Quote Of The Day: Are We At “War” In Economic Crisis Or Not?
Our political (and economic) quote of the day comes from MSNBC’s First Read’s always-perceptive Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro, who raise the question of whether the U.S. is essentially at “war” given the crisis — and, if that’s the case, why Democrats, Republicans and the press don’t seem to notice:
Opinion leaders are beginning to come to this conclusion: America is at war dealing with this economic crisis. Warren Buffett was the first to say it earlier this week. Then yesterday, the New York Times’ Tom Friedman declared, “Economically, this is the big one. This is August 1914. This is the morning after Pearl Harbor. This is 9/12.” And the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein added, “What we are facing is the economic equivalent of a war.” All three men posed this question: If we’re at war, then why aren’t people acting like it? Why isn’t the Obama administration, instead of scoring easy hits on Rush Limbaugh, doing everything it can to develop a clear and transparent plan to fix the banking crisis? Why does the Republican Party seem more interested in 2010 and 2012 than rolling up its sleeves to work with Democrats? Why are folks on Wall Street engaged in short-selling — i.e., betting against the economy? And why is the press covering all of this like a political campaign or expecting that, on Day 52, Obama should have already been able to turn the economy around? David Ignatius also makes this point: “The culture of immobilism starts on Capitol Hill. These people are still working a four-day week, taking Fridays off so they can run home and tell constituents how diligent they are. They may talk about a crisis, but they don’t act like it’s real.”
And, indeed, when history is written, historians will be sure to notice how — with breathtaking and almost neck-breaking speed — despite the biggest American economic meltdown since the Great Depression Republicans, Democrats and the media were so quick to get back into political skirmish positions for continuing standard political battles as if was business as usual. Each side will explain with lawyerly arguments there are good reasons for this and point to the other — and depending on your political prism, these explanations will be perfectly logical.
But the bottom line is that the sense of urgency Americans felt where there seemed to be an emerging national consensus that survival was at stake and that it couldn’t be business as usual, has nearly vanished now. The now feeling isn’t like the feeling during the melt-down in Oct. It isn’t like the feeling like immediately after Obama’s inauguration (even though Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity made it clear that nothing had changed at all and that all Democrats had still had pitchforks and horns before Obama even set his fanny in the Oval Office chair). It most assuredly isn’t the feeling like after 911.
The political parties all seem largely focused on positioning themselves for 2010 AND 2012 and partisans seem focused on the next election. The perception is growing that concern seem to have shifted in the political class from how we’re in survival mode and better get together ASAP to how can each party can make sure they look best to voters and their bases in 2010 and 2012 — or how someone with a private jet and a multi-million dollar contract can increase his audience share.
Meanwhile, The Hill reports that both Republicans and Democrats say Obama’s honeymoon is ending and that (after less than two months office) he needs to show some clear progress on the economic front soon.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Quote Of The Day: Are We At “War” In Economic Crisis Or Not?”
If you define war as being a condition where a country is battling a real enemy that threatens its vitality, then yes, we are at war.
The “enemy” are those people who seek to take advantage of this crippled nation and suck funds away from its cohesive vitality and ship them overseas…those people who seek to influence our leaders to enact legislation that will cripple the populace's ability to keep itself viable and instead render it dependant on hostile foreign influences.
BigOil comes to mind here, but there are others.
Yes, we are at war and we know who the enemy is.
It may be too soon to expect Obama to have shown actual progress on the economy, but is staffing the Treasury Dept (other than the top post being filled by a wunderkind who can't figure out Turbotax) too much to ask?
Other questions: if we are at war, who is the enemy? What is the goal of this war and how will we know if/when we've 'won'? Is there an exit strategy? If we're fighting against the greed and excesses of capitalism, then isn't that similar to fighting the 'tactic' of terrorism which made the “War on Terror” a false proposition?
No reason to try see this economic downturn as a war. Framing it that way is an attempt to stifle dissent and force the rest of the nation to accept the “wisdom” of Washington and the NYC elites.
I have always hated the 'warification' mentality – War on Drugs, War on Poverty, Culture War, War on Illiteracy, etc.
It has two negative effects – it debases the legitimate use and need for real war, and it puts unnatural pressure on anyone who has legitimate objections to the War de-jure to avoid being called 'soft' on some perceived moral failure.
The problem may be that the public hasn't been focused by events. Prior to WW 2, US politics were split between European aid and American isolationism. Pearl Harbor focused everybody's attention and unified the country.
9/11 also made the bickering of a contentious election fade to the background. (at least for a while)
The management of this economic war has kept overt carnage off the TV. No wall street jumpers, no retirement funds wiped out over night. So what if Iceland went belly up – that's over there some where.
Thank God that's been the case, but I think that's why the public has not had a call to arms. The numbers involved are way too big for most people to fathom, so the most you see happening is people save a little more than usual.
The general public is reacting more like the Poles and Jews did in the late 1930s. A neighbor here and a neighbor there is disappearing, but their problems won't effect me….
(I hope this analogy is not found impertinent.)
To add to the comments, there are a number of people who are arguing we must keep putting positive spin on all things economic so as to boost confidence. I believe it was somewhere on this site (comment I think) where people likened Obama to a Carteresque gloom and doom guy.
Anyway, I agree with the point, whether or not the war metaphor is useful. The efforts to solve the crisis among various parties is inconsistent at best. I love the Mall, but if we are truly in dire, dire economic straits, it's grass can be sketcky for a couple more years.
paca – jeeze, why not just completely make up lies whole cloth? Why leave a kernel of truth when you cast aspirations at me?
I was indeed the one who made a comment about Obama being Carteresque in his 'gloom and doom', but it was in contrast to FDR. What I actually said was “Roosevelt also had a much better ability to speak to the country about the reality of the hard times while still delivering a message of hope for the future. Unfortunately, so far the 'hope and change' message that Obama provided as a candidate has been replaced with a Carteresque 'doom and gloom'.”
That is way different than saying “we must keep putting positive spin on all things economic”. The 'doom and gloom' was to point out his lack of skill as an effective communicator in these times of crisis. That I do stand by, because it has been the case. A good leader can deliver bad news without putting out a false positive spin, while at the same time still giving people reason to hope. I don't think Obama has shown that capability as President yet.
Did everyone know that AustinRoth is in fact Elvis who never died but stayed in hiding until his chance to come back as a political commentator?
Sorry, just practicing making stuff up.
Yeah, my comment didn't accurately represent your particular view. All I can say is that it was unintentional. There are definitely people out in the world who have blamed Obama for being too negative and hurting the economy by not spinning positively. While recalling such ideas in other places, I remembered someone somewhere on this blog mentioning Obama as a gloom and doom guy, so I mentioned that in my comment. Due to laziness and poor memory then, it conflates your point with the points of others. Sorry about that!
By the way, still love that “Teddy Bear” song.
Thank you. Thank you very much.