The question on the economy is a large one, so I’ll get right to it. It’s a three-parter:
Do Barack Obama’s critics of his multi trillion-dollar economic package have any idea what they’re talking about? How about Obama’s supporters? How about anyone else?
The answers, of course, are no, no and maybe about three guys.
This stuff is difficult. I mean it’s calculus- I-had-to-take-my-freshman-year difficult. And that’s why, instead of arguing about derivatives and credit default swaps (if you don’t really understand them, you don’t really belong in the conversation), we can see the conversation change.
That’s why the new hot topic is, yes, Obama’s love affair with the teleprompter. Teleprompters are easy. Credit default swaps, meanwhile, are hard. They’re the “exotic financial instruments” that are, in the financial-world jargon, side bets on the creditworthiness of companies, bets made at the intersection where mathematical formulas and unfettered greed converge, bets that have put the entire world at risk.
Sure, we’re outraged. But if we really understood derivatives and swaps — which, I’m told, are something like your basic fantasy baseball league, except in which worldwide losses ride on $60 trillion worth of side bets — we’d be seething. And there’s only so much satisfaction you can get from seeing AIG bonus babies humiliated.
And then comes the bank-rescue plan — with Tim Geithner offering up new regulations on derivatives — and, well, who knows what to make of it? When Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist, says the Obama-Geithner plan to revitalize the financial markets relies too heavily on the markets themselves and leaves him in despair, I pay attention. When Pulitzer Prize-winner and Washington Post columnist Steve Pearlstein says Krugman’s despair leaves him in despair — he thinks the Obama-Geithner plan might work — I pay attention.
And still, I know I’m in way over my head. A smart writer like Michael Kinsley says the one thing he understands about the bailout is that the idea is to lure people back into the financial markets to make a subsidized killing while buying up so-called toxic assets — which, if they do, means the same guys that we bailed out, we now help get rich again. But what if they don’t make a killing? You see the problem.
So, do you really want to argue about nonrecourse, high-leverage loans, or do you want to watch Letterman’s teleprompter video face-off? The video is more fun than the NCAA playoffs, particularly if, like me, you had West Virginia in your Elite Eight. And this is the kind of argument that is perfect for the kind of cable-TV news show that only pretends to be serious and that Letterman can seriously mock. Look, it’s an issue you can’t mess up. You can say anything, no matter how stupid, and it doesn’t matter . . . because we’re talking about teleprompters.
As you know, Obama takes one with him everywhere. It’s like the pet dog he still hasn’t gotten his kids. This was a talk-radio issue during the campaign that has now gone, as we say, viral — and the subtext was that Obama, the law professor, couldn’t be all that smart because he needs his video cheat sheet. Except, of course, everyone knows there’s no substantive difference between using the teleprompter and having your speech on the lectern in front of you.
In any case, you couldn’t really say Obama is hiding behind the teleprompter. He’s not hiding anywhere. He’s on Leno. He’s doing prime-time news conferences. He’s doing “60 Minutes.” He’s on ESPN filling out his bracket. He’s doing Internet chats. I’m expecting to see him in Fargo, tossing around sandbags — you know, like he’s tossing around trillions in his budget.
When you voted for Obama, you were voting for change — but maybe not this much change. Every day, Obama adds something new into the mix. On Monday, it’s the auto bailout. On Friday, he was taking time off to fix Afghanistan. At least Afghanistan is something we can understand. You’ve got al-Qaeda and you’ve got the Taliban and you’ve got Osama bin Laden across the Pakistani border. You’re thinking that if you close your eyes (meaning you can’t see the teleprompter), you can almost hear George W. Bush talking about nation-building, and you’re wondering whether Obama has fallen for the generals’ siren song — just as Paul Krugman accuses him of listening too closely to Wall Street.
This is an argument we know. And we can ask the right questions. Where’s the exit strategy? What’s the quagmire potential? When do the anti-war rallies begin, and where did you get your “make levees, not war” bumper stickers?
But there’s a better question. We may not have made it to Obama’s post-partisan world — just check out the Republican budget proposal for your amusement — but Obama is now counting on the beginning of a post-ideological movement. The question — in Afghanistan, on Wall Street — should be this: Will the plan work? The question is already being asked whether the bailout might be Obama’s Katrina and Geithner his Brownie. Now you can ask whether Afghanistan will be his Iraq.
You see, nobody really cares about the teleprompter — until it doesn’t work. And then the question becomes: What goes wrong next?
Mike Littwin’s column runs Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Reach him at 303-954-5428 or mlittwin@denverpost.com.
