Bailouts and Rescues and TARPs, Oh My
RHETORIC CHECK: To Bailout or not to Bailout
Listen to the language. In my former life I used to work for Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster who created the Contract With America, and he taught me no more important lesson. So: how is the language of “bailouts” and “rescue packages” being presented to us? We were initially faced with an explicitly competing language of bailout vs. rescue, though this soon fell by the wayside. Most recently, enter the Troubled Assetts Relief Program.
What, though, is actually happening?
We who study rhetoric and politics are always keen on this question: the relation between words and actions. Billions, and indeed trillions, of dollars are being transfered to private sector instituions including AIG, Citi, and potentially GM and the other Big Three automakers. We do not hear media or political spokespersons talking about “transfers of wealth,” “subsidies,” or “nationalization” of industries.
Instead the language of “bailout”: As if our pals in the financial sector or in automotives had tied one on last night and deserved a friendly loan to tide them over. Likewise the “relief” of the TARP acronym. “Rescue” is even more explicitly in synch with the framework of victimization and well-deserved assistance. For enlightenment, flip between MSN, Fox, and CNN to see who is talking about “bailouts” or “rescue plans.”
No one in the mainstream media is going so far, yet, as to speak of “Nationalization,” though this is ostensibly what is happening. We–the taxpayers–are buying up shares in AIG, Citi, and other corporations. Only we won’t get dividend checks. The state, and its payors (taxpayers) are taking over ownership of the major corporations. We are purchasing preferred stock–not issuing loans. This is analogous to what the British government under Clement Atlee did following the defeat of the conservatives in 1945. Only we dare not speak of “Nationalization” in our late capitalist econmy. Rhetoric aside, this is what we have.
Years ago President Richard Nixon took heat for acknowledging that–in light of the Arab oil embargo and other gloomy economic dynamics of the 1970s–”we’re all Keynesians now.” Well, what we see under Bush in his final days is a strong signal that Nixon should have been paid greater heed. Had we taken a more Keynesian tack we might not have arrived at this current meltdown, with its tortured rhetoric and painful policy choices.
Comments
By Aaron Knapp on November 26th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Yes, there was a huge outcry against “bailing out” the banks. I was a little surprised that the government and surrogates were using that phrase in the beginning since the negative connotation is plain and clear. We say colloquially, “Don’t expect me to bail you out,” etc. The phrase “bail out” is typically used in the context of something undesirable, something we DON’T want to do. Finally realizing this, the politicians began lurching to find a more pleasing description of what was happening. But none really fits as good as “bail out.” Because, let’s face it, that’s what it is.
By JRIEHL on November 26th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Let’s remember what a “bail out” is. Bail is what you pay to get our of jail. The metaphor is a messy one when considering privately held corporations that have proven themselves unable to obtain private loans. Here they come a-knocking on the bail-bondsman’s door of the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury…..funded by you and me.
By Aaron Knapp on November 26th, 2008 at 11:14 am
This is a great topic, and a continually breaking news stories in terms of the rhetoric. One key element is the unprecedented nature of this. When Lehman Brothers finally went down, that was the sea change. At that time, I don’t think anyone had a vocabulary, a rhetoric, that could be comfortably applied to the situation, because we have never encountered a situation like this before. Since then, there has been a struggle to find an appropriate vocabulary. We are having to reinvent our rhetoric and, in so doing, reinvent ourselves.