September 29, 2008

Rebirth of the Hoover Republicans

So, is the House Republican opposition to the bailout package a resurgence of Hoover Republicans, the Great Depression era ideologues whose anti-government policies no doubt led to the economic chaos of the 1930s—and whose hostility to The New Deal posed the most serious political threat to economic recovery of Roosevelt’s first term?

Yes, and the connection is a bit too close for comfort.

As FDR ramped up his New Deal reforms in 1934 a group of radical, laissez-faire writers, politicians, and business leaders formed the American Liberty League. For a short time it became the intellectual brain trust of the Republican opposition in congress. As summarized by a sympathetic historian, David Pietrusza (cribbing from “liberal” historian George Wolfskill), the league advanced,

a remarkably coherent libertarian position. They believed, he said, that the New Deal was a threat to the Constitution and represented a danger of tyranny via centralization; that it was based on coercion, deceit, and false economic principles: that recovery was in fact retarded by government intervention; that government agricultural controls were “a cure worse than the disease”; that the New Deal combined aspects of socialist and fascist economic systems; that private enterprise was being damaged; that deficit financing and high spending threatened the nation with inflation; and that the banking community was now under the political control of the federal government.

Statements by American Liberty League spokesmen were of a solid anti-statist cast. Howard Pew lashed into planned economies, charging that they lead to “lower living standards, national decay and the sacrifice of liberty... whether the dictator is a usurper by force or is elected under the forms of popular government.” Journalist Neil Carothers charged: “The materials for a disastrous inflation have been built up, and no one knows when these inflammable materials will be set ablaze. Our currency measures have disorganized foreign trade, cruelly embarrassed the gold standard countries of Europe, deepened the misery of China, and retarded recovery the world over.”

In their view, Roosevelt was a democratically elected dictator—an authoritarian whose “socialist” policies would ultimately destroy American capitalism. Of course, as most historians agree, the New Deal actually propped up American capitalism (a point once made disparagingly by numerous New Left historians of the 1960 such as Howard Zinn).

So, what ever happened to the American Liberty League? Though they disbanded after a short life, they still became the intellectual grandfather of and prototype for the business sponsored conservative think tank, the most notable current example of which is The American Enterprise Institute. The brain stust of the class of Reagan Republicans who today brought the world economy close to the brink of collapse.

Posted by stevemack at 06:06 PM | Comments (0)

September 22, 2008

The 700 Billion Dollar End of Reaganism

The 700 billion Wall Street bailout represents the end of Reaganism—the second installment of a two-part historical drama.

Reaganism was, from the outset, a political and cultural reaction to the New Deal. When the banks failed in 1933, at the start of FDR’s first term, and Congress pushed for a depositor insurance plan to rescue troubled institutions, it’s worth noting that the president himself was deeply skeptical. His fear was that insurance would essentially protect irresponsible bankers. Well, perhaps it did—but it did so by directly addressing the needs and interests of individual citizens. It also pulled the rug from under laissez-faire orthodoxy that had rationalized wild and destructive boom-bust swings in the American economy since the Civil War, replacing it with a comfort for sensible economic regulation that lasted until the Reagan years. Then, of course, the mindless mantra became ‘government is not the solution to the problem—it IS the problem.’

Anti-government Reaganism has been a two-headed hydra, with both economic and pop culture strains. Though related, however, each has had something of a life—and perhaps death—of its own. When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, they campaigned on an anti-government economic platform, the “Contract With America”. But the political energy behind its success was considerably more emotional, more pop-culturish. Anti-government sentiment was palpable and virulent, expressed in everything from hostility to the postal service to subterranean sympathy for a host of militant crackpot religious sects. Bill Clinton capitalized on that energy (or co-opted it) when he announced in his 1996 State of the Union message that “the era of big government is over.” He won reelection ten months later. But in retrospect, he probably didn’t need to: what was really over was the anti-government pop culture. It had reached it’s zenith the previous year, on April 19th, to be exact: The day Timothy McVeigh pushed anti government ideology into the psychotic stratosphere and blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. For the first time in a generation the government had human faces—and human babies. Principled skepticism of unbridled government power did not become less philosophically defensible, but visceral and reflexive hatred of government did. Postal service jokes just weren’t quite as funny anymore.

But the other hydra head, the Laissez-Faire economics of Reaganism, has continued to limp along. Years after the Oklahoma bombing, deregulation-lite in the Clinton Administration and the more toxic variety practiced by the Bush crowd has proceeded unchecked by any countervailing economic wisdom with political or cultural muscle. Now, of course, things have come full circle: As Wall Street comes with its tin cup to Congress it does so with the implicit—and sometimes explicit—admission that it needs regulation after all.

I imagine that a bailout of some description is the right thing to do. But I’m also glad—or at least hopeful—that something of Franklin Roosevelt’s skeptical spirit is still alive in his party. As the NY Times reports on the negotiations thus far:

The Senate Democrats’ proposals includes two bold provisions. One would grant the Treasury "contingent shares" of stock in any financial institution that wants to sell bad debt to the government; the other would grant bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, a step aimed at helping homeowners at risk of foreclosure.

The bankruptcy provision is staunchly opposed by the banking, lending and securities industries and by many Republicans in Congress, but Democrats insist that it is one of the few mechanisms to provide direct assistance to homeowners caught in the foreclosure crisis.
The contingent shares would give taxpayers an equity stake in companies seeking help through the rescue program, potentially allowing the government not only to recoup however much of the $700 billion it spends on bad debt, but also to profit should the financial firms prosper in years ahead. The legislation would require the value of the contingent shares to equal the value of the assets purchased by the government.

The 44-page Senate proposal, pulled together by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and the chairman of the banking committee, would require the Treasury to run the rescue plan through a new "Office of Financial Stability" to be headed by an assistant treasury secretary. It would also establish an "Emergency Oversight Board" to monitor the bailout effort, made up of the Fed Chairman; the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and two non-government employees with "financial expertise" in the public and private sectors, one each appointed by the majority and minority leadership in Congress.

Bold indeed. Nothing like it since the New Deal.

Posted by stevemack at 06:15 PM | Comments (0)

September 15, 2008

A Putin Of Our Own

In a post titled "Crooked Talk," Reason magazine's Steve Chapman asks:

Why does McCain insist on running such a mendacious campaign? There is plenty an honest conservative might say in opposition to Obama: He's wrong about Iraq. He's wrong about Iran. He's wrong about offshore oil drilling. He wants to raise taxes. He favors abortion on demand. He would appoint liberal judges. He would impede school reform.

But McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Obama isn't enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe.

He has charged repeatedly that his opponent is willing to lose a war to win an election. What's McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so consequential as a war. Just his soul.

I cannot think of another time in presidential election history when the fabrications of a major party nominee were so egregeous that they drew nearly unanamous condemnation from all quarters of the press, irrespective of ideological investment. In fact, the press reaction has itself become a sidebar story. Now, increasingly, the story has moved from "whether" to "why," as chapman's comment illustrate. Answers range from desperation, as Chapman formulates it, to shrewd but cynical calculation (see Edsall, for example) to Andrew Sullivan’s notion that the man has simply “lost it.” That last idea may be attractive for some because of the paradoxical subtext of this debate—the vaunted and also universally accepted notion of McCain’s “high honor.” We’d expect this of Nixon, or the Clintons, the line runs—but not war hero John McCain!

Well, let me propose another interpretation, one both consistent with McCain’s take on honor and, at the same time, more disconcerting than other explanations. I’ll call it the “Strongman McCain Narrative.”

One of the more curious things about McCain’s behavior is not that he’s lying, but that he is so brazenly indifferent to being caught. Days after the Palin “bridge to nowhere” canard had been exposed, he continued to repeat it himself (and license his running mate to do the same), and days after his feigned umbrage over Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment was ridiculed for being baseless and trivial, he defended it on The View. Though I’m sure McCain would be quite happy to have these and other lies believed by a large section of the voting public, it also seems that he’s not terribly concerned if they don’t. There’s not the push back one might expect—just newer, outrageous, lies. In most formulations, such conduct is evidence of a character defect. But for the strongman—and those who long for him—brazen and audacious lying is an instrumental virtue. It’s proof that he has the cold, steely nerve to do and say whatever is necessary to achieve power. Indeed, it’s evidence that his resolve cannot be weakened by conscience.

The strongman narrative, even the softer, American version, is one that presents it’s central character as one constitutionally incapable of loosing. He will crush anybody in a bar fight because he is willing to bleed to death in the attempt. He presents himself as the man who has the will and tenacity to beat Romney’s millions and Obama’s crowds. Likewise, it seems to say, he is the man who has the balls to pound Putin into submission.

Indeed, he too sees a soul when he looks into Putin’s eyes. It’s one he recognizes very well.

Posted by stevemack at 03:05 PM | Comments (0)

September 06, 2008

The Palin E-Mail

The following is self explanitory. Read the full version.

About Sarah Palin: an e-mail from Wasilla A suburban Anchorage homemaker and activist — who once did battle with the Alaska governor when Palin was mayor — recounts what she knows of Palin's history.

By Anne Kilkenny

Editor's note: The writer is a homemaker and education advocate in Wasilla, Alaska. Late last week, Anne Kilkenny penned an e-mail for her friends about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, whom she personally knows, that has since circulated across comment forums and blogs nationwide. Here is her e-mail in its entirety, posted with her permission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Gov. Sarah Palin since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first-name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99 percent of the residents of the city.

Continue reading "The Palin E-Mail"

Posted by stevemack at 09:54 AM | Comments (0)

September 05, 2008

McCain's Missed Opportunity

I’m hardly a neutral observer, but McCain’s acceptance speech last night was a sad thing to watch. It’s not that the policies were stale Republican boilerplate (go with what you got, I guess), nor is it that he’s simply a weak public performer (speaking ability is neither the only nor the best judge of leadership). And, though they were amusing to watch, the surprisingly amateurish stagecraft (green screen; Walter Reed Middle School?) shouldn’t count against him personally. Moreover, the protestors who interrupted him gave me no pleasure—in fact, I might be willing to give him a couple of sympathy points: on this occasion (if few others) he deserves an unfettered chance to make his case. Or, perhaps more precisely, we deserve to hear whatever case he has to make. No, the real problem here was the speech itself. It was an absolute mess.

The speech’s centerpiece, of course, was his POW story. It is in all candor an extremely powerful story, one that I find very moving. It is an exquisite illustration of personal strength and both moral and physical courage. And it testifies (albeit incompletely) to the man’s depth of character and patriotism—things that are wholly appropriate to consider in weighing someone’s fitness for office. But—and here’s the point—personal fitness for office cannot be the only argument one makes for their candidacy. The people should (and generally do) cast their vote based on policy or political ideology. To be relevant, meaningful, and, indeed, effective, personal stories must also connect organically to a candidate’s public vision. McCain’s story didn’t. And the fact that it didn’t is either a rhetorical or a political problem—or both.

Here's the key section of the speech:

When they brought me back to my cell, I was hurt and ashamed, and I didn't know how I could face my fellow prisoners. The good man in the cell next door, my friend, Bob Craner, saved me. Through taps on a wall he told me I had fought as hard as I could. No man can always stand alone. And then he told me to get back up and fight again for our country and for the men I had the honor to serve with. Because every day they fought for me.

Now, this is the perfect pivot point. He could either have turned the story outward, making it about more than himself, making it about politics and policy. Or he could have turned it back inward, making it about himself. To make it about politics and policy, he might have said something like:

Now, my fellow Americans, those brave men who held me up did not do so because they were commanded to by military edict. They didn’t save my life because there was some tax advantage in it. And they didn’t do it because we all worked for the same American government. They did, pure and simple, because they were Americans and that’s what Americans do. An enemy government may have bound us, but it was our love of country, of freedom, of each other that brought us together. I learned that day that no government can blah blah blah. And that real Americans who love their country and each other can blah blah blah. Today, I’m calling for a new spirit of Volunteerism blah blah blah).

Well, he could have said that. But he actually said:

I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn't my own man anymore. I was my country's.

That is, it's all about me.

Posted by stevemack at 01:06 PM | Comments (0)