Wednesday, October 1, 2008

George Will on Palin

John McCain's opponent is by far the least experienced person to receive a presidential nomination in the 75 years since the federal government became a comprehensively intrusive regulatory state and modern weaponry annihilated the protection the nation derived from time and distance. Which is why McCain's case for his candidacy could, until last Friday, be distilled into two words: Experience matters. [And yet] The man who would be the oldest to embark on a first presidential term has chosen as his possible successor a person of negligible experience.

Then again, he says, President James Buchanan had the best resume and possibly the worst record. You also need, Will says, character and "a braided mental rope of constitutional sense and political common sense."

And then, Palin seems to be the only one who gives the Madisonian answer to what limits government power ("the federal government's powers are limited because they are enumerated").

In 1912, McCain's Arizona became the 48th state. In 1959, Palin's Alaska became the 49th. Western conservatism has the libertarian cast of a region still steeped in an individualism natural to frontier spaciousness. But American conservatism depends on what it calls "fusion," the collaboration of libertarians and social conservatives concerned that liberty unleavened by restraints creates a licentious culture. Palin supposedly is fusion in one person.



For Republicans: 1932 or 1964?

Unfortunately, he has a point.
If McCain loses the election, each of the three main conservative factions will have a case to make about the others' failure. The war the neocon dreamers cooked up turned out to be a disaster, one in which virtually every Republican was implicated. Future Democrats will only need to say, "Oh yeah? Well you thought the Iraq War was a good idea!" in order to put Republicans on their heels. The Palin pick will no doubt be seen as one of the worst in memory, more embarrassing than even Quayle, offering a rebuke to every social conservative who embraced her with such lip-quivering joy. And the economic disaster that came right before the 2008 election convinced nearly the entire country that deregulation failed, the free market can't be left to its own devices, and government must be the guarantor of economic security.

In other words, all the pillars that have held up conservatism for so long are crumbling. When the dust settles, it will be difficult to know just what it means to be a conservative. Is a conservative who doesn't proclaim the perfection of the free market and the evil of government still a conservative? What about a conservative who thinks his comrades ought to quit yapping about gay marriage and get into the 21st century? What about a conservative who wants to accede to the public's desire for a less bellicose foreign policy?

One of the right's greatest strengths in the last few decades was that they knew precisely what the answers to these questions were (no, no, and no, in case you're wondering). But if they go down to defeat five weeks from now, they won't be so sure. And nothing is less appealing to the public than a political movement that doesn't know what it believes.

No Depression

In spite of yet another big bank failure (or, to the students of economic history, because of the manner of the non-bank failure of Wachovia, as it was bought out by another big bank with FDIC and Fed support), the Intelligent Investor questions the probability of a 2008 (-2009?) Depression.

Bankruptcy better than bailouts?

Perhaps so!
Martin Wolf's excellent recap
Bailout Would Impose Needless Economic Damage, says Daniel Mitchell
The House Republican were right to give us a heart attack, says National Review
Let the suckers go down!, says Jeffrey Miron

However, see this beautifully nuanced analogy at MacroBlog
And just to remind ourselves that the danger of inaction is a return of the anti-market forces of the 30s, read the American Prospect.

Senate set to vote tonight on new bailout bill: Yahoo! Finance

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081001/financial_meltdown.html

More FDIC insurance, tax breaks for businesses and middle-class
families, etc. Apparently constituents are beginning to warm up to the idea of the rescue.

Roosevelt talk on unstable economy oddly prescient: Yahoo! Finance

For a Roosevelt non-fan like me, the worst consequence of Hoover's inaction is that it created the perception that we needed Roosevelt. Let's not repeat the mistake.

Regulation and Unintended Consequences

Marking to market is a good idea, but beware of the unintended consequences of good ideas.

This article makes the same point, and many others (about Fannie and Freddie, about the repeal of Glass-Steagall), very well.