inflation—has become a focal point of political debate, with many blaming the current administration for the rising cost of living. Yet inflation is a global issue, not an American one. Supply chain disruptions, lingering effects of the pandemic, and the war in Ukraine have collectively driven up prices for energy, food, and goods across the world. No single government can solve these problems, and certainly no president can stop inflation in its tracks.

The same is true for gas prices, another common metric voters use to assess their well-being. In 2020, gas prices were indeed lower—but only because demand collapsed when the world came to a standstill. With businesses closed, flights grounded, and commuters working from home, the need for fuel plummeted, driving prices down. This wasn’t the result of any strategic energy policy; it was a symptom of an unprecedented global crisis. Now, as economies have reopened and energy demand has surged, prices have naturally risen. This is a global trend, with gas prices spiking in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, often more sharply than in the U.S. To hold the president accountable for these shifts ignores the broader economic dynamics at play.

Similarly, housing prices and rents have surged post-2020, but this too must be viewed in context. During the height of the pandemic, real estate markets were frozen in uncertainty. People were hesitant to buy or sell homes, and many construction projects were delayed. The full economic aftershocks of the pandemic didn’t hit until late 2020 and beyond, when pent-up demand, coupled with supply shortages, drove prices higher. Again, this is a phenomenon that transcends national borders, with similar trends playing out in Canada, Europe, and Australia. Blaming or crediting the president for a global housing surge oversimplifies the complexity of the issue.

The Misleading Memory of 2020: Why Some Think They Were Better Off

Despite the objectively harsh realities of 2020, some people today may still claim they were better off four years ago. This perception often stems from a few key factors: lower gas prices, cheaper groceries, and a more affordable housing market. However, as we’ve already discussed, these "better" conditions were not reflective of a thriving economy, but of a global system in crisis. The artificially low prices of 2020 were the result of a world in lockdown, with entire industries stalled and demand for many goods at a historic low. In fact, most people would likely agree that the restrictions on movement, the shortages of basic goods, and the looming threat of illness in 2020 were far worse than paying a bit more at the gas pump today.

Moreover, the human psyche is often inclined to look at the past through a nostalgic lens, especially when the present feels uncertain. It’s easy to remember the temporary financial relief some felt during the early pandemic—due to government stimulus checks, temporary rent freezes, and paused loan repayments—while forgetting the deeper sense of fear, isolation, and instability that dominated daily life. Many of the economic gains people saw in 2020 were the result of emergency measures designed to keep the economy afloat during a crisis, not the result of sustainable growth.

Giving Credit Where It’s Due

This brings us to an important point: if we are going to hold presidents accountable for the current state of the economy, it must be for how they navigate these global challenges, not for the existence of these challenges themselves. And in this regard, there is reason to give the current administration credit. Despite facing an unprecedented convergence of crises—from pandemic aftershocks to supply chain disruptions and geopolitical turmoil—the U.S. economy has remained remarkably resilient compared to other developed nations. Unemployment has remained low, wage growth has continued, and while inflation has been painful, the U.S. has fared better than many of its peers.

Take, for instance, Europe, where energy prices have soared to new heights as the war in Ukraine disrupts natural gas supplies. Or consider countries like Argentina or Turkey, where inflation has reached staggering double-digit levels. In comparison, the U.S. has managed to keep inflation at more manageable levels, with central banks and policymakers working in tandem to stave off the worst outcomes. Hyperinflation, mass layoffs, and widespread financial collapse have been avoided, and for that, the administration deserves some recognition.

The Danger of Simplistic Metrics

At its core, the question "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" is an oversimplified and misleading metric for judging presidential performance. It ignores the extraordinary context of 2020, the global forces that shape economic conditions, and the nuances of governance in an interconnected world. In a complex global economy, most Americans are better off today than they were in 2020, but this improvement is not the result of a single administration’s policies. It is the result of collective efforts across multiple domains—science, public health, international cooperation, and economic resilience.

As voters, we owe it to ourselves to ask more sophisticated questions about our leaders. Instead of relying on misleading slogans and simplistic comparisons, we should focus on how our leaders respond to the challenges of the moment. Are they navigating global crises effectively? Are they laying the groundwork for future prosperity? In a world as complex and interconnected as ours, these are the questions that matter. Only by asking the right questions can we hold our leaders to account in a meaningful way.