- Image via Wikipedia
The Daily Show had an interesting segment on the political blame game. When David Axelrod appeared on the show, his comments fired up the fine folks at Fox. To be specific, they took Axelrod as blaming the Bush administration for the problems with the MMS (and other problems).
Jon Stewart responded by playing clips from Fox, in which various fine folks blamed Clinton for many of the problems that the Bush administration faced. From a logical perspective, he was pointing out that these folks do not seem to be operating from a consistent principle of responsibility. To be specific, if Clinton could be blamed for the woes of Bush, then it would seem to follow that Bush could also be blamed for the woes that Obama is facing. Likewise, if Bush is not to blame for what Obama seemed to have inherited, then Clinton would seem to be free from blame.
Naturally, it could be argued that there are relevant differences between the situations. Perhaps Clinton created problems that blossomed during the Bush years and Bush did not create such problems for Obama. However, this seems to be contrary to the known facts.
Turning back to the main topic, the key matter here is sorting out a principle of blame. Fortunately, there has been considerable work in legal theory regarding this and it is reasonable to see if this can be re-purposed for the situation at hand.
One aspect of placing blame is tracing a causal chain. Obviously, if a person had no causal role in bringing about a situation, then she cannot be blamed for that situation. If there is a causal connection between a person and a situation, then this creates the possibility of blame.
In the law, this involves what is known as “conditio sine qua non” (“a condition without which nothing”). This is also refereed to as a “but for cause”: this would not have happened but for that. For example, the war in Iraq would not be happening but for the invasion during the Bush administration.
One rather obvious concern is that the causal chain for a situation can extend rather far. In fact, the causal chain might very well extend beyond the chain of blame. For example, the spill in the gulf can be traced back to the inventor of the oil well (and way beyond). However, to blame the inventor for the spill would seem unreasonable.
In the law, the usual solution is to address this matter in terms of what counts as a proximate cause. The solution proposed by H.L.A. Hart and A.M. Honore is that common sense can be used to settle such concerns. To be specific, for a person to be responsible for a harm, the harm must be traceable back to the actions of that person.
By this standard, the oil leak can be traced back to the Bush administration. Of course, as the Fox folks pointed out, the causal chain can also be linked to the Clinton administration. It can also be traced back to previous administrations. However, the strength of the chain presumably diminishes as the chain is stretched out over ever greater distances.
As such, the Clinton administration does get to take some of the blame. However, the blame must be proportional to the causal role the Clinton administration actually played in bringing about the spill.
In the political blame game, it is common to present blame in an all or nothing way. For example, the blame is placed on one administration (or one president). However, blame tends to be more distributed. In the case of the oil spill, it can be traced back to policies (or lack of policy) going back over the years. Likewise, the blame can also be traced back across time and administrations.
For all practical purposes, the blame game is played for “the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumbshows and noise.” Relatively few in the audience are interested in facts. Thus, Republican and Democratic politicians and entertainers operate under the sadly correct assumption that the content of their generalizations and outright lies is less important than the shiny packages the messages are wrapped in.
Whatever problems are inherited, it seems that after 18 months, the current administration is responsible for its own problems.
As much as you want to talk about Fox, Mike, it’s Obama that’s the problem. The President is constantly talking about Bush. That’s childish. I don’t remember Bush once talking about Clinton ignoring terrorism and letting it grow to the point they could launch attacks on us at will.
And look at the economic crisis. Reagan inherited the smae sort of troubles after Carter. But his reforms helped. Obama’s have not. Obama did the opposite of what Reagan did. Why?
It’s not Fox of MSNBC that matter. It’s Obama and his cabinet.
By definition, the admin is responsible for its own problems. However, there is still the question of what problems are its own. After all, Obama did not start the two wars, nor did he set the stage for the BP leak, nor was he in charge when the ruin of the economy was germinating.
Of course, it does no good to simply blame Bush, Clinton and others for the current situation. As you point out, it is Obama’s turn in office and he can be assessed for how well he is dealing with what he inherited.
Obama inherited an almost 7% unemployment rate and made it a steady 10%(we were assured the enemployment rate would not pass 8% if we passed the stimulus bill NOW-NOW-NOW!). Falling tax revenues and increasing the size of government by 25%. Hmmmm, the logical answer would be….MORE SPENDING!
Unfortunately the left has Paul Krugman on their side. Krugman’s awards and education trump common sense. He’s a diehard keynesian who writes for the New York Times. He’s waged an unrelenting war on the idea that we should cut taxes and spending.
These people get so entrenched and make so many statements that they cannot admit they are wrong. It’s like the argument about communism: It didn’t fail, it just wasn’t done right (read–we didn’t spend enough).
Meanwhile, Europe of all places is shaking their heads at us wondering what we’re thinking.
We should cut unnecessary spending (like subsidies for ethanol) and lower taxes that are harmful. We can also lower taxes by increasing revenue-such as actually charging oil companies for the oil they pull out of “public” lands. And then sell us at a sweet profit.
I
Perhaps if Obama had not done what he did, the rate would be 14% now…or 18%. Hard to say what might have been.
Please tell me you didn’t just say that. It may have been 7% if he didn’t go on a wild spending spree. History is not on the Keynesian side. Capitalism has made the most economically prosperous EVER! Communism has utterly failed except……teh Chinese are doing better than other historical references. Why? Well, you know. They have been embracing Capitalism. The rate IS 18% btw if you count people who have given up looking for jobs.
Okay “I didn’t just say that.”
Making claims about what would have been is a tricky matter. In some cases, this can be done with confidence. But this situation seems rather too complicated to make such speculation in a strong manner.
So, things might have been better if he had not done what he did. Or worse. Hard to say, really.
Well the bad times hit Europe, too. None of them spent like we did and it was our unemployment that skyrocketed.
This is the same argument for the wars that you oppose. Only the Afghan war only costs 100 billion a year as opposed to 1 trillion. It’s a bargain apparently.
All I know is this administration did the opposite of what got us out of trouble in the past. FDR’s policies actually slowed the economy, too. It was WWII that actually got the economy moving.
Seems if no one really knows what would have happened they should have erred on the side that is classically American.
It was actually post WWII where the economy came back up. There was a big debate about spending and lowering taxes then too. Lower spending, lower taxes and all those new factories to re-tool and build things like toasters, refrigerators…etc…etc. The war helping the economy will never be duplicated again as happened with WWII. It was the expansion of manufacturing from all of the new factories which allowed for a resurgence. We are destroying our own industry today. We just lost another 125,00 jobs and 625,000 more just stopped looking. This is a recovery? I have told you again and again that it will not get better until the economic environment is more stable. Businesses need to know how all these programs will be paid for before they commit to anything except layoffs. The only sector being helped is all of the behemoths of corporations such as Walmart, Exxon…etc. Only huge corporations will be able to survive. Small businesses will not hold on as well and are an endangered species at this point. The Dems know it isn’t working as well. Why do you think there is no budget before the November elections?
The first part was a reply to Magus and the second to all of the Keynesian fans on this site. It is way to late/early. I need sleep.
It’s funny that people always blame the President, but Congress is responsible for 99% of the problems.
It is psychology: it is easier to focus on one person (one face) than a group. While people do blame Congress, that is a somewhat abstract sort of blame.
Congress doesn’t even write the bills anymore. It is all special interest and lobbying groups.
Mike,
Will you be convinced if Obama loses the next election, is replaced by a conservative who does what Reagan did and the economy booms again? Will this finally put to rest this notion that the federal government can spend its way out of recessions?
No, the Left would just say it was the Stimulus but it just needed more time. It is simple math anyway. You don’t run up credit cards when you can’t pay your bills.
What Reagan did? Do you mean the part where he jacked up federal spending and set a record budget deficit? Or the part where he laid the groundwork for the S&L disaster?
Oh, too bad you left out some facts. Yes, record high deficits from out spending the Soviets( this did win the Cold War). 1980 and 1981 were not so great as the Reagan tax cuts did not get put into place until 1983 but then the economy did an about face from the DREADFUL years of Carter. Here is a link so you can educate yourself on the Savings and Loan crisis. The troubles were set in motion when Reagan came in office. Notice there is not one mention of reagan in the entire link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis
More spending(not something I agree with but the cause was just), better economy and won the Cold War. Not too shabby in my book. At least Carter will not bee seen as the worst President anymore after this administration.
I knew you couldn’t do it…
Common Mike, admit it: Reagan was a great president. You don’t have to worry that sorority chicks won’t like you for admitting this. You’re not in grad school any more. “Bake Sales Not Bombers” bumper stickers are so passe’.
Mike actually thinks we’re better off now than in the Reagan years. He refuses to admit he’s a liberal Dem, though. He’s above all that.
Europe is now doing everything America used to do.
One termer, Mike,one termer. Again. Dem FAIL. And if he’s not a one termer, is our unemployment going to be 10% for those 8 years? We really can’t do better than that?
This is a complete floundering. I gave Obama his chance and he did everything his enemies said he would do. His words are pragmatic but his actions are those of a leftist.
Reagan admitted that the deficit was the greatest failure of his administration. But there was lots of good that you seem to have forgotten. What’s being made better now? When unemployment is back under 7%, I’ll say things are better.
http://www.bized.co.uk/current/mind/2003_4/170504.htm
“It is hard for those who have not lived through this period to understand the impact these policies had. The years after the end of the Second World War had seen government take an increasing hand in the economy – Keynesian demand management was the order of the day. If unemployment – the main focus of such policies, were too high, the government would engineer economic growth through operating a budget deficit – spending more than it received in tax revenue. The multiplier effect would lead to economic growth and unemployment would fall. Booms in the economy could be dealt with through a reverse of this policy.
Mrs Thatcher however, believed that such policies lead to society becoming too reliant on the state to provide – especially with regard to the economy. The British car industry was typical of such a problem. Widespread industrial unrest, massive losses, increased competition and poor quality products had weakened the car industry. Being such a key industry in terms of employment – including all the ancillary work that goes with it – led successive governments to use taxpayer’s money to support the industry. Such support could not go on indefinitely.
State owned utilities such as gas, electricity, telecommunications and water along with other nationalised industries like steel and coal, were all seen as being inefficient and victims of state control. Mrs Thatcher intended to bring competition to these industries, to make people appreciate the necessity of operating in real world markets, as a vital plank of her policy as well as bringing people into contact with share ownership and thus having greater understanding of how businesses work.”
Looks like they are running out of other peoples’ money.
Coming soon to a Liberal run state near you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/business/economy/03illinois.html?_r=2&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065
California and Illinois look to be dropping the fastest. I’m sure New york is right there in the race too. Spending by a government does not help economic growth and at rate the Federal and some states are spending it is just dissasterous. You can get away with Keynesian economics when times are good but that is just riding the wave of what Capitalism has made good.
I just read this response to an article in The Globe and Mail, a Canadian News Paper. The writer of teh article says that Obama is a victim of Republicans out to get him and that the economy is all Bush’s fault. One reader made the great following comment:
“I have yet to learn what this “doleful legacy” was that George W. Bush left to the “gifted” President Obama. The financial mess was hardly created by the Bush administration: it was the direct result of legislation passed by the Carter Congress requiring banks to make mortgage loans to non-creditworthy borrowers. The requirements for banks grew even more stringent under both presidents Bush 41 and Clinton. The Bush administration saw the crisis coming and repeatedly warned the Congress that it must pass tougher legislation to control the out-of-control lending habits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional Democrats (and many Republicans too) simply refused, for purely political reasons. Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd ridiculed the regulators who appeared before their committee asking for greater power to regulate these monstrous entities, glibly saying that their management and lending practices were completely sound. Bush personally warned more than 15 times, beginning in 2003, of the coming crisis, to no avail. Alan Greenspan also joined the chorus. So what were the “Bush policies” that led to the worldwide crisis? None. They were Democrat policies; typical “progressive” ideas that had typical progressive results: calamity. Now this “gifted” president (does a law degree from Harvard and a job as a Chicago community organizer and machine politician make one “gifted?” He is a gifted speechmaker, and now those speeches are sounding as hollow as the poor man himself. By the way, most Americans I know love Canada and Canadians. But we don’t want your style of health care, and apparently many of you don’t either.”
He is very correct. The original bill to give questionable loans was passed under Carter.
Here’s what Barney Frank (D) had to say back in 2003: ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
what a genius.
Here, in 2003, the Bush administration tried to pass legislation to control Freddie and Fannie:
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
”There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.
The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.
After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
”The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,” Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ”We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,” the independent agency that now regulates the companies.
”These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,” he added.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.
At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.
Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration’s package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company’s mission.
After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
”We welcome the administration’s approach outlined today,” Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company’s 18 board members.
Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.
Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ”responsible proposal.”
The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.
Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.
”The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
So who’s to blame, Mike?
Even Bernanke, the man that cannot understand why gold prices are rising, said the financial housing market was solid before it collapsed. This guy seems to be a genius except for the details that matter.