“It’s the economy , stupid.”

James Carville coined this phrase for future President Bill Clinton ’s first White House run. It points to the close relationship between politics and economics. How politicians run the government can have a significant impact on the economy. How the economy performs can have a significant impact on politics — on both public policy and electoral outcomes.

Thus, political watchers should take seriously the economic news from Tuesday. On Aug. 1, America saw its long-term credit rating from Fitch Ratings downgraded from AAA to AA+. Fitch Ratings is one of the three most important independent credit rating companies whose assessments matter in international financial interactions. A vote of confidence or the opposite can make a big difference in how America operates in the world market.

The downgrade could affect the economy and, thus, the 2024 election. That’s why the Biden administration sharply criticized the decision , saying they “strongly disagree with it” and then pointing the finger at Republicans.

But we should look beyond the immediate or even medium-term impact of the call. Instead, we must give some attention to the reasons Fitch Ratings gave for why it made the decision to downgrade. They point to broader political, not just economic, problems we face.

One reason Fitch Ratings gave for its downgrade was the high level of national debt America now carries. That point might seem strange to elicit a rating change now. America has not balanced its budget since the beginning of the century and has racked up trillions in debt as a regular practice. Nor have the fears about increasing debt played out in the terrible ways some doomsayers foretold.

Still, the fact that our economic chickens have not come home to roost yet does not mean they’ll hold out forever. Our national debt stands at $32 trillion. The money we pay just on the interest of that debt is on pace to eventually overwhelm other fiscal priorities. We continue to mortgage our future, including that of our children, in service to the present and, thus, to ourselves.

Fitch’s decision betrays a lack of trust in our political system, both its leaders and its voters, ever to address this (literally) growing problem. At one point, we had one political party that at least paid lip service to fiscal responsibility. In the 1990s, Republicans even expended political capital to decrease budget deficits and work toward paying down the national debt . Their efforts, combined with wildly successful economic growth, helped create our last balanced budget.

Going further back in time, President Andrew Jackson , one of the first wildly successful American populists, campaigned and governed on deficit reduction and debt repayment. He vetoed spending projects, not just because he thought they helped the rich, elite “monied interests,” but because he thought it irresponsible to spend money the national government did not really have.

Those were the days, whether you look to the 1990s or Jackson’s time in the 1820s and 1830s. Now, we have a bipartisan consensus to not even talk about, let alone touch, serious plans for addressing the national debt. Sure, the party out of power will use wasteful spending as a bat with which to bludgeon the party controlling Congress and/or the White House. But they hardly even try to act like they mean it beyond partisan gamesmanship anymore. They certainly forget it the moment they assume real political power.

This approach to our debt shows a lack of seriousness in our politics, both in our leadership and in ourselves as voters. We seem to hope the problem of debt will go away or at least be pushed back eternally. In so hoping or assuming, we make realistic solutions harder and harder to achieve.

Or, instead of lacking wisdom, we lack moral virtue. Our inaction betrays a selfishness that, while always a temptation to any republic, is one against the Founding principles of our own. The Preamble to the Constitution ends its list of goals with the purpose of securing the blessings of liberty “to ourselves and our posterity.” We talk of building a better future for our children. Yet we do not do it in this crucial way.

Fitch’s rating downgrade was meant to be a signal, even a wake-up call. It likely will be ignored and to the detriment, if not of ourselves, then of our posterity.

Adam Carrington is an assistant professor of politics at Hillsdale College.