US President George W. Bush has no shortage of words to describe the ailing economy.
He began this year warning of “the risk of a downturn” and a “period of uncertainty.” Time and again, Bush has said the nation is in “a rough patch.” He calls the current climate “a slowdown.” In the Rose Garden last week, he spoke somberly of “very difficult times, very difficult.”
But there is one word that Bush has not used: recession.
By avoiding the word “recession” when consumers are feeling squeezed and some economists think the nation is already in one, Bush is taking criticism for not telling it like it is. But Friday’s less-dismal-than-expected jobs numbers, coupled with Wednesday’s less-dismal-than-expected economic data, left him the wiggle room he needs to keep the word out of his lexicon a while longer.
“I know it’s tough times,” he said on Friday during a session with employees of a technology company in this city outside St. Louis, Missouri.
He called the unemployment report, which showed 20,000 jobs lost last month, “a sign that this economy is not as robust as any of us would like.”
No president wants to admit a recession on his watch, though Bush talks about the recession of 2001, mostly to suggest he inherited a bad hand from president Bill Clinton. And no president wants to create a self-fulfilling prophecy with downbeat chatter that might further shake consumer confidence.
Still, Bush walks a fine line as he reconciles the latest numbers with the pain many Americans feel.
“He’s in a very difficult position,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who specializes in political rhetoric. “He wants to reflect how Americans feel but at the same time not damage Republican hopes for the fall. If he acknowledges a recession he’ll have to take responsibility for it. But if he rejects a recession, he’ll look out of touch.”
The White House says there is no reason for Bush to talk about recession absent concrete proof the nation is in one, and it has been assertive about pushing back. When NBC News reported on Wednesday that first-quarter growth data showed the nation just short of a recession, Tony Fratto, the deputy White House press secretary, sent a complaint to the anchor, Brian Williams.
“I e-mailed Brian and his producers and said, ‘No, you’re wrong,’” Fratto recalled.
Aboard Air Force One on the way to Missouri on Friday, Fratto dismissed talk of even a mild recession, saying the new jobs numbers were “not in recessionary territory.”
The comment drew a sharp rebuke from Representative Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who ridiculed Bush and his advisers, saying they had not gotten the news that “this is a recession that is hurting more Americans every day.”
“Recession” is an emotionally freighted word, but it also has a technical meaning, and with Wall Street whispering another r-word — “rebound” — some economists say Bush is correct not to use “recession” just yet. Michael Darda, the chief economist at MKM Partners, a nonpartisan brokerage and research firm, said Friday’s numbers suggest “a sharp slowdown,” not quite a recession.
The official determination will come from the National Bureau of Economic Research, an independent organization that tracks fluctuations in the business cycle. Luckily for Bush, the bureau works slowly — so slowly that there may be no official word until after he leaves office. The last recession ended in November 2001; the bureau declared it official in June 2003.
There is no hard and fast way to define a recession; the old rule of thumb — two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth — no longer applies. Instead, the bureau defines recession as “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months,” and relies on a mix of economic indicators.
That leaves the White House free to choose its own words — a linguistic challenge that has bedeviled presidents past.
When a top adviser to former US president Jimmy Carter, Alfred Kahn, warned of a depression, Carter grew furious, and Kahn dropped the word from his vocabulary, substituting “banana.” (“We’re now in danger of having the worst banana in 45 years,” Time magazine quoted him saying in 1978.)
Carter himself is known for what many remember as his “malaise” speech (it was an aide who used the word, not Carter; but it stuck).
Bush’s father, former president George Bush, lost re-election in 1992 in part because his tone was out of sync with what Americans felt.
“He kept saying things have turned a corner, they’re looking up; and statistically he was right,” Luntz said. “But nobody believed him.”
The current Bush administration engaged in pessimistic economic talk early on, using it to make the case that tax cuts would spur growth. Even before taking office as vice president, Dick Cheney warned that the country could be “on the front edge of a recession.” In March 2001, Bush warned that the economy was “beginning to sputter.”
That turned out to be accurate; the economic research bureau dates March as the beginning of the 2001 recession.
But the remarks left Bush open to accusations of preying on anxieties to advance his tax agenda, said B. Dan Wood, a political scientist at Texas A&M University who has written a book on presidential economic rhetoric.
“In my view he lost credibility about the economy,” Wood said.
Bush began this year talking about the economy’s resilience, and its strong foundation, but as the picture has darkened, such talk often fell by the wayside.
Here on Friday, it was back, with Bush sounding far more chipper than just a few days ago in the Rose Garden, before the latest reports.
“I know it’s tough times and I know you’re having to pay more at the fuel pump than you want,” Bush said. “But this economy’s going to come on. I’m confident it will.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath