Kevin Drum, on the opposition to the bailout bill:
The original opposition, after all, probably didn't reflect widespread sentiment so much as it did a narrow slice of highly motivated talk radio and Lou Dobbs fans.
David Sirota:
I'm scheduled to appear on CNN at 3:30pm EST to discuss the House's extraordinary vote to reject the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. What I'm going to say is pretty simple: it's clear that Congress is facing a full on revolt from both the Right and Left - the very revolt that I predicted in my book, The Uprising. No longer is this a populist revolt merely scaring Wall Street and Washington - this is a populist revolt that has, to quote Markos, crashed the gate, and it represents a real victory for the progressive movement and voices who said Hell No.
You know, I understand why Drum wants to push all the opponents of the bailout bill into a corner and pretend that they're a mass of idiotic automatons: he's genuinely concerned about the effects of not passing some sort of relief, and quickly, to the country's banking system. But, really, given the outrage spurred by this bill, and the pressure put on Congress by its constituents all week, I think that's a tad naive. Sirota, I think, is closer to the truth. Personally I've never seen a U.S. political coalition like the opposition to the bailout bill before, one that spans all ideologies and political parties.
Chris Bowers has an eloquent defense of those, like himself, who opposed the bailout bill as it stood on Monday:
You didn't lose because your opponents are dumb. You lost because you failed to convince enough people you were right. That is actually a failing on your part, not of your opponents. In this specific case, it is a massive failing on the part of the people who supported the bailout. They had both presidential candidates, the leadership of both parties in both branches of Congress, virtually the entire national media, and all of the moneyed interests in their corner, and they still couldn't convince a majority of either the public or congressional backbenchers that it was a good idea. If you ask me, that is actually pretty frackin' pathetic. Some might even wonder if there is a fundamental stupidity at the core of this proposal if, with virtually all the levers of public influence supporting it, the majority of the country still thinks it is a bad idea.
That's not to say some form of legislation aiding the finance industry isn't warranted. Drum:
Our real problem is in the credit markets, and the credit markets are blinking fire engine red right now. Overnight bank lending rates have skyrocketed. Municipal bond markets have cratered. The two biggest providers of short-term credit to restaurant franchises, GE Capital and Bank of America, have exited the market. Rates on overnight commercial paper are up two points. This stuff doesn't hit you or me in the pocketbook immediately, but it does eventually as spending drops, companies can't get financing, and jobs get cut.
Incidentally, Sirota agrees as well. Only he pushes for a progressive or Democratic bill. As Rick Perlstein notes, you don't get too many chances like this to make real change; might as well try to get something good and constructive done during this crisis.
I know Obama's leading all the polls right now and, as a result, is averse to risk-taking, but he's ideally positioned to push for a bailout bill that's more friendly to the rest of us. Right now the media's not covering any of the proposed alternatives to the Paulson plan; Obama's support for, say, a progressive bill, the media would be forced to cover it, and Obama could cruise down the homestretch as the champion of everyday Americans during the present banking crisis. It's risky, though. Likely the punditocracy wouldn't go for it; they like it the way things are. |
