24/09: Greenspan, the President, and the Media
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I am right now watching just a snippet of Alan Greenspan on C-SPAN2.
I cannot help but think that Vice President Dick Cheney miscalculated in his Wall Street Journal retort to the "maestro." A better strategy might have been embracing him. It seems to me that the former Fed chairman is much more upset about profligate spending than he dislikes the Bush tax policy. I keep hearing Greenspan say tax cuts are okay. Giving back the surplus was a good thing. The war debt is no big deal. But he is really mad at George Bush for 1) allowing (encouraging, instigating) big spending and 2) not attacking some of the massive entitlement programs looming as economic time bombs.
An alternative strategy for the White House might have gone something like this: "Alan Greenspan is absolutely right. A free-spending Congress and its unwillingness to eschew politics and solve the serious problems confronting the next generation has done great damage to the nation." A more politically adept Bush team could have used the moment to frame more favorably for history the President's failed attempt to reform social security.
On Friday I caught up with the Terry Gross interview on Fresh Air from earlier in the week. I was struck by her palpable disappointment with Greenspan’s vaunted comments on Bush failures. The always cryptic Greenspan does not tarry long on those much ballyhooed disagreements. In fact, if you keep him on those subjects long enough, he offers up assertions quite troubling for the Bush lynch mob. For example, he is not shy about affirming that he viewed the ouster of Saddam as absolutely necessary at the time. But, in the most general way, his selected comments move forward the anti-Bush drumbeat; therefore, Greenspan is getting a friendly reception from the MSM and usual suspects.
Moreover, the libertarian sage fits in with a favorite storyline: even smart Republicans and conservatives think Bush is an idiot, and they don't like him personally.
Another example of this re-emergent template a la Fresh Air again:
Terry Gross also interviewed Jeffrey Toobin last week. Toobin’s latest book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court , explains how Sandra Day O'Connor, instrumental in making Bush president through judicial fiat, came to regret her perfidy as she got to know the wild-eyed Texan and come to understand his assault on the Constitution. When asked how he knew this to be true, Toobin responded: "You're just going to have to trust me on that one."
As for the bigger picture, is there a kernel of truth in this increasingly popular Bush-bashing MSM convention? Are Republicans really deserting the sinking ship? Only those who can read a poll. Are GOP Washington insiders saying they knew all along this guy was no good? Every minute of the day.
Is that surprising? Does it mean a whole lot? Not really.
This is life on the Potomac. Outsiders infuriate insiders. When things go bad, like in the case of Jimmy Carter, the insiders pound on the country bumpkin for a lack of sophistication and a reliance on his crude and boorish cronies. By the way, when things go bad for insiders, like the first George Bush, your friends pretty much desert you then as well—although they are forced to come up with different explanations for your failings and be more creative as to why they are not connected to you.
On the other hand, the Beltway “smarties” had to bite their tongues during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. They would have deserted Clinton and Reagan too, with gusto--but those outsider presidents succeeded grandly, and enjoyed protection as a result of high popularity, overwhelming reelection, and savvy communications operations.
Nobody said being president was going to be easy.
I cannot help but think that Vice President Dick Cheney miscalculated in his Wall Street Journal retort to the "maestro." A better strategy might have been embracing him. It seems to me that the former Fed chairman is much more upset about profligate spending than he dislikes the Bush tax policy. I keep hearing Greenspan say tax cuts are okay. Giving back the surplus was a good thing. The war debt is no big deal. But he is really mad at George Bush for 1) allowing (encouraging, instigating) big spending and 2) not attacking some of the massive entitlement programs looming as economic time bombs.
An alternative strategy for the White House might have gone something like this: "Alan Greenspan is absolutely right. A free-spending Congress and its unwillingness to eschew politics and solve the serious problems confronting the next generation has done great damage to the nation." A more politically adept Bush team could have used the moment to frame more favorably for history the President's failed attempt to reform social security.
On Friday I caught up with the Terry Gross interview on Fresh Air from earlier in the week. I was struck by her palpable disappointment with Greenspan’s vaunted comments on Bush failures. The always cryptic Greenspan does not tarry long on those much ballyhooed disagreements. In fact, if you keep him on those subjects long enough, he offers up assertions quite troubling for the Bush lynch mob. For example, he is not shy about affirming that he viewed the ouster of Saddam as absolutely necessary at the time. But, in the most general way, his selected comments move forward the anti-Bush drumbeat; therefore, Greenspan is getting a friendly reception from the MSM and usual suspects.
Moreover, the libertarian sage fits in with a favorite storyline: even smart Republicans and conservatives think Bush is an idiot, and they don't like him personally.
Another example of this re-emergent template a la Fresh Air again:
Terry Gross also interviewed Jeffrey Toobin last week. Toobin’s latest book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court , explains how Sandra Day O'Connor, instrumental in making Bush president through judicial fiat, came to regret her perfidy as she got to know the wild-eyed Texan and come to understand his assault on the Constitution. When asked how he knew this to be true, Toobin responded: "You're just going to have to trust me on that one."
As for the bigger picture, is there a kernel of truth in this increasingly popular Bush-bashing MSM convention? Are Republicans really deserting the sinking ship? Only those who can read a poll. Are GOP Washington insiders saying they knew all along this guy was no good? Every minute of the day.
Is that surprising? Does it mean a whole lot? Not really.
This is life on the Potomac. Outsiders infuriate insiders. When things go bad, like in the case of Jimmy Carter, the insiders pound on the country bumpkin for a lack of sophistication and a reliance on his crude and boorish cronies. By the way, when things go bad for insiders, like the first George Bush, your friends pretty much desert you then as well—although they are forced to come up with different explanations for your failings and be more creative as to why they are not connected to you.
On the other hand, the Beltway “smarties” had to bite their tongues during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. They would have deserted Clinton and Reagan too, with gusto--but those outsider presidents succeeded grandly, and enjoyed protection as a result of high popularity, overwhelming reelection, and savvy communications operations.
Nobody said being president was going to be easy.
