So Obama unveiled his job plan tonight. To be honest I'm not really sure what to make of it. The pillars seem to be:
- tax breaks for middle class
- infrastructure spending
- social program spending (primarily teachers)
- tax the rich and corporations more
total cost $447B
On the surface it all sounds reasonable. Unfortunately it doesn't tackle any of the real issues behind this recession. Things like..
- Globalization means you can't sustain a middle class when people in India and China are prepared to do the same work for one-fifth the cost.
- Corruption in Washington via lobbyists (corporations who if they don't get their way simply ship jobs overseas).
- Massive debt issues resulting from government trying to be all things to all people and bailing out large-cap corporations when they behave badly.
- The loss of what made America great, entrepreneurship. Sure there are still entrepreneurs, but nothing on the scale of what we saw in the 70s,80s, and 90s.
- A stock market model that encourages companies to maximize profits for shareholders (which encourages off shoring, irresponsible short-term risks, and a rush to 'right sizing' based on every bump in the economic road).
Instead of tackling the things that are the real issue, Obama set up a pretty scary theme in my opinion, which was 'The rich aren't paying their fair share and the middle class is getting screwed."
Even if that's true, and it's highly debatable to what extent the rich aren't paying their fair share (apparently the top seven per cent pay 51 per cent of the taxes that the government receives every year), is it germaine to getting us out of recession? Are the middle class getting screwed? Yes, but is it because of the rich or because of globalization? (I'd argue the later).
How much more in taxes would the rich have to pay to end this recession? The answer, even if you took 100 per cent of their net worth it wouldn't fix things.
So Obama's speech, while it will help stabilize his crumbling base in the short term (because it sounds like he's fighting for the little guy) isn't going to fix anything. It's a utopic vision he has, where government is going to take less taxes from people and deliver more services (more roads, better schools, a robust economy, etc.). The only way you can do that is if you print money, which ultimately hurts people in the end in the form of inflation.
But Obama knows all this, which is why he's setting up the us versus them, rich versus poor theme. It's practically a gaurantee that unemployment will remain high, inflation will start to kick in at some point, and the government will be out of options. At this point, the only thing Obama will have left to run on is populous rage - us versus them.
This is the scary side of PR. To be honest, I don't call this kind of stuff PR, I call it propaganda, which is a completely different ball game. PR is about presenting the facts and ensuring your audience understands the facts (and your position on those facts). When you actively distort the facts, or knowingly present facts that aren't relevant while hiding ones that are, you aren't engaged in PR any longer, you are engaged in propaganda.
We'll see how it all plays out, but I'm sticking to my thesis that 2012 is going to be one heck of an election as America will slowly start to realize that there is no 'speech' that can fix what is happening, both in America and around the world.
All there are is hard choices, choices that no one seems willing to make (bring home the military and reduce military spending, end lobbying in Washington, harsher penalties for breaking the law, campaign finance reform to end the influence of big money in campaigns, etc.).
After eight years of Bush and four years of Obama, Americans in 2012 might just be ready to say 'You know what, just let me keep my money and get government out of my life, you guys are all incompetent." If that's the sentiment then a Republican will likely win.
I have a feeling though, from Obama's speech tonight, that we will likely be looking at class warfare as the debate issue. Which ideologically is fine on the surface, the problem comes if Obama wins again he'll have to keep to his campaign promises to take as much as possible from the rich (which will only further hurt the economy). Not to mention, if you spark people's rage towards the rich, you'll most likely find yourself with riots on your hands.
Anyway, as the world turns as they say. The good thing is that one way or another I think whoever wins the 2012 election will have a mandate that is definitive and which will lead to clear path forward (whether that be smaller government and lower taxes or bigger government and increased taxes).
Oh, one last thing to comment on regarding his speech. He used a fairly common persuasion technique by saying 'Pass it now' over and over. He did this for two reasons.
The first was to appear like a leader - strongly emphasizing what needs to be done. To be honest though this technique generally makes you seem more parental than leaderly- Clean your room. Clean your room now. I said clean your room! If you truly have leadership and authority you only have to say something one time and it's implied that people will take you seriously (that's why Bush senior's "Read my lips, no new taxes' slogan went over well).
The second was I think he genuinely thinks that if he can create a rallying cry that it will mobilize the public. There's a part of him, I'm sure, that is hoping that there will be people picketing congress tomorrow with big signs saying "PASS IT NOW".
Using repetition can be a highly effect way of persuading your audience. There is something about the cadence of repetition that often times will circumvent people's critical thinking process and put them almost in a trance like state of listening. Unfortunately, it doesn't work so well via a television broadcast (it's more effective in a large in-person audience type scenario), so I don't think its use in this instance will have the effect intended.
But who knows, we'll have to wait and see if Americans rise up and start pressuring congress.
You can view Obama's speech below:
- tax breaks for middle class
- infrastructure spending
- social program spending (primarily teachers)
- tax the rich and corporations more
total cost $447B
On the surface it all sounds reasonable. Unfortunately it doesn't tackle any of the real issues behind this recession. Things like..
- Globalization means you can't sustain a middle class when people in India and China are prepared to do the same work for one-fifth the cost.
- Corruption in Washington via lobbyists (corporations who if they don't get their way simply ship jobs overseas).
- Massive debt issues resulting from government trying to be all things to all people and bailing out large-cap corporations when they behave badly.
- The loss of what made America great, entrepreneurship. Sure there are still entrepreneurs, but nothing on the scale of what we saw in the 70s,80s, and 90s.
- A stock market model that encourages companies to maximize profits for shareholders (which encourages off shoring, irresponsible short-term risks, and a rush to 'right sizing' based on every bump in the economic road).
Instead of tackling the things that are the real issue, Obama set up a pretty scary theme in my opinion, which was 'The rich aren't paying their fair share and the middle class is getting screwed."
Even if that's true, and it's highly debatable to what extent the rich aren't paying their fair share (apparently the top seven per cent pay 51 per cent of the taxes that the government receives every year), is it germaine to getting us out of recession? Are the middle class getting screwed? Yes, but is it because of the rich or because of globalization? (I'd argue the later).
How much more in taxes would the rich have to pay to end this recession? The answer, even if you took 100 per cent of their net worth it wouldn't fix things.
So Obama's speech, while it will help stabilize his crumbling base in the short term (because it sounds like he's fighting for the little guy) isn't going to fix anything. It's a utopic vision he has, where government is going to take less taxes from people and deliver more services (more roads, better schools, a robust economy, etc.). The only way you can do that is if you print money, which ultimately hurts people in the end in the form of inflation.
But Obama knows all this, which is why he's setting up the us versus them, rich versus poor theme. It's practically a gaurantee that unemployment will remain high, inflation will start to kick in at some point, and the government will be out of options. At this point, the only thing Obama will have left to run on is populous rage - us versus them.
This is the scary side of PR. To be honest, I don't call this kind of stuff PR, I call it propaganda, which is a completely different ball game. PR is about presenting the facts and ensuring your audience understands the facts (and your position on those facts). When you actively distort the facts, or knowingly present facts that aren't relevant while hiding ones that are, you aren't engaged in PR any longer, you are engaged in propaganda.
We'll see how it all plays out, but I'm sticking to my thesis that 2012 is going to be one heck of an election as America will slowly start to realize that there is no 'speech' that can fix what is happening, both in America and around the world.
All there are is hard choices, choices that no one seems willing to make (bring home the military and reduce military spending, end lobbying in Washington, harsher penalties for breaking the law, campaign finance reform to end the influence of big money in campaigns, etc.).
After eight years of Bush and four years of Obama, Americans in 2012 might just be ready to say 'You know what, just let me keep my money and get government out of my life, you guys are all incompetent." If that's the sentiment then a Republican will likely win.
I have a feeling though, from Obama's speech tonight, that we will likely be looking at class warfare as the debate issue. Which ideologically is fine on the surface, the problem comes if Obama wins again he'll have to keep to his campaign promises to take as much as possible from the rich (which will only further hurt the economy). Not to mention, if you spark people's rage towards the rich, you'll most likely find yourself with riots on your hands.
Anyway, as the world turns as they say. The good thing is that one way or another I think whoever wins the 2012 election will have a mandate that is definitive and which will lead to clear path forward (whether that be smaller government and lower taxes or bigger government and increased taxes).
Oh, one last thing to comment on regarding his speech. He used a fairly common persuasion technique by saying 'Pass it now' over and over. He did this for two reasons.
The first was to appear like a leader - strongly emphasizing what needs to be done. To be honest though this technique generally makes you seem more parental than leaderly- Clean your room. Clean your room now. I said clean your room! If you truly have leadership and authority you only have to say something one time and it's implied that people will take you seriously (that's why Bush senior's "Read my lips, no new taxes' slogan went over well).
The second was I think he genuinely thinks that if he can create a rallying cry that it will mobilize the public. There's a part of him, I'm sure, that is hoping that there will be people picketing congress tomorrow with big signs saying "PASS IT NOW".
Using repetition can be a highly effect way of persuading your audience. There is something about the cadence of repetition that often times will circumvent people's critical thinking process and put them almost in a trance like state of listening. Unfortunately, it doesn't work so well via a television broadcast (it's more effective in a large in-person audience type scenario), so I don't think its use in this instance will have the effect intended.
But who knows, we'll have to wait and see if Americans rise up and start pressuring congress.
You can view Obama's speech below:
Comments
Post a Comment