Have you been watching the news and wondering what to make of the bailout talk? It seems people know they should be concerned and know they should be talking about it but still aren’t quite sure what it all means.
I had to double check my radio presets today when a popular morning radio show abandoned their usual crass jokes to have a very deliberate discussion of the financial news. They were talking about banks lending to banks (or refusing to), the rates involved, and how that filtered down to your “easy credit” line at the local electronics store. However deep the analysis was or wasn’t, it’s clear people are working hard to make sense of the news at every peak and valley.
Old reels from the Great Depression are getting air time on the nightly news! I wouldn’t be surprised to find out my mom had started stockpiling peanut butter like my Granny once did. There was some sense of comfort, however, in a belief that Congress, the President…someone…was on the verge of doing what was now necessary.
Then the House of Representatives voted and we were all on a different sort of edge. David Brooks approaches the failed vote with a question about poltiical authority…
What we need in this situation is authority. Not heavy-handed government regulation, but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up.
Recall an argument about needing energy in government? As much as I’m concerned about the financial news, David Brooks’s article has an even more frightening conclusion, “The American century was created by American leadership, which is scarcer than credit just about now.”
The top issues in this election descend as: economy, war, health care, environment, and—quite a ways back this cycle—immigration and education. We’re in crisis deep, and we need deep leadership. (I love the quote, by the way.)
These issues can all be blamed upon poor government. Economy, health care, and environment woes stem largely from lack of regulation; while immigration and education stand as orphans, either too politically prickly or too long-term in investment. Some sort of retribution was probably inevitable following 9/11, but trillions of dollars later we’re caught up in a Carl Spackler strategy of blowing up nations rather than getting in to ferret out terrorist gophers.
The Executive pull continues to whup Congress. Is this a flaw in the Constitution; were resolutions meant to usurp war-declaration powers? Will a TR figure step up to tame Wall Street, or might it be a Senator?
With energy in government and strong leadership, these crises can be solved, especially since some of them are interwoven, i.e. energy and environment. But what will that take? Are the people so disconnected from their role that they choose to call in to the radio show, rather than their representatives..?
I believe we had our first real Constitutional moment during Wednesday’s final Presidental debate. In one of the final questions of the night Bob Schieffer, asked both candidates,”Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on Roe V Wade?”
McCain answers: “I thought it was a bad decision. I think there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions should rest in the hands of the states. I’m a federalist”
But someone should have told McCain thats not federalism, thats devolution. The devaluing of the national structure in order for the oppresive majority to legally occur. And that his view in this case is actually antifederal, McCain believes that states should be able to vote the way they want so the majority of the individual states, can overrule rghts that all Americans agree are found in the Constitution.( the blue box is more important then the purple box)
Obama answered the question in this manner “And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn’t be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote.”
Now we have a true federalist answer. That the majority cannot be oppresive to the supermajority. That our government is designed not to support the majority, but guarantee the rights of the supermajority. That Purple is greater then the blue box.
I am glad that we finally had 3 minutes out of three hours, where there was at least an attempt to actually deal with the governing document of this country.
Bravo!! Excellent point!
Federalist Teacher,
I’ve been coming back to your point again to note its application to what’s going on right now with gay rights. Most politicians want to make it a states’ issue.
Anti-federalism seems to be the perfect scapegoat.