It is remarkable. The administration that was so contemptuous of government and that might have briefly been seen as a beacon of hope by "big L" libertarians is now printing money faster than Palin can gut a moose and shoveling it to the AIGs of this debacle. Apparently we, as taxpayers, will be taking an interest in AIG; an ownership stake. Not exactly what the Libertarians had in mind.
Maybe not on paper, but in reality, privatized profits and socialized risk is basically the underpinning of free market ideology. Let the markets decide, until the magical market forces cause the economic system to collapse, at which point regulation is okay, if "regulation" means pumping taxpayer money into the same entities that fucked things up in the first place, then spinning off those entities when they become profitable again.
My notion of "Big L" Rand-ish Libertarianism limits the government to providing:
1) A miltary to defend the nation
2) Police agencies to protect citizens and
3) A court system to adjudicate criminal cases and property disputes.
Now many of the state Lib parties don't like to be so hard core because they figure it will turn people off. Duh!
So we just *nationalized* AIG. That's something they do in Bolivia or Russia or Venezuela, right? I agree with your characterization of the behaviour (privatize when we can make a buck, nationalize when we want the public to pick up the tab). It is just so far away from the strident ideology of the Necon and Lib right.
BUSH NATIONALIZES AIG!
Next the tin mines and oil fields!
Amazing.!
But in the vein of "Just how different are the Democrats from the Republicans" and after listening to some of the recent Obama campaign rhetoric, I have to ask: which Democrats did *anything* to put a spotlight on this huge iceberg and steer hard to port (or starboard)?
...
TonyC, you may be in the most observant position to point out what the Dems did (at great risk to themselves and their careers, and in a fashion that distinguished the Dems from the Republicans) to try to save us from this mess.
None of the Democratic efforts pass your "at great risk to themselves and their careers" test. These are politicians, after all.
Yeah, I just kind of threw that "great risk to themselves" thing in there to mock their general spinelessness.
But they did try to do something. The
Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 as originally written was a pretty good bill, but as with many bills, it had to be watered down to pass Republican (and conservative Democratic) opposition the house, and by that time, it was such a disaster, the Senate wouldn't touch it.
Sure the issue of predatory lending was/is a big issue, but I didn't see anybody getting out ahead of it. Nor any effort at the SEC-type level with respect to insane securitization and mortgage-backed securities.
I do not give Congressional Democrats a pass for rolling over and capitulating on these important issues, but I do recongize that what Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the house leadership is dealing with is a congress where there's a Democratic majority, but a progressive minority. This is due to two Democratic caucuses within Congress: The Blue Dog Coalition (47 House members) and the New Democrat Coalition (44 House members). While members of these caucuses are unlikely to blindly vote with Republcans, they are pro-business (especially big business) just like the GOP, often socially conservative, and generally not dependable when it comes to voting for progressive legislation.
Then, in the Senate, the Democrats have had to deal with a record number of GOP filibusters, so any time a good bill somehow makes its way out of the House, you can bet the GOP senators will kill it. Throw Joe Lieberman into the mix, and true, honest-to-goodness Democrats are a minority in both houses.
I am a little more harsh in my judgement. All Pelosi had to do was say "Impeachment is off the table" and I became convinced that she needed to be impeached, too. Where are the guts, the principles? The Wexlers, Leahys, and Wellstones are the sad exceptions.
Again, do not interpret this as me absolving the Democrats for their sins... I just tend to weigh sins of commission a bit more than sins of omission. I will continue to vote for the shitty party that tries to do good but lacks the balls to make it happen over the shitty party that is actively working to undermine democracy, economic regulation, civil rights, etc. There is a good amount of daylight between the two, both on paper and in practice, and even though the end result is still not to my liking, I believe we can get there.
Up to a point, I try hard to admire the the ability to be optimistic. Stiff upper lip and all that!
But, as you can imagine, i wish that there were a *lot* more daylight between them. Just imagine a Democratic Party that didn't curry favor with health insurers and pharmas. Imagine a Democratic candidate who might actually not *need* or accept
$1.5 Million collected by Lehman Brothers.
I think special interests still rule and that the light between these parties is not as bright as you would guess.
I haven't re-read it, but I always think back to Kevin Phillips
Wealth and Democracy when I consider whether I am being fair with respect to the Democrat-Republican difference. I wonder if Phillips publishes a 2nd edition that covers 1990-2010 what will he say?
Edit: I picked that link to Moyers' interview with Phillips as a contemporary link to publication of _Wealth and Democracy_. Fascinating, though, to see his ambivalent judgement (as an independent in 2004) of McCain as the "one possible lifeline". No mas.
Previous Topic
Index
