Mealy-Mouthed

An interesting term. The American Heritage Dictionary courtesy of Bartleyby.com tells us mealy-mouthed means literally to have meal in one's mouth, and therefore to be "unwilling to state facts or opinions simply and directly." Martin Luther, that most simple and direct of men, coined the phrase, or at least used it extensively.

This phrase keeps popping into my head as I read conservative commentary on the AIG fiasco. Superb commentators like Mona Charen, Rich Lowry, Larry Kudlow, Jonah Goldberg, and many others have written some cracker-jack critiques of the government's handling of the AIG bonuses. But in far too many cases these commentators seem to feel a need to assure the reading public that they, too, are adamantly opposed to the AIG bonuses.

Larry Kudlow: "This is being done in the name of AIG outrage, and nobody wants to defend the insurance company — including me." Rich Lowry: "AIG's top seven executives are forgoing bonuses this year, a nice gesture but an insufficient one, when $165 million is going to employees in the financial-products unit whose recklessness brought AIG ... to its knees." Mona Charen: "Shamelessness is the order of the day. If I were an AIG executive entitled by law to a large "retention" bonus negotiated before the taxpayers had bailed out my company, I hope I would have the decency to refuse it." And even Jonah Goldberg: "From what I can tell, the bonuses do stink."

The fact is, with respect to AIG it is government actions (the original bailout) and reactions (the demagoguery on bonus payments) that have produced the current outrageous state of affairs (cross reference your humble blogger's posts in these columns). The retention bonuses themselves are irrelevant to the issues, especially given the fact that WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE BONUSES WERE GOOD OR BAD. That is because executive compensation is a complex affair. Executive compensation is salary plus contingent income (commissions, profit-sharing, bonuses, etc.). What is the right mix? Well, what are the purposes the enterprise is trying to accomplish? Does the company need executives with a stake in the success or failure of the enterprise, or do they need employees content with the certainty of a (lesser) salary regardless of how well the company does? And how much of total profit, or desired profit, should be devoted to compensation of any kind? Jim Manzi makes this point well, although here again, he felt the need to intersperse his reasoning with assurances that he, himself, disliked the idea of executives actually being paid for their work when it is the taxpayer footing the bill. Tell that to the large (and growing) mass of bureaucrats in Washington.

It's as if John Adams, upon hearing about the Boston Tea Party, had pronounced it "magnificent," "bold," "daring," "firm [and] intrepid" but before he concluded that it was an "epoch in history," made sure to say that he was personally aghast at the shameless waste of good tea, the dishonorable attempt to lay the blame on defenseless American Indians, and the shoddy anti-intellectual jingoism of the participants.

Come on, people. Spit the food out of your mouths. Now, more than ever, we need simple, direct clarity in the public debate.

via email.