Iraq Is Hurting The Economy

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 17:42


It is a simple message, and people believe it:

THE WAR IN IRAQ AND THE ECONOMY
The war in Iraq ranks second behind the economy as the country's most pressing problem and most Americans think the cost of the war has contributed to the country's economic woes, including two-thirds who think it has contributed a lot.

HOW MUCH HAS THE IRAQ WAR CONTRIBUTED TO U.S. ECONOMIC PROBLEMS?
A lot 67%
Some 22
Not much/not at all 10

Americans who think going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do are less likely to think the war is responsible for the country's economic problems.

Arguing over whether or not Democrats should run on the economy or whether or not they should run on Iraq is a false choice. Instead, Democrats should run on a platform that Iraq is hurting the economy. While that is not the only reason the Iraq war needs to end, and while Iraq is not the only reason the economy is struggling, the simple principle that the war is bad for the economy not only connects the two issues, not only makes for a simple campaign slogan, and not only is something that nine in ten Americans believe, but, as I have argued in the past, it would be the clearest, transformative, progressive message Democrats have run on in decades. Implicit in the message is that war in general, and excessive military spending in general, is bad for the economy. Once people accept the message, they will be less willing to go to war, and less willing to spend freely on the military, in the future. And thus, we start to strike a blow against the untouchable symptoms.

The message is our there. The public is ready to accept it. We just need a critical mass of Democrats willing to put it front and center in their campaigns. And then, we will really have something big.  

Chris Bowers :: Iraq Is Hurting The Economy

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
It's the opportunity cost (0.00 / 0)
Iraq is preventing us from doing what we need to do to rebuild our economy and end our addiction to oil.

Iraq is sucking all the money, energy and oxygen so that we can't focus on the central problems of our time, which are how to have more equitable prosperity and combat global warming.

BushCo has been colossaly wrong about these issues, but we can't refocus because so much of the media is engaged in shoring up Bush's war so they don't have to face their own complicity in it.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


Untouchable symptoms (0.00 / 0)
Just want to say that I've really enjoyed watching your thinking on that essay evolve over these recent months.  I love the "living document" aspect of this blog; this really is the most intellectually stimulating web site I've ever found.

Also, agree on the merging of these two campaign approaches and not making a false division.  So much stronger.


OT: McCain googlbomb (0.00 / 0)
Have we settled on a McCain googlebomb campaign yet?

I've started using this one: The real John McCain

We really need to go after his desire for war rather then his age. And if we can tie it into the bad economy all the better.


Well (0.00 / 0)
The whole point of a googlebomb is that it pushes neutral nonpartisan sources to the top.  This is pretty clearly a partisan site, however accurate the content might be.

[ Parent ]
This one's already at the top of the 2nd results page (0.00 / 0)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...

Headline: John McCain defends Bush's Iraq Strategy


[ Parent ]
That's just because it's a new story (0.00 / 0)
I think google picks relevant recent news to go into it's results.  In a week or two it will be gone and another one will be in it's place.  That's the problem.  I couldn't find a negative neutral article that wasn't in the results just because it was new.

[ Parent ]
Actually I guess it's not that new... (0.00 / 0)
But it's not as negative as I was hoping for.  I guess it could work.

[ Parent ]
but is it true? :) (0.00 / 0)
also, i'm skeptical that the larger message about military spending and war is there in the message.  i think it would be a more cynical, narrow attempt to connect two winning issues.  which is good messaging...but...

Krugman says no, I recall (0.00 / 0)
I can't find the column, but I distinctly remember him saying that in the short-term, war is very good for the economy. It can have long-term economic downsides, but those don't look like our current economic problems (more inflation and more employment, usually).

So we should be careful with this messaging.


[ Parent ]
i think there are elements of it that are true (0.00 / 0)
but they need to be understood (for analytical purposes, not messaging) in terms of a pattern of profligacy that in the long run undermines the economy because it reduces spending on things people want (bridges and levees) and directs it instead to enormous givaways to the rich.

Can't we just come up with jokes about how you can't trust market fundamentalists and war mongerers with your money...or your governmnet? How many Bush appointees does it take to screw in a light bulb?  It doesn't matter...there's no electricity.


[ Parent ]
So far Obama is the only one on this (0.00 / 0)
It is definitely something that could be campaigned on, and there is anecdotal evidence that Iraq is effecting our economy.

As of right now, I believe Barack Obama is the only candidate who has touched on this issue.

Here is a Bloomberg article that is of interest:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...







Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU
QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search