The Message Matters — Gary Adornato

The U.S. is still, at least by conceit and label, an economy that is based on capitalism. The form of American capitalism is a complicated hybrid, incorporating a national desire to create public “safety nets” and to affect commercial outcomes (industry and corporate-specific subsidies, tax exemptions and regulations) but generally speaking, the government does not produce goods or services for commercial purposes, leaving those for private industry and providers. Therefore, the government does not create capital; the capital that it uses to provide services is derived from the mandated contributions by the producers of that capital. In that way, all provisions of the government are forms of redistribution as it takes in revenues and applies those revenues in an ever-changing formula. This an obvious oversimplification, but will serve for these purposes.

Against that backdrop, a seemingly insignificant action by the administration — supported by peripheral comments and assertions — has a meaning far beyond what it appears to be, and should be understood in context. In an unprecedented decision, the President’s name will be affixed to the stimulus checks being distributed by the treasury to some 80 million recipients.

Brief History

Some brief history: the checks being generated by the recent legislation are not novel. Several other times in the nations’ history — most recently in 2007/2008 during the financial crisis — has the government determined to use direct payments as a form of stimulus for a compromised economy. In each of those circumstances, the checks that have been issued were signed by a relatively minor government official, as was necessary… and as is necessary for this event, since the President’s signature is inappropriate. To be clear, the President will not be signing the checks; his name will be affixed below the memo line on the left side of the check.

So, why care? In an election year, the President desires a little publicity… it doesn’t affect the check’s utility, the cost to the public of the addition is minimal, and there is no apparent law against it. The reason for concern is best explained by the premise touted by President George Bush, who declared that these types of funds represented a return of the people’s money to the people. In a world where there is consistently a separation between the people and the government that serves them, implications that the government (and by extension, the administration) is the originator of the capital that it allocates is another distortion. The implication that President Trump is the originator of the funds is false on any number of levels — the governing legislation was developed in the House and Senate with sufficient approval as to make a potential presidential veto moot — and the administration’s initially stated preference was not for this form of stimulus, but for a cut in payroll taxes.

Rank Politics

This begs the question: why would the President’s name be affixed to the checks? The only reason available — rank politics — is the obvious answer and one that on its own should disqualify the action… but the result has a nuance that is more disturbing: the intended emphasis on the government as the provider, and the President as the grantor of that largesse. This upsets the constitutional order — where public servants are the stewards of our money and are in fact the employees of the nation’s citizens — and suggests that we the people should look to carry the President’s favor. This perspective is frequently supported by other language cues, notably the President’s comments regarding his perceived lack of “appreciation” from state officials, from the press, and from organizations of every stripe for what he “does for them” or “gives them”.

The inference is consistent and dangerous, the message important and wrong. Our constitution and all of the supporting narratives and laws were created to preclude an authoritarian ruler, a king of any kind in word or action. It is only such an authoritarian ruler who could represent their control or ownership of a nations’ assets and finances; a constitutional presence would acknowledge their role as administrators, not as originators, and would transparently allocate resources based on an analysis of the nation’s best interests, not by some individual choice or preference.

To be clear, the aggregation of power and the elevation of the executive branch hardly began with the current president; it has been accruing for decades, and any current representation is merely the culmination of that trajectory. Where we must tread most carefully is the slide towards a crossing of the final line — the righteous demands for a democratic, representative government versus the gradual acceptance of an autocratic leadership that professes to control and possess the assets of our nation. That watch begins with the power of language and language of power; its ultimate impact is determined by our collective reaction to the messages that we receive.