Categories
Blaming President Biden conflict resolution

Is It Fair Blaming Biden For Inflation?

Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today, I would like to discuss a topic that has been bothering me for several months–politicians and their followers attacking President Biden for inflation.

Consider a press conference held by Senate Republicans this past July. At that time, they blamed the “insane tax and spending spree of President Biden and the Democrats for six straight months of raging inflation.”

As another example, on 3/10/22 I read this tweet by Florida Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan:

“Inflation just rose to 7.9% – another 40-year high! First they said it was ‘transitory,’ then they blamed supply chain issues, then they claimed inflation ‘is actually a good sign.’ And now it’s Putin’s fault. When will the WH admit they are to blame for #Bidenflation?”

In my research on this topic, I found there is far more nuance that was unfairly left out of the Republican press conference statement, this tweet, and other comments seeking to blame Biden. I’ll provide much of that nuance below. But first, to provide the reader with a sense of why this blaming upsets me, I’m going to share two brief personal stories that illustrate my values when it comes to blaming people.

My Two Stories

Story 1: Last summer I was in the mood to play a round of golf, so I checked the weather report. Seeing there was only a twenty percent chance of rain, I called three of my friends to see if they wanted to join me, informing them of the most recent weather report. They agreed to play.

Unfortunately, just as we stepped up to the first tee, it began to pour. A check on a weather map indicated it was going to pour for a good hour or two, so we decided to head home.

Feeling responsible for getting this group of guys to show up to play, I apologized. Each of my friends made it clear they were not blaming me, saying things like, “It’s not your fault, Jeff.” I very much appreciated and respected those words of support, especially because I know individuals who are quick to blame.

Story 2: One day I was with three friends on the way to a baseball game. The guy that was driving said he knew the way to the ball field, so the rest of us sat back, chatting about old times until we noticed it was getting pretty close to game time.

“How come we’re not there yet,” I enquired, at which point the driver admitted he was lost. We put our heads together, and finally got to the game, but only after the second inning. Obviously, the driver was largely responsible for our being late, although any one of us could have double checked the directions, rather than just assume the driver was not mistaken. In any case, after a few good natured teasing comments, all of us hastened to be supportive of our driver friend, saying things like, “Hey, everyone makes mistakes,” and then sharing incidents in which we were late because we had gotten lost in the past. I respect how we handled the situation.

Researching the Real Causes for the Current Inflation Problems

Dismayed at the blaming of Biden, whom I do believe is trying to do his best during terribly tough circumstances, I did some research on the causes of the current inflation situation. Checking multiple sources, which are readily available for anyone really interested in this issue, this is what I found.

Supply Chain Issues: By all accounts that I can find, shortly after the pandemic struck, and before Biden was sworn in as president, the annual inflation rate for most American purchases had already risen to the highest level in a decade.

Moreover, rising inflation isn’t just hitting the US. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, inflation among its 38 member states is heading higher. As Greg Rosalsky of NPR put it,

“Countries, big and small, conservative-led and progressive-led, are grappling with surging consumer prices as global demand outstrips supply. It’s one big global inflation-fest, and no single leader seems to have the power to stop it.”

The pandemic has disrupted every aspect of the global supply chain, from manufacturing and transportation to logistics, at a time when the pandemic has also sparked a buying spree. The problem is partly due to a decades-old business strategy that aims to keep inventories lean. While factories were on lockdown or navigating Covid-19 restrictions, raw materials were harder to get because of the sudden swell in demand. Shortages of just about everything cropped up, especially workers to unload goods and drive them to their destination. Very simply, the basic principle of economics that states, “when demand out paces supply, prices rise,” is currently in overdrive.

Lack Of Real Competition: About two-thirds of the largest publicly traded US companies reported fatter profit margins in the first nine months of 2021 compared with the same period in 2020, according to the Wall Street Journal. As costs for raw materials, labor, and transportation have increased in response to the pandemic, a lot of big corporations are not only offsetting those costs by raising prices on consumers, they are raising prices even higher, taking advantage of the pressing needs of consumers under pandemic conditions. These corporations can get away with this because Republicans have supported a lax antitrust enforcement policy that has put the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few giants.

Challenging Problem for the Feds: The department in the Federal Government that has the responsibility to guide the US through troubled waters is the Federal Reserve System. Among its most central roles is to promote the effective operation of the U.S. economy and, more generally, the public interest. It conducts the nation’s monetary policy to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates in the U.S. economy.

Jerome Powell, with impressive credentials, is the chair person of this system. Nominated for the position by former President Donald Trump in 2018, he was confirmed by Democrat and Republican Senators by an 84 to 13 vote. He is still serving in that position under President Biden.

So, the US government has had throughout the pandemic some of the greatest expertise in the country to guide our economic system. Despite this, neither they, nor experts in other countries throughout the world, have been able to prevent inflation woes.

Some Responsibility of the President? Now, my research did find that there are some moves that a president can make that just might have some rather minor effects on inflation. For example, there is a theory that government spending that leads to a larger national debt can be inflationary. But the evidence for this relationship is far from clear. For example, for the five years before the Covid pandemic the national debt was around 20 trillion dollars, while inflation was humming along at a comfortable and sustainable 2 percent. The last time the US had a serious inflation problem began in the mid-1970s and ran through the mid-1980s. It threw the country into a recession and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The national debt at that time was less than 1 trillion dollars. At least with the current bout with inflation, unemployment is currently below 4 precent.

With regards to spending money that raised the national debt, here are the facts. It is true that Biden signed into law a nearly two trillion dollar Covid relief bill at the beginning of his term over the objections of Republicans. This did indeed add to the national debt. But a fair minded person, it seems to me, would note that former Republican President Trump advocated policies that raised the debt significantly more than Biden. First, his tax cut that wasn’t matched with any spending cuts led to a trillion dollar increase in the national debt the following year, as was predicted by all of the major economists. Then came the pandemic during his administration and he quickly signed into law a $2.2 trillion relief package, followed by a $900 billion relief package. When we combine the increase in debt from Trump’s tax program with his pandemic relief spending, we come up with over 4 trillion dollars. All of this money sloshed into the economy before Biden took the oath of office.

During Biden’s presidency, he signed into law two other big spending bills, the first designed to improve infrastructure. The second, the Omnibus bill, is designed to keep the government open and also included aid for Ukraine. These bills were clearly bipartisan, passing the Senate 69-30 for the first, and 68-31 for the second.

If not Blame, How Better to Move Forward?

It seems to me, the extra money Congress approved to deal with the pandemic and signed into law first by Trump and then Biden was a good faith effort to prevent seriously worse outcomes if nothing was done. Rather than blaming either Trump or Biden for the mess, a mess much of the whole world is facing, the responsible thing to do going forward is to focus on what can be done to weather this period of rising prices. Biden has been responsibly doing just that.

His proposal, as expressed during his State of the Union Address, involves capping the cost of insulin to $35 a month and letting Medicare negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs. Child care cost, that has been weighing heavily on families, would be cut in half for most families. This would help parents, including millions of women, who left the workforce during the pandemic because they couldn’t afford child care, to be able to get back to work. The enhanced Child Tax Credit, which was beefed up for 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan Act, would be extended.

Additionally, his proposal calls for cutting energy costs for families by an average of $500 per year while also combating climate change. “Let’s provide investments and tax credits to weatherize your homes and businesses to be energy efficient and you get a tax credit for it,” he explained. Finally, his plan does not include having the government go into further debt. Rather, the cost for his proposal would be paid for by modest increases in taxes for people making over $400,000 a year.

Concluding Remarks

After finishing my research, here’s what I came to decide. For me to respect how Republicans are addressing the current inflation levels, rather than blaming anyone, they would either work in a bipartisan manner to quickly pass Biden’s proposals, or come up with a better plan that has the specificity of Biden’s. If alternatively, they respond with vague comments like, If Republicans were in charge we wouldn’t be in this mess, this would leave me with a frown.

In my opinion, the respectable, honorable, kind approach for our leaders to take to deal with the current economic conditions is to respond as my friends did when I invited them to play golf–be supportive of Biden, for we all can agree he has been trying to do his best to help the country get through hard times. Even if Republicans truly believe some of what Biden has done might have been mistakes, to gain my respect they would respond as my friends did when one of us made a mistake and got us lost–recognize we all make mistakes from time to time. In my opinion, it’s time to be cooperatively focussing on coming up with plans to get us out of the mess we are in.

How about you? Do you think it’s fair blaming Biden for the hard times we are facing? Is that really helpful for fellow Americans?

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Categories
Afghanistan withdrawal confiict management conflict resolution evaluating criticism President Biden Rating criticism

Rating Criticism of Biden’s Afghanistan Withdrawal

Welcome to From Insults To Respect.

Some of my blog posts are designed to help readers improve their skill at providing negative criticism. In them, I present a system of rating the maturity of each incident (see HERE). I then describe an incident or two in which someone provides negative criticism, and then readers are asked to use the rating system to assign a rating. Immediately after doing so, I provide my rating, thereby providing an opportunity for readers to compare their rating with mine (for an example see HERE). Participating in this type of exercise is fun, and helps readers to think more deeply about when not to provide negative criticism, and how best to provide it when it makes sense to do so.

Today I offer readers another opportunity to practice this skill, this time utilizing two examples of different people criticizing President Biden’s military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Before getting to those examples, I shall describe how the rating system works so readers who have already read my earlier posts will have an opportunity to refresh their memories, and readers who have not will still be able to participate.

The Providing Negative Criticism Rating System

Below you will find preliminary descriptions of how people at five developmental levels of maturity provide negative criticism, that is, criticism that points out what we don’t like about someone’s actions, beliefs, or appearance. Level one is conceptualized as the most immature and uses observations of babies as its starting point. Each successive level is viewed according to this system as more mature.

It is perfectly permissible to disagree about whether or not one level is indeed more mature than another. Regardless of any disagreement, playing along with utilizing the system in these practice sessions still serves to clarify for readers what they personally view as mature and immature ways to deal with these types of incidents.

To utilize this rating system, readers compare an incident of negative criticism with each of the five levels, and then they decide which of the five levels best matches the incident being rated. Then they decide according to their own lights how mature the incident was handled:

  1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
  • Cries without stating what the crying is about
  • Physically attacks the person being criticized
  • Damages property

 

(Although these three descriptors may not appear to be incidents of providing criticism, in some situations we can see that it is the very beginning of the development of this skill.  Let’s say Jill takes baby Bob’s crayon away believing he is done with it. Bob begins to cry and takes a swipe at Jill.  She manages, by moving away, to avoid Bob’s swipe. Bob now looks even angrier and crumbles up a piece of paper and flings it on the floor.  An observer to this may conclude that Bob, in a sense, is criticizing Jill for taking the crayon.)     

   2.  This level requires displaying one or both of the following:

  • The criticizer does not explain what the offending behavior is, but instead expresses displeasure with general words of dislike, glares, insults, shouting, silence, or threats that do not involve bodily harm. (For example, someone might be making too much noise and the criticizer might turn to the noise maker and glare, or cry out, “Jerk!”)
  • Threatens bodily harm regardless of what else is said.


 

   3.  The criticizer clearly states the criticism with enough detail so the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance, but couples it with glares, insults, shouts, or threats that are not about bodily harm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  4.   The criticizer states the criticism without bodily attacks, damaging property, glares, insults, threats, or shouts, and with enough details so that the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance. If the person receiving the criticism becomes defensive or angry, the criticizer empathizes without returning, glares, insults, threats, or shouts.

   5.  When the criticizer provides criticism, he or she does so in a manner very similar to a level four response, but beforehand, the criticizer considers the person who is the target of the criticism, and the situation that he or she is in.  As a result of such considerations, the criticizer may decide to alter the criticism.

 

Rating Two Incidents of Negative Criticism Directed at President Biden

On August 17, 2021 NPR published an article by Barbara Sprunt titled, “There’s A Bipartisan Backlash To How Biden Handled The Withdrawal From Afghanistan” (see HERE). There we find several quotes from people providing negative criticism of Biden. We’ll be looking at two of them.

The First Incident

In an August 16, 2021 tweet, given shortly after President Biden gave a speech explaining how the withdrawing of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan was going, Rep. Liz Cheney, who has on numerous occasions argued that we should remain in Afghanistan, wrote:

“Biden’s surrender strengthens our terrorist enemies, hands them a massive new caliphate [A government led by a chief Muslim ruler], abandons our allies & ensures a longer, costlier war for years to come.”

Now, if you will, compare Rep. Cheney’s style of criticizing Biden’s decision to withdraw U.S. military forces to each of the five levels of maturity to see if one of them best matches her style. After doing so, feel free to rate how she did on a scale of 1 to 5, the higher the number the more mature you think her criticism was. After you do this, compare your rating with mine.

My Rating of the First Incident

I can’t see if Rep. Cheney was crying when she tweeted her criticism, but according to this rating system it doesn’t really matter because she made it clear what her criticism was about. Since she did not physically attack Biden, nor is there any indication that she destroyed any property while she wrote the tweet, there is insufficient reason to say her criticism matches Level 1.

Level 2 begins, “The criticizer does not explain what the offending behavior is. Since Rep. Cheney is pretty clear what she objects to—Biden’s military withdrawal– I think her criticism is a poor match with level 2, so I’ll move on to see if her tweet better matches level 3.

Level 3 states in part, “The criticizer clearly states the criticism with enough detail so the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance.” I think this part of level 3 matches Rep. Cheney’s criticism. That is, she makes it clear that she did not want him to remove the U.S. military forces. If President Biden, as commander in chief of the U.S. military, wanted to accept her advice, it was within his power to do so.

The second part of the level 3 descriptor indicates that to get a 3 rating we would have had to observe that her advice was coupled with glares, insults, shouts, or threats that are not about bodily harm. I’m not seeing anything in her criticism that matches any of these descriptors. Of course, in a tweet two of the descriptors of level 3–glaring and shouting–can’t be observed, but in this rating system if we don’t observe the behavior we don’t penalize the person by lowering someone’s rating.

Now, I understand that some people looking at level 3 and seeing the descriptor “insult” might think that simply because Rep. Cheney negatively criticized Biden this in itself is an insult. For the purpose of this rating system, that is not the case. She would have had to call Biden some insulting name or directed an insulting gesture at him for one of her acts to count as an attempt to insult him. Therefore, I’ve decided her criticism does not sufficiently match the level 3 description.

How about level 4? Are its descriptors a good match for this incident of negative criticism? I think so. The match is particularly helped by the absence of insults. As for the condition in level 4 that describes how to act if the criticized person becomes defensive, in this incident we are not provided with any evidence that Biden did become defensive, so the condition of defensiveness is irrelevant

What about level 5. To get that rating, I would have to see some evidence that Rep. Cheney prior to formulating it had considered the person who is the target of the criticism, and the situation that he or she is in. Perhaps she did, but in my opinion, if she had done so, she would not have criticized Biden at all. Here’s why.

Rep. Cheney well knew at the time she provided the criticism Biden had heard each of her arguments about keeping U.S. military forces in Afghanistan numerous times over the course of many years. Given what Biden was dealing with during the interval of time she criticized him, I personally think it was not the proper time to be repeating old arguments. The situation involved Biden having already decided that the U.S. forces are to be withdrawn, the U.S. had one airbase that could be used to get U.S. and allied personnel and equipment out of harm’s way, the base was surrounded by enemies with guns, and there was a terrible risk of suicide bombers killing people. The immediate focus should have been, in my opinion, on carrying out the mission as safely as possible. Rep. Cheney, in my opinion, would have acted in a more mature manner if she realized that there will be plenty of time after the mission is completed to argue over the wisdom of withdrawal. To wait until then would have been a better course of action. She, certainly has a right to express her opinion at any point in time, but I am going to withhold giving her the highest rating of a 5, because her criticism didn’t consider the current situation to my personal satisfaction. Thus, I think she deserves a rating of 4.

The Second Incident

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, on August 16, 2021, which was squarely in the middle of the withdrawal process, called the events unfolding in Afghanistan “the worst foreign policy disaster in decades.” He went on from there to say:

President Biden’s poor judgment produced the worst possible outcome in Afghanistan in only a matter of weeks. He has done long-term damage to America’s credibility and our capabilities. The American people, and especially our troops who have sacrificed so much, deserve more than this catastrophic leadership and empty words.

Now, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with McCarthy, utilizing the rating system, what level best matches his criticism?

My Rating of the Second Incident

I think McCarthy’s criticism best matches level 2 of this rating system. It does so largely because it fails to provide any specifics about what Biden could do differently that would have been an improvement. The criticism is basically McCarthy expressing dislike of what Biden was doing coupled with vague insults (“poor judgment,” “catastrophic leadership”).

My personal rating of this type of criticism is a 1, the lowest possible rating, because McCarthy never acknowledges the actual role that Biden has in this withdrawal process. Biden had simply decided to back the position of the vast majority of Americans that after 20 years it was time to end the war. Once this was decided, it was up to the generals who were actually in Afghanistan, knew best what the situation was there, had the best U.S. training on how to withdraw from a war zone, had ample time to come up with a withdrawal plan, and had the responsibility to implement the plan.

If well before the withdrawal process got underway McCarthy had identified a plan that he had reason to believe would be distinctly better than anything the generals could come up with, that would have been the time for him to begin a process to promote his plan, This would involve advocating that Biden thoroughly review his proposal, and that Biden order his generals to review it. If this had happened and Biden refused, then McCarthy would have had a legitimate reason to criticize Biden, though not when the heated withdrawal process was actually underway. As I see it, McCarthy’s negative criticism, occurring in the midst of the withdrawal process, amounts to his taking unfair, unkind potshots at a political rival.

Negative criticism, it seems to me, should only be provided if it has some potential for helping the target of the criticism improve in some tangible way.

Conclusion

Well, there you have it, a little practice session utilizing the rating system. I hope it has helped to clarify for you how to formulate mature negative criticism, and when to remain silent. By improving these skills, I’m guessing it will improve the respect others have for you, and help you to avoid needlessly creating hard feelings.

Now, not all negative criticism is provided in order to help the target of the criticism improve in some way. For example, sometimes it is done as part of a game called playful teasing. In the arena of politics, from which today’s two examples were selected, candidates might angrily launch criticism at a person because they know their potential voters are angry at that same person. By candidates demonstrating they are angry at the same person, they hope these voters will experience a shared connection with them and this will increase the likelihood of getting more votes come election time. This strategy is a major cause for the awful polarization and incivility in politics. Not all candidates are willing to campaign in this way, believing that our country would be better off if all of us learned to be civil with one another.

———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.