FEBRUARY 27, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Before last week, few of us had ever heard of Rick Santelli--despite Santelli’s best efforts--and fewer still had any particular affection for him. Santelli is a CNBC TV personality whose most distinctive assets are a near-continuous state of agitation and a Billy Mays-like ability to project his voice, drowning out other shouting heads with ease. His persona is meant to make you pay attention to him, not to love him. But, in one short outburst last week, Santelli made himself the latest darling of the right.
Santelli was reporting--or shouting, anyway--from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade when he began to denounce the Obama administration’s foreclosure-prevention and economic stimulus plans. Santelli announced that Americans do not want to “subsidize the losers’ mortgages,” a sentiment to which traders standing nearby, within camera shot, wholeheartedly agreed. Santelli kept going. “These guys are pretty straightforward,” he said, gesturing around him, “and my guess is, a pretty good statistical cross-section of America, the silent majority.” By the end of his disquisition, Santelli had announced a “Chicago Tea Party” of disgruntled arch-capitalists to be held in July.
The Santelli rant instantly made him a right-wing hero. His video went viral, and Dickensian news aggregator Matt Drudge labeled it “The Rant Heard Round The World,” featuring it in a screaming all-red headline. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs felt obliged to rebut Santelli (while, characteristically, inviting him for coffee). National Review online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez raved, “The reaction to Rick Santelli’s Chicago-trading-floor incident this morning echoes the emotional reaction my inbox had to Sarah Palin’s convention speech this summer.”
Lopez called the phenomenon “deja vu.” She’s right. As George W. Bush has passed from the scene, figures like Santelli and Palin seem to be arising with increasing frequency. Bush endeared himself to conservatives by projecting the sense that he, and therefore they, represented the authentic America. The 2000 election, which Bush won by a mere negative 0.5 percent of the popular vote, made the task of majoritarian mythmaking a complicated one, and conservatives threw themselves into it with gusto. The endless invocations of coastal elites versus regular folks made it seem as if Bush had won a sweeping majority. September 11 and the 2004 elections made it easier to imagine their folksy president as the incarnation of middle America.
The collapse of the Bush presidency, however, left conservatives without a powerful symbol of their connection to the heartland--a void promptly filled by Palin. When her famous Katie Couric interview exposed Palin’s unpreparedness, this simply constituted further proof of liberal alienation from real America. “Those Washington elite,” Palin remarked, “don’t like the idea of just an everyday working-class American running for such an office.” It’s true, we don’t. On the other hand, we don’t like the idea of an everyday upper-class American potentially assuming the presidency, either. Our ideal president would know much more about public policy than an everyday American of any social class.
The emergence of Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher took the premise of Palin’s candidacy to the next logical step. He represented a more concentrated form of the same basic type--Plumb and Plumber. In both cases, conservatives held up liberal antagonism toward their chosen working-class hero as evidence of liberal antagonism to their class writ large. In the current issue of Commentary, Yuval Levin writes that Palin’s critics “see lower-middle-class populists like Palin and their supporters [emphasis mine] as profoundly ill-suited for governance, because they lack the accoutrements required for its employment.” So now we’re snobs unless we accept not only Palin’s credentials for national office but her supporters as well? That’s tens of millions of people.
CNBC’s Santelli represents a slight variation on the form. While he has a regional accent, signifying a working-class background, he puts himself forward more as a spokesman for the working class than as a representative member. But he has excited the same basic conservative erogenous zone.
Certainly, any number of commentators have denounced Obama’s program in more coherent terms. In a later interview, Santelli demanded that the government help the 92 percent of “responsible” homeowners who don’t have trouble paying their mortgage, rather than the “losers” who do. “I think the administration needs to help everybody, so they don’t disenfranchise the confidence of the 92 percent. Send everybody a check,” he shouted. On the other hand, he denounced the program as unaffordable: “There’s a lot of zeroes and trillions of dollars. Aren’t you worried about your kids and your grandkids?”
If the government can’t afford to help out the 8 percent of strapped homeowners, how can it afford to (let alone why should it) mail a check to the other 92 percent? Santelli did not say. At one point he expressed both, utterly contradictory, notions in consecutive sentences: “Maybe everybody ought to get a check. I think that we need to be more equitable in the money we’re spending that we really don’t have.” We don’t have the money to spend, so let’s spend more of it. Brilliant.
In a follow-up interview, Santelli described himself as an “Ayn Rander.” This certainly explains his distinction between those who “carry the water” and those who “drink the water”--he sees all victims of economic misfortune as inherently parasitic. I’d like to see Republicans try running on that philosophy during a recession.
The only thing that separated Santelli’s rant from any other similar outburst that could be found on Fox News or talk radio was that it seemed to represent the vox populi. Santelli was not previously known as a right-wing ideologue--mainly because he was not known for much of anything--so he came across as a fed-up investor, just as Wurzelbacher initially cast himself as an undecided voter skeptical of progressive taxation. And Santelli was surrounded by actual people who dug his message, people he described (absurdly) as a representative sample of American opinion. His rant thus appeared like a genuine expression of popular revolt.
In fact, both Obama and his housing plan remain wildly popular (the latter by a 30-point margin in the latest Washington Post poll.) But that popularity is what makes the populist illusion conjured by the Wurzelbachers and the Santellis all the more necessary.
Jonathan Chait is a senior editor of The New Republic.
41 comments
Santelli probably doesn't want to bring the subject up, but the government already helps the other 92% -- the home-mortgage interest tax deduction, which costs ca. $100 billion in lost revenue. See "Moneybox: Location, Location-- Deduction," Daniel Gross, www.slate.com/id/2116731/ Excerpt: ================================================== There's a cancer at the heart of our increasingly complex tax code. A special deduction that disproportionately benefits the wealthy and distorts economic activity has grown rapidly in size and could cost taxpayers nearly $100 billion annually by 2009. Eliminating it would allow us to reduce levies on income and rationalize the system. According to Martin Sullivan, a contributing editor of Tax Notes, its existence "means the economy has less business capital, lower productivity, lower real wages, and a lower standard of living." ====================================================== Not that I want to see it eliminated. It's a cancer I can live with. Dan
- dbuck
February 27, 2009 at 12:37am
Once again, Chait cuts through the bullsh*t. In his characteristically witty style, too.
- rozenson
February 27, 2009 at 1:26am
On September 2, 2008 this same Santelli blamed the financial media for the economic collapse while insisting the economy was otherwise healthy. Unless he's looking in a mirror, Santelli has no business mouthing the word "loser."
- Bukharin
February 27, 2009 at 5:04am
Americans dont want to finance loser mortgages but apparently They LOVE proppoing up Loser banks to bailout wallstreet and folks like Santelli. We are not suppose to help Americans who are struggling but its OK to prop up banks so that CEO's and give out 18 billion dollars in bonuses. Another loud mouth ignorant loser republican. You would think that with all their hypocrisy they would conduct themselves with class. Carol
- Carol
February 27, 2009 at 8:30am
Apparently Mr Chait doesn't know sarcasm when he hears it. His point is that if spending money we don't have is the answer to our problems why stop at $1 trillion, why not 2 or 3 or 4 trillion?! If every dollar spent produces $1.50 let's spend 10 quadrillion and we'll all be rich. If Mr Chait doesn't "get it" then there is little hope for the rest of this poorly educated country.
- Jimbowillie
February 27, 2009 at 8:37am
Why isn't anyone complaining about NBC's role in promoting Santelli's antics (lead story on that day's "Nightly News') as if it were really news and not a contrived stunt through which an NBC reporter injected himself into the news and made himself the story.
- CAMtwo
February 27, 2009 at 9:35am
Great article. I work at a hedge fund and I often have the displeasure of having to listen to the incoherent ranting of lunatics on the station, once a proud cheerleader for rising stockmarkets and now indignant voice of mismanagement from corporate boardrooms to Washington, CNBC. There seemed to me nothing particularly notable about Santelli's ranting that day as it was preceded by many varying in coherence, indignence and volume. Why Robert Gibbs justified it by mentioning him by name in his daily press conference I will never understand. There were so many inconsistencies with his rant, many of which you pointed out. My personal favorite was his referring to floor traders on the CME as "Real America". Hmmm. I am surprised and dismayed that CNBC still retains the viewership it does given what has happened and given how they totally missed it. I have long thought Jim Cramer is one of the most irresponsible people on the air. Inciting individual investors to day trade on his ill-informed equity analysis. And then there is Larry Kudlow. Oh my god. He should take up drinking and drugs again and leave economics to the adults. What world is he living in. Even Greenspan no longer believes in totally unfettered markets. Anyway, enough of my rant.
- michael
February 27, 2009 at 10:01am
Santelli wasted an opportunity to be taken seriously. People of all party affiliations have had these same questions and had he kept them universal, he might have become an influential figure - someone who facilitates a real diaouge between the White House and the public. Americans trust Obama by huge numbers, but getting a better explanation of programs by a TV loudmouth is not a big deal, I'm sure they'd oblige an honest broker within the media for just that - Obama is hardly afraid of wingers. But instead Santelli chose to advertise his fealty to a dead cult and reduced himself to a cartoon character in the process. It speaks very poorly of him.
- WandreyCer
February 27, 2009 at 10:10am
Is the "New Rupublic" a Socialist forum. Sounds like a lot of Propaganda that has worked well in the past. See all successful Socialist nations!
- Santelli for President!
February 27, 2009 at 10:41am
Heehee. Santelli's poignant concern for the wealthy just tears at the heartstrings. If he is a typical broker/dealer he would sell his own mother for a commission. His ilk should be the last to lecture anyone. The right lost the election. Santelli will get another chance. The Sun will rise on the Republic tomorrow - even with Obama as President. Better get some ideas though if you want to win. A rant is not policy. :-)
- toritto
February 27, 2009 at 11:04am
Keep up with the Marxist talk about economic classes and populism. The American people just love that. Liberal outlets have the polls to prove it. Yes, that will work out great for you in '10 and '12. Tick tock, tick tock.
- wendy
February 27, 2009 at 11:04am
Rick Santelli is a bond trader, and comments on bonds and capital markets. Over the years he has done a great and balanced job. And he is entertaining. He is not poitical in the sense of a Larry Kudlow (a great American and a great economist, but an idiot). As you know, he has "ranted" about wall street execs who take large bonuses and leave large deficits. His "rant" about the mortgage asssistance program tried very hard to make a point: there really is another way to look at the issue. I think we need those views. Want more entertaining bluntness? The Mark Haines/ Erin Burnett pair in the a.m. is a perfect modern George Burns/Gracie Allen show. Mark Haines simply tells people (including Larry K) they are wrong. But I am a little curious whether TNR has an editor? This article contained nothing but the idea that Mr Chait, who I have never heard of, despite his best efforts, does not like Mr. Santelli, who in contrast has a long career of clear, almost entirely business reporting. When someone with his knowledge and long record expresses an opinion, I listen and consider.
- Charlie
February 27, 2009 at 11:06am
The author is a usual leftie pussy. Once all of this sorts out, it will become just like nature, survival of the fittest. Those of us a sick of providing for all of the losers and are getting ready for the revolt. I'm going to buy my first gun and assualt weapon this weekend in preparation for the coming depression. The mayhem should be starting before the end of 2009. 5% and 6% growth forecasts in his budget are complete fiction. The U.S.Government is going to go bankrupt and we are going to have 20%+ inflation and complete mayhem. Then the fun starts. We will be able to put all the liberals on the back of bus and never hear their voices again. Good luck, you are going to need it.
- Commish
February 27, 2009 at 11:20am
"In fact, both Obama and his housing plan remain wildly popular (the latter by a 30-point margin in the latest Washington Post poll.)" Gallup 2/22 Government mortgage-aid package: Unfair 51% Fair 46% Necessary 59% Not necessary 38% Obama approval 59% I think "wildly" is a bit of a stretch here, no? Santelli surely struck a nerve, hence Gibbs' defensive response at the daily briefing. To quote Santelli's rant without reference to his very obvious sarcasm is flatly dishonest journalism.
- FlyOverCountry
February 27, 2009 at 11:38am
Santelli's rant is just the flip side of Obama's populist demagoguery. Obama blames the housing and economic crisis on "banks who took advantage of us", on the failed policies of Bush and on greedy, overpaid wall street execs. Santelli is just a trader and a talking head. Obama is supposed to be a responsible leader (maybe he will grow into the role?) Some honesty would be refreshing. The government is the biggest mortgage lender (via Fannie and Freddie) and for every person walking away from an underwater house with a negative amort loan in 2008 there is a speculator that profited from the same type of loan in 2006. Borrowers leveraged to the hilt and hoped that they would win. Many did in '04-'06. Banks took the risk of these borrowers walking away- adding their stupidity to the borrowers' greed. Most of the banking sector problems are in residential and commercial real estate loans. The departments of banks that make these loans are generally NOT the high paying/high flying investment banking and trading jobs. It is the $70,000 a year mortgage broker and $200,000 a year commercial real estate lender that is bankrupting us, not the multi-million dollar trader or master of the universe. Yes, the credit structuring areas of the banks were high paying for awhile, but these were a tiny percentage of the total employees involved in real estate lending nationally and all these jobs are long gone. The floor traders and futures traders that spontaneously reacted to Santelli's rant had nothing to do with real estate loans and theirs were not the type of derivatives that contributed to the crisis (which were the OTC credit derivatives). If "Bush's policies" caused the crisis in the US, what caused the same type of housing and banking crisis in the UK, which under Blair and Brown has been a social democratic and Keynesian nirvana of deficit spending and expand benefits? Obama, with his patently false and exaggerated straw man arguments, demonization of opponents (not only of Bush and the republicans but even nobodies like Santelli), class warfare rhetoric, populist demagoguery and blatant lies (Will no corporate exec be using private jets or buying new drapes on his watch? Will no lying, over-leveraged, speculative but now underwater homeowner be helped by his mortgage bailout) are already tiresome and clearly are beginning to feed a backlash. Santelli is just the beginning. The only difference between he and Obama is that Santelli was being honest.
- guydreaux
February 27, 2009 at 12:00pm
Refering to dbuck... What a communist... I pay enough in taxes... I'll do anything to lower them.. Why should my family be subjcted to 50 -60 grand in taxes while the sorry ass bunch down the street gets off for nothing....Good God there are already using tax credits for welfare.. I am tired of busting my ass so some low life can get his welfare tax credit.
- James
February 27, 2009 at 12:30pm
Chait and TNR can disparage Santelli, if they wish. But, Santelli is morally right and they are morally wrong. The country will not do well if people who are irresponsible, careless or stupid are subsidized by those superior to them.
- elwin9
February 27, 2009 at 12:54pm
I'm just wondering. What is the average yearly compensation for a CBOT floor trader? I saw the rant and the guy to Santelli's right was more interested in being on TV than anything else. CNBC is becoming harder to watch as they ratchet up the yick yack and forget the reporting.
- JEABII
February 27, 2009 at 1:04pm
What a pompous, ill-informed hatchet job you've written. I've observed Mr. Santelli for years, Mr. Chait, and it's clear you didn't do any legwork for this piece, much less try to speak to Santelli. Otherwise you'd know he was against the bailouts you claim he supports. He speaks loudly because he is on a noisy trading floor, (unlike your beloved,studio-bound Jim Cramer). And what's with your fixation on his accent? That's very revealing about you. Try watching Santelli for a week, you might even learn something, and not sound so stupid.
- No Fan
February 27, 2009 at 1:32pm
Chait IS bullshit. It's quite funny, I got a mailer yesterday from TNR asking me to renew. Something about "Is spin going to trump facts, we hope not. " I couldn't look at that with a straight face. TNR isn't even suitable for wiping my ass with these days. One would think that after their beloved candidate won, they'd start toning down the rhetoric - it's gotten worse if that was possible. They feel a need to defend EVERYTHING he does. Name one instance where TNR has actually criticized Obama. ONE. Reasonable dissent is treated as just Republicans standing in the way of "progress. "
- jwl2672
February 27, 2009 at 1:41pm
This article and the other readers comments about Rick Santelli reinforces in my mind what the current version of the Democrat Party and its minions are all about. They are about the hatred of anything that smacks of individual responsibility, accountability and getting along in life by yourself. When people who have an opinion, for instance "Joe the Plumber" or Rick Santelli, directly or indirectly criticize "The One" (i.e., President Obama), they are instantly demonized, investigated and their characters assassinated. The message is loud and clear: the Democrats in their misty eyed longing for the Great Depression have come full circle: Business people are the enemy, not people who take risks to provide others jobs; they are "loud mouth ignorant loser republicans" in the immortal words of "Carol" They should be taxed until they either move out of the country or stop making enough money to be subject to Mr. Obama's and the Democrats hatred. According to the Democrats they are the people who caused the meltdown in the financial markets because of de-regulation and greed - Messrs Frank, Dodd and yes Obama are without any culpability - even though they used the power of government to compel banks to make risky loans through Fannie and Freddie. There is enough blame to go around in this and blaming hardworking business owners and financial people for the meltdown and not government calls into question the integrity of writers like Chait.
- Robert Swale
February 27, 2009 at 2:31pm
Seems the story is more Drudge than Santelli. Typical morning 5AM PST CNBC banter becomes print and broadcast news only hours later when Drudge headlines it. He seems to have leveraged himself a powerful portal into the cognitive landscape across the vast nutty, fruity plain and amber waves of brain. One gets the image of him sitting there in that goofy hat marionetting the strings of print and broadcast like puppets on a string whenever he deigns to toy with them.
- Pat Shuff
February 27, 2009 at 3:17pm
Obama is clearly implementing his ideology. Many people voted for him who do not understand his plan. Obama is racing to extinguish free thought, individualism, free markets and capitalism. The horse is out of the barn. Obama wants to punish the USA for it's ideals. Dark times are ahead. The plan is to destroy the USA as we know it.
- I-Told-U-So
February 27, 2009 at 3:39pm
I just watched the video clip of Chait mocking Santelli. Was Chait trying to speak in such a winey high voice or was that satire? Was he trying to look like an unattractive, chubby, east coast dork? If so, he nailed it!
- Gotcha!
February 27, 2009 at 3:51pm
Wow - such amazingly level-headed discourse from the yapping masses! What peerless paragon of aggregation linked to this story? Did the one we call Drudge strike again?
- calmcollected
February 27, 2009 at 6:27pm
Refering to James... "Why should my family be subjcted to 50-60 grand in taxes..." Wow! I'm only paying about 1/3 that amount. Wish I had enough income to have to pay 50-60 grand. That's a problem I could live with.
- Marc
February 27, 2009 at 8:11pm
My AGI places me in the top 5% of income earners according to IRS tables and I'm paying about $15K or so depending upon deductions. If you're paying $50-60K, you must be well into the top 1% (or maybe the top 0.5%) of wage earners. Wish I had your problem.
- Marc
February 27, 2009 at 9:09pm
I'm not surprised J. Chait has never heard of Rick Santelli, he never watches CNBC and obviously has a surprising ignorance of the markets. With the DJIA down 25% since the Messiah's election you would think intelligent people would wake up and protest the National Socialism coming out of the White House. It's 1933 all over again, God help us and the USA.
- Ned
February 27, 2009 at 9:27pm
Chait is just a runny-nosed, modern-day version of all those whiners in Atlas Shrugged. And the funny thing is, he doesn't even know it.
- AynRand
February 27, 2009 at 11:29pm
The US and the world's economy is in a bad shape right now, but people seem to prefer yelling over one another instead of doing some sobering analyses. Enough with the drama... being responsible means not only to oneself but to others. USA is not doomed unless people intend to see it that way. Let Obama implement his plans.
- anonymous
February 28, 2009 at 3:17am
Mr. Chait put out a pretty predictable piece, which I could have found on The Nation or Mother Jones. The New Republic used to center-left, but not predictably so on all issues. There are legtimate concerns about President Obama's plans to provide mortgage relief, including the borrower's ability to repay a modified mortgage and what this program will ultimately cost the taxpayer. However, Mr. Chait seems to feel that such concerns are not worthy of serious discussion. Instead, he accuses those concerned with moral hazard for banks and individual responsibility of being right-wing fanatics and lower class slobs. Rick Santelli, a respected CNBC, contributor of longstanding, is considered to be nothing more than a crank for bringing up his concerns on the trading floor. Also, not content with this, Mr. Chait has to drag out Sarah Palin and "Joe the Plumber" as being unworthy lower class types. My, this sort of snobbery would have made Edith Wharton gag.
- Walter
February 28, 2009 at 5:55am
Perhaps you could bide your time reading up on Marxism until 2012.
- Julie
February 28, 2009 at 6:17am
Santelli did not rant and rave when the first part of the Stimulus helped him and his kind, yet becomes a big problem when it starts to help ordinary people, the same ordinary people that him and his kind duped through sub-prime lending schemes -- which, stay tuned, will soon come to light, once and for all.
- Angellight
February 28, 2009 at 8:13am
I had CNBC on that day when Santelli's rant was played every 15 minutes it seemed. I thought maybe I had switched to Fox Business News.
- Anthony
February 28, 2009 at 1:59pm
Conservatives are idiots. Everybody knows that.
- Dina
February 28, 2009 at 2:45pm
@calmcollected, I was thinking Drudge, too. It's a fascinating window on the paranoid fantasies and exaggerated grievances of typical Republicans. Or, as I like to call them, "losers."
- coilltemagh
February 28, 2009 at 5:09pm
calmcollected- My thoughts exactly hee hee.
- Thelonious Nunc
February 28, 2009 at 5:49pm
Way to knock those straw men down, Mr. Chait. If you bothered to actually listen to Santelli's piece, his comment about sending everyone a check was obviously sarcastic (obvious, not just because of his tone, but also because his point was that the entire program was a waste). Obama has no "housing plan" at all, as you should know. He has a "mortgage assistance plan" which has nothing to do with housing. And it's not just (or perhaps at all) for people who have experienced "economic misfortune", as you label it. It's for people that can't pay their mortgage for any number of reasons -- many, no doubt, that committed fraud and/or acted irresponsibly by taking on more debt than they could afford. Don't treat readers like they're idiots, even if most of them might be.
- Jeff H
February 28, 2009 at 9:51pm
Many of the people losing their houses are people who have lost jobs, often through no fault of their own. Others are people who have seen their monthly payments balloon because of variable interest rates. Not all people having problems paying their mortgage are slackers who deserve to be thrown out into the street.
- cjsm
February 28, 2009 at 11:29pm
I agree that there are legitimate concerns about Obama's plan to provide housing relief. But Santelli never addresses them in any meaningful way - instead he delivers a diatribe against the "losers". Chait's comments were a critique of this perspective, which Palin purveys and Wurzelbacher personifies. In delivering a message of pure resentment without any analysis of moral hazard and the means to avoid it, Palin et al are not being "unworthy lower class types", they are simply insulting our intelligence. Their unworthiness lies in the stupidity of their arguments.
- ppfaffman
March 3, 2009 at 6:35pm
The article had some good points, but I really would like to know if Chait noticed Santelli's (obvious) sarcasm about giving checks to everyone. If not, why is this guy employed as a commentator when he lacks basic skills for the job? Is he really so out of touch? If so, why would he be dishonest just to make a political point? Either way, it is a serious a lack of professionalism from Mr. Chait and the TNR team.
- ChaitBait
March 30, 2009 at 3:29pm