Here.
The comment thread is depressing to me. Good economics and common sense thrown out the window during election season because Obama clearly couldn't have meant what he plainly said, that everything we achieve is a result of our own initiative (something he
explicitly said in the speech) as well as the contributions of society,
including the contributions of government.
UPDATE: OK, Charles Rice's comment, below, clearly convinces me that intonation doesn't travel well online. Let me clarify this:
The commenters in David Henderson's thread throw good economics and common sense out the window during an election season by insisting that Obama clearly didn't mean what he plainly said and instead was somehow slighting business owners. Obama plainly said that what we achieve is a result of our own initiative, as well as the contributions of society, as well as government. He clearly said this. But the commenters at Henderson's blog and the author of the article Henderson links to insist that he didn't mean what he clearly said, and they assume they can interpret what he said for us to tell us what he really meant. I think it's nonsense and I'm disappointed David was endorsing it.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
To be honest Daniel, I don't think it's worth the time to try and make inroads here on this particular defense of the President. And the reason I think that is because what Obama's getting hit on is the manner in which he made his argument, not necessarily the argument itself. It's not that he wants more tax dollars for governments so they can increase infrastructure spending that got the President in trouble, but that he seemed to disparage incredibly productive people in order to make his argument, and it ended up turning into a complete disaster, and for good reason.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree that it isn't worth making inroads, or challenging how the President is being attacked for his "you didn't built that" statement. I will agree he made a mistake, but it was only by one word. "-You didn't build that." should have been, "You didn't build that infrastructure." Because, quite clearly, that's what Obama was implying. Not saying something in his defense, though, is to give up the opportunity to address those points Obama raised with those who would prefer merely to attack the President and ignore the ideas contained in that speech.
ReplyDeleteI think Daniel Kuehn has described the situation quite clearly, "Good economics and common sense thrown out the window during election season..". I'd like to say it's just like this every election season, but I'm not positive there isn't a greater emotional intensity on this one.
I'm convinced now that line was intended to communicate "you didn't build that infrastructure", but honestly I would have been fine if he meant "you didn't build that business all by yourself".
DeleteIn the political arena we have to stand up and acknowledge when there is good economic being promoted, because you hear so little of it there.
Yes, Obama probably did mean "you didn't build that infrastructure". But it is not what folk heard. And that is what matters, politically. And I think there is a point to be made about signals here. Part of the political signal sent is in having not been sensitive to how folk would take things.
ReplyDeleteIf this much ink has to be spilt saying "he didn't mean that", then it was a stuff-up.
Lorenzo: "Yes, Obama probably did mean "you didn't build that infrastructure". But it is not what folk heard."
DeleteI think that people who heard Obama's remark in context knew what he meant. What people who heard the decontextualized excerpt heard is another matter.
Lorenzo: "And that is what matters, politically. And I think there is a point to be made about signals here. Part of the political signal sent is in having not been sensitive to how folk would take things."
Politicians and pundits misspeak all the time. I am sometimes amused when on TV they say the opposite of what they mean, and nobody catches it. ;) Obama's remark was obviously extemporaneous, and he should have listened to himself. I don't think that the question of sensitivity even arose, because he did not catch the ambiguity of his unscripted remark.
Politically, I think the way that the Reps played the remark up at their convention may backfire. Independents who follow the news enough to have seen the remark in context will be turned off.
And misrepresentation is not a part of the political process? Not giving hostages to easy and resonant misrepresentation is part of the trick.
DeleteSure, misrepresentation is part of politics. I just think that the Reps overplayed their hand. It's like they didn't have any ideas of their own, they had to fall back on misrepresentation.
DeleteSo I am one that accepts what seems to be the consensus among "let's stop and analyze this" types of people that he meant "you didn't build that infrastructure". That's what was in Obama's head. But at first I thought he meant "you didn't build that" with the implicit word being "exclusively" or "by yourself".
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm fine with that version of it (i.e. - the version that apparently got communicated to everyone). We didn't. This is "I, Pencil" stuff people, except Obama (being a public servant) wants to add in government as well which in my view is 100% legitimate. He makes other lines in the speech noting that you can't build a business without personal effort too, so I think this idea that he was dumping on businessmen is nonsense.
There seems to be a lot of concern over "how people take things". I don't think we should indulge hypersensitivity like that. They're wrong and that's that.
"There seems to be a lot of concern over "how people take things". I don't think we should indulge hypersensitivity like that."
DeleteI completely agree with this statement at face value, although I don't think it's applicable to this particular conversation. If your implication is supposed to be: "We'd like more tax dollars for infrastructure", and it turns out to be received by millions as "you didn't build it, therefore you're not as productive as you think you are", then the simple truth is that your implication failed. A failed implication of this magnitude isn't due to hypersensitivity indulgence. It is due to either a repugnant ideological tone, or to a massive communications blunder. Either case is bad for the President, and he's receiving the fallout for it.
To be honest, the book has been written on this one, and it's probably best to just leave it alone.
Jason: " A failed implication of this magnitude isn't due to hypersensitivity indulgence. It is due to either a repugnant ideological tone, or to a massive communications blunder."
DeleteThere is at least a third alternative: It may be the result of deliberate misrepresentation by the press and others.
P. S. Again I protest the letter glyphs. I blew the last one up more than double size and it still was unclear. My guess was not accepted.
"There is at least a third alternative: It may be the result of deliberate misrepresentation by the press and others."
DeleteI had contemplated that and then immediately dismissed it due to the fairly large context that perhaps could even further indict the President.
I see you've been banned again at Econlog DK. I was recently banned for linking to an article with 'insufficient' explanation. Now of course you are far more contentious than I could ever even dream of being (I'm kidding!) but what terrible crime did you commit this time?
ReplyDeleteI don't think DRH disappoints here. I pointed out to DRH in his original post that Obama almost certainly meant that American system not that business. And I think he accepts that and is not saying otherwise now. He is saying that still, and from the thrust of the whole speech, there is a slighting of individual effort. And *she* is arguing that meaning depends on more than intent. Whatever his intent his words conjure a response and that response strikes a chord *based on his entire record and all his statements*. This is why the phrase has become a synecdoche.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ken B. Yes. You’ve got it. I should have linked to your comment on my first post on this but I was in a hurry yesterday. It seems as if for about every 6 comments you make, I have to run to the dictionary once. First “litotes,” but I don’t remember where you used it. And now “synecdoche.” You’ve obviously been educated in a foreign school. :-)
ReplyDelete"Obama clearly couldn't have meant what he plainly said"
ReplyDelete!Headslap!
I am incredulous that a cornerstone of your argument is that you know that Pres.
Obama, whose academic achievements and intellectual prowess are alleged to be beyond reproach, President of the Harvard Law Review, one of the greatest orators of our time, and leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, 'couldn't have meant what he plainly said'.
What is the objective criteria that we can use to know when Obama clearly means what he plainly says as opposed to times when Obama clearly couldn't have meant what he plainly said?
The logical ramifications of this claim are myriad.
Your (or anyone's) ability to know the minds of others:
Do you believe you know Obama's, or anyone's, true message better than they can speak it themselves? Do you claim to have access to information hidden in the words of others that is not accessible to Rush Limbaugh, John Stewart, or Charles Manson?
Under what objective criteria can you, DK, interpret for the rest of us what any one means v. what they said?
Obama's ability to say what he means:
In what other instances does Obama not mean what he clearly says? While discussing the nuclear ambitions of Iran with Israel? While working on the next trillion dollars of deficit spending? While giving the order for a drone strike on a foreign national? While telling his children that he loves them?
Is Obama, in some cases known to some, an utterly vacuous talking head who speaks gibberish, and when it suits us, we can invoke the "he did not really mean that" clause?
In what cases can we use the same logic for any conversation we have with anyone?
Ummm... I think you need to reread the post. That's what I'm suggesting David Henderson and others are arguing. I do think he meant what he clearly said (why else would he say it) and he was right.
DeleteRead the update Charles. You got what I was saying exactly backwards. I agree - we shouldn't take seriously people who read some kind of secret subtext or claim to have some sole ability to interpret what Obama "really meant".
DeleteHe said what he meant pretty plainly.
We should take the president at his word.
Daniel, you continuously claim that people need to take Obama at his word, as if no one has taken him at his word, except that is precisely the point he's being hit on. If we take him at his word it is much worse than if we interpret what he actually means. The major problem of your argument is that you want it both ways. We're supposed to take him at his word, i.e. "You didn't build that", which sounds horrendous, but then, from your point of view, we're supposed to interpret that to mean, "You didn't build that business all by yourself". Which one is it Daniel? And how can you be disappointed that people get upset at what the President says if we use your own metric to judge it by?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I haven't commented on your "ignoring good economics" position, because you didn't elaborate, and I didn't want to push the button there, but I'm beginning to suspect that your position on "good economics" isn't something I would consider to be just that.
Jason B -
Delete"Take him at his word" and "take every sentence, in isolation, literally" are two very different things.
Obama also says: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
Do you think that matters? What do you think he means in that sentence?
re: "And how can you be disappointed that people get upset at what the President says if we use your own metric to judge it by?"
No, the whole problem is they're not.
You've got to be kidding me. As I've noted previously, the context makes it sound worse: "look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."
DeleteI think it's fairly obvious no head way is going to be made here on this topic, so I'll stop, but com'on, this context is atrocious for the President.
How does that line help your case? Do you deny that there are a lot of people that are just as smart and industries but who have not been as successful because of social context and support that gives one person a leg up relative to another?
DeleteYou're really in deep. I agree - I'm not sure this is going anywhere.
Ask yourself - why did he say "you didn't get there no your own" instead of "you didn't deserve to get there"?
Because my contention is in the plain English. You're the one who has to read things into what he's saying. All I've ever said is that he's saying "you didn't get there on your own", and here you go giving me a quote where he says exactly that and telling me it hurts my case.
Unbelievable.
Obama: "I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."
DeleteJason B: I think it's fairly obvious no head way is going to be made here on this topic, so I'll stop, but com'on, this context is atrocious for the President.
Not to fan any flames, but it seems to me that Obama is playing to the crowd, to all those smart and/or hardworking people who have not been all that successful. They greatly outnumber the smart and/or hardworking people who have been successful. Democratic politics as usual, eh?