In what is now my third installment on this subject, (see the first and second), I would like to continue to challenge the intellectually deficient notion that the bridge loan to the American auto manufacturers was defeated by those who were "ideological," and supported by those who were not "ideological." My ongoing contention is that everyone has a system of values, also known as an ideology. As such, the Senators who voted against the auto bridge loan simply attach higher value to things like destroying unions and punishing blue states more than they do to the economic well-being of the three million workers employed by the auto manufacturers. Thus, differences on the auto bailout arise from a differences between ideologies, not on the chic, but just flat-out wrong idea, that it is was caused by differences between those who have an ideology and those who do not.
We need to get used to the idea that when politicians vote in ways we do not like, it is not necessarily due to a lack of political courage in regards to the pressure they will feel for the vote, or because they are unaware of the potential consequences of their vote. Instead, it is often because they simply have different values, aka a different ideological outlook, from us. While it is attractive to believe either that "ideology" is simply an unwillingness to look at the facts, or that we all have the same values and disagree with one another only because of some form power-seeking politics, neither is the case. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise is offering you a deluded interpretation of how to deal with disagreement in our political system.
How this relates to the specific case of the bridge loan to the Big Three in the extended entry.
Eighteen of the Senators who opposed the $14 billion bridge loan to the auto manufacturers supported the $700 billion TARP program for the financial sector. These are clearly not Senators who are opposed, as a general ideological principle, to large governmental loans to corporations. They are just opposed to this, smaller loan to the auto manufacturers. Thus, it was the nature of this loan, specifically the lack of concessions on the part of the UAW, which they opposed: They didn't oppose bailouts--they opposed this bailout because it didn't do enough damage to unions:
As General Motors announced the temporary closure of 20 plants Friday, Republicans who fought a White House-backed bailout plan want Americans to blame the United Auto Workers and think about Rod Blagojevich.
The GOP strategy, previewed in an "action alert" sent by a Republican lobbyist and outlined by Republican aides, is based on the idea that the best defense is a good offense -- and the hope that the taint of the Illinois governor will rub off on organized labor.
"This is the Democrats' first opportunity to pay off organized labor after the election . . . a precursor to card check and other items," said the memo. "Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it."
The emphasized portion is about as clear a statement that Republicans simply valued destroying the UAW more than they valued the economic well-being of Big Three employees. This wasn't about ideologues not recognizing the consequences of their actions, as they knew perfectly well what they were doing. This was about a clash of values. The defeat of organized labor was expressly more important to these Republican Senators than the economic well-being of the three million employees of American auto manufactures. That is why eighteen Republican Senators who voted in favor of a $700 billion bridge loan to Wall Street opposed a $14 billion bridge loan to Detroit. On Wall Street, there aren't as many unions to destroy, but there is a financial sector that these Republicans value quite a bit.
Now, I grant that the thirteen Republicans who voted against both bailouts, plus Democrat Jon Tester who also voted against both bailouts, may simply be making a principled stand in opposition to these bridge loans. I will leave it for others to decide whether or not those fourteen should be considered "ideologues." Also, perhaps it was wrong for me to assign a singular motive to all thirty-five people who voted against the bridge loan. However, the bridge loan could not have been defeated without the support of the eighteen Senators who valued bailing out Wall Street, but who considered breaking the UAW to be more important than bailing out Detroit. In other words, the bridge loan was defeated primarily by Republicans who are not opposed to bridge loans in general, but who opposed this particular bridge loan because they value defeating unions more than they valued the recipient of the loans.
I know this may seem like an incredibly basic point to many, but political disagreements often happen because people have different values, not just because certain people are unaware of certain facts, or because of unseemly attempts to accrue more personal power. The auto industry bridge loan is no different. There are up to eighteen Republican Senators who are not ideologues, but who value breaking unions more than they value saving millions of jobs. We need to be willing to publicly express this disagreement over values, and not just because it hurts my brain to hear and read so many people implying that ideology itself is somehow a political problem. Rather, we need to be willing to express this disagreement of values because our values are more popular. Let's start naming values, both ours and theirs, and stop blaming our political disagreements on ideology itself.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
