4 Responses to “Beyond Good and Evil Advertising”

1. John Hartland says:

   January 10, 2009 at 9:28 am

   Hmm. What did Commentary say in late 2000 when Bush Junior talked down the economy to justify his multi-trillion dollar taax cuts? Not that rank hypocrisy is ever a problem for this publication; indeed, that is your stock in trade.
2. Numerian says:

   January 10, 2009 at 9:43 am

   Hmm John Hartland. Can you provide an actual quote of Bush Junior “talking down” the economy in late 2000? Or can you merely make unsupported assertions?
3. John Hartland says:

   January 10, 2009 at 9:46 am

   By the way, seeing as how we’re on the topic of the economy, maybe I should start a running count of the number of days that the Bernie Madoff scandal has gone unmentioned by Commentary’s staff. I (don’t) wonder why this might be.
4. John Hartland says:

   January 10, 2009 at 9:47 am

   Numerian, are you denying that this happened? I’d like to get you on the record before I blow you and your lying, failed president out of the water.
5. Numerian says:

   January 10, 2009 at 9:53 am

   “My lying failed president”? What country are your from? If you’re an American Bush is your president, too, just as Obama shortly will be my president.
   My recollection is that in 2000-2001 Bush simply advocated tax cuts to stimulate the economy, which at the time was in a swoon. Not the same as “talking down” the economy. Not that I especially blame Obama; it’s just rhetoric. I merely inquire because I’ve noticed you tend to make unsupported assertions a lot.
   And why should Commentary – or anyone for that matter – fixate on the Madoff scandal? Because he happens to be Jewish? Who cares? The guy was a leftist in any event, and most of his clients were leftists, which is why the leftist MSM is crapping bricks about it. The Madoff scandal is alarming, but his being Jewish is incidental to why it is alarming.
6. Ahithophel says:

   January 10, 2009 at 10:12 am

   I remember what John Hartland is talking about, when the Bush administration was taking shape, before he was inaugurated in 2000. The economy was beginning to turn negative, as it was becoming apparent that the dot.com boom had been half genuine innovation and half irrational exuberance. Bush and his still-forming economic team talked about how the economy was probably entering into a downturn, and the Clinton administration was angry that they were doing this. Presumably Clinton knew that there was fundamental weakness in the economy, and adjustments were going to be made; he merely wanted those adjustments to be made after he was well departed. He didn’t want it remembered that the economy was beginning a downturn at the end of his term, so he was happy to float the bubble a little further on happy talk.

   In other words, the question was one of honesty versus rhetoric. The Bush team wanted to be honest about weaknesses in the economy, and the Clinton administration wanted positive rhetoric to sustain the bubble a little while longer. Bill was all about irrational exuberance.

   This case is somewhat different, since the issue is not exactly honesty versus rhetoric but optimism versus pessimism. Bush in 2000-2001 talked about problems in the economy, but he was always confident in the American people and the American free market. The question now is not exactly whether Obama is being honest; he’s honest enough about our economic problems. It’s rather whether he should project confidence in the American people and the American market. That confidence can be perfectly honest.
7. Ahithophel says:

   January 10, 2009 at 10:30 am

   Obama gains several things from maintaining negative rhetoric presently, at least until his inauguration:

   (1) First, as you say, is lowering expectations. The more hopeless the situation appears, the more impressive it will appear if Obama is able to make any progress at all, and positively miraculous if he’s able to get the economy flourishing again.

   (2) Second, though, is the matter of imagery and storytelling. Obama, the Candidate of Hope (TM), gains politically if all remains doom and gloom until he takes office. In the same way that Clinton did not want it remembered that the economy began to turn south while he was still in office, Obama may not want it remembered that the economy began to recover through any actions taken by the Bush administration. This means that the economy cannot be seen to recover until *after* the Obama administration has taken action. Any progress must be seen as a consequence of Obama’s actions, not Bush’s.

   (3) Third, the more desperate the present circumstances, the more radical the transformations required to fix them. We were told that the economy would tumble back to the Stone Age if we didn’t immediately pass the $700B TARP bill; in the same way, if Obama says this is our “last chance,” then suddenly he can pass virtually any legislation in our moment of panic.

   So I expect that Obama will express some more hope after he takes office–but say that our only hope is in the dramatic transformations he proposes. Then, after the Congress has agreed to his proposals, suddenly he will find signs of change and progress all around.
8. John Hartland says:

   January 10, 2009 at 10:40 am

   My recollection is that in 2000-2001 Bush simply advocated tax cuts to stimulate the economy, which at the time was in a swoon. Not the same as “talking down” the economy. Not that I especially blame Obama; it’s just rhetoric.

   The economy had slowed a little bit at the end of 2000, and Bush used that as an argument for what he claimed were $1.2T in tax cuts but which were actually much more. In fact (oops, I hate to use facts because we know facts are antisemitic), both your failed president and your failed vice president talked down the economy to justify their tax cuts.

   But now, with the economy falling faster than at any time in 60 years, for Obama to notice it is held to be too dismal. What can you people ever get right? Fact is, there have been two Bushes in the White House, and both times they failed. This should come as no real surprise, because neither of them ever made it in private industry; senior’s Zapata oil company was a bust, and so was junior’s corrupt Harken oil company.

   Should I remind you of what the Republicans predicted about Clinton’s economic program in 1993, and what actually happened, or would those facts be antisemitic?

   And why should Commentary – or anyone for that matter – fixate on the Madoff scandal? Because he happens to be Jewish? Who cares?

   Commentary holds itself out as a chronicler of Jewish culture. So, yes, it should be talking about this stupendous financial fraud, which has victimized not just the public at large but also scores of Jewish organoizations. There is a lot to say about it, but Commentary is not a chronicler of anything. It’s merely a neocon Bund propaganda organ and nothing more.

   Or, to put it a different way, I suspect the Podhoretzes would rather not have to mention a long list of unmentionables. I think the word is “shyster,” but you didn’t hear it from me.
9. Alexander Almasov says:

   January 10, 2009 at 10:50 am

   Must Hartscheiss always end up talking abt himself, even though we don’t hear it from him? Hard to tell which is more emetic, the conclusion or the stupid partisan lies which precede it.
10. GirdYourLoins says:

    January 10, 2009 at 10:51 am

    Great analysis, Ahitophel, but, hard as it is to imagine, I think you underestimate, a bit, one important factors: Obama is all spin, all of the time. So he is going to propose all manner of “solutions” — all variations on the theme of “let’s print more money” — and send them to Congress, vaguely urging them to “do the right thing.” Congress, of course, will do the inane thing, and in the end, just authorize an endless list of pork projects. Then, if it works, Obama takes the credit. If it doesn’t, he throws Congress under the bus.

    I think we underestimate Obama’s coolness. He really is indifferent to everything except his own pleasure/survival/advancement. His workout in the morning is as important to him as anything else he does for the rest of the day. He thinks he’s in the Big House for 8 years, so each day there will be a lark for him. He’s already planning his memoirs.
11. lester says:

    January 10, 2009 at 10:55 am

    who cares what his demenor is? reagan didn’t bring the economy back with his freaking demenor he did it by raising interest rates.

    you machevellian neo cons have no cloue how the world works
12. Coconut Juice says:

    January 10, 2009 at 10:59 am

    Jenny is quite wrong, again.
13. John Hartland says:

    January 10, 2009 at 11:14 am

    lester, it wasn’t reagan who brought the economy back. It was Paul Volcker. The credit goes to Jimmy Carter, who sacrificed his presidency for the good of the country by appointing Volcker to do what had to be done, which was to jack up rates to kill the beast. Reagan’s “success” started in the summer of 1982 when the Fed changed direction.

    The two things I’d give (some) credit to Reagan for are these: First the tax reform of 1986, and second, his optimistic demeanor. Tax reform was a masterstroke. Even though it’s true that it was more than Reagan’s doing (the tax code was moth-eaten at the time and was collapsing of its own weight), the reform wouldn’t have happened without Reagan, so he gets credit, even from me.

    As for his optimism, it was a welcome change from Jimmy Carter, whose grimacing style was very much at odds with the American character. I remember his malaise speech very well, and at the time I told my Democratic friends that it was one of the most ill-advised collection of words I’d ever heard tumble from a leader’s mouth. Reagan was smarmy and irritating, for sure, and his optimism was phony for millions of people, but no one can please everyone, and on balance he taught the Democrats a lesson that they needed to learn.

    But Reagan did not bring the economy back. That was Volcker, and really no one else. Presidential influence on the economy was felt more heavily in later years. The Reagan administration’s failure to supervise the S&Ls led to the credit crunch of the late ’80s that ultimately caused the Fed to make the moves that ki9ll Bush Sr.’s re-election chances. Clinton’s ’93 budget, with its top bracket, was a critical element that prolonged the ’90s boom. Bush’s tax cut and neocon Bund war, along with the failure to supervise the banks, led directly to the current depression.

    But even those successes and failures occurred against a backdrop of Fed action. It has always been the Fed as the main actor. Today, we’re on a spacewalk. The Fed is running out of tools. We are in a solvency crisis, which is the worst kind. The Fed can create money to lend, but not the means to service the loans. This is the stark truth, and I have yet to see real recognition from anyone of either party of what we are now up against.
14. John Hartland says:

    January 10, 2009 at 11:18 am

    Oh, and if Commentary were a chronicler of Jewish culture as it claims, it would be all over the stupendous Bernie Madoff fraud, which has far-rreaching implications. But, as I’ve been saying, Commentary is nothing but a neocon Bund propaganda organ parading its moral cowardice for all to see.
15. Numerian says:

    January 10, 2009 at 11:54 am

    John Hartland, does Commentary claim to be a “chronicler of Jewish culture”? Personally I’ve never seen such a claim. And what does the Madoff fraud have to do with him being Jewish? He was just a crook running a Ponzi scheme, and FYI, Ponzi was Italian. Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegal were Jewish gangsters, but being Jewish had nothing to do with them being crooks.
    And why are you avoiding my question about your nationality? Are you an American, or not? If you are, why are you describing Bush as not your president? Because he didn’t vote for him? Because you disapprove of his policies?
    I didn’t vote for Obama, and I disapprove of any number of policies he is advocating, but when he is sworn in he will be my president, just as much as Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and everyone else before them.
    I’m an American.
16. Ahithophel says:

    January 10, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    I love how John Hartland does not hold Reagan responsible for turning the economy around, but he does hold him responsible for the failure of the Savings and Loans. If you think that through, it really requires some mental gymnastics.

    What is interesting is this. Reagan passed legislation, against Congressional opposition (remember those phone calls from Tip O’Neill?), by rallying the support of the American people, then sticking to his guns when things got difficult. He held to his supply-side principles, held on through the tough times as the economy made adjustments, then saw those principles vindicated as we began one of the greatest periods of economic expansion in modern history.

    Now, Clinton gets some credit for the performance of the economy under his watch, but remember that economic legislation was passed after the 1994 Republican victories, legislation which the President grudging went along with, and it was that legislation that largely kept the economy humming–along with the dot.com expansion. Clinton does not deserve much credit for the dot.com boom, of course, which was essentially similar to America discovering a vast new resource and wellsprings of money. Clinton was something of a centrist on economic policy, but the 1994 election pushed him to center-right on financial matters. We haven’t really gone backward on that–until, perhaps, now, with the return of a theory of economic growth through the expansion of government spending.

    So we’ve had failures of regulation, natural cycles of growth and contraction, and government interventions (Fannie and Freddie) that have proven disastrous, but we haven’t really had government-driven economics since Reagan, and he deserves a great deal of credit for that.
17. John Hartland says:

    January 10, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    Commentary says that, among other things, it is concerned with “the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world.” If that were so, then Commentary would intensively examine the nature, actions, and impact of the most outlandish Jewish swindler in American history, Bernie Madoff.

    The man made off with 50 billion dollars. That’s billion with a b, and even in this day of degraded dollars that’s a big stash. For Commentary to simply ignore it is preposterous and outrageous, and speaks volumes about what the magazine has become: a mere Bund propaganda sheet that truly “examines” nothing.

    My nationality? American, native born. life-long resident. Junior is your president, not mine. He was appointed to the job in 2000 with the connivance of his father’s corrupt Supreme Court, and reappointed through rampant election fraud in 2004. He took a nation at peace, with a reasonably sound economy and a fairly healthy balance sheet, and ruined it. He is yours. All yours.
18. lester says:

    January 10, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    john- I can’t see how you credit Carter with simply hiring Volcker when you rightfuly point out that it was under reagan that the policy of raising rates actually occured.
19. lester says:

    January 10, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    also, let me say that reagans succes was in part because of

    1. not getting us bogged down in any prolonged military conflict

    2. not massively increasing the size and scope of government and

    3. allowing for the economy to operate at what ai call “humming ” level
20. John Hartland says:

    January 10, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    lester, I believe that if you check, you’ll see that rates were rising before Volcker took over in mid-1979, but really took off after that. The resulting recession was the major reason for Carter’s defeat in 1980. Volcker kept on tightening until mid-1982, which caused Reagan quite a bit of political pain in the ’82 midterms.
21. John Hartland says:

    January 10, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    lester, I think presidents generally have less influence over the economy than commonly believed. Monetary policy is usually more important than anything else, so when I look at presidents and the economy I usually look at the impact that their policies might have had on the Fed.

    There are some exceptions to that, though. Wars are usually inflationary, so starting one is an economic act as much as anything else. The inflation of the 1960s, for instance, was connected to the Vietnam War to some degree. Big regulatory actions (or failures) can have an economic impact, which is why the Republican failures to adequately regulate the banks in the ’80s and again in the ’00s were signal failures.

    Clinton’s 1993 budget was important, because by implementing a fourth bracket he broke the back of the federal deficit, which allowed the Fed to embark on a prolonged easing. The failure of the ’90s was that the Republicans cut the SEC’s enforcement budget in half (go check) in real terms, setting up the frauds of the twin bubbles, first the Internet bubble and then the much bigger and more destructive mortgage bubble.

    The Achilles Heel of Republican economic policies after Nixon is that they were essentially aimed at rewarding economic looters — LBO artists, commercial real estate developers, dot-com fraud artists, and of course, banks. For a while, the spinoff effects blinded everyone to the corruption at the core, but not anymore.
22. lester says:

    January 10, 2009 at 3:18 pm

    you know who had great great numbers was Harding, often considered the worst president ever. shows you how messed up acedemias criteria is
23. Jack says:

    January 10, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    A president relies on his credibility. The job of the president is to present the situation straight, not talk up a bad economy or talk down a good one. He can take the George Bush/Larry Kudlow route, and always look for silver linings (manufacturing them if they don’t exist, eg “the greatest story never told”). And he will have the same credibility when the economy worsens; that is, zero.

    But really, does anyone expect that a hack like Jennifer Rubin gives advice to Barack Obama in good faith? If he were talking up the economy, she’d be arguing that he should be giving us more straight talk. Count on it.
24. lester says:

    January 10, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    jack- I was just thinking of larry kudlow. he was a bull all through october and november. If you are a bull through times liek that you are just an optmist in general and there is no real reason to listen to you other than for a pep talk. If you had listened to kudlow you’d be broke
25. John Hartland says:

    January 11, 2009 at 12:52 am

    If you want to understand Kudlow, do a Google search on his cocaine addiction. Coke addicts can never be trusted, and that includes the current president, George W. Bush.
26. Marshall says:

    January 11, 2009 at 9:34 am

    Please feel free to ignore John Hartland. He is a typical “We Wuz Robbed” 2000 election Truther and should therefore not be taken seriously. FYI Obama is the addict.