There was a moment, after 9/11, when George W. Bush could have successfully convinced our nation to make some real, positive changes for the future. He could have instituted a crash energy-independence program, pushed for us to consume less fuel, which would in turn allow us to lessen our own footprint in the Middle East — and which would make oil a less important resource for us to pursue. He could have asked us for a modest tax increase to pay for the war on terror — a bit of national sacrifice that would have left our economy in much better shape. He could have asked for a lot.
George W. Bush asked America to go shopping and fly frequently.
Dubya’s unwillingness to ask Americans to make a sacrifice — any sacrifice — was a tragic failure. Instead of driving less, Americans drove more, at least until oil became prohibitively expensive. Instead of all of us pitching in to support the war, only those of us who wore a uniform (or were related to them) were asked to bear the brunt of the Afghan war and the Iraq fiasco. Meanwhile, our nation came apart at the seams, unable to work together to build for a common future.
Of course, the rich got richer, which was Bush’s primary goal. So that worked out all right.
Ultimately, the decision to ask Americans to sacrifice by shopping drove us off the cliff; asked to spend freely, people used their houses as ATM machines, urged on by the Bush Administration’s lax policies. And today, we’re reaping the benefits, if by “benefits” you mean “a Depression.” But hey, at least for one bright moment in 2001-2002, we were all united in buing new televisions. That made it all worth it.
You know it’s ironic with all this worship of credit and debt.
I pay my bills on time. I paid my loan on time. But I never had a credit card let alone trashed one because I saw what they did to family members (let alone the country) and I don’t have the credit record number high enough to get cable television. What was ironic is that the company that turned me down did advertising with the newspaper I work for and the advertising department had to threaten collections after them at least twice for thousands of dollars in unpaid bills. So when it comes to having *good credit*, it’s obviously not across the board. It’s clear that by the “bailouts”, it’s not across the board either.
I agree that the period immediately following 9/11 provided a moment for Pres. Bush to exercise great leadership, especially to ask Americans to make a sacrifice, and that Bush didn’t seize that opportunity. I also share the view that refraining from calling on Americans to make helpful contributions to the war effort, while ordering other people into harm’s way, is unseemly and symbolic of the growing class disparities in the US. But I caution people against evaluating policies on the basis of symbols.
Here are two thoughts.
1. The Bush Administration is often depicted as ruthless and power-hungry, as illustrated in Fecke’s review of the circumstances surrounding the authorization for military force in Iraq. Yet this depiction is undermined to some extent by the fact that Bush elected to forgo this most obvious opportunity to influence people.
Maybe the Administration was caught flat-footed, and was not yet prepared to exploit the opportunity to promote a larger agenda. Maybe at the time the Administration had no larger agendan than to maintain the status quo. Whatever. But given all the doubtful policies the Administration would later lead the nation to pursue, I find comfort in the fact that the Administration did not act in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to pursue any specific agenda.
2. As a military matter, the US has certain strengths and weaknesses. Among the US’s strengths is its massive economy. The US has both the willingness and ability to spend money on military stuff like no other nation.
In some respects, this massive economy makes calls for widespread sacrifice less relevant than in days gone by. Imagine that a military objective would have required 1 million troops in 1942, but today can be accomplished with massive air assaults, pilotless aircraft, and 10,000 troops in heavily armored vehicles. In this scenrio, it would make sense for a president in 1942 to call for massive sacrifice and volunteerism, and it would make sense for today’s president to call for massive economic appropriations combined with much less personal sacrifice. In this sense, a call to “go shopping” was a call to rev up the US’s greatest weapon — its massive economy.
Compare total US goverment revenues from both war bonds (derived from “sacrifice”) and taxes (derived from “shopping”) for the years 1943 and 2002. As a purely practical matter, is a call for sacrifice really a more productive way to prepare for war than a call for shopping?
Yes, I think so. But that’s because I (and Fecke?) believe that the world’s problems require much more than a military solution. But if I held the view that the “War on Terror” required primarily military responses, then I might well have favored Bush’s call for shopping rather than (or in addition to) sacrifice.
Making conspiracy theories out of this is like finding pictures of animals in cloud formations. 99% imagination.
The guy just isn’t all that bright. Most of the stupid things he said and did are the results of that most obvious of causes.
While I agree that telling people to go shopping to keep the economy strong is a fallacy, it’s a fallacy popular on both the left and the right. See, for example, Ampersand’s post here.
Also, when you say “He could have asked us for a modest tax increase to pay for the war on terror,” does “us” mean all Americans, or only those making over, say, $150,000 per year?
Brandon, unless you want to argue that there’s no important difference between economic conditions in late 2001 versus late 2008 — and between stimulus through fiscal spending versus just telling people to go shopping — your comparison is pretty silly.
I also think you’re missing the main thrust of Jeff’s post, which I think is less about economics (although there’s some of that in there) and more of a criticism of Bush’s free-lunch approach to war and sacrifice.
I see a strong connection between Bush’s lack of plan for paying for the war, and the various Bush administration claims that invading and occupying Iraq would be a cakewalk. Bush republicans are like children; they’re incapable of understanding that actions have costs and consequences.
[Edited to reduce snark by a factor of 2.]
But if I held the view that the “War on Terror” required primarily military responses, then I might well have favored Bush’s call for shopping rather than (or in addition to) sacrifice.
?
While I don’t know what would have happened if Bush had asked for more soldiers to free Iraq, and sent in huge numbers of people, we do know the limited approach he tried failed miserably.
“Show you love your country, go out and spend some cash/red, white, blue hot pants doing it for Uncle Sam”–Sleater-Kinney.
That pretty much sums it up as far as I’m concerned. Don’t think–just spend.
I find comfort in the fact that the Administration did not act in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to pursue any specific agenda.
Uh, yeah they did. Check out this CBS news report from Sept. 2002, several months before the invasion and long before things went obviously sour in Iraq:
They pushed through the PATRIOT Act and Rumsfeld said that this was the perfect opportunity to convince the American people that we needed to remove Saddam Hussein from power — and he was right. Even though Iraq was no more dangerous on the day we invaded than it was on Sept. 10, 2001, the American people were frightened and underestimated (even the pro-war Republicans I know admit that Bush couldn’t have convinced Americans to support a 10-year occupation costing $1 trillion and at least 5000 soldiers’ lives, which is why the Administration claimed it could be done cheaply and quickly) into supporting an invasion.
Considering the fact that our economy is 75% consumer spending. I suppose he could be like President O and tell us we’ll all be eating in soup lines if we don’t buy into his brand of American socialism.
Pingback: Gay soldier booed at GOP debate shares his reaction « The Fifth Column