« Thanks for your interest | Main | My favorite things Nevada »
The Political Psychology of Stimulus
David Hirschleifer writes:
Regardless of who's right on the economics, clearly the ‘stimulus' language captures the pro side perfectly, and the con side not at all. Indeed, the term immunizes the mind to opposing evidence. After a cup of stimulus from Starbucks, if I'm still drowsy, by definition I need another jolt.
....Opponents have lots of metaphors they could choose from. Instead of the image of rousing activity, there could be the economic ‘suppression plan,' ‘deadweight package,' or ‘growth-retardant system.' For alliteration, there's ‘prosperity Propofol.' To honor the frugality of government, how about ‘resource-flush scheme,' ‘wealth dump,' or ‘porkapalooza'? As for mechanical metaphors, there's ‘recovery off switch,' ‘opportunity crusher,' and ‘investment choke button.' For the computer savvy, how about ‘stagnation drag and-drop-down device,' or ‘system freezer'.
In recognition of our gleaming new infrastructure, there's the ‘road-to-Hell-paving project'. And to celebrate the new Star Trek film, how about economic ‘stasis-field mechanism', ‘enterprise eliminator,' 'job vaporizer,' or just plain ‘black hole'?
So, here's a political psychology question. Why did opponents gullibly swallow the stimulus terminology, and thereby defeat? Any ideas?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 9, 2009 at 10:05 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Stimulus-Something causing or regarded as causing a response.
Posted by: Mike C at Jul 9, 2009 10:19:12 PM
Why do so many buy into the notion of stimulus? An obvious answer it that so many influential people have been trained in Keynesian macroeconoimcs as opposed to either Monetary or better yet Austrian schools of thought. The average age in the House is about 53 and in the Senate is about 63. This means that the typical congressperson lawyer got his macro in undergraduate school when Keynesian cross was IT. The notion that increased consumption and government spending "grows" the economy while saving "paradoxically" does not is alive and well among many who have never been weaned from the simple minded textbook Keynesians they were nursed on in their flower-power days as undergraduates.
Posted by: indiana jim at Jul 9, 2009 10:32:16 PM
Even more interesting is why didn't these ideas come to them over all earlier stimulus programs? Probably because under their hackneyed ideas, anything they do is stimulus and anything anyone else does is not.
Posted by: Lord at Jul 9, 2009 10:55:52 PM
Very easy. Even the NYT and WP will have to acknowledge the plan's failure. Read
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/08/jobs-report-mortgages-unemployment-recession-opinions-columnists-nouriel-roubini.html
Posted by: E. Barandiaran at Jul 9, 2009 11:48:50 PM
Newt Gingrich was politically astute enough to realize "you control the language, you control the game". When Welfare started being called "entitlements" instead of welfare -- game over for welfare. Who could argue FOR entitlements?
Still, I don't think stimulus is nearly as positive a word as Hirschleifer claims. A stimulant is a drug. Crystal Meth is a stimulant. It implies a bad come down on the other side. It also connotes a culture of instant gratification. I bet if you polled cultural conservatives they wouldn't repulse to the word stimulus.
Posted by: Rob at Jul 10, 2009 12:17:43 AM
I meant would repulse.
Posted by: Rob at Jul 10, 2009 12:19:15 AM
The Crony Package.
Posted by: The Masked Defender at Jul 10, 2009 12:32:46 AM
Here is why the language seems to favor the stimulus.
Because the "pro-stimulus" people are the ones in power and the ones who made the initiative, they control the dialog. The heck the bailout was pushed by the presidential candidates for both parties. The truth is that anti-bailout/stimulus is grass roots and pro-bailout/stimulus behavior in general is establishment. One would try to counter this by saying that the republican party is anti-stimulus, but most republican politicians are not anti-stimulus, they are just anti-this particular stimulus because its so huge and poorly done. They still value the idea of a stimulus they just wanted something really front loaded like a payroll tax cut.
In the antis favor, this stimulus is an abject failure so far, and this will taint future usage of the "stimulus" language much like the recent "bailout" did to "bailouts"
Posted by: Doc Merlin at Jul 10, 2009 12:35:18 AM
These language games can get tricky. How was it that the estate tax became the "death tax"?
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Jul 10, 2009 12:52:26 AM
I actually disagree with Hirschleifer's analysis. If you notice, the administration is careful to talk about the "recovery package" instead of using the word "stimulus." In a lot of ways, I think the stimulus frame works against the proponents, since it implies that the economy will quickly respond. As far as this is (clearly) false, it should be relatively easy to argue that the "stimulus has failed," while the administration is more apt to say that the "recovery is slow." Moreover, the word "recovery" makes it seem like the bad economy is a single event that Obama is responding to, rather than something that, at this point, he bears a responsibility for.
As for the death tax, I've read articles from the early 20th century detailing the government's "death taxes" in a neutral way, so the term is certainly older than most people realize.
Posted by: Mario at Jul 10, 2009 2:51:05 AM
The average age in the House is about 53 and in the Senate is about 63. This means that the typical congressperson lawyer got his macro in undergraduate school when Keynesian cross was IT.
A 53-year-old would have been 18 years old and thus eligible for Econ 101 in college in 1974. 1974 was the year that Friedrich Hayek won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Two years later Milton Friedman won the prize in large part for his work on the permanent income hypothesis, which was intended as a direct rebuttal to the Keynesian cross.
Posted by: Ricardo at Jul 10, 2009 2:56:43 AM
This language issue has been one of my hobby horses for years.
Metaphors matter, and the pop metaphors of economics an intellectual disaster.
Posted by: Greg Ransom at Jul 10, 2009 3:14:02 AM
"A 53-year-old would have been 18 years old and thus eligible for Econ 101 in college in 1974. 1974 was the year that Friedrich Hayek won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Two years later Milton Friedman won the prize in large part for his work on the permanent income hypothesis, which was intended as a direct rebuttal to the Keynesian cross."
And yet modern undergraduate macro courses still teach IS-LM.
Posted by: Jayson Virissimo at Jul 10, 2009 4:42:09 AM
The National Money Hole
Posted by: Doug at Jul 10, 2009 5:21:09 AM
They have been doing something more effective. They have bundled it with the bail out of the banks, which is very unpopular with the public, and call it socialism. This has the added advantage that they can attack univesal health care with the same label so they do not have to learn new words
Posted by: joan at Jul 10, 2009 6:34:46 AM
There is always a sense of inevitability about these things; Keynesianism, "Healthcare" reform, Global Warming-Climate Change, etc.
I agree that we need to stop fighting on their terms. However, at the end of the day, are the marginal politicians in Congress so dense that they are swayed by terminology? No, of course not. They are evil. So, I'm not convinced that the inevitability is mythical.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 10, 2009 6:51:30 AM
Barkley,
Because the estate tax really is the death tax. Death is the triggering event. Sales tax is taxed upon sales. Income tax is taxed upon income. Property tax is assessed on the ownership of property. Individuals get taxed, not businesses, estates, boats, houses or Coca-Colas.
Differently, a stimulus package that doesn't stimulate is not one.
Nothing succeeds like failure, and giving plenty of rope to hang themselves with is nice, but Republicans are not that clever.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 10, 2009 6:59:22 AM
I'm one of those who remain unconvinced that language and framing are critical to political success. 'Stimulus' will become a negative word that politicians won't want to touch soon enough if the economy continues on its present course.
Posted by: Slocum at Jul 10, 2009 7:20:07 AM
joan nails it. Likewise talking about believing that government is the solution to every problem.
The choices suggested in the article are over the top, even for the nutty world of Fox, CNBC and the WSJ editorial pages.
Posted by: jonm at Jul 10, 2009 7:31:56 AM
Why did opponents gullibly swallow the stimulus terminology, and thereby defeat?
What specific opponents does the question refer to? For many opponents did indeed use alternative terminology much as was suggested by Hirschleifer. For example the phrase "crap sandwich" was used by a politician (Boehner) and repeated by pundits, to refer to the 2008 "bailout", and similar linguistic efforts have been made in 2009.
But the mass media are left wing and in the pocket of the Democrats, so the linguistic efforts of the opponents were not propagated by the mass media. Readers of conservative blogs encountered these linguistic efforts every day but TV viewers and newspaper readers did not.
Posted by: Constant at Jul 10, 2009 7:50:58 AM
Is it because people naturally favor action over inaction. Also a republican was President when the problem started.
Posted by: floccina at Jul 10, 2009 7:56:26 AM
The "debt package" is what I called it.
Posted by: Gabe at Jul 10, 2009 8:57:08 AM
Tyler, quoting David Hirschleifer, writes:
"So, here's a political psychology question. Why did opponents gullibly swallow the stimulus terminology, and thereby defeat? Any ideas?"
Because porkulus didn't catch on like it should have.
Posted by: Garth Wood at Jul 10, 2009 9:03:57 AM
Three solid answers - plus, the suggested names are terrible.
(1) Obama adopted the language the conservatives themselves used for the Bush stimulus. Given that most reporters are keen enough to realize that they are similar concepts (if different in scope and composition), you look hypocritical yelling that "my plan was a stimulus, but their similar plan is a useless waste of money." Indeed, this is probably why the no-stimulus folks lost the public argument from the start - no one doubted that they would have supported a McCain stimulus.
(2) This article rests on a false premise - conservatives did try to rebrand the stimulus as the "porkulus." But it failed - I'd argue for largely the hypocricy reason. Republicans had used the same underlying concept to stimulate the economy, and had themselves been wild porkers.
(3) Cognitive dissonance. Intellectually, a lot of stimulus opponents actually thought it would stimulate the economy. This makes it tough to re-name it. Much of the opposition to the stimulus from the intelligensia is more political positioning than policy. They might (internally) quibble about how large it should be, or what its composition should be, but they thought it was useful or necessary. Their opposition is basically scoring political points. (Just as Democrats who were neutral or pro-war became anti-war when it was popular).
Posted by: Joe at Jul 10, 2009 9:04:52 AM
Uh, Constant - "crap sandwich" didn't catch on for a reason. Its includes a mild swear word.
That "bailout" did - despite the fact that it is negatively loaded - argues that the media isn't out there trying to help Obama with it.
"Stimulus" is far more neutral, given that the Republicans used it for the same underlying theory only a few years ago.
Posted by: Joe at Jul 10, 2009 9:13:30 AM
