Before you think too kindly of House Republicans...

Let me start with an extended quote from Glenn Greenwald:

Retired New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston, writing at The New Republic yesterday, makes a critical point, in a piece entitled "Celebrating the Bailout Bill's Failure":

Whether you favor the $700 billion bailout or not, the House vote today should make you cheer -- loudly.

Why?

Because the majority vote against it shows that Washington is not entirely in the service of the political donor class, by which I mean Wall Street and the corporations who rely on it for their financing. These campaign donors, a narrow slice of America, have lobbied and donated their way into a system that stacks the economic rules in their favor. But faced with as many as 200 telephone calls against the bailout for every one in favor, a lot of House members decided to listen to their constituents today instead of their campaign donors.

Johnston's celebration that "Washington is not entirely in the service of the political donor class" is probably premature given that Congressional leaders are falling all over themselves to assure everyone that this deal will pass in a few days after it is tinkered with in one direction or the other. . . . The corporate donor class and political establishment may lose a battle here and there, but they almost never lose the war, since they own and control the political battlefield.

Still, Johnston's overarching point is absolutely right. For better or worse, yesterday's vote was the rarest event in our political culture: ordinary Americans from all across the political spectrum actually exerting influence over how our Government functions, and trumping the concerted, unified efforts of the entire ruling class to ensure that their desires, as usual, would be ignored.

I like both Greenwald and David Cay Johnston a lot—I have especially appreciated Johnston’s writing on this latest manufactured “crisis”—and I hate to rain on anyone’s parade, but I think both of these men are giving “We, the People,” too much credit for making our voices heard, or, if not quite that, giving they, the House Republicans, too much credit for listening to we, the people.

Though Greenwald will correctly point out that whether Republicans are listening out of concern for their constituencies or concern for their jobs is a distinction without a difference, there is another possible—and I think probable—motivation at work. It is not the fear of losing their jobs, but the desire to make political hay, to use this bailout to destroy Democratic prospects (this year, and, even more so, in 2010), that is most likely the unifying force behind the Republican revolt.

Well, that prospect, and a guy named Newt:

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported this morning that conservatives may have been taking their marching orders from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who “was whipping against this up until the last minute” — despite issuing a statement supporting the bill as the vote was taking place:

MITCHELL: I’m told reliably by leading Republicans who are close to him, he was whipping against this up until the last minute when he issued that face-saving statement. Newt Gingrich was telling people in the strongest possible language that this was a terrible deal, not only that it was a terrible deal, that it was a disaster, it was the end of democracy as we know it, it was socialism. And then at the last minute comes out with a statement when the vote is already in place.

Reacting to the news, NBC’s Mike Barnicle said he had been told by congressional conservatives that the move was “the opening salvo of Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign four years hence.”

That is not to say that the phone calls by concerned Americans were pointless—not at all—but it is to say that one should never assume there is the possibility of common cause to be struck with the post-Reagan Republican Party. They, like their latest standard-bearer, John McCain, are interested in power for power’s sake, and are the very embodiment of the corporate donor class-backed political establishment that Greenwald and Johnston believe took a body blow on Monday.

It is not so long ago that Gingrich haunted the corridors of power with his nasty brand of us-versus-them politics and sanctimonious hypocrisy. It was never enough that he and his party should win, it was also necessary that Democrats loose.

The man and his caucus are little changed today. If progressive Democrats want to stop the NPLB (No Plutocrats Left Behind) bill and advance a real economic fix, then they are going to have to do it themselves.

. . .

As to that final point—progressives doin’ it for themselves—there is an alternative bill with the less than compelling name “No BAILOUTS” (it’s an acronym—don’t ask) now introduced in the House. It is a mixed bag, but on the whole, much better—and much cheaper—than Paulson-plus. Sirota has a rundown and a plan of action.

The Senate plans to vote on a bill similar to the House version of Paulson with some tax cuts to woo the right and some incentives for alternative energy to then woo back liberal members. It’s still a monumental piece of crap. It will not fix the problem—though it will artificially inflate the markets for a while—in the long run, it could make things much worse. If you feel like picking up the phone today, please ignore my above cynicism and call your Senators—urge a “no” vote on this Paulson-plus plan. Instead, ask your Senators to pass the stimulus package previously approved by the House.

Then, while you’ve got that bakelite in your hands, call your US Representative, tell them of your continued opposition to a $700 billion bailout, and ask him or her to consider something like No BAILOUTS as an alternative.


(cross-posted on Daily Kos and The Seminal)

Bush's Faith: The Ultimate Outsourcing of Responsibility?

Since I started this blog, I have many a time touched upon the Bush Administration’s great love of outsourcing, thinking that they must see it as a win-win: win #1 being that they get to line the pockets of friends, cronies, and campaign contributors with taxpayer dollars, and win #2 being that, should anything go wrong (should anything go wrong—doesn’t that now sound hysterical?), the administration can always say, hey, it’s not us, we didn’t screw up, we were let down by the folks we trusted. Be it Medicare drug “reform,” Iraq security and reconstruction, Hurricane Katrina—both the before and the after—homeland “security,” and many, many more, the Bush-Cheney gang has sold America a bill of goods without a warranty, a receipt, or a consumers’ bill of rights (or any other Bill of Rights, for that matter).

What’s got me thinking more about this—OK, even more about this—this week was the leak about Bush looking to appoint a “czar” to oversee the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (This was apparently on the advice of Newt Gingrich, or so it now seems, and, as of this writing, we know of five retired generals who have turned down the offer to run interference for Bush’s abominable war effort.)

Beyond my first thought—we have a war czar, they call him the Commander in Chief—my second thought—sign on Bush’s desk: the buck stops, uh, um, anywhere but here—and my third thought—the Decider outsources the deciding—I got to thinking if there isn’t something even deeper (not sure that’s the right word) than naked greed and political cover.

I should probably do more reading and research before putting my less than complete knowledge of theology on the page (but it’s late, so I will go with what I remember), but the Bush predilection to ignore the facts—the results of his misdeeds—and continue to stay the course, because he “knows” in his gut that he’s right, sounds to me like an old schism in Christianity: the one between good works and faith.

This was a big debate a thousand years ago—what’s required of a human to gain entry through the pearly gates? Does one have to live a good life, do good deeds, practice what you preach, or is all of that irrelevant? Is faith all that is required for a place in heaven?

Easter got me to thinking about this more. I saw a snippet of New York’s Cardinal Egan (I think it was him) talking about the resurrection: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (that’s from Corinthians—I looked it up).

Now, as a non-believer, what that says to me is “first believe the lie,” and then. . . really believe. (I guess this is not that much different from my musings about tinkerbellistas—clap louder!—but I digress. . . .) I also heard an evangelical leader (I forget who) on the radio this Easter weekend that made it very clear that good works don’t count—faith is all that matters.

So, back to President Bush and his outsourced kleptocracy. Is there something in his and his minions’ deep belief (or convenient belief) in faith—in the idea that faith is all that matters when it comes time to ascend to heaven—that absolves them of any sense of personal responsibility for the hell they have created here on earth? Is the promise of absolution—and the self-assurance that they all will be granted it—so ingrained that it makes day-to-day earthly accountability almost unfathomable?

I know much has been written about the “faith-based” versus the “reality-based” communities—Bush being part of the former (me being part of the latter)—but I am thinking about this in terms of the split in the ancient church more than some current political cleavage. When western Christianity chose to embrace faith as the virtue that counted—I mean really counted—did they do the faithful a great disservice?

Is Bush, to the extent we believe that he really believes what he says he believes, actually just a product of his religion? Is it useless for us, the Left, Congress, America, whoever, to attempt to impose accountability on a President that believes that his savior was tested and tortured for his convictions and rewarded (with resurrection) for his constancy of faith? Accountability is not up to anyone on this mortal plane—that’s up to the holy father—so there is no point wasting time with laws and rules and personal responsibility.

Bush has never been much for work (hard or otherwise), and has proven not much for good works, either, but he is always proud to trumpet his faith—in his policies and in his own salvation. Without his faith, all else is useless. Unfortunately for the rest of us, with his faith, all else is useless, too. Accountability to mere men and women is as nonsensical to Bush as virgin birth is to me.

Perhaps, as Bush sees it, responsibility is just not his responsibility.