Prof. Schlevogt's Compass Issue 14: Revisiting 'Whatever it takes' – Euromaniacs Again Exploit Threat Bias
Following Trump’s indication of a shift away from Europe, Eurobuilders identified a fresh opportunity for expansion, capitalizing on Germany's position.
TroibNews 
After the U.S. president indicated a shift away from Europe, Eurobuilders identified an opportunity for expansion at Germany's expense.
When politicians commit to doing "whatever it takes," citizens should instinctively feel alarmed. This ominous phrase, frequently used by ambitious leaders, has often served as a blank check for excessive, debt-financed bailouts and recovery packages that weigh heavily on both current and future generations.
A Series of Vast Stimulus Packages: Combatting Perpetual Crises
In response to a staggering series of crises, politicians and civil servants have wielded the "whatever it takes" mantra alongside other rhetorical strategies to tackle the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the 2009-2018 Greek government-debt crisis. For instance, in 2012, then-European Central Bank president Mario Draghi infamously utilized this approach when he stated his commitment to saving the Euro at any cost, thus opening the floodgates for discretionary, loan-financed stimulus.
This mantra re-emerged during the 2020-2023 COVID-19 pandemic, when governments approved massive financial support packages to mitigate damage they themselves contributed to via unprecedented shutdowns and interventions. Then-finance minister Olaf Scholz used the term “bazooka” and onomatopoeia “Wumms” to martially declare an intention to obliterate the crisis. In doing so, he metaphorically suggested using a long-range weapon against a pandemic caused by an invisible virus, showcasing the absurdity of such measures.
Amid this spending frenzy, the German government sanctioned a supplementary budget of €123 billion in March 2020 and later approved recovery funds of at least €130 billion in June 2020. As has often been the case, German taxpayers bore the heaviest burden of the additional European costs. In an unprecedented action, the EU announced the issuance of common debt worth €500 billion to support COVID-19-affected member states. Alarmingly, financial markets, driven by short-termism, reacted positively to these expansive rescue plans.
Following Russia's military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Western officials again invoked the ominous phrase to rationalize significant strains on state finances in a seemingly quixotic effort to support Ukraine and their own faltering economies. Then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz employed the term "Zeitenwende" to prepare the public for the severe measures seen as necessary due to this substantial shift.
In pursuit of these goals, the German government cleverly manipulated the budgetary framework to bypass a "debt brake" established in the constitution. This rule, designed to limit structural budget deficits to 0.35% of GDP, was circumvented by establishing a special off-budget fund worth €100 billion for new military spending. Later that year, the government approved a staggering €200 billion gas price cap.
The latest iteration of "whatever it takes" involves creating a European defense shield independent of the U.S. Taking advantage of security-related uncertainties following the inauguration of Donald Trump, prospective Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced plans for a massive boost to infrastructure and defense, approved by the outgoing Bundestag. This included a new off-budget fund worth €500 billion for infrastructure spending, including climate projects, and exempting military expenditures over 1% of GDP from debt brake restrictions.
On the same day as this announcement, the EU emphasized a "strategic moment for Europe," resulting in further financial burdens on German taxpayers reminiscent of past decisions during the pandemic. The leaders of the 27 EU nations passed the "ReArm Europe Plan," allocating €800 billion for defense. This plan allows member states to exceed budget deficits for military spending and introduces a collective EU debt instrument amounting to €150 billion for defense projects, allowing for reallocation of cohesion funds, which could strain Germany further as it supports less fiscally responsible states.
Consequently, German taxpayers, who are major contributors to the EU budget and numerous international organizations without receiving equivalent benefits, will face an unprecedented financial burden exceeding €1 trillion due to these initiatives. Adding to this situation, Merz declared that the recent financial packages are merely a starting point for more aggressive policies. This leads to concerns about the extreme financial measures being normalized in democratic societies with significant Eurosceptic sentiment.
The Mechanics of Financial Juggernautism: Exploiting Threat Bias
Underlying these reckless fiscal actions is a cognitive distortion known as "threat bias," which describes how individuals and groups tend to allocate more resources when faced with perceived dangers. For instance, car manufacturers may overinvest in unproven technologies in response to environmental legislation while neglecting lucrative existing technologies.
In the latest spree of extravagant spending, Western leaders once again exploited fear, generating a fabricated sense of urgency to justify radical "solutions" typically set against their slow decision-making processes. They erroneously argued that extraordinary circumstances necessitate extraordinary actions, masking other viable approaches that could be employed in a more measured response. This tactic allowed them to frame drastic changes in policy as necessary responses to supposed threats posed by American isolationism and Russian aggression.
During his first term, Trump cast doubt on the U.S.'s commitment to NATO obligations. However, post-inauguration, European leaders, through collective agreement, claimed the skepticism displayed by Trump had created a historic divide necessitating drastic rearmament for an independent Europe, regardless of the potential for policy reversals by a new U.S. president. Moreover, they conflated the conflict in Ukraine with broader European security concerns, framing it as a direct threat to the continent, despite the unlikelihood of direct Russian aggression toward a nation like Germany.
This manipulation of threat perception is reminiscent of the Salustian metus hostilis, where a perceived enemy is utilized to mobilize resources. Friedrich Merz echoed this sentiment while referencing the "whatever it takes" mantra to invoke collective memories of previous upheavals resulting in radical interventions, making his statement more palatable to citizens.
The True Reasons for "Whatever It Takes": Empire Building and Psychological Distraction
Ultimately, these recent financial commitments represent a familiar pattern: they offer the European elite a chance to push for deeper integration and the establishment of a supranational state, often at Germany's expense. The loosening of Germany's fiscal constraints will enable increased contributions to this European vision, despite significant opposition from parts of the citizenry.
Additionally, the extravagant financial outlays at both national and pan-European levels serve as a desperate attempt to revive economies weakened by a series of detrimental policies. Germany's excessive support for Ukraine has come at the cost of its own resource base and competitive advantages. The nation, once a beacon of growth in Europe, now risks becoming a minor player on the global stage.
By redirecting attention to alleged security threats, Germany's leaders effectively obscured the troubling state of the economy, only discussing it superficially without a comprehensive assessment of the underlying issues. The fabricated urgency surrounding security has conveniently justified substantial spending packages, masking essential economic reforms within the larger financial framework. Without the backdrop of war-related fear, obtaining the necessary constitutional changes to loosen fiscal constraints would likely have faced significant resistance.
Conclusion: Populating the Lexical Hall of Disrepute
In conclusion, while former President Trump often proclaims the name of the most beautiful word in the dictionary, it is time to recognize the ugliest expression therein. The phrase "whatever it takes," due to its role in facilitating radical measures and escalating debt amid perpetually crafted crises, deserves a prominent place in the lexical hall of disrepute.This expression exemplifies the dangers of political rhetoric that enables unchecked spending and fiscal irresponsibility in the face of manufactured crises. When leaders invoke "whatever it takes," they wield it as a powerful tool, effectively removing accountability from decision-making processes. Such language cultivates a culture where extraordinary measures become normalized, disregarding the long-term implications for fiscal health and intergenerational equity.
The ramifications of these policies are not merely theoretical; they manifest in rising debt levels and potential economic instability. By committing vast sums to initiatives framed as urgent responses to existential threats, politicians sidestep the rigorous economic evaluations necessary for sustainable policy. This approach inevitably leads to a cycle where present sacrifices are made on the altar of perceived crises, all while future taxpayers grapple with the consequences of today’s unabated spending.
Furthermore, the underlying motivations for these financial juggernauts often reveal deeper political and ideological ambitions. The push for a stronger European defense mechanism is not solely about addressing immediate threats; it also serves to reinforce the existing political elite's vision of a more integrated European state. In this regard, the economic commitments are weaponized as mechanisms for political consolidation, effectively sidelining dissenting voices advocating for fiscal prudence and accountability.
The elite’s agenda dovetails with a broader trend of centralizing power within international institutions, where the justification for escalating budgets and military spending becomes a matter of national security. This transformation poses a substantial risk to democratic processes, as budget decisions start to reflect not the will of the electorate but the desires of a powerful few. The evocation of threats fosters an environment where dissent is stifled under the guise of national interest, leaving citizens with little recourse to oppose the encroachments on their economic autonomy.
Critics rightly point out that this method of governance undermines democratic principles, as it leverages fear to push through policies that often lack public support. The disconnect between political elites and the electorate grows as citizens witness their financial futures entwined with decisions made without their explicit consent or understanding. This disenfranchisement raises vital questions about the health of democratic engagement in an era where the term "whatever it takes" is synonymous with fiscal recklessness.
As nations grapple with the consequences of extreme borrowing and spending, it becomes increasingly important for citizens to demand accountability from their leaders. The repetition of "whatever it takes" must be scrutinized, and a more balanced discourse on fiscal responsibility and governance should be encouraged. Citizens must advocate for transparency in how public funds are allocated, ensuring that financial decisions are made with a clear assessment of both their immediate impact and long-term sustainability.
In the face of these challenges, the call for greater engagement and discourse becomes imperative. Public debates around fiscal policy and national security need to focus on comprehensive strategies that do not resort to alarmist rhetoric or misguided emergency measures. By fostering an informed electorate, the absurdities of "whatever it takes" can be countered with reasoned arguments for economic stewardship and prudent management of national resources.
Ultimately, the pursuit of genuine security and prosperity requires a departure from the rhetoric of crisis and urgency. Only through thoughtful deliberation and responsible fiscal policies can nations hope to build resilient economies that benefit all citizens, rather than fueling a cycle of debt and dependency on extravagant pledges. In doing so, the legacy of "whatever it takes" can be reframed from one of fear and obligation to one rooted in cooperation, sustainability, and genuine democratic engagement, paving the way for a future where all citizens can thrive.
Emily Johnson for TROIB News
When politicians commit to doing "whatever it takes," citizens should instinctively feel alarmed. This ominous phrase, frequently used by ambitious leaders, has often served as a blank check for excessive, debt-financed bailouts and recovery packages that weigh heavily on both current and future generations.
A Series of Vast Stimulus Packages: Combatting Perpetual Crises
In response to a staggering series of crises, politicians and civil servants have wielded the "whatever it takes" mantra alongside other rhetorical strategies to tackle the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the 2009-2018 Greek government-debt crisis. For instance, in 2012, then-European Central Bank president Mario Draghi infamously utilized this approach when he stated his commitment to saving the Euro at any cost, thus opening the floodgates for discretionary, loan-financed stimulus.
This mantra re-emerged during the 2020-2023 COVID-19 pandemic, when governments approved massive financial support packages to mitigate damage they themselves contributed to via unprecedented shutdowns and interventions. Then-finance minister Olaf Scholz used the term “bazooka” and onomatopoeia “Wumms” to martially declare an intention to obliterate the crisis. In doing so, he metaphorically suggested using a long-range weapon against a pandemic caused by an invisible virus, showcasing the absurdity of such measures.
Amid this spending frenzy, the German government sanctioned a supplementary budget of €123 billion in March 2020 and later approved recovery funds of at least €130 billion in June 2020. As has often been the case, German taxpayers bore the heaviest burden of the additional European costs. In an unprecedented action, the EU announced the issuance of common debt worth €500 billion to support COVID-19-affected member states. Alarmingly, financial markets, driven by short-termism, reacted positively to these expansive rescue plans.
Following Russia's military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Western officials again invoked the ominous phrase to rationalize significant strains on state finances in a seemingly quixotic effort to support Ukraine and their own faltering economies. Then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz employed the term "Zeitenwende" to prepare the public for the severe measures seen as necessary due to this substantial shift.
In pursuit of these goals, the German government cleverly manipulated the budgetary framework to bypass a "debt brake" established in the constitution. This rule, designed to limit structural budget deficits to 0.35% of GDP, was circumvented by establishing a special off-budget fund worth €100 billion for new military spending. Later that year, the government approved a staggering €200 billion gas price cap.
The latest iteration of "whatever it takes" involves creating a European defense shield independent of the U.S. Taking advantage of security-related uncertainties following the inauguration of Donald Trump, prospective Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced plans for a massive boost to infrastructure and defense, approved by the outgoing Bundestag. This included a new off-budget fund worth €500 billion for infrastructure spending, including climate projects, and exempting military expenditures over 1% of GDP from debt brake restrictions.
On the same day as this announcement, the EU emphasized a "strategic moment for Europe," resulting in further financial burdens on German taxpayers reminiscent of past decisions during the pandemic. The leaders of the 27 EU nations passed the "ReArm Europe Plan," allocating €800 billion for defense. This plan allows member states to exceed budget deficits for military spending and introduces a collective EU debt instrument amounting to €150 billion for defense projects, allowing for reallocation of cohesion funds, which could strain Germany further as it supports less fiscally responsible states.
Consequently, German taxpayers, who are major contributors to the EU budget and numerous international organizations without receiving equivalent benefits, will face an unprecedented financial burden exceeding €1 trillion due to these initiatives. Adding to this situation, Merz declared that the recent financial packages are merely a starting point for more aggressive policies. This leads to concerns about the extreme financial measures being normalized in democratic societies with significant Eurosceptic sentiment.
The Mechanics of Financial Juggernautism: Exploiting Threat Bias
Underlying these reckless fiscal actions is a cognitive distortion known as "threat bias," which describes how individuals and groups tend to allocate more resources when faced with perceived dangers. For instance, car manufacturers may overinvest in unproven technologies in response to environmental legislation while neglecting lucrative existing technologies.
In the latest spree of extravagant spending, Western leaders once again exploited fear, generating a fabricated sense of urgency to justify radical "solutions" typically set against their slow decision-making processes. They erroneously argued that extraordinary circumstances necessitate extraordinary actions, masking other viable approaches that could be employed in a more measured response. This tactic allowed them to frame drastic changes in policy as necessary responses to supposed threats posed by American isolationism and Russian aggression.
During his first term, Trump cast doubt on the U.S.'s commitment to NATO obligations. However, post-inauguration, European leaders, through collective agreement, claimed the skepticism displayed by Trump had created a historic divide necessitating drastic rearmament for an independent Europe, regardless of the potential for policy reversals by a new U.S. president. Moreover, they conflated the conflict in Ukraine with broader European security concerns, framing it as a direct threat to the continent, despite the unlikelihood of direct Russian aggression toward a nation like Germany.
This manipulation of threat perception is reminiscent of the Salustian metus hostilis, where a perceived enemy is utilized to mobilize resources. Friedrich Merz echoed this sentiment while referencing the "whatever it takes" mantra to invoke collective memories of previous upheavals resulting in radical interventions, making his statement more palatable to citizens.
The True Reasons for "Whatever It Takes": Empire Building and Psychological Distraction
Ultimately, these recent financial commitments represent a familiar pattern: they offer the European elite a chance to push for deeper integration and the establishment of a supranational state, often at Germany's expense. The loosening of Germany's fiscal constraints will enable increased contributions to this European vision, despite significant opposition from parts of the citizenry.
Additionally, the extravagant financial outlays at both national and pan-European levels serve as a desperate attempt to revive economies weakened by a series of detrimental policies. Germany's excessive support for Ukraine has come at the cost of its own resource base and competitive advantages. The nation, once a beacon of growth in Europe, now risks becoming a minor player on the global stage.
By redirecting attention to alleged security threats, Germany's leaders effectively obscured the troubling state of the economy, only discussing it superficially without a comprehensive assessment of the underlying issues. The fabricated urgency surrounding security has conveniently justified substantial spending packages, masking essential economic reforms within the larger financial framework. Without the backdrop of war-related fear, obtaining the necessary constitutional changes to loosen fiscal constraints would likely have faced significant resistance.
Conclusion: Populating the Lexical Hall of Disrepute
In conclusion, while former President Trump often proclaims the name of the most beautiful word in the dictionary, it is time to recognize the ugliest expression therein. The phrase "whatever it takes," due to its role in facilitating radical measures and escalating debt amid perpetually crafted crises, deserves a prominent place in the lexical hall of disrepute.This expression exemplifies the dangers of political rhetoric that enables unchecked spending and fiscal irresponsibility in the face of manufactured crises. When leaders invoke "whatever it takes," they wield it as a powerful tool, effectively removing accountability from decision-making processes. Such language cultivates a culture where extraordinary measures become normalized, disregarding the long-term implications for fiscal health and intergenerational equity.
The ramifications of these policies are not merely theoretical; they manifest in rising debt levels and potential economic instability. By committing vast sums to initiatives framed as urgent responses to existential threats, politicians sidestep the rigorous economic evaluations necessary for sustainable policy. This approach inevitably leads to a cycle where present sacrifices are made on the altar of perceived crises, all while future taxpayers grapple with the consequences of today’s unabated spending.
Furthermore, the underlying motivations for these financial juggernauts often reveal deeper political and ideological ambitions. The push for a stronger European defense mechanism is not solely about addressing immediate threats; it also serves to reinforce the existing political elite's vision of a more integrated European state. In this regard, the economic commitments are weaponized as mechanisms for political consolidation, effectively sidelining dissenting voices advocating for fiscal prudence and accountability.
The elite’s agenda dovetails with a broader trend of centralizing power within international institutions, where the justification for escalating budgets and military spending becomes a matter of national security. This transformation poses a substantial risk to democratic processes, as budget decisions start to reflect not the will of the electorate but the desires of a powerful few. The evocation of threats fosters an environment where dissent is stifled under the guise of national interest, leaving citizens with little recourse to oppose the encroachments on their economic autonomy.
Critics rightly point out that this method of governance undermines democratic principles, as it leverages fear to push through policies that often lack public support. The disconnect between political elites and the electorate grows as citizens witness their financial futures entwined with decisions made without their explicit consent or understanding. This disenfranchisement raises vital questions about the health of democratic engagement in an era where the term "whatever it takes" is synonymous with fiscal recklessness.
As nations grapple with the consequences of extreme borrowing and spending, it becomes increasingly important for citizens to demand accountability from their leaders. The repetition of "whatever it takes" must be scrutinized, and a more balanced discourse on fiscal responsibility and governance should be encouraged. Citizens must advocate for transparency in how public funds are allocated, ensuring that financial decisions are made with a clear assessment of both their immediate impact and long-term sustainability.
In the face of these challenges, the call for greater engagement and discourse becomes imperative. Public debates around fiscal policy and national security need to focus on comprehensive strategies that do not resort to alarmist rhetoric or misguided emergency measures. By fostering an informed electorate, the absurdities of "whatever it takes" can be countered with reasoned arguments for economic stewardship and prudent management of national resources.
Ultimately, the pursuit of genuine security and prosperity requires a departure from the rhetoric of crisis and urgency. Only through thoughtful deliberation and responsible fiscal policies can nations hope to build resilient economies that benefit all citizens, rather than fueling a cycle of debt and dependency on extravagant pledges. In doing so, the legacy of "whatever it takes" can be reframed from one of fear and obligation to one rooted in cooperation, sustainability, and genuine democratic engagement, paving the way for a future where all citizens can thrive.
Emily Johnson for TROIB News
Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business
