Jack Donaghy: So what do you do with your money? Put it into a 401K? Liz Lemon: Yeah… I’ve gotta get one of those. J.D.: What? Where do you invest your money, Liz? L.L.: I have, like, 12 grand in checking. J.D.: Are you… an immigrant?
In case you’re wondering, I’m the Liz Lemon character.
Which is why I don’t feel particularly qualified to assess, in granular detail, all the talk of “FHA mandates” and “capital-gains rates” and “internal risk management protocols” flying back and forth between the candidates today. At least not in any way that would be helpful to you, dear readers.
But I’m not sure such probing is necessary (at least on my inexpert part). Over the next day or two, plenty of wise observers will weigh in with their analyses of which plan will best revive the economy and help solve the mortgage crisis. Some will say Obama. Some will say Clinton. And some will say McCain. I’ll highlight all three in the morning Filter. But for now, I think the important thing is to use this “economy moment” as an opportunity to compare the candidates’ leadership styles. And when it comes to Clinton and Obama, the very smart Ezra Klein of the American Prospect hits the nail on the head:
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama… both offer up good speeches that display not only a good grasp of the crisis, but a willingness to embrace solutions of proportionate size. But even so, their speeches are very different, rather along the lines I laid out in last month’s cover. Clinton begins, “we have a crisis of confidence in our economy. What started out as a subprime mortgage crisis has now become a national credit crisis, rippling out from banks and boardrooms to businesses and living rooms across America.” From there, she jumps directly into today’s troubles and offers a wonkish and thorough explanation of the problem, and a set of pretty effective proposals to counter it. She wraps her analysis in a “crisis of confidence” theme, and argues that we need a competent leadership with a deep grasp of the problem in order to restore the market’s sense of internal equilibrium.
Obama, by contrast, starts off, “With all the history that has passed through the narrow canyons of lower Manhattan, it is worth taking a moment to reflect on the role that the market has played in the development of the American story.” From there, we go through the debates of Jefferson and Hamilton, the conditions that led to the Great Depression, and the argument that “the American experiment has worked in large part because we have guided the market’s invisible hand with a higher principle.” Where Hillary offers a straight address about the policy problems feeding into the crisis, Obama spends much of his time on the perverse and unbalanced values that have led us to this moment.
I argued in last month’s Prospect, there’s substantial convergence in their policies, but significant divergence in their approaches: She sells herself as the manager best equipped to deal with crises, he puts himself forward as a sort of inspirational leader best suited to changing the culture that abets these abuses.
Addressing McCain, Klein, a proud liberal, reiterates the criticism that both Clinton and Obama have made over the past few days: that a laissez-faire, faith-in-the-markets approach won’t work. “McCain doesn’t offer homeowners anything at all,” he writes. “His is a speech meant to show that he gave a speech on this crisis. It’s not a set of solutions. Instead, he wants various pledges from kindly companies and to hold a series of meetings on the crisis. Hear that Wall Street? There’ll be meetings! So calm down already!” Whether you agree, of course, is a matter of ideology. But it’s clear from the speech that McCain would be a traditional, hands-off economic conservative. Which says something about his leadership style–like it or not.
