In Defense of Pandering

Pander Synonyms: "gratify, indulge, humour, cater, ply, provide, supply". A thesaurus entry for "pander":

Verb 1. pander - yield (to); give satisfaction to
gratify, indulge
humor, humour - put into a good mood
spree - engage without restraint in an activity and indulge, as when shopping
cater, ply, provide, supply - give what is desired or needed, especially support, food or sustenance; "The hostess provided lunch for all the guests"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pander

Politics is the art of spin, and spin is a form of psychology. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" was the ultimate positive spin during the Great Depression, it offered nothing tangible but it gave people what they needed most; reassurance. The use of the word "pander" is itself a form of political spin, it frames an offer as base at root, and therefor morally indefensible. Politicians almost by definition need to gratify the wishes of the electorate in a democracy or they most likely will lose elections. Whether they are "giving what is desired" or "pandering" when they do so is subject to interpretation.

In the personal realm most of us accept the potential value of a well timed symbolic gesture. And we sometimes even say "just humor me on this one" when mere logic fails. Lavishly paid super star athletes hold out for more money in contract negotiations all the time, saying it's not really about the money, it's all about "respect".

So let me put this bluntly. I support Hillary Clinton pandering to voters about a gas tax holiday. Maybe it's not really about the money. Maybe it's a symbolic gesture, maybe it's humoring the voters, and just maybe it's even about "respect". A lot of people are hurting over gas prices now and it seems like their government doesn't really give a damn. Big government seems preoccupied with the health of big financial institutions, not small consumers. They say it's not the gift that matters, buts the thought behind it that counts. "Get well cards" offer no scientific medical advantage to a person ailing in the hospital, but the gesture is universally appreciated even so.

Politics is driven by perceptions, and John McCain wants to be perceived as standing for the average voter, not his corporate base in the Republican Party. Republicans favor lower taxes, and Democrats higher taxes. How often have we heard that? Would we keep hearing that if Republicans saw no value in constantly repeating it? Stupid question. Let me be blunt again. None of this is really about the underlying economics, it is about framing a message to voters. Although a permanent gas tax cut would have serious long term implications, in the larger scheme a three month federal gas tax holiday would not significantly effect the budget of hardly anything. Certainly not the Federal Government which floats on a massive river of red ink already. Compared to indefinitely financing the war in Iraq daily, a three month temporary gas tax loss is truly negligible. And Exxon and friends are wallowing in obscene profits now. They already love the summer driving season . What's one more cherry on a ten foot banana split?

Compared to the relative impact on the budget of the Federal Government or on Big Oil, millions of American's being able to budget an extra twenty to forty bucks toward summer fuel costs would at least minimally be noticed by many. And for a small percentage of Americans it may actually matter. In real rural America there are plenty of working poor who commute 60 to 100 miles a day round trip to low paying jobs in large towns and small cities. They might be able to cover an extra work weeks worth of commute costs with summer gas tax savings, even assuming all those "savings" don't end up being passed on to consumers.

I support the political message Hillary Clinton is trying to send with her federal tax gas holiday proposal. It works on several levels. For one thing it steals potential populist thunder from John McCain, taking an issue away from him that he planned to use to burnish his common man creds this summer while people are fuming over gas costs at the pump. Mostly though I like that it gives her an opening to push hard rhetorically for a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, (initially) to offset the federal tax loss. Let the public think; "who needs that money more, me or Exxon? Let John McCain oppose a windfall profits tax on Big Oil. Let that be the difference in the Democratic and Republican positions, it strongly plays to our advantage. Everyday millions of Americans pay tolls to cross bridges in order to cover "construction costs" that long since have been paid off. Pushing a windfall profits tax on energy companies to give consumers a gas tax holiday makes sound political sense to me. If it ever is enacted it won't likely be repealed.

Seems some folk here asked for a defense of Clinton's position on a federal gas tax holiday, so why duck the question?

even really bother to propose as law, an idea that is economically anathema to our best interests as citizens, then I have lost a lot of respect for you.

Supporting Hillary isn't worth it TomRinaldo. Your dignity is worth more than whatever emotional investment you've got in her futile, destructive campaign.

the people appreciate her gesture because she is offering them a gift, because they want something substantial and she is saying she'll give it.

If there was just the thought behind it, then people wouldn't be appreciating what she is saying the way she is.

Thirty actually bucks matters to some people, it can pay for taking the family out to a fast food restaurant one or two times, but for others it is purely symbolic. But symbolic gestures have meaning also.

$4.10 and rising here and we make gas here. McCain and Clinton are insulting us with this gesture. Thirty dollars don't mean dick to people selling their grandma's silver to buy gas. She doesn't get it how bad it is out there in the real world. Too bad.

nowhere that the nitwits in my state, Stevens and Young put through. I don't need thirty dollars relief and the oil companies getting a windfall. I need someone with enough wit to do something about the oil situation in this country. She is pandering to the lowest of the low, thinking we are such idiots to buy it. She really mean it about God bless the rich people. Too bad she was never poor. She might have a conscience by now.

I will support the gas tax holiday when you pass legislation that enacts a holiday on 'supply and demand'.


The price of gas has nothing to do with costs, direct costs, indirect costs, or post production costs like taxes.


If you take the tax off the price will remain roughly the same and the additional 18 cents a gallon will go to the 'speculators' of oil - which may or may not be oil companies.


The increase of the price of oil has come about at a time when there has been a decrease in demand and a small increase in supply.

The reason that it has increased is that there has been an increase in the DEMAND OF OIL FUTURES BY SPECULATORS.

In the collapse of the 'paper market' and the decline of the US dollar vast oceans of investment dollars are looking for a home and have gone to oil futures and drive up the price of oil (Hillary's saber rattling on Iran also helps such speculation because uncertainty about future supply always has an impact).

What the president should do is penalize the speculators when they get too greedy and release an un specified amount oil suddenly from the Strategic Oil Reserve.


Even a small amount would have an impact because speculators would not know how much is going to be released. A release of 7% might reduce oil prices by as much as 40 cents a gallon.

The problem with Hillary's proposal is that in actually providing no help it increases cynacism in the populace who will get fed up with symbolic issues.

due to a problem with my cookies, lol.

I don't think all of the rise in the cost of fuel is due to supply and demand; most yes but not all. I am too much of a cynic to accept that Big Oil Company free market line as gospel truth. I think they exploit shortages the same way Enron exploited market conditions whenever they can get away with it. In other words I think Big Oil would allow some of the savings to be passed on, though not all of it would be.

As I said before, the impact of this type policy were it permanent would be far different than it would be for a 3 month tax "holiday". Now is when people will most appreciate the "get well card", now is when the public is going into shock over skyrocketing fuel prices. I am satisfied with Clinton's long term energy proposals. They are solid.

And I also favor winning elections. That counts.

its supply and demand of oil futures.

Big Oil is just one player. As the 'paper market' imploded with the mortgage meltdown and investors with dollars worried about the decline of the dollar has increased the number of players and the amount of capital buying oil futures has increased dramatically.

The actual amount of oil demand in the US has decreased slightly and increased modestly. There are simply 10 times as many dollars seeking to park and rest in oil futures.


glad your back and know that you will soon be enjoying joining the 'winning' Obama team.

I play fair by my own rules at least. I needed to see Obama handle some major tests, and weather some major storms. He has been through those now. If he sails away with the victory now it will be easier for me to back him with confidence.

comments about CIC are not so helpful.

I knew someone would :)

In truth I really did have some weird problem with Internet Explorer cookies getting rejected every time I tried to log on, even if I cleared them all and started over. So I am here now with a new browser.

Betcha can't even finish one!

oil has my vote. Hands down.

What troubles me is that she does not care that it is such a horrendous idea despised by economists everywhere.

and paying for that cut by taxing the energy corporations instead. I like the message it sends even to propose it whether or not it happens.

because it means people will buy cars with better mileage. In Germany, they were already paying $6/gallon BEFORE the steep rise in gas taxes. They drive small cars and have a great public transportation system and have lower CO2 emissions. Therefore, I am very much against lowering gas prices in any artificial way, since we have to deal with global climate change. However, I understand how painful it is for families and small businesses hit with the gas prices. That is why I think they should get some relief with a separate tax cut. But I want it in Americans' minds that gas is expensive and will remain expensive going forward. Then they will modify their behavior accordingly. This is how it has gone down in Europe, and we're just playing catch up. It will also lead to Detroit finally getting it through their thick skulls that they need to build cars that have a much higher fuel efficiency (pathetic that they fought the 35 mpg CAFE standard bill in Congress. Absolutely pathetic).

Anyway, I didn't mean to talk policy when we are supposed to engage in one upmanship nastiness in this silly primary season, but forgive me my indulgence in policy talk.

If Democrats win the White House in 2008, I look forward to some significant departures from recent U.S. energy policies.

--the froth on top of the underlying waves. Manipulating fluctuations in that "froth" to screw consumers bloody damned well SHOULD be stopped by government action.

"I support the political message Hillary Clinton is trying to send with her federal tax gas holiday proposal. It works on several levels. For one thing it steals potential populist thunder from John McCain, taking an issue away from him that he planned to use to burnish his common man creds this summer while people are fuming over gas costs at the pump. Mostly though I like that it gives her an opening to push hard rhetorically for a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, (initially) to offset the federal tax loss. Let the public think; "who needs that money more, me or Exxon?"

One doesn't have to be like 'em to oppose them or to challenge them. What you are calling populist isn't so, and that is what needs to be articulated; it is a superficial fix that fixes nothing at all. It is playing a spyche-ops game with voters instead of treating voters with respect, like we, in the Democratic party have been demanding politicians to do.

The common man isn't stupid, nor does the common man with any level of intelligence believes that .30 cents is somehow useful to his plight. And being told this by our corporate media and those who ascribe to what the corporate media says for their own personal political gain, doesn't make it so.

Your analogy works just as well as voting for those who voted for the IWR in order to take the issue away from those who wanted war with Iraq...while folks were fuming over 9/11. Those who justified voting for it (althought they voted against Levin) as a way to work for "diplomacy". Of course if step two didn't work, then you'd have war instead....which is exactly what happened.

Copying or ceding to the opposition is not the way to take the issue from them.....nor is pandering for political purpose for no other reason other than scoring cheap political points, economists be damned.

The saddest part is that anyone can rationalize anything; but it doesn't make it "correct". Using your considerable skills to further this idea as justifiable is quite tragic.

be a Hillary supporter. What a crock of nonsense...

Politics as usual, Ladies and Gents. You gotta love it!!!

Someone get me a red pickup truck and a 20 gage. I wanna be one with the peeps!

The opposition always proposes changes that they lack the power to implement. Otherwise they would cease to be an active opposition. It is no different with this proposal than any other in that regard.

Cause she pandered to them too.

Puerto Rico as well.

Where are those bills? She been in the Senate long enough to have written and submitted them by now.

Please provide a link to those pandering promises.

Thank you.

even though I have been supporting a candidate who is the object of constant scorn here. I'm not wrapped up in this the way I was last time. I don't love either Clinton or Obama the way that you seemingly love Obama now. I'm not making a judgment about that, just an observation. I don't go looking for chances to attack Obama and I don't feel a need to defend everything about Clinton either.

Once upon a time in a different year I might have come back at a post like this by you with a few examples of ways in which I felt your candidate pandered also. That's typically the way it goes, but I'm simply not into it.

I'm not sure exactly what Clinton said about Guam and Puerto Rico, but we have an imperfect system. Folks in DC have no representation in the Federal Government. Why on Earth did we get colonies to begin with? Other nations handle things differently. Some allow citizens of their territories to vote in National Elections. We have a constitution and amendments to it can be made. Sometimes they should be, sometimes not.

I commented on what was of interest to me to comment on. Now that I no longer feel like I have to be in full time candidate defender mode, that feels like a rather natural way to act. I addressed one "controversy" because I felt like it. I am not heavily invested in whether or not I convince anyone of anything, but my OP said what I wanted it to say.

What she said was in line with the party platform on Guam and Puerto Rico.

She hasn't introduced this bill into the Senate, and we all know it would have no chance of passing if it did, yet its for THIS summer.

Hillary is many things, but stupid is not one of them. While she may deserve an Oscar for her redneck impersonation lately ("I don't listen to no damn economists, nohow..."), she's as smart as they come. So the real question is whether we want to revel in our candidates pandering, when even they don't believe it, and will clearly do nothing to implement it. If she gets elected President, I will bet my life savings she does nothing to implement a ridiculous proposal as this. My guess is you would too.

I live in Virginia, where we had to live through Gilmore's insane "No car tax" idea. Yeah, it passed, and near put the state into financial ruin, as there was no other tax to replace it. Everyone knew it was a horrid idea when it passed, including the Republicans. It was pandering, pure and simple. It might work, but its still horribly, horribly wrong.

or she would say it now. I want someone who will kick the oil companies in the balls. Tax their balls off. I live in a state where they bought and paid for the legislature for twenty years and screwed us sideways. I will not support someone who panders about oil. Kick them in the balls and you have my attention.

She did vote against the Cheney energy bill at least, and she has been talking out against the Enron model of energy price manipulation. Actually Clinton's long term energy proposals are relatively good.

If the tax holiday were a way to get the windfall profits tax in place (and to stay in place even after the holiday expires), it would be acceptable in the same way that sugar may be used to help take unpalatable medicine. Without this long-term goal, the psychological effects of this placebo may or may not do some temporary good (if demand goes up too much,prices could actually go temporarily higher than they would have without the holiday), but it may weaken the case for government intervention later, when it's failure to do anything of significance may fuel cynicism that prevents more serious efforts.

However, it appears that both Clinton and Obama do favor a windfall profits tax. Perhaps they could work together right now to get it passed or at least into the public consciousness. This would benefit the country and the party.

.

and it almost fell off the page without comment. So I played the game, I changed it to a provocative title so more people would read it. I pandered to DU in other words, and it worked.

Feel free to start your own thread with your Stalking Horse theory. Personally I think that is nonsense, but if you honestly explore it with a real thread I will be glad to give it a sincere reply.

It's not like you slapped on a controversial headline like 'Obama found naked in motel room with incriminating towel' or 'Obama takes money from space aliens'.

it would be impossible for me to write a headline so outrageous that no one would think I seriously believed what I wrote. I like those headlines though, I kind of wish I had tried one of them :)

Originally my headline was the list of synonyms for "pander". After all, it is easier to defend giving people what the need than it is to defend pandering. And politics is for the most part about communicating that you care about what others care about, even if you can't provide a perfect solution. The ability to deliver on social change initiatives is strongly related to the ability to win elections.

Does supporting Hillary mean compromising every ounce of decency one has?

And once you get past my OP title, if you have the patience to read nuance, I talk about the various words we throw around in politics and why.

But the inherent arrogance of those who are willing to imply that Obama is the only choice possible for people with at least an ounce of decency continually staggers me.

It would cause the loss of jobs and a weakening of the infrastructure. To me that is unforgivable. This goes beyond a "feel good" gesture.


It's stupid!

and if it that moratorium were offset with a windfall profits tax on the energy corporations there would not be an issue. We can argue about the pros and cons of favoring an initiative that is unlikely to be implemented (although most DUers have had no such concerns about calling for a withdrawal from Iraq while Bush remained as PresidentBush) but you misrepresent Clinton's position to imply that it would allow the infrastructure to weaken etc.

(Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year's profit levels, a campaign adviser said.

The plan would target profit from the biggest oil companies by taxing each barrel of oil costing more than $80, according to a fact sheet on the proposal. The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and assistance for people who can't afford their energy bills.

``The profits right now are so remarkable that one could trim them 10 percent or so, which would turn out to be somewhere in the $15 billion range,'' said Jason Grumet, an adviser to the Obama campaign.

Obama's plan may be three times larger than the $50 billion, 10-year plan contemplated by his Democratic rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Republican candidate John McCain, an Arizona senator, has no plan to raise oil and gas industry taxes, said his economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

Oil companies would still have ample reason to ``continue to pursue production, while at the same time providing relief to consumers,'' Grumet said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aP_1wrIyt1Nc

but nothing in what you just posted directly related to my comment that you replied to.

What message is that: I'm going to say and do anything to win?

"But the inherent arrogance of those who are willing to imply that Obama is the only choice possible for people with at least an ounce of decency continually staggers me."

That's the inherent denial (and arrogance) of Hillary's supporters, who can't accept that she is losing. There was a choice: Obama won.

Where have I been when Obama accepted the nomination that he won? Must have been napping for a few moments between primaries.

that is the conundrum for a bunch of us, some of us who sustained real hurts defending them both for twenty years. The last straw for me with her was the Tuzla thing. When she was lying about snipers, my nephew was there with the UN dodging real ones. If she can take someone like that and use them for personal gain, just like she has with the obliterate Iran shit, then she has no integrity and isn't worth consideration by people. She will never know the fear people who have family in harms way felt because her over privileged daughter will never have to face that. Yet she has no problem using service people and their real battles for her personal gain. She is nothing to me anymore. More's the pity.

I might be able to see your point. But it won't, not without price controls mandated from the federal level. If those are put in place you'll have blocks/hours long lines at th gas stations we had three decades ago, and that scarred the national psyche pretty darn badly. Tell me how the price will stay at the reduced level for more than a month, make a cogent argument backed up with reference to solid economic principles and I'll talk about it with you.

If you believe the extra dollars piped into the coffers of the oil companies can be recovered by a 'windfall profits tax' then give me at least the broad strokes of a political strategy that gets that passed at all, let alone passed in the next 30 - 60 days. If you don't want the tax, then how about the price controls? Do you think those will be any easier?

The proposal is no better than a Ponzi scheme, it's deeply dishonest and needs to be put quietly back into whatever dark corner it came from. If it were to get into law, somehow, it would become an albatross around the neck of whatever political party managed it for the next four decades.

Gas tax 3 month holiday coupled with windfall profits tax. The only one advocating for a gas tax holiday without a windfall profits tax is McCain. You need to be consistent with your argument. If magically the Democrats were able to get legislation passed and signed tomorrow that imposed a windfall profits tax on energy companies AND suspended the federal gas tax for three months at the same time, I disagree with you strongly that it would become an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party for the next four decades. It would be helpful to Democrats nationally.

I'll give you a short political psychology argument. Were both of the above to happen, energy companies would begin moving the price back up incrementally and by the end of three months they would have recouped most of the savings, but they would not do so more drastically because they would not risk a public backlash against them over a few cents extra profit for a few weeks when in the big picture things are going so swimmingly well for them. Yes supply and demand will be a factor, but demand will be somewhat reduced this summer already anyway because even with a gas tax holiday the still high prices will cause people to drive a little less.

But my major point is that there is very little if any economic downside to a 3 month program coupling a windfalls profit tax on Big Oil with a gas tax holiday, so in a worst case people wouldn't get the savings they expected and they would get even angrier at Big Oil. In a best case people would get a few extra bucks this summer. In either case by backing a combined gas tax holiday with new windfall profits tax, Democrats can defuse a Republican effort to paint us as out of touch with the issues that Americans care about during a critical election season.

I just have no confidence that the 'package' can get passed in any timely fashion. As far as I know, it would take legislation to rescind the gas tax. It would definitely take legislation to add a windfall profits tax. I don't really care what anyone is advocating for, I care about what can possibly get done before Labor Day.

I think you're disingenuous if you believe the oil companies will do anything to keep the price below the demand level. There isn't a lot of wiggle room anyplace in the supply chain, and very little of what exists is controlled by anyone who gives a tinker's dam about how the U.S. electorate feels about it. Nationally, prices have gone up anything from a nickel to a dime in the last week (US DOE - U.S. Retail Gas prices). The price of gas breaks down as 53% for the crude, 19% for federal and state taxes, 19% for refining and operating profit and 9% for the distributors (US DOE - Price breakdown). Output of crude is running flat out, in March OPEC dropped it's output by 0.3%, the first time since last August, due to the unrest in the Niger delta. Given all that I'd expect the price to return to current levels in about a month.

Since the election isn't until November and the Inauguration not until January, please give me the broad strokes of the political steps that can be taken to get the 'package' - fuel tax rescinded and windfall tax in place - this summer. I don't expect you to be able to provide a legislative timetable, just tell me how it's going to go down in general terms.

It don't believe it would happen. Maybe the fuel tax will get taken off for the three months, I can imagine that bandwagon leaving the station and having a lot of legislators on board, but the tax on profits won't happen in anything like the same time period. Once the fuel tax goes back into place and prices are higher than they are now the profits tax will start to fade into the background noise. The new president doesn't get elected until November, nor inaugurated until January. The legislation would get to Congress sometime in March. With prices higher than they are now,the albatross will appear when everybody realizes that they've run up the balance on the national credit card and that the bill is coming due.


I don't think it's a gesture we can afford.

Was there any point in advocating for immediate troop withdrawals while the powers that be, in this case the Bush Administration, was always dead set on increasing troop levels instead? Most of us say yes. What Clinton proposed was a package deal, not support for a gas tax vacation alone. Russ Feingold argued for Iraq war troop withdrawal deadlines he clearly couldn't deliver on years ago, but that alone didn't make it wrong for him to do so.

I think the package proposed is part of an effective constructive political message; shifting some tax burden off badly strapped working Americans onto international corporations that are raking in obscene profits. The fact that it is proposed for a limited duration only underlines the reality that there can be no long term relief for our energy costs without wholesale revisions in our economy and energy policies.

Should Congress actually move on this issue I would urge Senator Clinton along with all Democrats to oppose any reduction in the Federal gas tax without simultaneous offsetting windfall tax increases on Energy companies. That is a defensible political position, and political positions communicate messages that either attract or repell voters, which ultimately;y leaves one Party or the other in control of our government. I could easily live with this package becoming law this year followed by an enlightened long term energy policy enacted by a Democratic Party controlled Federal Government. I agree that it almost certainly won't happen, but there is nothing wrong with advocating a policy that could slightly help some people temporarily that is paid for in a responsible and progressive manner. And there sure as hell is nothing wrong with conveying a message to the American people in an election year that the Democratic Party, not John McCain's Republican Party, is both in tune with their distress AND ready to make greedy corporations shoulder more of the burden for economic relief .

now, how do you plan on keeping the price low? By shifting the cost from a federal gas tax (which the oil companies pass along to consumers as part of the price) to a windfall profits tax we are left with the same set of costs to the producers. Why won't the cost of the windfall profits tax be passed along to consumers?

And, if she were to advocate for this for next summer it would look a little more like a proposal instead of a vote getting mechanism. How would it sound if she were putting forth a campaign promist to start bringing the troops home on Memorial Day?

And, finally, from the American Heritage Dictionary



Dueling dictionaries? No, that's the exact definition provided in the link you provided. I'll take #2 for this application.

Wherethehell has Clinton been all that time?

how to think regarding the NTB. I particularly like this thought.

"For one thing it steals potential populist thunder from John McCain, taking an issue away from him that he planned to use to burnish his common man creds this summer while people are fuming over gas costs at the pump."

Good one! How can anyone disagree with that?

Some of what you say could be used to defend politicians who pander to creationists. It's populist, and has been since William Jennings Bryan. Who needs more respect, elitist scientists or everyday folks?

In my view, we don't need politicians obscuring reality "for the people." Global demand for oil is rising. Discoveries have been waning for decades. That is reality.

:hippie:

We are not going to go back to the era of cheap seemingly infinite gasoline,and 15 cents off at the pump won't trick anyone into thinking that we will, but people do need time to manage the changes, or at least to catch their breath as they look for personal adaptations to inevitable changes. It might be as basic as looking for work closer to home, or needing time to save up money to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle. That is reality also.

I don't buy a word of what you are saying but I don't blame you for trying.

There is a very different group of meanings for the word in less - bowdlerised - sources



Pandering is not a good thing

Like I said above, choosing to label it as "pandering" is a form of political spin. To "pander" is a verb, not a policy. I believe some of the synonyms I cited are more accurate words to use in describing the position that Clinton has taken on this.