"Never let a good crisis go to waste!" - Fear-mongering?

Forums: Politics, W M Ds, American-Politics, U S-Politics, Us-Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Rahm Emanuel's infamous admonition to the faithful now seems to becoming a buzz-phrase for the entire administration:
http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINTRE5251VN20090306

WMDs or Economic Armegeddon, Terrorist Sleeper Cells or Ecological Armegeddon, it's difficult to see how the folks who felt that the Bush Administration was engaged in reprehensible fear tactics are not (from a rational standpoint at least) equally dismayed with our new Administration.

I anticipate that Obama supporters will respond to the effect of:

Quote:

But WMDs and Terrorist Sleeper Cells were never legitimate sources of fear, and the Economic Meltdown and Global Warming are!

I even expect one or two pithy retorts from the usual suspects like

Quote:

It's so obvious. God, you conservatives are jerks!

Nevertheless, I would like to understand how an essentially cynical expression can be considered so clever, let alone not reprehensible.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 2,090 • Replies: 28

@Finn dAbuzz,

I haven't seen the chatter about it but I liked it when I read it in the NYT magazine* because it was in terms of seizing the moment to do big things that are harder to get done in other circumstances.

I agree with the big things they have in mind, though, and I can see how people who disagree with those big things would find the whole thing offputting.

I don't think it's inherently nefarious though.

*Found it back:

Quote:

TWO WEEKS AFTER THE ELECTION, Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, appeared before an audience of business executives and laid out an idea that Lawrence H. Summers, Obama’s top economic adviser, later described to me as Rahm’s Doctrine. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Emanuel said. “What I mean by that is that it’s an opportunity to do things you could not do before.”

In part, the idea is standard political maneuvering. Obama had an ambitious agenda " on health care, energy and taxes " before the economy took a turn for the worse in the fall, and he has an interest in connecting the financial crisis to his pre-existing plans. “Things we had postponed for too long, that were long term, are now immediate and must be dealt with,” Emanuel said in November. Of course, the existence of the crisis doesn’t force the Obama administration to deal with education or health care. But the fact that the economy appears to be mired in its worst recession in a generation may well allow the administration to confront problems that have festered for years. That’s the crux of the doctrine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/magazine/01Economy-t.html?_r=1

Bolding mine, italics original.

0 Replies

Just me being a liberal but "Good Crisis" is not the same thing "Serious Crisis" but obviously to you Finn

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

Quote:

Just me being a liberal but "Good Crisis" is not the same thing "Serious Crisis" but obviously to you Finn

Quote:

The meltdown in the public finances means that a more radical programme of reform is needed if
spending cuts are not to translate into excruciatingly painful reductions in services. Parts of the public
sector are wedded to archaic structures and systems that act as barriers to improvements in efficiency
and sap employee morale. A more agile and entrepreneurial public sector is sorely needed. With our
backs against the wall, there is surely no better time for an overhaul of the system. As the new White
House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel put it, “One should never let a good crisis go to waste”.

Source: The Irish Times - 1/27/09 - Alan Ahearne

(The context here indicates Ahearne is hardly someone who seeks to smear Emmanuel; on the contrary, he agrees with the sentiment.)

Now there is two sources, neither being a transcript of the speech, quoting Emanuel differently.

In any case, while I admit that the word "good'' implies greater cynicism than "serious," I still maintain the Administration is relying upon and fomenting fear to advance its agenda.

1 Reply

The difference between the two was the Bush administration used 9/11 as a basis for war with Iraq when the two were never related at all. (recall the phrase "mushroom clouds" as an example which was a total fabrication) But on the whole I agree, either a proposal is good enough on its own or it is not and should not be employed. Buzz phrases also become stale really fast.

1 Reply

@revel,

Quote:

The difference between the two was the Bush administration used 9/11 as a basis for war with Iraq when the two were never related at all.

Exactly, and it's the basic dishonesty which distinguishes the two situations. The fear-mongering of the ne0-cons was a cynical ploy to forward an agenda for which they otherwise had no plausible basis. The conservatives in the United States may not care for the agenda which they see being forwarded now (and the extremists among them compare this administrations proposals to, alternatively, national socialism and communism), but it is a response to a situation which exists, and which arose before Mr. Obama was elected. As is the so often the case in polarized politics, much of the agenda about which the conservatives whine is more apparent than real. But with the case of the Iraq war, the neo-cons had been calling for just such a war since at least 1998 (when the PNAC wrote to Mr. Clinton). Failing to drum up the support they needed for the exercise, they cynically misused the September 11th attacks to justify an agenda which they had articulated years before.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Is taking advantage of a crisis the same thing as fear mongering? I admit I don't know what besides Rahm's quote you might be talking about, as I haven't had tons of time to keep up with news of late.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Look at it this way:

If in all of your public speeches you describe our current economic conditions in the most dire terms to justify an enormous stimulus package, and then you put forth a budget proposal that validates a promise to make major cuts in the deficeit (fueled by the stimulus package) but projecting the economy will turn around long before any economist has predicted, how might you be described?

1) Someone who doesn't think the "crisis" is all that bad but wants us to think it is so that a spending bill loaded with pork can get passed.

2) Someone who makes unrealistic predictions about economic recovery in order to make the math on your promise on deficeit reduction work.

3) A fool who really believes your press a maker of miracles.

Considering that Obama also projected American military involvement in Iraq long beyond what anyone has proposed, in order to take credit for imaginary savings, I tend to think he's a shyster.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

4) Someone who thinks the measures he wants to pass will cause the economy to recover faster than the economists have predicted.

At worst he's a hypocrite or guilty of double-speak. That's not the same as trying to make the public afraid of an imaginary boogey man in order to greatly expand your own power at no real advantage to, in fact to the detriment of, the country as a whole.

I'm sure he's a shyster -- how else does one ever make it to the presidency? But intent matters here. And as far as I can tell, he really is trying to fix ****.

2 Replies

What I really love is that Obama is President and this country has taken a big swing to left because the Conservatives so Fuk'd up their turn. HA HA.

2 Replies

@Green Witch,

Green Witch wrote:

What I really love is that Obama is President and this country has taken a big swing to left because the Conservatives so Fuk'd up their turn. HA HA.

what would really be neat is if the nation really took a swing to the left.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

It might not be left enough for the two of us, but at least we are moving away from the Conservative Police State.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Considering that Obama also projected American military involvement in Iraq long beyond what anyone has proposed, in order to take credit for imaginary savings, I tend to think he's a shyster.

Considering Bush and supporters were not saying how long they were intending to stay in Iraq because they didn't believe in time tables because it would let the enemy know when they were leaving; have always said withdrawal would be based on conditions on the ground; I don't see how Obama putting a time table on Iraq's withdrawal is any way being what? disingenuous? Did you just pull that out of your hat or what?

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Quote:

Having defended Obama's candidacy largely on his economic team, I'm having serious buyer's remorse. Geithner, who is rapidly starting to look like the weakest link, is rattling around by himself in Treasury. Meanwhile, the administration is clearly prioritized a stimulus package that will not work without fixing the banks over, um, fixing the banking system. Unlike most fiscal conservatives, I'm not mad at him for trying to increase the size of the government; that's, after all, what he got elected promising to do. But he also promised to be non-partisan and accountable, and the size and composition stimulus package looks like just one more attempt to ram through his ideological agenda without much scrutiny, with the heaviest focus on programs that will be especially hard to cut.

The budget numbers are just one more blow to the credibility he worked hard to establish during the election. Back then, people like me handed him kudoes for using numbers that were really much less mendacious than the general run of candidate program promises. Now, he's building a budget on the promise that this recession will be milder than average, with growth merely dipping to 1.2% this year and returning to trend in 2010. Isn't there anyone at BLS who could have filled him in on the unemployment figures, or at Treasury who could have explained what a disproportionate impact finance salaries have on tax revenue? These numbers . . . well, I can't really fully describe them on a family blog. But he has now raced passed Bush in the Delusional Budget Math olympics.

Megan McArdle - The Atlantic

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/obama_too_sunny.php

0 Replies

@revel,

You've missed my point.

My criticism is not of Obama's timetable for withdrawal, it is for using it to take credit for illusory savings towards a bogus promise to cut the deficit in half by 2013.

The promise is a smokescreen to hide the fact that it will be his spendings that drives the deficit to new and outrageous heights.

How does he plan on meeting this promise?

First of all he assumes the economy, which he has described in the direst of terms in order to justify his pork laden stimulus package, will rebound well before the majority of economists think is possible.

Secondly he assumes that without his withdrawal plan, the Iraq war would have continued indefinately at the same level as when the surge was at full force. This is disingenuous at best since the bi-lateral security agreement reached with Iraq which calls for withdrawal of all US troops by 2011 was signed during the Bush Administration. Obama's plan only forwards the complete withdrawal by 5 months. Getting out 5 months earlier than we otherwise would have is going to save us$1.5 trillion?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Your presumption, and that of other like-thinkers, is that there was never any possibility that the invasion of Iraq and the establishment of a democracy in the Muslim Middle-east was in the interests of the USA.

For some reason the vociferous critics of the Neo-Con bogey men believe they have proven their claims by noting that expressed opinions about military action in Iraq predated 9/11.

Somehow, this seems to prove, for them, that the invasion of Iraq was retribution for Saddam's plan to kill Poppy, an integral component of a sinister plan to enrich Oil companies and weapons manufacturers, or simply a naked and evil design to generate death and destruction and grasp power.

Can't be that the strategic thinking that led the Neo-cons to propose invading Iraq before 9/11 was underscored by 9/11.

Bushes detractors grossly exaggerate the administration connecting Iraq and 9/11, but to the extent they did they get no pass from me.

I have consistently argued that Bush did a disservice to the nation by underestimating the American people and framing the invasion almost exclusively in terms of WMDs, but this doesn't mean we should not have invaded Iraq.

Similarly Obama supporters (if they are honest) might argue that Obama is doing a disservice to the nation by playing the same sort of games as did Bush in justifying actions it believes are essential to the advancement of our interests, without arguing that his intentions are wrong.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

First of all the presumption that Bush used fear simply to expand his own power is opinion supported only by hyperbolic rhetoric as opposed to fact.

Secondly, any expansion of power that may have resulted is relative. Despite what liberals would like to think we have had presidents who exercised far great executive power than Bush.

Thirdly, that any such expansion of power was detrimental to the nation is pure opinion based on personal bias.

Finally, can you accept that there are quite a few of your fellow Americans who honestly belive Bush was "trying to fix ****?"

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

Schadenfreude is hardly a sign of noble character, but I know where you're coming from. Unfortunately, your gleeful observation is not the "take that Conservativism" ou think it is.

The Conservatives didn't screw up their chance, the Republicans did.

If Republicans had behaved as Conservatives the chance would not have been screwed up.

The great thing about the current political environment, for both you and me, is that the Democrats in power are behaving precisely like Liberals.

If the Democrats, continue on their current path, and screw up, Liberalism will take the hit.

On the other hand, if it all works out great...

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

First of all the presumption that Bush used fear simply to expand his own power is opinion supported only by hyperbolic rhetoric as opposed to fact.

You're on an opinion board essentially arguing that every response to your opinion is just opinion and therefore invalid.

Of course it's possible that Bush was using fear for some other purpose, or that he expanded his own power through some other means, but that he used fear and expanded his own power is a fact. You merely need to have a look through the archives to see this.

Quote:

Secondly, any expansion of power that may have resulted is relative. Despite what liberals would like to think we have had presidents who exercised far great executive power than Bush.

Everything is relative. That's why whenever someone comes forward with a complaint about Obama screwing up, people immediately compare it to Bush's fuckups and determine that they are minor in comparison. And why every time Obama screws up Bush fans like yourself use that to retroactively absolve Bush of his fuckups, or try to make them look somehow smaller now that the new president has not embodied perfection.

Quote:

Thirdly, that any such expansion of power was detrimental to the nation is pure opinion based on personal bias.

I'd call it pure speculation based on fact. Weakening the rule of law was bad for our country's reputation around the world and for our citizens. Politicizing the justice department resulted in a further weakening of the rule of law, which weakens peoples' faith in their government, which makes it harder to get their support for initiatives that affect the whole country. Signing statements designed to instantly nullify parts of laws passed by congress and signed by him subverted the constitutional powers granted to Congress. Undermining the constitution is bad for the country. What exactly did he do that was good for this country?

Quote:

Finally, can you accept that there are quite a few of your fellow Americans who honestly belive Bush was "trying to fix ****?"

I can accept that, sure. So what?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Bush signing that agreement has always been a big shock to me since it went against everything they had been saying up to that point about not having time tables and basing withdrawal on the conditions on the ground. They tried to have it that way, but for once the Iraqis stuck to their guns and forced the agreement to read as full withdrawal by a certain date, not matter what. It was a surprise. So perhaps in light of that agreement it is wrong for Obama to say he would save money by withdrawing sooner, but every day in Iraq cost millions, so the five months does save a lot of money which can be better spent either in Afghanistan or at home.

No matter what justification is currently used for that war, none were justified. There was no reason to think Saddam Hussein was going to attack us and we shouldn't wait for another 9/11 for the threat to appear in the form of mushroom cloud. They knew that threat was overblown because intelligence had already told them of the doubts before the war. When Powell went on international TV and told that bunch of crap about the tubes used for nuclear weapons, they knew then it was not so because experts had already told them. They could have given the weapons inspections more time to answer the remaining questions and to deliberate among nations about what to do from there like we did with North Korea. They were determined to go to war and cherry picked intellegence to fit around that determination. There has been plenty of proof out there backed up by various people who were in position to know.

For instance

0 Replies

"Never let a good crisis go to waste!" - Fear-mongering?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know