Al Gore, the Democrat presidential candidate defeated by George W. Bush in 2000, gave a speech on the U.S. economy Wednesday in Washington in which he cannot be accused of sniping at Bush. The attack was more that of a primitive shotgun dispersing pellets over a vast area, or of an explosive dropped into a lake to catch fish by killing them.
There was no subtlety, craft or accuracy here, no line skillfully spun to hook Bush. And so somehow, in a speech redolent with all that is wrong with partisan politics, Gore managed to miss the huge target presented to him.
It is not that Bush has done well in economic policy. He hasn't. Gore's mistake was to blame Bush for all that is wrong with the U.S. economy in a way that is inaccurate and that alienates the objective listener or reader. In a speech with neither flow nor style, and in which one empty sound bite follows another, no cheap shot is left unfired.
Gore begins by saying, incontrovertibly, that "America's economy is in big trouble." He compares the urgency with which Bush is addressing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, to his "blind eye" on the economy. He calls for Bush to "propose action (on the economy) before the election" that will take place Nov. 6 and warns "we will pay a price for any delay." If not, Gore warns, by next spring "a global recession -- or worse -- could have already taken hold."
It is not clear to this author quite what it is that would be worse than a global recession, but, if recession is the threat -- and it is -- a question must be asked: What is a U.S. president to do about it? If Gore blames Bush for recession, he must have some way to avert it himself, mustn't he?
We will come back to this point. But for now let us follow Gore's logic, if such it can be called.
Gore lists some of the bad news of Bush's first two years in office. Here is a small selection of the woes he mentions: "Business investment has declined every single quarter of the Bush administration." "Not since the Great Depression has our stock market declined so dramatically." "Long-term unemployment has more than doubled." "Forty-five of our 50 states are in deficit."
All this is true.
But then, to close the list, there is a sudden leap, at which we lose faith. "Perhaps worst of all, due in substantial part to this failed economic policy ..."
Failed economic policy? Gore's speech up till now has not mentioned economic policy. It has listed instead the mess the economy is in. The two are not the same.
Yet from this point forward, without ever making the case that Bush's policies are responsible, Gore's speech equates the economic mess with Bush's economic policies. It is primarily for this reason that the speech comes across as both dishonest and unconvincing.
Two years ago, Nov. 2, 2000, before we knew the election winner, we wrote the following: "Clinton was not responsible for the boom but will wear its laurels forever. The next president will not be responsible for the crash but will be blamed for it."
The fact is that the U.S. economy was heading for disaster in 2000. The reason was that the stock market bubble that had distorted the U.S. and global economy was beginning to burst. Any honest appraisal of the economy now would make mention of that bubble. Gore's speech refers only to the fall in the market and the money that has been lost because of its fall; all of which he blames on Bush.
But Bush has not been to blame for the weak stock market, except perhaps in recent weeks in which his insistence on the need to attack Iraq has pushed up the oil price and troubled investors. And on this issue many Americans would sympathize with Bush's sense of urgency about removing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Perhaps they are therefore ready to pay the economic price.
Having argued that Bush's economic policy is wrong, Gore needs to come up with alternatives. Here, too, his efforts are less than convincing. He calls on Bush "to come to the table with leaders in Congress to survey the current economic landscape and chart a new course."
What a great idea this is! Perhaps the government could buy back stocks, Japanese-style, or launch a new public infrastructure program. In any event, a bipartisan committee must be the way ahead, mustn't it?
And this committee would do what? What is Gore's alternative policy? We have to wait for a while before we hear it. First, Gore repeats his first idea, that the president must listen and change policy, over and over again: ad nauseam. Then the only real policy idea of the speech comes: Bush should enact "a short-term stimulus, including extended unemployment benefits and help for small businesses."
Well, it is an idea. Extending unemployment benefits is humane and would help a little to sustain consumer demand, though at the cost of adding to the fiscal deficit. But it is not going to re-ignite the economy, nor lift growth. And" help for small businesses"? It is also small beer.
Gore follows up on his big ideas by trying to tar Bush's government with the dishonest label that some U.S. companies have recently acquired. "The president's budget and economic plan," he tells us, "are based on Enron accounting."
This accusation comes from nowhere, is utterly unsupported in Gore's speech, and is, in fact, ridiculous. We know all the detail on the deterioration of U.S. fiscal finances and on the budget for 2003. The government's agencies publish them. Gore himself quotes some of the details in his speech. "Please!" as this author heard an American say once in response to a ludicrous speech from a Cuban politician," show us some respect." Spouting nonsense is less than effective. The objective listener is not going to swallow anything.
We end with the sales pitch. "President Clinton and I also inherited an economy deep in trouble."
And do you know what they did? They turned it around!
"We transformed a weak economy into the strongest economy America has ever known," Gore says.
But again there is a problem. Clinton inherited an economy that had been in recession and was in fact coming out of it and growing when he took office. Bush took over an economy that had grown for a decade and bubbled unhealthily for the final years of that decade. It was about to head down. What might Bush have done?
The truth, something largely absent from Gore's speech, is that neither Bush nor Gore nor anyone else could have stopped the recessionary tide. Politicians are less powerful than elemental forces: this is what King Canute sought to demonstrate a thousand years ago on an English shore.
Indeed, where Bush may have failed, is in trying too hard to stop the tide. It might have been better not to raise spending and cut taxes so much, so as to allow the recession to take place, correct the imbalances in the U.S. economy, and pass on. It would certainly have been better not to have raised farm subsidies, nor to have increased protection for steel producers. Bush ought to have tackled the problems in corporate accounting more firmly. He ought to be acting to contain health care costs. And it might be wiser now to accept that though Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power 10 years ago he might better be left alone now. But this last is a complex, political point and one aside from our main topic.
In truth, neither Bush nor his economic team have distinguished themselves. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's tendency to dismiss serious economic problems has led us to label him O'Denial. If Bush does invade Iraq and unrest in Saudi Arabia makes oil prices soar, recession may accompany him until the 2004 presidential election. When he seeks re-election, he, like his father, may well be vulnerable on the economy.
Yet Gore's clumsy speech fails to highlight this. Instead it tends to demonstrate that the Democrats may enjoy a winning position in 2004 but Gore may not be the man to turn it into victory.
--
(Comments to [email protected].)
