The ghost of Ronald Reagan seems to haunt or at least consult Joe Biden’s White House. The administration’s recent embrace of the term Bidenomics, which mirrors Reaganomics, attempts to turn a less-than-gratuitous jab from the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times into a positive talking point about Biden’s economic performance.

Just before Biden gave a major economic speech in Chicago last month, his news agency announced that Bidenomics is word of the day, word of the week, word of the month, word of the year. However, as a strategic move, this particular presidential coin may not be as smart as they think.

Let’s start with the Reagan connection. Reaganomics was conceived in the early 1980s by legendary conservative radio broadcaster Paul Harvey, who, unlike the wordsmiths who invented Bidenomics, was sympathetic to the program. Reagan’s critics called it trickle-down economics; During the 1980 Republican primary, George HW Bush famously called it voodoo economics.

Reagan’s economic policy, also known as the supply side

economy

, designed to cut taxes, increase defense spending, slow the growth of non-defense government functions, and narrow the deficit. Biden’s economic plan is in stark contrast: he recently described it as an alternative to trickle-down

economy that is instead

Concerned about building the economy from the center out and bottom up.

Pundits and partisans still debate the successes and failures of Reaganomics. In any case, while Reagan never publicly used the words trickle-down or Reaganomics, his economic policies remain an important part of his legacy to those who admire the man and his presidency.

Given that, it’s curious that the Biden team would rely on the most revered and iconic Republican president of the modern era for brand inspiration. In addition, the names of presidents are often attached to their perceived failures. Think of Hoovervilles, the term used to describe the slums of the Great Depression under Herbert Hoover; Johnson’s War as Critical Commentary on Vietnam; or the Bushisms that grew out of George W. Bush’s adventures in public speaking.

Obamacare also began as a pejorative to describe the socialized medicine the country would be subjected to under the Affordable Care Act. Barack Obama eventually embraced the nickname, saying in a 2014 interview with Charles Barkley that he liked the term. Ironically, polls at the time suggested that Americans were the

ACA Affordable Care Act

but not Obamacare exemplifies the drawbacks of such currencies and, according to many political scientists, the pitfalls of modern polls.

So what is Bidenomics? The president’s speech in June contained some light details, but since the audience for such an event is quite small, few voters are likely to have heard about it. More recently, Biden’s team and their allies have been quick to point out that the economy is improving based on continued low unemployment and reduced inflation, suggesting that Bidenomics, whatever it is, is working.

The problem with this strategy is multifaceted. First, while any White House adviser can tout fresh positive economic indicators, presidents will be blamed when the economy is bad and take credit when it is good. Yet presidents have little or no control over the economy. If they did, we wouldn’t have a downturn or inflation, which have no political advantage.

Second, while inflation may be cooling down, most Americans have yet to see the benefits. For example, many Southern Californians probably have a more pessimistic view of the economy given the regional costs of gas, groceries, and rent. It usually takes a while for voters to feel that the economy is picking up. Case in point: The economic boom of the late 1990s was partly due to the elder Bush’s bipartisan deal to raise taxes in 1990, but it was Bill Clinton who reaped the political rewards.

Biden’s economic plan could deliver great results, but it’s way too early to say. And in October, millions of people will start paying student loans again, further stretching their budgets.

Finally, the administration’s half-hearted embrace of Bidenomics fails to advance the president’s strongest case for a second term. Successful presidential campaigns need to tell the right story about why a candidate deserves to be elected, and this is especially true for sitting presidents seeking re-election.

If we ask Reagan’s famous question during the 1980 campaign, are you better off now than you were four years ago? the answer is nuanced. Through the lens of the chaos that Donald Trump was and would be, and given the credit Biden deserves for guiding the country through the pandemic, the answer may be yes.

But it’s harder to sell on so-called economic issues at the kitchen table. Recent polls suggest that only a third of Americans approve of Biden’s handling of the economy. And his overall approval rating is about 40%, with a notable lack of enthusiasm for his reelection, even among Democrats.

Bidenomics’ message appears to be all strategy, little substance and generally misses the point at a time when the president urgently needs to convince the country that his leadership is better than the alternative. Asking politicians to put aside strategic and messaging tricks is probably too much, but the Biden team needs to give voters credit for understanding all the issues that matter.

Lori Cox Han is a professor of political science at Chapman University and the author of several books about the American presidency.