Two Narratives
I think it’s safe to say that Drew Westen, in his recent NYT essay, channels the disappointment and anger felt by many liberal democrats these days. He argues that President Obama should have given this speech on Inauguration Day in 2009:
“I know you’re scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn’t work out. And it didn’t work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can’t promise that we won’t make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that your government has your back again.” A story isn’t a policy. But that simple narrative “” and the policies that would naturally have flowed from it “” would have inoculated against much of what was to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands.
No doubt this is a seductive counterfactual for liberals. But they might also want to consider this argument by Yoni Applebaum at The Atlantic, who writes that progressives tend
to promise better policies and improved implementation, while rallying to the defense of government from its critics. It insists that government should do better, but not that we need a better government. Whatever its intellectual merits, this approach has a fatal political flaw: most Americans number themselves among government’s critics. They don’t think government works terribly well, and they are disinclined to support politicians who do. Voters are increasingly eager to hear accounts of our present crises that offer comprehensive explanations and systematic solutions. Conservatives contend that government itself is the problem, and that the solution is to slash its size and role. That appeals to voters who want narratives that seem scaled to the enormity of the challenges that we face. Progressives offer no equivalently broad diagnosis of government dysfunction, much less an equally compelling remedy.
These two narratives–from Westen and Applebaum–are tailored for progressives. Which one do you think has a better chance of succeeding?
Voters are increasingly eager to hear accounts of our present crises that offer comprehensive explanations and systematic solutions.
Do they also care, whether or not the explanation holds water? Whether or not the “solution” actually addresses and solves the problem?
I was a reporter in the 1980s and the 1990s. I remember the lawsuits designed to force banks to stop “disproportionately denying” loans in impoverished communities (based, of course, on the oh-so-unhip and possibly racist use of credit scores). I also remember the efforts to “encourage home ownership” that had bus drivers buying half-million dollar homes near DC because, wink-wink, the government is part of Fannie and Freddie and, after all, default is just an invitation to a new “program.”
This may be why after watching politicians and writers at the NY Times babble incoherently and dishonestly through 2008 and 2009 about “Wall Street,” the Tea Party became one of the most effective grass-roots political movement in modern history by simply calling bull**t.
The speech would have been effective and honest if the first paragraph acknowledged that federal policies pushing loans to people who could not afford to make the payments caused a run up in home prices and flooded the financial system with essentially worthless financial paper based on those loans.
The Wall Street financiers and speculators then made a bad situation much worse by packaging and selling the worthless paper. Had regulators stopped the repackaging of the loans or rating institutions not given triple A ratings to the packages, the damage would have been much less extensive. But then the Congress was not interested in stopping the flow of Government guaranteed mortgages to poor people, and lots of people were making tons of money in fees and commissions. Greed ran wild until the system could not cover the missed mortgage payments and the crash began.
It’s been a while since I’ve read anything nearly as pathetic as Westen’s “essay”.
Weren’t the Wall Street gamblers (Goldman Sucks, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch et al.) also among top donors to Obama presidential campaign fund?
Keith, do you actually believe there are politicians who are not in the pocket of various banks, industries or trade unions? Follow the money.
Westen: “But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it[ridiculous. The country was wallowing in depression until WWII started. Does he advocate starting a war.], and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans [How?] by putting them back to work. [How?]
This is typical liberal drivel. Factually incorrect and high on seeming good intentions and devoid of real solutions. Not surprising that it comes from the New York Times, the home of prominent haters such as Krugman & Dowd.
JD
It was recently pointed out somewhere that two of the most iconic and popular Presidents of the 20th Century were FDR and Reagan. Neither is known for being a conciliator or centrist. You could certainly add TR to this list.
While Americans like to say that they want politicians who are centrists and moderates, politicians who actually are rarely are rewarded at the voting booth. There are a few exceptions, but these exceptions almost prove the rule. It’s a bit different for Congress, since they have to make deals, but this is also why Congress will never rate is high in popularity as Presidents usually do.
@6 – this seems to me to be a myth. If you look at the GDP stats, it seems that the US economy really started picking up a couple of years before WWII spending really picked up. The economy was really picking up by 1940, but spending really only started to increase for defense in 1941 and then really in 1942. I used to buy into this myth that only WWII pulled us out of the depression, but the statistics don’t support it. This isn’t the place to debate New Deal policies, but whatever caused it, it seems that recovery preceded major WWII defense-oriented spending. And I think that what Westen was referring to was banking regulation, which would have prevented at least some of the activities that fueled the 2008 collapse.
# 6 and 7
In fact, unemployment rose in 1937 again and FDR decided to forget about balanced budget and in 1938 initiated a 5 billion dollar spending programme.
In 1938-1940 Europeans were placing large orders (by the standards of the day) to US arms manufacturers.
Re wisdom of grandparents, have you ever heard about Mexican repatriation?
#7
” If you look at the GDP stats, it seems that the US economy really started picking up a couple of years before WWII spending really picked up. The economy was really picking up by 1940, but spending really only started to increase for defense in 1941 and then really in 1942. I used to buy into this myth that only WWII pulled us out of the depression, but the statistics don’t support it”
Um, no.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php
Look at the GDP numbers, fairly flat until 1940. Cash and Carry started in 1939 and was eventually replaced by Lend Lease of early 1941, which were part of the war spending/income long before our entry at the end of 1941.
#2 Jeffn
Exactly, Democrats love short talking points that can be condensed to “the man” or “the rich” (modern translation).
In the end it is simple, Democrats never stop talking the blame game and never accept any responsibilty. In the era of large crisises, it becomes annoying and fairly transparent and eventually a sign of weakness.
@ 9
Democrats never stop talking the blame game and never accept any responsibilty
Exactly the same goes for Republicans.
@9
Your link shows 8.6% growth 39-40 and 17.9% in 1940-41. That looks like a recovery to me.
@8
I’m aware that the was a retrenchment in ’37 – widely acknowledged to be because the FDR and the Fed raised interest rates.
If you can demonstrate that orders from Europe were at a level to bring about that level of growth, I would take it back (though I’m going to be out of town for the next week).
PS – If WWII spending did end the Depression (which I acknowledge is the conventional wisdom), doesn’t that provide support to Keynesian theory and imply that New Deal stimulus earlier on failed to end the Depression simply because it was inadequate?
Dean,
I am aware that there are subtleties in the economics that preceded WWII following Roosevelt’s election. However, no matter how you view it there was no sustained period of prosperity until the Start of WWII. After Roosevelt had been in office for a substantial period of time, there was a very substantial downturn. In my view, no matter how you look at it, Roosevelt’s first two terms of office did not produce any clear lessons on how to revive an economy. I agree that there was lax regulation of financial institutions during the late 90s & the 2000s that substantially contributed to the downturn.
JD
@11
“Your link shows 8.6% growth 39-40 and 17.9% in 1940-41. That looks like a recovery to me.
”
Yes from Cash and Carry and Lend Lease, as I pointed out. War spending and GDP impact did not start 12/7/41 they started in 1939. Thanks for agreeing with me.
@11
Democrats never stop talking the blame game and never accept any responsibilty
Exactly the same goes for Republicans.
Hmm I do not recall Bush blaming Clinton for the recession of 2001, 911 etc. Here we are 2.5 years later and all Obama can say is it’s Bush’s fault.
S&P downgarde is the Tea Party’s fault. Failed stimulus, oh that was the Republicans fault, yet they had no impact on that POS legislation.
Whether they are Dem or Rep we have a spending problem, period. Letting the “Bush” tax cuts on the wealthy will not even make a scratch on this problem. I have never witnessed a President who whines and deflects more than this one, the worst President ever.
Dean (11)
If you are willing to enforce price control, wage control and rationing then Keynesian Theory works very well. Tough to get the public to voluntary do this though.
Jon, you were perhaps too young to remember the 2000 campaign where Bush dumped all over Clinton for the small recession???
I point to the Americans’ appreciation of their presidents and I point to Ronald Reagan, that is all.
“Letting the “Bush” tax cuts on the wealthy will not even make a scratch on this problem.”
liar liar pants on fire.