I agree that it is a common mistake. It is difficult to draw direct lines to individual ups and downs to policies and that trying to do that is usually a tool used to swing voters more than what is actually happening. But I think it can’t be overstated the effect political decisions have, in the aggregate, of shaping the economic situation. Internally, look at the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, and the resulting construction of 50,000ish miles of highway over the next 2 decades. While it is a bit harder to draw a direct line from all that to the rapid growth of Walmart and their newfound ability to transport large amounts of goods faster and to more places than rail, it is easy to say that that political decision had a profound effect on how the country operated over the last 60 years. The country would look very different in almost every facet had that not happened.

Externally, look at the trade agreements and foreign policy decision in the post WWII cold war era. If the US had not decided to embrace Japan as a trading partner and had not imposed strict controls on their post WWII government on military spending, the money from the Marshal Plan, the Japanese government’s decision to rebuild the economy through the central planning of the MITI, would they have exploded into the technological powerhouse they became? Maybe, but I can’t imagine it would have looked anything like what they did end up with.

> I had a complete different interpretation. I understood it as prompt to reflect on everything you do with an examination if it furthers partisan goals.

I think it is both. To snap you out of the idea that politics is just those big talking point issues that politicians and voters focus on (or that politicians convince voters to focus on). That it is a lot of everyday things that you may rarely think about being connected to “politics” and partisan actions.