Bringing down the political class
We will surely remember 2010 as the Tea Party election, the year that ordinary people gave the entire political class a drubbing, first in the primaries and then at the polls.
Scott Rasmussen and Douglas Schoen tell us why in their book Mad As Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two Party System. Rasmussen and Schoen, Republican and Democratic pollsters respectively, draw from a wide body of polling data to provide an insightful picture of these people who have been shaping the races that they will largely settle next week.
According to the authors, the Tea Party has been a spontaneous, principled, and yet passionate response to a politically unhealthy divide in the country. That divide is not fundamentally between Democrats and Republicans or between liberals and conservatives but between what they call the American mainstream and the political class. We have seen anger on display by mainstream Americans at town hall meetings last year, at Tea Party rallies for the last 18 months, and chiefly in this year’s Republican primaries. And we will see it again next week expressed peacefully but decisively at the ballot box.
Such Tea Party anger is rooted not simply in their disagreement over the present government’s economic and spending policies. And the movement is not a rebellion of heartless skinflints. Fundamentally, Tea Partiers are moved by the view that “the federal government has become a special-interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests,” Rasmussen and Schoen point out. Those who govern us are out of touch with ordinary Americans. They don’t listen to the people who put them in power. They’re arrogant. Barney Frank sits securely in his gerrymandered, liberal, Massachusetts district lording it over the rest of us on account of his seniority in the House of Representatives. Culturally and institutionally, the link between government and the people has become stretched intolerably thin. And so, because of the extent of Tea Party fury over this thin link, Congressman Frank is sweating out an election for the first time in 30 years.
People in government may start out like the rest of us and go to Washington with the best of intentions, but they become part of a new class, an insulated political class, and they adopt the attitudes of that class. As Peggy Noonan put it, “The establishment came from America, but hasn’t lived there in a long time.” Or they have always been part of that ruling elite, but simply moved from one part of it to another when they went to Washington.
Rasmussen and Schoen write, “A self-selecting group of influencers from business, government, academia, and the media now occupy[sic] the most prestigious institutional positions in American society and in power centers in Washington.” So when the economy went bust, the ruling class got bailouts from their fellow members in Washington and they all got richer. The rest of lost our jobs, lost our houses, or just slipped a little further behind. The American mainstream caught on to this immediately.
The conclusion we should draw, say Rasmussen and Schoen, is that, “Americans don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want to govern themselves.” But that view of self-government is an American conservative idea. America is still a largely center-right country. Despite the New Deal, the New Society, the New Morality, and constant catechizing by the media, Hollywood, the public schools, and academia, America has remained attached to private enterprise and self-government, and to what candidate Barack Obama called “guns and religion.” The political class doesn’t believe in any of that. But Americans still have the Constitution, which next week gives us the legal means of reminding them who it is they serve.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top48 Comments to “Bringing down the political class”
I hope this feeling survives the election. Better this type of revolution than a bloody one. I suspect if they don’t start to get it together in the next two years, there will be you know what to pay in 2012.
Report comment to moderator
Good post.
Report comment to moderator
I really wish there were such a location as “center-right” but I’m afraid it doesn’t exist. Medicare drug benefits without negotiated pricing or re-importation, health insurance reform without a promised public option (a la Romneycare/Heritage Foundation), TARP without takeover, income taxes without soaking the few who take all the money, Wall Street regulation without sanctions — all these policies are center-right policies.
If the election turns out the way D.C. INNES predicts, the governing class can conclude that the voters are rewarding the McConnell-Baynor playbook. The center-right Democrats will be wiped out, and the Democratic wing of the Democratic party should draw the obvious conclusion.
It will be very hot in the kitchen, and Mike Pence is getting out.
Report comment to moderator
Well Scroop, once again, you don’t get it.
The Tea Party does not support McConnell-Baynor so much as we support having our will done in Washington. Innes’ article is very insightful. The current encumbants are sitting in their ivory towers sheltered from the will of the people by such things as gerrymandering. Both sides are guilty of this.
I for one DO NOT want to see a Leader McConnell or a Speaker Baynor, unless they are willing to listen to the “new blood”, the junior members. I know that I am not voting for the current Republicans to return to power. I am voting for “new blood” to do the will of the people in opposition to the encumbants. I would love to see a junior member become Leader and Speaker. I would love for them to look at the surviving encumbants and demand their compromise with the will of the people.
The junior members had better do what they promised, because as NJ says, there will be a VERY high price to pay if they don’t.
Make no mistake, if the results are as predicted, the CONSERVATIVES will have a resounding mandate. One that is in direct opposition to the obama agenda.
Report comment to moderator
If D.C. Innes could name a “center-right” policy that the public loves, his argument might have some force. In reality, the public appears to hate “center-right” legislation. If voters are like me, they are sick of drawn-out secret sausage making and want to see lots and lots of debate and votes on bills that Republicans love and Democrats hate, and vice versa.
Obama needs to flood the SOTU with all kinds of spending ideas. China has 240 mph trains, and I want them too! I want the tunnel to Manhattan. I want to land at a world class airport when I return home. I don’t want Yosemite National Park visitors center looking like a slum. I want public schools that are as beautiful as cathedrals. Before I die, I’d like to drive 20 miles of Int-10 without slowing for a construction zone.
Report comment to moderator
To save money and greatly improve our infrastructure, all the gov’t needs to do is stop pouring money into the interstates and highways and instead put that cash into rail. We would have high speed rail everywhere. Not to mention to build one mile of rail costs one twenty-fifth of the maintenance cost of a mile of interstate. The roads were favored over rails because Congress liked the truck lobby’s cash, and passed it off as a necessary national security measure so that the US army could move quickly in case of an attack on our soil. In reality the interstates would help both us and the hypothetical invasion force maneuver.
Report comment to moderator
For the last two years, liberals have done all the compromising while Republicans have refused to compromise, or even vote for provisions that they demanded. Now, BROTHERDAN says the Tea Party is wiping out conservative, compromising Democrats and sending in “new blood” in order to — compromise.
There might be a hidden logic there, but I can’t guess what it is.
Report comment to moderator
Some things don’t require compromise. Some things SHOULD NOT BE DONE at all.
Report comment to moderator
No, look at the bipartisanship of the Congress between 1994 and 2000. They pushed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into junk bonds, which according to the New York Times at the time of the bills signing, would cause the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression.
Report comment to moderator
I agree, NJLAWYER
Report comment to moderator
“Americans don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want to govern themselves.”
Perfectly said. The battle isn’t between Democrats and Republicans; it is between liberty and tyranny.
More government control over every aspect of our lives means less liberty, less economic freedom. More debt and higher taxes means less liberty. The government should not control your education, your health, your wealth, your retirement.
The problem of course is that neither Republicans nor Democrats will ever, ever, ever reduce the size of government. They just won’t do it.
So the election will send a message. Unfortunately no one will get that message.
Report comment to moderator
The activist 9th circuit court just struck down Arizona’s Proof of Citizenship law.
And so, not only are non-citizens and enemy combatants given full Miranda rights as Americans, now non-citizens will actually be lining up to vote.
Report comment to moderator
Wow — amused
Lets start with a side note — gerrymandering is a bi-partisan tradition.
Innes claims the Tea Party represents a wholesale change from the current political elite, both Republican and Democratic. Apparently Americans want change despite the fact they voted for change two years ago. However, if the Republicans regain the House, Mitch McConnel will be speaker and he is on record saying he will change nothing from the Bush years. So how is this upsetting the poltical elite?
Furthermore the funding for the Tea Party — front groups supported by Koch, Armey, Rove, etc suggested the Tea Party is a simple cosmetic re-branding incorporating some false populism, manipulated populism and astroturfing. Don’t look behind the curtain.
Report comment to moderator
My second comment goes to his assertion that there is a political class completely separate from ordinary Americans. He is suggesting that for years Americans have been electing people who don’t represent them and aren’t real Americans. If this is true, the incumbency record suggests Americans made the same mistake over and over again every two years. Is he suggesting that until now, Americans have been acting in a not-so-bright manner? And if the “political class” are not real Americans, who are they?? Are they aliens or perhaps members of the Illuminati? Is he suggestign a Birther movement for the entire Congress??
Maybe I shouldn’t ridicule him and give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that the American political elite used to be “real Americans” but were corrupted when they arrived in Washington. But that still suggests that Americans were not so bright to keep sending them back every two years. And it also suggests that American aren’t capable of selecting people of good virtue who will resist corruption (unless no American could). It appears Mr. Innes has a low opinion of the American voter until now.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm, who’s really running the Tea Party?
http://www.conservativerefocus.com/blog5.php/2010/09/28/fox-new-s-dilemma-of-too-many-leaders-stable-of-contributors-boasts-four-presidential-contenders
And the Tea Partiers think they’re really running against a permanent political class?
Silly people.
Report comment to moderator
And finally Innes suggests that self-government is a conservative idea. Apparently Jefferson et al were conservative gentlemen and not advocates of radical revolution (hmm interesting idea I do have Marxists friends who would agree with that.)
In all seriousness that idea that self government is only something you find on the center right is annoying and ridiculous. Apparently the centre left would like someone else to govern them. If this was true, then the left would be docile in the face of authority but French workers, students and farmers don’t appear docile. In fact the only French people who appear docile in recent history is the right wing who had no problems taking orders from German Nazis.
Perhaps this is American only observation — the left sat docile in America while the conservatives challenged the governing elite. Then the civil rights movement was right of centre and not the communist conspiracy claimed by the FBI???
Whether right or left people would like to govern themselves, they just have different priorities and a different idea of the forces that prevent self-gov’t.
Report comment to moderator
It is the left that is stealing our freedoms from us faster than the right, but like Scroopy, who is under the government must control my life or I can’t live spell, you can’t see that. Humans, being the lazy things they are, have accepted the left’s handouts and entitlements, but are finally learning that there’s a price for that — at least Americans are — and the price is literally the fruits or their labor and their freedom. They haven’t learned that in France yet.
The Left isn’t docile. It’s insidious. It steals freedom by luring the base instinct of the human to be lazy by promising it freebies, which aren’t really free. Like the devil lures the sinner. Humans like apples, don’t they?
Report comment to moderator
And HRW and Scroopy have been well-trained. They believe the lie that you can have something for nothing. It all works until you run out of money — which is where we are now. And still they don’t see it.
Report comment to moderator
Gerrymandering — some traditions are meant to be broken, the slimy ones at least, the ones that are against fundamental fairness. But I wouldn’t expect a lefty to understand that.
Report comment to moderator
#13 HRW “Lets start with a side note — gerrymandering is a bi-partisan tradition.”
Who cares? It is purely political and unfair. It would have been even more political and unfair if Obama hadn’t been forced to back away from taking over the Census.
#14 HRW “He is suggesting that for years Americans have been electing people who don’t represent them and aren’t real Americans. “
That is a ridiculous straw man. Innes didn’t say that aren’t real Americans, but the ideas of the new political class are radically different from traditionally liberal American values of individualism, liberty and self-governance. Modern liberals are precisely the opposite of classical liberals, who are now called conservative.
#16 HRW “And finally Innes suggests that self-government is a conservative idea.”
Here is where you really go off the rails. Jefferson was a classical liberal. Modern liberals aren’t anything like Jefferson.
And you espouse the contrived history of academia when you ascribe the National Socialism of Nazis to conservatives. No true conservative is a socialist. Conservatism doesn’t subscribes to collectivism or statism, the hallmarks of Italian fascism.
Obama has given massive power, wealth and influence to the unions. He handed them part of GM. He empowered them in the recent bill to more easily take over companies. He’s given them millions in corrupt payoffs and kickbacks. He talks about jobs, but he is referring mainly to union jobs. The unions are Obama’s lifeblood. If Obama is a fascist through and through.
Report comment to moderator
#15 Arcadia How silly! None of the people you listed are running the Tea Party.
What is hilarious is that on the left you have a highly funded campaign by Soros and others to control the media, control the elections, and to attack and disrupt anything and anyone who gets in their way. It is astroturfing in the superlative.
On the right you actually do have a grassroots campaign with very little leadership which the left accuses of everything they themselves are doing.
Report comment to moderator
Rule by political elites is as old as the hills in America. At the time of the Revolution two out of five males or fewer could vote, and royalist parties did a lot to promulgate the idea that society was a mixture of aristocrats and beasts. DC INNES’ leveller notion of popular sovereignty was only one strand within the Revolution. The democratic ideal that sovereignty belongs to the mass of common, equal citizens, was mixed with very strong habits of hierarchy and class. Legislatures were out of touch with their constituents and they ran things like oligarchs. The Jeffersonian ideal of democracy took a long time to become real, and it came with bloody struggle every step of the way.
The Tea Party’s devotion to Revolutionary symbolism is misplaced. John Adams himself was leery of “popular commotions,” especially those that consisted of the 18th C. form of astroturf – which then as now were just fronts for secret special interest money. The Tea Partiers need to toss their tricorner hats and try their best to find their or their parents’ old headbands and love beads.
HRW makes the crucial point, though. Democrats are not English colonial authorities. We, the People elect Democrats to represent us and tax us and spend our government’s money. This is right, proper, natural, Constitutional, and American.
Report comment to moderator
The last “Democrat” was supposed to be small d
Report comment to moderator
We, the People have been electing people who have not represented us, but rather their own elitist selves and their own bank accounts. We have been wrong, and now we are correcting the situation — we hope — and if there is no change now, there will be one in 2012. The current crop has bankrupted us.
Report comment to moderator
XION is mistaken to argue that Jefferson represented the tenants of Club for Growth economic “liberalism.”
Jefferson was bitterly opposed by Americans who claimed that he (like Obama) was launching a bolshevik (they called it jacobin) persecution and punishment of the wealth, talent, and freedom of the country. Tea Party concepts of governance were probably best represented by Southern agrarian allies of Jefferson who clashed with him over his apostasy from states’ rights absolutism.
Jefferson also stood for the supremacy of diplomacy over military force. He achieved a virtual second Declaration of Independence for America with the Louisiana Purchase, thanks to his commitment to diplomacy. This makes Jefferson the precursor of today’s liberals more than conservatives. Also, Jefferson was criticized for spending money the government didn’t have, in violation of the Constitution. So much for enumerated powers!
Report comment to moderator
No Scroop, Jefferson was the precursor for the modern libertarian in this nation. He would frown upon the expansive government of the left and the right, and if he lived now, he would have rebelled no matter which party was in power. Our tax code is far more complicated and expansive than King George’s ever was.
Concerning the overspending on Jefferson’s part, he did so to get the Louisiana purchase cheap. If a nation offers up that much land that cheaply, and taking into consideration the US debt at the time was relatively small, it was a good move on his part.
Report comment to moderator
The one thing modern libertarians and Americans back in the first decade of 1800 disliked about Jefferson was his trade embargo on Europe. That was his big intrusion on individual liberty concerning economic freedom, and unfortunately was done out of popular demand for revenge on the British for pressing Americans into their navy. Those who demanded it regretted it almost immediately.
Report comment to moderator
17 NJL
I would say its the corporate world which has become lazy and demands entitlements. They seek to create wealth not through hard work and entrepreneurship but selling and reselling debt and by creating boom/bubbles. And when it all fails they demand the gov’t rescue them yet they have the nerve to call ordinary working people who campaign for health care, pensions, etc lazy. And its the ordinary working people who end up paying for the demands of the rich and, in America, most of the ordinary working people have yet to realize this.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
I disapprove of gerrymandering. However, I think Innes is unfair only to cite Barney Frank as both sides practice gerrymandering.
That is a ridiculous straw man. Innes didn’t say that aren’t real Americans, but the ideas of the new political class are radically different from traditionally liberal American values of individualism, liberty and self-governance.
Then who are the new political class if they don’t represent real Americans? And if they don’t represent real Americans then how do they win elections? Is Innes suggesting that real Americans don’t have the intelligence to vote for proper representatives. Or perhaps he is suggesting that people who vote for this political elite don’t espouse traditionally American values.
Here is where you really go off the rails. Jefferson was a classical liberal. Modern liberals aren’t anything like Jefferson.
I know that but that has nothing to do with my comments. Innes contends that self government is a right of center idea and hence American is right of center. I suggested that this is ridiculous proposition and in fact most ideologies to the left or right of center advocate self government. And even anarcho-sydincalist of the far left base their philosophy on self-government at the lowest level possible — each individual workplace with only the municipality having any central authority.
I won’t get in to the Nazi debate with you here as it has no relevance to Innes’s remarks or my comments. However two comments.
Naming oneself does not give oneself these qualities. If it did I would call myself the most perfect being appealing to all women who never wants for money. Fred Phelps calls himself a Baptist but I’m sure he isn’t. A neo-fascist party in Russia once called itself the Liberal Democrat pary (in the European sense of the term) but I’m sure they were anything but.
And Italian fascism wasn’t collectivism or statism but corporatist — in which people are represented by the groups in which they belong. Although idealistically this meant unions, the church, businesses, etc would send a representative and a council would arrive at a plan for the year, in reality it meant those with money and power would run the show and for Italy that meant corporations and the Church.
He talks about jobs, but he is referring mainly to union jobs.
And that’s a good strategy. Its the disappearance of well paying blue collar union jobs which has led to stagnant wages, a shrinking middle classes and a growing gap between the rich and poor.
Report comment to moderator
#29 HRW “Then who are the new political class if they don’t represent real Americans? And if they don’t represent real Americans then how do they win elections?”
I think you are mincing words. Of course congressmen in a representative government represent their constituents legally. Innes explains that they get Potomac fever once they get to Washington and they no longer represent American values. They feed at the pork trough and enrich themselves rather than what is best for the country.
“Innes contends that self government is a right of center idea and hence American is right of center”
He wasn’t making a technical point about all of the nuanced forms of government, but about the conservative desire for less government and the progressive desire for more. He also lumps Democrats and Republicans in the same big government category and makes a distinction that conservatives these days don’t want either one, but are becoming more libertarian. I certainly fit in that category.
“And Italian fascism wasn’t collectivism or statism but corporatist”
The Italian word for a collection is fascismo. Fascism is syndicalism, meaning a country organized around trade unions and their corporations. You can call it corporatism, but Obama’s lifeblood is the unions. Practically all benefits he has signed into law have given special benefits to unions not available to anyone else.
This is not about labels, but actions. Obama has boosted the public sector, routinely attacks corporations and buoys his union supporters with massive payoffs and kickbacks.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, Here is a serious question for you. I am asking you because you are honest about your leftist position and I know you will give me a carefully considered answer.
Why is it a good strategy to have politicians decide the corporate winners and losers, rather than the market, i.e. the people?
Of all the window companies Obama could have endorsed he picked the one company where the vice president is married to Obama’s weatherization Czar Cathy Zoi.
The left distrusts corporations and rightly points out greed and corruption there when it can be found. However government greed and corruption is far more blatant and massive. Barney Frank’s corruption and devastation of the economy makes Enron look like a squirt gun compared to the military might of a superpower.
Barney Frank then unbelievably is put in charge of the cleanup. The collapse was caused in two parts: one part was Fannie and Freddie’s loans to people who couldn’t pay and the other part was investors buying up insurance (derivatives and shorts) against the inevitable collapse. It was a sure thing, but insurance companies were selling this insurance like ice cream.
So what does the sleazy politician do? He regulates derivatives but does nothing about the cause. Fannie is completely ignored. Why? Because he was the one who instigated the entire mess, having sex with Herb Moses who created the Title One loans. As banking commissioner he pressured banks to give loans to people who couldn’t pay.
This is why Thoreau or Jefferson said “That government is best which governs least” and why conservatives want as little of it as possibly. It has become a den of corruption that feeds off the people rather than serve the people. The great divide between left and right is about the role of government.
Government is a necessary evil, but these days most of it is unnecessary.
Report comment to moderator
“Why is it a good strategy to have politicians decide the corporate winners and losers, rather than the market, i.e. the people?”
Cause it’s what China does…officially
Instead, the consumer should decide who wins and loses.
Report comment to moderator
I was just thinking about the “tea party” today.
I’ve heard it said that, where “tea partiers” perceived Republicans as failing to govern constitutionally, they would even throw them overboard in favor of Democrat challengers.
If that is, in fact, what they say, don’t believe it.
We’ll see if John McCain feels the long-overdue heat in AZ.
Report comment to moderator
There are fewer government employees today than when Bush left office. The private sector has created more jobs under Obama than during both Bush terms. Obama cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers.
The deficit wouldn’t be significantly smaller if McCain had been elected, but unemployement would have tipped past 15%. We would be in depression instead of recovery.
Rather than spending $8 billion a month in Afghanistan, McCain would be spending $16, and he’s be angling to bomb Iran, which would add another $ trillion to the debt.
Obama spared the financial industry the hostile takeover which the rules of capitalism allowed. He didn’t pick winners and losers, the market did that, and delivered the banks and investment companies to the government for a song. Obama followed the Bush economic policy in making strategic investments in the losers (TARP then GM & Chrysler) in order to prevent wholesale liquidation and depression. Unfortunately, Obama was too abstemious in the demands he made in return for money, but he didn’t want XION to call him a socialist.
Obama betrayed progressive principles of universal health care and let wall street have its way. The left is angry with him. Culturally, O. opposes gay marriage. He stalled DADT, and declined to sic the Justice Department on war criminals and Wall Street theives.
Here’s my point: Obama would be a center right president if — if — there was such a thing as “center right.” What happens, though, is that the farther to the center the Democratic party moves, the farther right the Republicans go. Independents, who are dumb as herds, move right.
The only solution is for liberal democrats to renounce governance and operate as a minority party in vicious opposition, demanding 60-40 concessions from ruling Republicans. This is the only way to force Republicans to the “center.”
Returning to the minority will give senate Democrats the opportunity to demand the end of the filibuster. The Republicans will refuse, of course, which could give Democrats populist winds again.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
but about the conservative desire for less government and the progressive desire for more.
more or less gov’t isn’t really the issue. I would contend that size doesn’t matter but rather how the gov’t is being used that is important — more specifically for whom is it being used. When conservative politicians champion small gov’t its a rhetorical device — gov’t policy should benefit their base.
Both left and right would like to shrink the gov’t in so much as a particular gov’t policy benefits their opponents base. The difference for me is that the left’s base in the working people whereas the conservative base is the corporate elite (which in America is aligned with social conservatives)
Practically all benefits he has signed into law have given special benefits to unions not available to anyone else.
Yes this aligns with his base just like Republicans would subcontract work out to friendly private corporations (KBR, Haliburtonm etc) However I also think a pro-union policy makes sense as unions help create and maintain a middle class.
Report comment to moderator
Why is it a good strategy to have politicians decide the corporate winners and losers, rather than the market, i.e. the people?
Its not. And the left has opposed corporate welfare strenuously. And no the Democratic party isn’t on the left side of the political spectrum. However, we would be blind not to notice the effects of gov’t infrastructure decisions on the financial; health of corporations. The placement of highways, transit routes, communication systems etc. go a long way in determining corporate winners and losers. Not to mention gov’t defense contracts.
So what to do? Obviously, transportation and communication decisions should be made with the nation’s interest not corporate interest but with the way localism dominates American politics individual politicians will fight for their constituents and local corporate interests instead. Gov’t contracts should awarded via a open bidding process but that rarely happens becasue politicians want to bring home the pork. To use a Cdn example, our federal Conservative gov’t just awarded a military aircraft contract without competitive bidding. Now it happens that this will benefit areas known to vote Conservative. Obviously they have decided a corporate winner.
Now I don’t see a way around the gov’ts influence in this matter perhaps you could suggest one. But I would think it would be appropriate to use the gov’t purchasing power to get the best possible deal for the workers involved and for the gov’t budget. The Bush passed pharma bill is an example where this wasn’t adhered to and corporate winners were made. In Obama’s favouring union workplaces, at least a living wage is being favored. The only corporate winner is one who respects his workers.
I’m not sure how Barney Frank is responsible for the fiscal ineptitude of Wall Street.
Report comment to moderator
If you read today’s news, you will learn that there is a ton of money in company’s that have nothing to do with investing and banking. They are hoarding it because they don’t know what’s coming — we’ll see what happens after the election.
Barney Frank is responsible for Fannie and Freddie. He knew and did nothing about the bundling — and I’m not talking about the old colonial bundling.
Report comment to moderator
f you read today’s news, you will learn that there is a ton of money in company’s that have nothing to do with investing and banking. They are hoarding it because they don’t know what’s coming — we’ll see what happens after the election.
Both the left and right are aware of this and are not impressed.
Barney Frank is responsible for Fannie and Freddie. He knew and did nothing about the bundling — and I’m not talking about the old colonial bundling.
Is he the only one to know? Was he the only one who could’ve stopped it? If he drew up new regulations would he gain support? Was he the one who created the regulations to allow this? Was he encouraging bundling?
I’m sure he had something to do with it but to hold only him responsible is wrong. Perhaps a look at the economic ideology which abhorred regulation is a better starting point to assign blame.
Report comment to moderator
#36 HRW Your answer to my question is, “Its not. And the left has opposed corporate welfare strenuously.”
You have got to be kidding. I gave examples where the president is picking winners and losers. You say it is not good, but that is what politicians do. In a free market the best ideas bubble to the top. In a politicized market the most corrupt rise to the top, i.e. the ones with the most connections and influence and money.
What do you think of the president going around endorsing companies and products based not on their quality, but on who knows whom?
#35 HRW “more or less gov’t isn’t really the issue. I would contend that size doesn’t matter but rather how the gov’t is being used that is important”
Of course. Size refers to reach of power, not number of employees. Big government is one that has too much power, it has overreached. The debate between the left and right is about the role of government.
A libertarian wants the government to have very little power and influence. Liberals want government to have enormous power in order to “change the world for good” by force of law. Libertarians are willing to have a world that may be less “perfect”, but more free.
” And no the Democratic party isn’t on the left side of the political spectrum.”
Wow, I am not sure how to answer that. Are the Democrats right-wing from your point of view?
I’m not sure how Barney Frank is responsible for the fiscal ineptitude of Wall Street.
No one said that. I explained this pretty well I think. There were three sides to the collapse, i.e. the mortgage industry which was guaranteed to fail, the insurance and finance companies who bet it wouldn’t, and the smart investors who knew what was happening and bet on a sure thing.
Barney not only failed to oversee the mortgage industry he played a major role in its failure on several fronts. He was right to go after the insurance companies who sold insurance which they could not pay on, but not one politician has done anything, zero, zip, nada, zilch to address the fundamental problem with the mortgage industry.
Report comment to moderator
I knew it!
Scientists Have Just Discovered a Liberal Gene
Report comment to moderator
The antidote to Gerrymandering is term limits.
I believe that if more issues were on ballot initiative, you’d have more involved citizenry. That tends to be the case in states where you have the freedom to get initiative and referenda on the ballot. Odd cuz even in the states that allow citizens to be in charge ballot access aint easy to pull off.
I was surprised to learn that a major backer of the Arizona immigrant enforcemt law is the “privatized prison industry”. The PPI has a few former lobbyists who work for the Ariz Gov Jan Brewer. Of course if the state begins arresting folks who’ve violated FEDERAL LAW, the arrestees will need to be confined in a Fed prison? And of course the privatized prison folks who helped engineer passage of the Immigration Bill there in AZ are the folks who will build and staff the facilities in which the illegals will be confined pending their deportation back to old Mexico.
So things aint always as they seem.
Of the TEA party spokesmen–and really there are none– former Congressman Dick Armey seems to be the one who best explains the great frustration folks have with so-called Republicans like Princess Murkowski etc
Report comment to moderator
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were more or less owned by the big money interests. Conveniently both men chaired or sat on committees which were tasked with overseeing/regulating financial giants. They lied and said all was well; they may or may not have known otherwise. It could’ve been a case of purposeful ignorance like the semi driver who truly has no idea his rig is loaded with dope.
The regulated businesses went right along with the charade and lied back to the Congressman and Senator.
It’s all there in the records for anyone willing to dig for it.
Report comment to moderator
I think the YouTube media has been a great thing for exposing the arrogant and disconnected pols in our nation
Report comment to moderator
#15 Arcadia,
One thing I was concerned about was brought up a few days back by Limbaugh. The official incumbent R men in Congress are telling the TEA-backed candidates that the incumbents/leaders will gladly give the TEA-backed Candidates (TBC’s from here on) their admin staff. So all you TBC folks! Dont worry about bringing along campaign staff to DC. No need! We’ve got insider pros here waiting to come into your office and help you navigate the sticky wicket of legislation.
These veteran staffers will in essence be spies provided by the GOP old Guard to keep tabs on the newbies.
A healthy developmt??
Report comment to moderator
The market picked the winners and losers and then Obama bought the losers with money the winners gave him. He thus protected his revenues and is turning a (small) profit.
This is how freedom is supposed to work. The Constitution gives the government the freedom to wheel and deal, and George, Alexander, and Thomas give the government the historical precedent. Barack is following tradition, which conservatives judge to be a virtue.
The financial industry lost its capital (or it’s prospects of preserving its capital). Barack didn’t take it. The financial industry might possibly have survived the crash, but the entire economy was at risk. That was a gamble the holders of capital refused to take. Consequently, people with great stacks of money chose (freely, at auctions) to give their money (practically for free) to Obama so that he could acquire (a controlling stake in) the financial industry.
Barack could have made a killing. Andrew Mellon is shaking his skull. Andrew would not accuse Barack of being a socialist, he would accuse Barack of lacking rocks.
XION’s analysis breaks down with his improper use of the verb, “to pick.” Obama didn’t appoint the losers, he recognized the losers and exploited their residual value when nobody else would. That’s the capitalist version of “picking winners and losers.”
Report comment to moderator
Your answer to my question is, “Its not. And the left has opposed corporate welfare strenuously.” You have got to be kidding. I gave examples where the president is picking winners and losers.
Perhaps Obama is picking winners and losers but you were asking for a leftist view — Obama is not a leftist. If he lean left at all he would have nationalized the banking industry when he bailed it out.
In a free market the best ideas bubble to the top. In a politicized market the most corrupt rise to the top, i.e. the ones with the most connections and influence and money.
This would explain Haliburton’s success despite their shoddy product.
However, I don’t think you would argue that NIH and CDC don’t produce good ideas. Frequently, arm’s length gov’t corporation do produce good ideas esp when the research is long term and does not produce short term profits which the modern publicly traded company needs above all — short term profit.
The debate between the left and right is about the role of government.
Libertarians are an outlier here. The left and right both agree there is a role for gov’t. In practise the right supports gov’t roles in infrastructure, business subsidies, etc and to satisfy their social conservative allies they also argue for a gov’t role in health care decisions, drug and alcohol use, morality, etc. The left of course also argue for a gov’t role but is more open about it and wishes to use the gov’t to correct the excesses of capitalism and to stabilize the boom and bust cycle.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, I am not sure how to answer that. Are the Democrats right-wing from your point of view?
The short answer is yes. There are a few Democrats that may lean left — Kuscinich, Sanders come to mind. But the DLC and the Democratic elite are on the right.
The political compass is an interesting web site that rates various politicians in various countries. Its well worth a visit to see how far to the right American politics leans. There’s also a quiz which you can take that places you on their compass. I took the quiz and was placed on the extreme left bottom corner which makes me an aracho-communists (or libertarian socialist). The only historical figure near me is Ghandi and the Dalia Lama. The link will take you to a page placing American 2008 presidential candidates.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
Report comment to moderator
41
Term limits are appealing but I always wonder why people seem to think politician needs term limits as opposed to any other occupation. We don’t have term limits for other occupations because we value the experience they bring to work. I’m a much better teacher after 10 years than in my first year and I’m sure this would apply to many politicians in being an effective representative.
To fix gerrymander is simple. Legislation should be passed stating that all districts must be based on natural, municipal or traditional boundaries. More or less this is the Canadian approach and yes this produces safe seats but it also produces competitive seats when demographics change and the boundaries can’t be moved.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!