Glenn Greenwald at Salon succinctly lays out what the bailout failure represents politically, in my opinion. Rejection of a corrupt ruling class. Here's some of his take, with mine below:
...
It's true that we don't live in a direct democracy where every last decision by elected officials must conform to majoritarian desire, nor should we want that. In general, elected officials should exercise judgment independent of -- in ways that deviate from -- majority views. But the opposite extreme is what we have and it is just as bad --
a system where the actions of elected officials are dictated by a tiny cabal of self-interested oligarchs which fund, control and own the branches of government and willfully ignore majority opinion in all cases (except to manipulate it).
Moreover, even in a model of representative rather than direct democracy, the more consequential an action is -- should we start a war? should we burden the entire nation with close to a trillion dollars in debt in order to bail out Wall Street? -- the greater the need is to have the consent of the governed before undertaking it. From all quarters, Americans heard the arguments in favor of the bailout -- "agree to have this debt piled on your back for decades or else face certain doom" -- and they rejected it, decisively, at least for now.
Anyone arguing that their views should be ignored, that their judgment be overridden by the decree of the wiser, superior ruling class (see David Brooks and Kevin Drum as good examples), is simply endorsing the continuation of the predominant framework for how our country has been run for the last decade, at least. Whatever else that is, there's nothing "wise" about that framework. Even if one believes in principle that the country is best entrusted to the elevated wisdom of a magnanimous and superior ruling class, and that majoritarian opinion should be systematically ignored, our ruling class -- the one we actually have -- is anything but wise and magnanimous.
It's bloated, incestuous, reckless, inept, self-interested, endlessly greedy and corrupt at its core. Ye shall know them by their fruits. It's hard to imagine anything less wise than continuing to submit to its dictates.
Liberation from -- one could say "destruction of" -- the system run by that ruling establishment class is of critical importance. Yesterday's rejection of their decree, on such a momentous matter, was a shocking first step towards that objective (and the doom and panic of yesterday has given rise to calm and even optimism today, as those with cash have taken advantage of the market drop of yesterday and, around the world, are madly buying). There may be, almost certainly will be, even greater financial distress in the near future, and perhaps Americans will come to view these matters differently. But regardless of whether yesterday's bailout was a good idea on the merits, the defeat -- for now -- of those who have enjoyed an unbroken (and ill-deserved) line of victories is something that ought to be cheered.
More
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/30/bailout/index.html">here.
All great points, although I would add that...
I don't see this necessarily as a left/right, Republican/Democratic, or even ownership class/working class issue, although it includes elements of all of the above.
Rather I see this as an
incredulous/credulous issue.
The debate here on DU, for instance, seems
more about who you believe than about economic policy. Whom does one TRUST? The answer to that question seems to dictate where one falls on the bailout.
On one hand, people who uncritically accept the pronouncements of respected pols like Paul Krugman or Barack Obama will support this bailout. And that's quite understandable, as those guys are often, though not always, right.
On the other hand, cynics like me, who question almost everything said by members of our political and pundit class will more likely oppose this bailout. We tend to accept the Chomsky proposition that one doesn't achieve a position of any influence in our corrupted system without tacitly agreeing to operate within a rather limited framework of establishment opinion. We therefore trust nothing.
That, in my view, is the BIG distinction. Do you fundamentally trust our leaders - of either Party or in the media - or do you not.
I just don't.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
