A lot of places I've gone today on the Web, I've read people railing against Republicans for their obstructionism in failing to pass the bailout bill yesterday. Some of it is nearly frothing at the mouth, as opponents see their insistence either on: a) listening to their constituents, or b) adhering to free-market principles, as hopelessly out of touch. Not that I want to pick on Brad DeLong today, who I usually find very incisive, but his rhetoric is quite typical:
Furthermore, this is a representative government, and these folks were elected to be representative of the folks who put them in office. And the Republicans have had a pretty good run of it the past 28 years: 20 of those years have featured a president from their party, and Congress has been pretty well controlled by them for 12 of the last 14 years. They've had a great deal of success doing just what they've been doing, and you can't fault them for doing more of the same.
I might feel that it's time for many of those people to go, and that it's time to get past the limited view of Ronald Reagan (and strange view of George W. Bush), and that it's time for the Republican party to make some fundamental changes in its world view, but that's a far cry from suggesting that a failure to roll over and accept an incomplete, massive bailout bill implies that the party itself should be "raze[d]...to the ground."
But here is what Brad is responding to, a Georgia Republican explaining why GA representatives voted against it:As I said, raze the Republican Party to the ground. Plough it under. Scatter salt in the furrows so it can never grow back.
We need another, very different opposition party to face the Democrats. We need it now.
[T]he final plan did not reform what has created the problem nor did it adequately explain how the taxpayers get their money back. Moreover, the bailout seemed to create a new entitlement in a federal insurance system for every home loan in America.Now I myself have concerns along those lines, and I am certainly no longer a staunch Republican. These are realistic concerns of anyone who fears that this will create an unpardonable intrusion of government into a system which most people feel works, the free market (including Democrats, by the way).
Furthermore, this is a representative government, and these folks were elected to be representative of the folks who put them in office. And the Republicans have had a pretty good run of it the past 28 years: 20 of those years have featured a president from their party, and Congress has been pretty well controlled by them for 12 of the last 14 years. They've had a great deal of success doing just what they've been doing, and you can't fault them for doing more of the same.
I might feel that it's time for many of those people to go, and that it's time to get past the limited view of Ronald Reagan (and strange view of George W. Bush), and that it's time for the Republican party to make some fundamental changes in its world view, but that's a far cry from suggesting that a failure to roll over and accept an incomplete, massive bailout bill implies that the party itself should be "raze[d]...to the ground."
No comments:
Post a Comment