The "Eternal Optimist"

Readers might recall the mild uproar over comments made last year when then-presidential candidate John McCain's economic advisor, Phil Gramm, described the recession in psychological terms. In fact, Mr. Gramm was forced to leave his post in the McCain campaign after making this shocking statement:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession..."

Needless to say, Barack Obama and his minions seized on Mr. Gramm's apparent misstep and exploited it for vast political gain.

Perhaps you've heard analysts repeatedly say that Mr. Obama is actually something of an economic suppressant. What is meant by this is that his rhetoric has had a depressing impact on Americans and the economy. In fact, as I write this, the DOW has fallen nearly 300 points in response to Mr. Obama's signing of his stimulus package. Surely anyone paying attention to economic trends knows about market psychology and consumer psychology. Surely anyone with a radio has heard reports like "oil prices rose steeply today over fears that the conflict in Israel and Gaza will escalate," or reports of similar kind. Psychology plays a major, often THE major, role in markets. (Right now I see this on the TV screen: "Dow plunges nearly 4,000 points since first financial 'rescue' talks.")

Psychology is in many ways nearly everything. And Barack Obama has not helped one bit.

This morning, as I was traveling to a dentist appointment and listening to the radio, I heard Don Imus ask George Stephanopoulos about the need for someone in the White House to begin boosting consumer confidence with some encouraging words. Mr. Stephanopoulos, as you know, is both a political analyst with his own TV show and a fan of Barack Obama. In his answer to Mr. Imus, Mr. Stephanapoulos admitted that psychology is a "major factor" in an economic recovery; he added that Barack Obama, in order to push his agenda through, may have pushed too hard on the "fear pedal."

And Mr. Stephanopoulos is not the only person to criticize Barack Obama for this sort of thing. Mr. Obama is, without a doubt, a master of spreading fear.

INCREDIBLE STUFF!

Here's Mr. Obama last Monday night as he concluded his "prime time" news conference. Note how much better a speaker he is than his predecessor:

And so when I hear people just saying, "Uh, we don't need to do anything, this is a spending bill not a stimulus bill," without acknowledging that by definition, uh, part of any stimulus package would include spending, that's the point, then what I get a sense of is that there is some ideological blockage there that, that needs to be cleared up. But I am the eternal optimist. Uh, I think that over time people respond, uh, to uh, to civility and, and rational argument. I think that's what the people, uh, of Elkhart and people around America are looking for and that's what I'm, that's the kind of leadership I'm gonna try to provide. Alright? Thank you guys.

I must say it is nice to see civility demonstrated so impeccably, especially with locutions like "ideological blockage...that needs to be cleared up." And then there's the "rational argument" thing -- as if Obama's opponents are irrational and he in his gracious and conciliatory manner embodies reason at every turn.

Attentive readers know that Mr. Obama actually amended his own convictions to make his case. Earlier he said that a stimulus package and spending were identical. Now, spending is only "part" of a stimulus package ... "by definition." Of course, at least this writer laughs at Mr. Obama's audacity and cunning: "'By definition', sir? Really?"

Mr. Obama's rhetoric will brook no dissent: his definitions leave no room for stimulus plans constructed solely of cutting taxes and government largess. He knows his definitions, and they are static.

David Axelrod, chief Obama advisor and extremely highly-overrated thinker, told Chris Wallace Sunday the same sort of drivel, namely, that a stimulus package and spending are essentially identical. But that's the nature of propagandizing: say a thing just often enough to make it true. Mr. Axelrod is, after all, precisely where he is because he is expert in propaganda (which, of course, requires high-level thinking skills, albeit deceptive ones, so I concede, in part, that Axelrod might not be entirely overrated).

Mr. Obama believes the Bush tax cuts prove that such cuts don't stave off recession and that they may even cause recession. This from the same man who asserted on the campaign trail that Bush spent too much money. Moreover, if the "failed policies of the past," as Mr. Obama is wont to describe such things, led to this recession, then it must be asked which failed policies, the cuts or the spending. And if the New Deal was so effective, or increased spending under any president is an irrepressible inducement to economic growth, how come recessions still follow? If spending did not keep the economy in recovery under many different presidents, then why are we emulating the "failed policies of the past?"

The fact is this: the vast majority of Americans AND economists believe that the BEST stimulus package is one heavy on tax cuts combined with reduced spending. During hearings about the Bush tax cuts early in the Bush tenure, Allan Greenspan testified that the tax cuts would indeed work AS LONG AS THERE WAS A DECREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING. It was a statement that still rings in my ears. And yet it was, and continues to be, utterly ignored. (It would be interesting to hear Greenspan now.)

But, alas! Barack Obama has everything in place: he has a package heavy on spending that also includes significant tax cuts. Hence, in the end, no one will be able to divine -- should the economy recover -- what portion of the stimulus was effective. Plus, as I've said in other posts here, the lower fuel costs we are all enjoying are part of a current windfall that can only assist recovery in ways profound and effective. And despite our inability to know whether this stimulus is ever effective, Barack Obama will insist that it was, will be, and ever shall be, effective. Perfectly effective.

In the end, it is all about psychology ... the psychology of fear, arrogance and conceit.

Peace through dissent.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.