My Letter to The Economist

I saw where Lisa quoted and linked to an op-ed in The Economist entitled "Obamanomics: Hope and Fear." Y'all this one has me baffled. The op-ed states a couple of things I find inaccurate or, to say the least, very vague. I'll admit, I'm not that bright and I really don't spend a lot of time trying to out-theorize or out-think anyone, especially The Economist cause I know it's way over my head. But this one article isn't adding up and their tiptoeing muckiness leaves me confused.

You can read my original thoughts on Organized Chaos since most of what I write on this blog comes from Lisa's comments page. The article starts off by suggesting the populist Obama is huddling the masses while predicting a doomsday economic scenario. Then, oddly, agrees that "some" middle-class Americans are indeed struggling. So the capitalistic conservatives at The Economist can agree, somewhat, that economically speaking there’s been some rough times with the probability of more on the way. Whether or not that places Obama communistically arguing for the masses is comical, both historically and ideologically speaking.

Here's their two opening paragraphs:
<

FOR a man who has placed “hope” at the centre of his campaign, Barack Obama can sound pretty darned depressing. As the battle for the Democratic nomination reaches a climax in Texas and Ohio, the front-runner's speeches have begun to paint a world in which laid-off parents compete with their children for minimum-wage jobs while corporate fat-cats mis-sell dodgy mortgages and ship jobs off to Mexico. The man who claims to be a “post-partisan” centrist seems to be channelling the spirit of William Jennings Bryan, the original American populist, who thunderously demanded to know “Upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight—upon the side of ‘the idle holders of idle capital’ or upon the side of ‘the struggling masses’?”

There is no denying that for some middle-class Americans, the past few years have indeed been a struggle. What is missing from Mr Obama's speeches is any hint that this is not the whole story: that globalisation brings down prices and increases consumer choice; that unemployment is low by historical standards; that American companies are still the world's most dynamic and creative; and that Americans still, on the whole, live lives of astonishing affluence.

After a brief discussion on Organized Chaos, I decided to write to The Economist myself to see if I could get a clarification of what exactly they are saying and insinuating with their op-ed.

Here's my letter:

To: letters@economist.com

Sir:

I write for the blog Political Notio and came across your rather interesting op-ed dated Feb. 28 2008. I was hoping you could clear up some confusion I have regarding that article and the insinuated political ideology contained therein.

In the article you state:

"FOR a man who has placed 'hope' at the centre of his campaign, Barack Obama can sound pretty darned depressing. As the battle for the Democratic nomination reaches a climax in Texas and Ohio, the front-runner's speeches have begun to paint a world in which laid-off parents compete with their children for minimum-wage jobs while corporate fat-cats mis-sell dodgy mortgages and ship jobs off to Mexico. The man who claims to be a "post-partisan" centrist seems to be channelling the spirit of William Jennings Bryan, the original American populist, who thunderously demanded to know "Upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight—upon the side of 'the idle holders of idle capital' or upon the side of 'the struggling masses'?"

There is no denying that for some middle-class Americans, the past few years have indeed been a struggle. What is missing from Mr Obama's speeches is any hint that this is not the whole story: that globalisation brings down prices and increases consumer choice; that unemployment is low by historical standards; that American companies are still the world's most dynamic and creative; and that Americans still, on the whole, live lives of astonishing affluence."

It seems The Economist wants to agree with the bad economic forecast it credits to Hillary and Obama, but instead decides to settle on agreeing that things, for some, have been a struggle. Accordingly, The Economist can agree somewhat, then, that economically speaking there's been some rough times with the probability of more on the way. Whether or not that places Obama communistically arguing for the masses is comical, both historically and ideologically speaking.

The article chides Hillary and especially Obama for an economic forecast, which they agree has been a struggle the last few Bush years, but then uses current measures to discard a future event it claims the Dem candidates are predicting. I don't think you'll find anywhere where Obama (or Hillary) has said that American companies aren't the most dynamic or that as a whole Americans don't live the most affluent lives. What the Dems are saying is that "for some," to Obama and Hillary that "some" is millions of people, things have been rough and will get worse if we continue the same economic policies Bush and the Republicans have laid out for this country. If that's fighting for the struggling masses then okay. But admitting that there are struggling masses sort of, kind of negates The Economist's whole article. And by admitting that there is no struggling, which the article doesn't, defies every economic indicator out there. So I guess this whole thing depends on what the definition of "some" is.

Is it the case The Economist is arguing there are no struggling masses and Obama and Hillary are really queuing populist notions, or is this op-ed arguing that there is no struggle, that only things have been rough, for some?

Also, the article makes mention "[b]oth John McCain and the Democratic nominee will then be chasing swing voters who are, typically, white working men—the type already prone to pessimism about their prospects." It's been my understanding that swing voters in America has been anything but white working men. Such as the terms soccer moms, security moms, or evangelicals in general, have been the common definition of swing voters as of recent (circa 1920). I would be curious to know when white working men have ever swung an election or been considered swing votes.

I look forward to your reply,

Most Capitalistically yours,
Chris

I sent this to their general letter to the editor email address. It was the only one I could find. So I'm not sure how well, if at all, this is going to get answered. I looked for a correspondence email, such as one directly to a person, but I couldn't find one. I sent it the only way I could figure it out. If someone comes across a better email please let me know. I'm curious to know why The Economist would agree with such a communist notion as class struggles and then berate Hillary and Obama for doing the same thing. Although I'm not so sure Hillary and Obama are doing the same thing. The doomsday scenario The Economist casts about massive layoffs and huge unemployment with jobs being shipped overseas, and the lack of Hillary or Obama to brag about American corporations or our standard of living is made up. No where have they done such. It's almost as if The Economist agrees there is a struggle but since the Dems aren't talking about our luscious standard of living or our corporate dynamism that makes them populists huddling the masses, i.e., communists.

Then the end where they make mention that swing voters in America are generally white working men is really what got me thinking that they might not have a clue what they are writing and are just laying stuff out there hoping people buy into it.

I'll keep everyone posted if there are any new developments. In the meantime feel free to explain to me what in the world The Economist is talking about.