|
It seems like after an initial period of uncertainty by those of us who are not consummate economic experts (and even some who are, like Phd economists Duncan "Atrios" Black and Paul Krugman), the zeitgeist of the netroots has turned against the current direction of the bailout, and is coming to see it as a gigantic plunder. I agree.
Mainly my scepticism is based on having absolutely no faith in any of the chief actors responsible for making the decisions on how to resolve this. These are the disaster capitalists that Naomi Klein wrote about, and more specifically, this is the Bush White House where politics always dictates policy. The only questions I have is how they will take advantage of this crisis and then how to stop them. |
| Glancing at the deal, what strikes me is that the bill is not a plan, it is a hand-off of responsibility. What will Paulson do with this authority? Who knows?! As one of McCain's flacks noted, there is no need to actually write down plans. Just make Secretary Paulson the unquestioned Economic Tsar (in the full traditional meaning of the term) and consider democracy's job done.
The only way this can conceivably work, is as a massive psychological ploy to reassure the markets (and to that end, it is working, for now). Remember, these are the people who believe that:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
So it would be consistent for them to propose a solution which has no rational basis for success, and hope that a massive confidence game (aka a "con") will patch things up long enough to keep McCain in the game. Meanwhile, the kleptocrats get to dole out history's greatest plunder to their friends. It's win-win.
Obama's Dilemma
Ian Welsh at FDL is calling this Obama's "FDR Moment" and calling for Obama to soundly reject the deal. That's certainly the principled thing to do, and I'm inclined to agree at least on a moral level. However, there is a giant danger here as far as electoral politics goes: The Republican plan here is to use the stock market as a hostage, and force the Democrats to choose this terrible plan, or see the hostage "die" as markets will no doubt come crashing down if Democrats do not allow the Paulson blank check to get through.
On the other hand, Obama can allow the plan to get through, and have the consequences of it burden his Administration, possibly choking off the very options he will need in order to turn the nation around once in office. Digby often notes that the conservative movement can play long ball, and this is another example. They can tolerate a 1-term Obama administration as long as they can set it up for failure and then blame it for all the problems they created.
Still, Obama's best avenue for opposing this is the blank check aspect. After the Iraq AUMF, the well of faith in the goodwill of this Administration should be pretty damn low. Bush is riding at sub 30% approval, which I hope the strategy types in the Democratic party would be able to capitalize on in opposing this.
As for us, this is a game changing moment, and time for some "disaster liberalism" - people are ready to hear some new ideas, and we need to keep battering away at the decrepit Milton Friedman/Alan Greenspan ideas which precipitated this mess. That way, the Paulson deal, even if it passes could become the last gasp of a dying ideology. McCain isn't out there pretending to be in favour of regulation for his health: The zeitgeist is actually shifting. Let's give it a little extra shove. |
