Nearly a month ago, I placed myself on the fence in the 2008 election. Several weeks later, I’m coming off that fence, and this is the first of several posts explaining my reasoning.
I spent much of yesterday morning writing and calling various Representatives, trying to voice my support for congressional members who will stand up against the madness that has suffused Washington. And while it was the House Republicans, primarily, who voted down Monday’s bail-out bill, I was only reaching out yesterday to Democrats: specifically, the Blue Dogs.
I am absolutely outraged by the massively adorned Senate bill, which is filled with sops and pet projects, and tax breaks that — however worthy — can’t be paid for. But in spite of the Blue Dogs’ highly-vaunted commitment to Pay-Go, I have zero hope that they’ll stand up today when the House votes. The concept of fiscal responsibility is an archaic footnote — an aberration in the long-established norms of power-infused spending orgies and irresponsible excess.
History books are filled with governments like these, underscoring the lesson somehow never learned: history is doomed to repeat itself.
I’ve vacillated in recent days between despair and rage. Powerless and voiceless, I’ve been feeling as if I can only watch these final chapters be written. There’s nothing to be done; the problem’s too big, and the moral decline too steep. A 10 trillion dollar deficit, with a matching national debt, and as a result — a massive economic crisis that we cannot afford to stave off.
My very strong feeling is that we’ve spent ourselves into oblivion, and my only ray of hope is the tentative optimism every election offers… which brings me, at long last, to the point of my post.
Our current economic predicament is the result of failures at every level. From the President to ordinary families… from Wall Street to Main Street… from the Democrats to the Republicans… we’ve all been participating, directly or not, in this orgy. But while I’ve written at length in recent days about personal responsibility in the current mess, this society-wide spree was enabled — even encouraged — by the actions of our elected leaders. And I hold Congress most directly responsible.
The people sent to Washington to lead us have failed us across the board. In terms of our current crisis, it doesn’t matter what policies were advocated, or special interests were placated. What’s important is that our Senators and Representatives apparently thought they were spending play money, and they’ve broken the bank.
They’ve violated our trust profoundly, and however much they’re trying to point fingers elsewhere, they own a large chunk of the responsibility.
And we — the American people — have been lax. Yet while most people seem to agree that we need to “throw the bums out”, it’s always somebody else’s bum that’s the problem. That’s wrong.
These bums are our bums, and they’ve collectively brought this country to its knees. Unless that bum is an incumbent who has proven a commitment to paying for his or her policies — has, in fact, insisted upon it — that bum has to go.
There’s a lot more at stake in this election than the presidency — because leadership isn’t confined to the Oval Office.
Added: There’s a great discussion thread on my related TMV post, here.
America's Real Crisis: The Leadership Deficit
Leave a Reply
Read Next
I’ve been reflecting on Sarah Palin this afternoon. Given that the overboard reaction to her elevation to the Republican ticket is partly what made me put myself back on the fence for this election, what is it that I hope …
Via TMV, from The Politico: With visions of a massive liberal majority in the next Congress and the power to remake economic policy for the next generation, Democrats are dusting off their New Deal history books and openly discussing the …
Yo! Fellow Texans! Via memeorandum, here’s an interesting twist: The Libertarians are contending that the Democratic and Republican nominees are disqualified from appearing on the ballot because they missed the state’s Aug. 26 deadline to certify candidates. During the national …
I think it was Albert Einstein who defined insanity as doing the same thing again and again, and expecting different results. When it comes to the US Congress, Einstein would no doubt have considered American voters to be insane. We …
Excellent analysis, as usual.
Unfortunately, the candidate list for this election cycle is already fixed, and some of these Congresscritters (e.g. my current representative, Ms. Jackson-Lee) are pretty much assured re-election (though I will do my part to try and make her a FORMER representative. Believe me.). I think that, ultimately, we need to exercise far greater oversight of whoever gets elected – and make damned sure they know it.
~EdT.
Hi Ed — here in my district, it’s Ron Paul — perhaps the only member of Congress who has demonstrated fiscal restraint. Yet I’ve grown pretty frustrated with him, too. He’s an ideologue — a purist — who has neither flexibility nor stroke. In his many many years in Washington, he’s managed to change nothing.
OTOH, he’s running unopposed, and 2 years ago he won handily — against a Blue Dog, at that!
Thus, this year, I’m planning to gather up my available campaign dollars and start sending them around to other races, where toppling the incumbent would help.
You seem to be mixing the climate of fiscal irresponsibility of the last 8 years with the current crisis in the financial system, which is a big mistake.
The financial markets are not a wreck now because the government spent too much.
Both of these things are important issues. But when I read:
“In terms of our current crisis, it doesn’t matter what policies were advocated, or special interests were placated…”
my eyes just about popped out of my head.
Yes, it does matter.
In terms of the mounting national debt, it’s directly attributable to very specific policy choices. We have had choices, all along the way, about whether we should keep our national budget in line with tax revenue. We have had choices about how to use deficit spending (which is a valid, useful tool that can be a helpful part of fiscal policy). We have elected candidates who were crystal clear about their beliefs about these policy questions, and by and large they have done precisely what they said they’d do.
Turning to the financial crisis, it is, once again, a fairly predictable result of very specific policy decisions about how we regulate our financial markets to ensure transparency for investors. We have chosen to give financial institutions unprecendented latitude in the kinds of financial instruments they create and simultaneously made it harder for anyone to accurate evaluate the risks associated with their assets, and – surprise! – they took ridiculous risks, hid them from the markets, and things went bad. These are policies that began decades ago, accelerated (particularly in terms of regulatory issues) in the last decade, and have been widely written about the entire time. There is no big surprise here.
And these are precisely the kinds of policy issues that voters should be thinking about as they make their decisions.
The bailout itself is a set of very specific fiscal policy questions.
What you’re suggesting here – that this is somehow all beside the point – is madness, and a good prescription for more bad government, no matter who you candidate of choice is.
To then go on a jeremiad about Congress is silly. We have the Congress we chose. If we made that choice based on things other than policy questions, what do we expect? In terms of the bailout – the debate about it has been so fatuous because voters have no tolerance for anything besides “Main Street vs Wall Street” platitudes that don’t begin to address how we got where we are, or whether it will keep us from coming right back to this point.
In terms of the national budget, once again, voters have consciously chosen candidates whose platform was to drive up the national debt by running deficitts without any economically productive activity to show for it.
Now, whose fault is it that we get what we’ve got now?
I hear often that these issues are just too complex for voters, and that’s BS. No, most of us aren’t trained in the fine details of financial systems and fiscal policy. But honestly, the basic issues here are not so complicated that a reasonably informed person can’t spend a little time reading about them and making sense of them and reaching a reasonably informed opinion.
It’s the fault of Congress that we choose our representatives based on the latest scandal, or who we can relate to in some emotional way, or who loves Jesus more, or who uses the right inclusive language, regardless of actual policy views?
That’s a cop-out.
John — I agree totally that the policies leading to the current economic crisis have been cumulative. However, I include the current problems in the larger condemnation of Congress because they’re symbiotic. Even without the mortgage market meltdown — even if rational regulations had been in place, Congress has been functioning like a teenager with a limitless Visa card.
As a result, we don’t have the resources to slow — much less stop — the economic derailment.
Furthermore, “we” didn’t choose an entire Congress. “We” each chose one, or two, or even three of them, individually. Collectively, they’ve slipped the leash.
If they’ve slipped the leash, we’ve declined to put back in over and over again. And if you look at how voters make decisions, what information they consider, etc. you don’t see much in the way of regional differences. There’s no part of the country that’s all that different.
I’m sorry, but your idea that we should only vote for them “if they agree to pay for their programs” is just not something that a voter faced with a specific choice can do much useful with. Even the most responsible legislators are faced with practical decisions: I hate this budget, but it’s the best we will get. We are running a deficit, but the alternative is to cut programs in ways that will have disastrous impacts on people – or will become fodder for my opponent, who will succeed because voters won’t bother to dig into the issues. And so on, and so on.
I also think it’s pretty questionable to make “not running a deficit” the sole criterion. I think legislator’s ideas about what consitutes an appropriate regulatory environment, Constitutional principles, and so on are important too.
Every road you follow comes to the same thing: voters who vote for people who do things they don’t want them to do. And your suggestion that we not worry about the details seems like a good way to get more of the same.
You’re right on the mark. I have one question. Which of these two BUMS do you think will bring more fiscal responsibility back to Washington?