Different Rhetoric, Same Crisis

With the recent subprime mortgage crisis came a myriad of news reports, editorials, blogs and other written opinions about our slow economic decent into what many believe will be darker days. Rhetoric, in such a large pool of similar arguments, becomes an important part of overall effectiveness and makes each one more distinct.

For example, an editorial from The New York Times argues about the causes of our unstable markets while an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times discusses ways for dealing with the effects. However, the rhetoric in each prevents these two from ever being combined into a piece addressing both the causes and effects of our economic meltdown.

“Survival tips for a depression” by Joel Stein of the LA Times uses a personal experience to implicitly state that our present crisis is not equivalent to the Great Depression. It presents an interview with Joel’s grandmother, who answers questions asked for the sake of the audience; those who fear another Depression but don’t truly recognize the hardships of that time. The article goes through a sequence of examples where Joel thinks “budgeting” might be necessary and asks for his prudent grandmother’s opinion (someone who has lived through the Depression). In many cases it is clear that the author’s rich lifestyle is less than analogous to the grandmother's life of sacrifice. As such, the author attempts to prove that many of us are overreacting. Sacrifice may soon be in order—that new iPhone might no longer be a wise purchase—but that doesn’t place us in the same predicament as 80 years ago. The contrast between losing HBO and child labor must be slightly embarrassing for panicked readers.

Fear, according to The New York Times’ “The Lion, the Bull and the Bears” plays a larger role in this mess than being just the aftereffect. Eduardo Porter tries to show how fear and instinct have gotten us into this mess and are worsening it still. His message? Stop treating the economy like a game of poker and start thinking rationally. He speaks critically to everyone responsible for making poor, gut decisions and shows how psychological distortions of mankind played a role in our crisis. By connecting irrational stock prices to the metaphor of a man approached by a hungry lion, he correlates fear with the stocks. He continues with examples that show how misguided decisions are to blame, in a similar structure as the article by Joel Stein, although Porter makes a much less personal argument. He closes by dismissing an old quote by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan who he believed fit the profile of an irrational person. This gives concrete evidence of his claim.

Stein’s personal exploration of our crisis and Porter’s psycho-analytical approach both represent appropriate rhetoric strategies relative to the arguments that each is trying to make. They stand out as exceptional opinion pieces among the flood of recently published articles.

The Techniques of Opinion Pieces: Linking the War in Iraq to Economic Decline

Many political figures have published opinion articles that claim the war in Iraq has had disastrous effects on the economy, perhaps even foreshadowing our current economic crisis. Although these political pieces may contribute the same opinion of the war in Iraq, there is great variation in the tactics that each author uses to reach the reader. By using effective style a writer can choose how they want the audience to react to their piece. These political opinion columnists have the ability to persuade their audience with straight facts or jar their reader’s senses with blunt, opinionated warfare.

A recent opinion article, “Iraq War a Contributing Factor in Economic Crisis” [1], written by Carol Jensen of the Desert Dispatch, displays fact-based attempt at persuading the reader. By mentioning historical precedents, Jensen promises us in the introduction that she is going to talk about how bad this economy has become and why it is the President’s fault that it has developed this way. Although we are not promised any links Iraq in the first paragraph, Jensen nails her thesis in the second paragraph, stating “we as taxpayers are spending on an endless basis for the debacle in Iraq, which is ultimately the root cause of our economic woes.” The clear purpose of this article is to persuade the reader through academic facts as opposed to provoking emotions. Several leading economists are mentioned such as Joseph Stiglitz who is quoted saying, “The Iraq War has cost the U.S. 50-60 times more than the Bush Administration predicted…” Here, Jensen displays the follies of the current administration and attempts to gain the reader’s trust through experts’ opinions. Throughout most of the article Jensen uses both a passive academic tone that intellectually dismantles the Bush Administration with such phrases as “I believe that our current president, George W. Bush deserves credit for the financial turmoil that our nation is struggling with today.” However near the conclusion, Jensen introduces a more emotional call to arms for Americans. She instantly descends into expressive support for Senator Barack Obama, demanding “The American people should no longer be forced to pay for the greatest foreign policy blunder in a generation. Enough is enough!”

However, unlike Carol Jensen, Stephen Goldstein of the Sun Sentinel chooses to ride out with his guns blazing against the Iraq War. The article, “Blame this Economic Mess on Bush’s War in Iraq”[2] takes a far more zealous tone than the previous opinion piece. The title of this piece alone suggests that some major party-bashing will ensue and Goldstein is certain to fulfill this promise. The tone of the first words of the article is almost fanatical, testifying that “Most Americans, especially Floridians, are neuron-challenged… unless we shake ourselves out of our coma, we'll dig our own graves”. Goldstein, amidst his fiery rant, takes his time to make his point, as he plays with his phrases like: “[The media’s focus on] our current debacle typically puts the emPHASis on the wrong sylLABle.” Goldstein delays the actual thesis of the article until the very middle of the piece where he states “The mortgage crisis is a symptom, not a primary cause of our problem. It's Iraq.” The article’s purpose here is to use emotion to persuade the reader rather than statistics. Goldstein uses a very charismatic style in order to engage the reader’s attention even while amidst a serious plea for the reader’s vote. The spirited warfare even to the end of the article where he ensures the reader that Obama is the candidate that they want to vote for. Goldstein lumps McCain and the Bush administration together and concludes: “If Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-McCain wins the White House, you'll suffer more of the same economic pain”.

Although these various styles of writing are supporting almost the same ideas, the way that each of them chooses to maintain their discussion is extremely different. The writing style also greatly effects how a reader can interpret the message that each of these pieces conveyed about the War in Iraq. Whereas Jensen provoked a more intellectual conversation, Goldstein clearly hits emotional targets with his zealous tone. These pieces exemplify the power that a unique and effective style can infuse strength into an argument and display powerful opinions on very significant issues.

---

[1] “Iraq War a Contributing Factor in Economic Crisis” an article by Carol Jensen

[2] “Blame this Economic Mess on Bush’s War in Iraq” an article by Stephen Goldstein

Finding a Solution to the Economic Crisis

Following the recent economic uproar, the whole of the online news-media is wondering just what exactly the government plans to do to recapitalize our financial system. There are discrepancies among what role the government should take and how it should implement itself. Without a doubt something has to be done to stimulate the global economy and quickly.

Perhaps Congress should start reading up on popular blogs, as it seems that many astute individuals have taken to commenting on the economic situation and providing their own solutions. Greg Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard, offers a solution to recapitalizing the financial system. His blog is intended to be a casual source of financial opinions and information (to keep in touch with his economic students), but it seems that Greg’s ideas could be put to more use.

His entry “How to Recapitalize the Financial System” briefly acknowledges the nature of our crisis. Unlike certain politicians, he does not attempt to point a finger at the cause of our situation, and immediately recognizes the need for a solution. This is generally accepted to be an injection of liquidity and recapitalization. Mankiw tries to reconcile the different approaches that economists have suggested in solving the crisis.

His hypothetical plan serves as a “How-to” guide to replenishing our economy’s capital, without all the nasty side-effects of other solutions. If a bank gains private capital, the government provides an equal amount of public capital. Think of it like the way your parents matched the savings from your first job so you could buy a car. This governmental “piggybacking” eliminates three problems according to Mankiw:

The private sector rather than the government would weed out the zombie firms. The private sector rather than the government would set the price. And the private sector rather than the government would exercise corporate control.

This does seem to be more farsighted than the initial bailout and gets around the snags of plans now being discussed in Congress.

The current plan, proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, is described in an editorial from The New York Times. The government would do all the initial injecting of capital into financial institutions, so that private investors would be more likely to follow suit. The Times seems to agree with what has been called the “socialist” approach to fixing our economy. They claim that since our markets have failed in providing for the public interest, the government must assert its interest.

Prior to Wednesday, Oct. 8 a so-called socialist implementation was not being considered, but Paulson had apparently taken an about-face since then. The editors exhibit signs of relief following this turn, showing their support for this new approach. And who is to say that a strictly regulatory approach isn’t the best one? It worked for our northern friends. Greg’s blog does point out problems with strict governmental regulation. For example, what happens when taxpayer money is placed into “zombie” banks? Should we risk more of this money on banks that had no chance of recovering? But then again, any solution is going to have risks associated with it. It just depends on where these risks will lie.

Also, as pointed out by Ron Paul, how can the government recapitalize when it has no savings left? Won’t paying debt with more debt just dig us a deeper hole for the future? That’s what he seems to assert in his interview with Fox Business. In contrast with The New York Times, Ron Paul is strictly against the socialization of our financial system. He argues that the current panicked solutions are worsening the situation and undermining our monetary system. The internationalization of upcoming congressional meetings could result in a central world bank, he fears. His argument tells us what we should not be doing more than offering a solution.

Yet he realizes the mistakes of the Depression in forming his argument, something that he says politicians are overlooking. Housing prices should be brought down, not kept high like they are currently. Keeping them up will only discourage home buying and keep much needed capital out.

Regardless of the approach these resources agree that something needs to be done to stimulate our economy.