Listening to Obama, I often think of the nervous comment of Michael Banks when he meets Disney’s Mary Poppins for the first time. “We better keep an eye on this one. She’s tricky.”
Here’s Obama at his trickiest:
“Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control – that a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous.”
The crashes in the housing markets, credit markets, and stock markets have exposed many terrible abuses, some of which genuinely could have been prevented by closer supervision and better regulation. Bankers play with other people’s money, and that will be more true than ever after the government take-over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the huge extension this fall of government protection of deposits and credit. More regulation of all that is inevitable and at least arguably desireable.
But it’s very ambiguous, isn’t it, whether Obama means those particular financial markets when he speaks of “the market” and its need for a more “watchful eye” – or whether he means the whole private economy. The phrase “Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom” describes all free-market activity, not only financial activity. How much of that does he intend to police more tightly? As Michael said: Tricky.
10 responses so far
1 atgpac // Jan 21, 2009 at 8:33 am
Hello Mr. Frum,
I’ve not had time to parse President Obama’s inauguration speech. But a quick read reveals a reworked campaign speech with a touch more rhetorical flourish and a dash of historical antecedents. I agree that there is much reading between the lines. Tricky, indeed.
Thanks for starting this website. Conservatism is in need of better branding and more competition in the marketplace of ideas. With that in mind, did you read Peter Berkowitz’s piece, titled “Conservatives Can Unite Around the Constitution,” which was published January 2 on wsj.com? Berkowitz writes that McCain lost because he “proved incapable of crafting a coherent and compelling message.” Let the crafting begin.
Cordially,
Chad Snee
Troy, Ohio
2 Johnnyrat // Jan 21, 2009 at 8:55 am
David keep up the good work!
3 CaliforniaDan // Jan 21, 2009 at 9:31 am
The sentence should have ended with the word “control”. There was no need for the implication that the nation “favors only the prosperous”. Will “The Left” ever discard the class warfare prism through which they view life in America? My goodness, think of how many millions (100+?) of Americans have investments in the stock market, either through individual stock purchases, mutual funds, or their pensions. This is not about “us vs. them” but rather how do we stabilize a system that works for the good of all of us.
4 sewells1951 // Jan 21, 2009 at 11:35 am
I understood Obama to be talking about markets in general rather than making specific comments about specific markets. I believe that he intended his comments to apply to markets universally. At root, I think what he has in mind a sort of checks and balances approach to financial regulation.
But, after decades of corporate welfare and the current round of losses being socialized and profits privatized I will not be surprised to see tax rates at 50% for pretty much everyone.
5 fact based // Jan 21, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Your attitude of holding an inaugural address up to the standards one would hold for a budget document or a legislative proposal is silly, no inaugural address would meet that criteria. As to your specific point Obama and his economic team have spoke specifically of the need to address regulation of the financial services industry none have spoken of the need to do that for “the whole private economy”. The ambiguity is in your head not the words or actions of Obama and his economic team. Someone looking for MORE regulation might well read obama’s words and a sign that Obama will LIMIT regulatory reform to the financial markets. Then again an objective observer would try to read the details of future policy from an inaugural address.
6 senorlechero // Jan 21, 2009 at 1:36 pm
TEST. I am just posting a test because I have been able to post one comment, but when I try to post a comment on another post I get an error message. So, please ignore this post (which I’m sure will not be difficult)
7 bobo2119 // Jan 21, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I fail to see how Obama’s comments were tricky. I don’t see him plotting to socialize our economy and control all economic activity.
Characterizing his comments as tricky is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The duplicity of Republican rhetoric is tricky. I think calling a program “Blue Skies” when it allows increased pollution and “No Child Left Behind” when the program results in poorer education and unthinking conformity is tricky.
Descriptors such as “Pro Life are beyond tricky considering that the Republican policies are Pro Birth, not Pro Life. We wouldn’t have a war in Iraq today if Republicans were Pro Life. Republican policies are anything but Pro Life.
I think using the word “Conservative” is tricky when the Republican Party has endeavored to rob citizens of their constitutional freedoms under the guise of the “Patriot” act. Now, “Conservative” and “Patriot” are pretty tricky words, aren’t they?.
What exactly do Republicans conserve anyway?
8 Robdog // Jan 21, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I agree complety Mr. Frum, I thought the same thing when I heard the speech. To you as well as to “factbased” below, if you consider Obama’s words in context of the larger liberal theme of bigger government and more stringent controls on citizens in every aspect of their lives (especially the financial sphere via higher taxes), the most objective viewpoint is one which indeed concludes that Obama’s words are … “tricky”.
9 CarlPham // Jan 21, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Obama is not tricky here, he’s simply indulging in fantasy. The difficulty with suggesting that the private economy should be “watched” and guided is not that this is subversive of freedom or whatnot, but that it supposed the existence of wise “watchers” who are smarter than the actors in the private economy. There are no such creatures among us. If there’s one thing the 20th century history of “planned” and “scientific” economies has shown us, it’s that there simply are no human beings smart enough and capable enough to “watch” the private economy. Obama’s problem is not political trickery, but rather his indulgence in magical thinking, the disconnect of his ideas from factual reality.
10 tweaver7777 // Jan 21, 2009 at 5:51 pm
President Obama was being vague, not tricky (probably. at least). I’m not sure we’ve accumulated enough information to really know what Obama intends as far as new regulations and market oversight. I suspect that he himself will not wade in too deeply, but also that he may well green-light whatever Congress comes up with. For the most part, his rhetoric suggests that he understands that market oversight has limits…but, again, this could mean just about anything. We’ll have to wait and see.
You must log in to post a comment.