The rhetoric from President Bush urging the government’s
heavy-handed intervention in the current financial crisis is
almost too hot to handle. Hot in the sense that he stole his own
words from earlier speeches urging the United States into war
with Iraq.
The similarities in how Bush justified going to war in Iraq and
passing the $700 billion bailout are eerie: The threat is
“imminent,” the American resolve is “unwavering,” the plan will
“work,” and things will return to “normal.” The government will
be in and out of Iraq/banks as quickly as possible. The U.S. is
working with the rest of the world to neutralize the Iraqi
threat/stabilize world markets. Americans will again be able to
walk down the street not worrying about nuclear attacks/401Ks.
Consider the following quotes from President Bush about either
the war in Iraq or the $700 billion bailout and guess which issue
each refers to (answers below):
1. “We have a strategy that is broad, that is flexible, and that
is aimed at the root cause of our problem.”
2. “And the United States, along with a growing coalition of
nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary.”
3. “Our strategy will continue to evolve and be refined as we
adapt to new developments and the inevitable setbacks. But we
will not stand down until we have achieved our goals.”
4. “The plan is big enough to solve a serious problem.”
Now, take a look at the answers below. Not so easy, huh?
Since President Bush has used this strategy before and a lot of
people are extremely unhappy with the results, why is it working
again? For the very reasons it worked in garnering support for
initiating the Iraq War. The public lacks the appropriate
knowledge, it cannot grasp the magnitude of the action, and the
desired outcomes are vague. Average citizens don’t understand
what it takes to orchestrate an invasion of another nation any
better than they understand what actions are required to stop an
economy from crumbling.
The costs of each are staggering. People don’t understand $700
billion, which is, at this point, the price tag of both the war
and the bailout, let alone what the potential additional costs
might total.
However, more important than the actions and the costs are the
outcomes. This is where it gets messy. The stated outcomes in
each of these $700 billion undertakings are murky: We will
liberate Iraq and spread democracy to the Middle East. We will
restore consumer confidence in the market. We will make progress
in the more encompassing War on Terror. We will prevent another
Great Depression.
These outcomes all sound promising and they make for sound bites
that people rally behind, but what exactly do they mean? What
does a liberated Iraq look like? Saddam Hussein is out of the
picture, free elections took place, and the Iraqi citizens are
not being terrorized by their own government. Is Iraq liberated?
It is not clear.
Likewise, what does it mean to restore consumer confidence? Is it
restored when people go back to spending far more than they make?
Is it restored if the Dow goes up for a few consecutive days?
What will restore confidence? How will we know?
With no real answers to any of these questions, the President
offers little but vague talking points. We need concrete measures
of success, not vague “goals.”
When the U.S. government claims that the bailout will work
quickly and effectively, U.S. taxpayers should be wary. Very
wary. This line has been used before. For better or worse, the
war in Iraq has been considerably more costly and taken much
longer than most people anticipated in 2003.
The worry for the bailout should be the same, given that the same
rhetorical six-shooter has been unholstered to justify the
government’s latest actions.
Answers:
1. Bailout
2. Iraq
3. Bailout
4. Bailout
