Good Richard's Almanac: Reich vs Forbes -- Emotions vs Logic

March 6, 2009

Reich vs Forbes -- Emotions vs Logic

Robert Reich has an article up at Salon today. In it, he makes the case that Barry-O shouldn't be held responsible for the recent slide in the stock market.

The argument that Obama is somehow responsible for the collapse of Wall Street is absurd. First, every major policy that led to this collapse occurred under George W.'s watch (or, more accurately, his failure to watch). The housing and financial bubbles were created under Bush and exploded under Bush. The stock market began to collapse under Bush.

It's easy to get caught up in Reich's finger pointing, but let's resist that temptation. I'd like you to notice something else about Reich's writing. He doesn't present one single example of how "every major policy that led to this collapse occurred under George W. Bush." Instead, he merely insinuates, just as Barry-O did in the 2008 campaign, that failed policies of the last eight years have brought us to where we are today. It's not a logical argument. It's an emotional tirade. He tries to fuel the reader's fear, whip them up into a frenzy, then make every accusation he can without backing them up.

In contrast, Steve Forbes writes...

The most disastrous Bush policy that Mr. Obama is perpetuating is mark-to-market or "fair value" accounting for banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions. The idea seems harmless: Financial institutions should adjust their balance sheets and their capital accounts when the market value of the financial assets they hold goes up or down. That works when you have very liquid securities, such as Treasurys, or the common stock of IBM or GE. But when the credit crisis hit in 2007, there was no market for subprime securities and other suspect assets.

Mr. Forbes calls out a very specific example of what he believes is a mistake of both Bush and Obama administrations. Whether you agree with his assessment or not, it's easy to see the difference between the emotional tirade and the logical argument.

I draw attention to the contrast because it illustrates two methods for conveying an opinion. One method is not more valid than the other. They are both a means to an end.

I believe we who profess Conservatism have failed to use all the tools available to us in the debate against Liberalism and Socialism. Rush Limbaugh touched on this in his famous CPAC speech...

I sometimes wonder if liberalism is not just a psychosis or a psychology, not an ideology. It's so much about feelings, and the predominant feeling that liberalism is about is about feeling good about themselves and they do that by telling themselves they have all this compassion. You know, if you really want to unhinge a liberal ... all you have to do is say you know that the things you people do, the things you people believe in are cruel. That's the last way they look at themselves. They are the best people on the -- they're the good people. You tell them that their ideas and that their policies are cruel and the eggs start scrambling.

We need to make a conscious effort to use every tool at our disposal to defeat Liberalism and Socialism. In addition to supporting our principles with logical arguments, we must make emotional arguments against the plight directly caused by Liberal and Socialist policies.

Confiscating half of anyone's income is a hideously cruel act. It's like bull-dozing half of their home while they're living in it. Picture eating your favorite meal. Then a bureaucrat comes along takes half. Half of your PB&J is taken by the government. You now only have one shoe because some federal bureau decided they needed the other more than you did. That's what progressive tax policy is like. It's not fair -- no -- it's worse than not fair. It's cruel. It's evil.

Barack Obama is perpetuating these hideously cruel policies. No, he's making them worse. He's increasing the rate of government theft (a.k.a. the income tax rate).

Under Barack Obama, college education funds set up by loving families all across the United States are being savaged. Since he took office, college funds that were squirreled away in the stock market have lost 30%. What is his response?

You know the stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. It bobs up and down day to day. Uh, and if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably going to get the long term strategy wrong.

He's basically saying, "I'm not watching your college and retirement funds deteriorate. You shouldn't either." He's letting our kids' future evaporate into thin air.

Barack Obama doesn't care about children

Posted by Richard at March 6, 2009 10:12 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goodrichardsalmanac.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/171