I'm not sure if I should be hopeful or not, but it seems that at least in part American citizens (like me) prolifically emailing and calling their Congressmen/-women (and Senators, but it didn't get that far obviously) helped defeat the first version of the Wall Street bailout plan. The possibility that A. people can get restless and do something, and B. their action can make a difference has me just a little bit giddy.
It may not matter so much that a lot of the Representatives - mostly Republican - who voted it down are up for re-election. That's good actually. It shows that they are listening to their constituents and actually might make a connection between how they vote and what their constituents want. What a concept!
Even though a bailout that will likely happen is not going to solve the root problem of greed gone wild (read some good arguments here why that's the case), I hope that people will notice that in this case their voice made a difference. Sure, our pocketbooks were/are threatened, but so far we didn't let the fear factory convince us to make a stupid move . . . . yet. Maybe, just maybe, that little bit of empowerment will get people more engaged with other things that matter, that don't have as direct an impact on our comfortable American lifestyle, like illegal wars.
It won't be easy for the average American to resist fear, when you get front pages like this:
Check out Garrison Keillor's take on the bailout at salon.com: Where is the Outrage?
8 comments:
The volume of email took down the Congressional servers. The volume of calls swamped the overflow switchboard. 25 times the volume of public response to any other subject, ever!
Oh! I hadn't heard all that!
I heard a Congressman (one who wanted the bill to pass) pleading yesterday with citizens to leave their Congressmen and women alone so they can get on with passing it next round!! That was one of the most astonishing things I've ever heard, almost hilarious in a warped way.
I could not believe how blatant the fear mongering was yesterday - Congress, President, media - even worse than before the vote. Like, "come on people, didn't we scare you enough the first time round? This is reeeaaaalllly scary, aren't you scared?"
Well, here's an alternative view, and one that I think holds a lot of weight. This morning, the New York Times had a front-page story regarding the 1929 crisis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/economy/01leonhardt.html
It started with the tale of a shirt shop owner who wanted to see the Wall Street goons get their due:
"In 1929, Meyer Mishkin owned a shop in New York that sold silk shirts to workingmen. When the stock market crashed that October, he turned to his son, then a student at City College, and offered a version of this sentiment: It serves those rich scoundrels right.
A year later, as Wall Street’s problems were starting to spill into the broader economy, Mr. Mishkin’s store went out of business. He no longer had enough customers. His son had to go to work to support the family, and Mr. Mishkin never held a steady job again.
Frederic Mishkin — Meyer’s grandson and, until he stepped down a month ago, an ally of Ben Bernanke’s on the Federal Reserve Board — told me this story the other day, and its moral is obvious enough. Many people in Washington fear that the country is starting to spiral into a terrible downturn. And to their horror, they see the public, and many members of Congress, turning into modern-day Meyer Mishkins, more interested in punishing Wall Street than saving the economy."
The front page of the Times also had voices from Main Street, saying they felt no one had adequately explained the crisis to them, and as a result, no one was supporting a bailout. Pictured on the front page was a Colorado Republican, Phil Schmidt. Instead of blaming Nancy Pelosi, Schmidt rightfully said that members of both parties were terrified of the volume of response from all their constituents, and that "in the end, no one could beat the mob. And never underestimate the stupidity of a mob."
Now that statement sounds elitist, but Schmidt brings up a good point: Sometimes, 90 percent of the public is wrong. Sometimes, it's populism that brings fascisn, not elitism.
I've been thinking about this same point all morning, partly because of listening to NPR and similar perspectives. I find in myself such resentment about this as 'bailout' that I don't want to be open to the possibility that 'bailing out Wall St.' is only part of the scheme, and that citizens have taken part in the mess too, and need the fix too. But yes, the plan was marketed badly, and as someone on Diane Rehm just said, there isn't someone behind the plan whom we trust! Paulson proposes, on behalf of the President, to fix it and wants no interference! This administration we don't trust already! You take people who are already poorly informed, and then feed them information badly, and it's no surprise that we had a kneejerk reaction. It may be hard to convince people now, but the Mishkin story is very good and apropos.
I'm still glad for the lesson of overwhelming communication with our representatives making a difference. But if it's only the squeaky wheels that make noise, and the rest of the populace isn't speaking up from different points of view, then that's their fault.
I think people are speaking up from all over the spectrum, but a number truly in excess of 75 percent want nothing done. Schmidt's point is relevant, when you think about caudilloism and Peron-style populism: what do you do when the vast majority is simply wrong? For me, you can't fall back on some form of benevolent dictatorship, you simply have to let the vast majority of lemmings lead everyone off a cliff. And stand back and say "told you so" with a smug look on your face.
Speaking of lemmings, its not just street mob mentality at fault as you good people obviously already know.
Just thought I'd recount a recent experience. A few days ago I occasioned to visit a certain university and exchanged small talk with a few 'educators' there.
During my discussions with them, I found myself on the same side and agreeing with several issues, but let's just say, given a few individuals overly academic and government-dependent leanings I found part of their overall view was somewhat lacking, especially in where they sourced information, or where they didn't source it.
Just another example of how faulty, or biased perspectives, whether its eccenticism masked as an elitist level of education, or when a paycheck is on the line, will conveniently cloud someone's openness to real change.
No kidding, John! Academics are some of the worst offenders - post-modernism in general, 9/11 conspiracy theories, uncritical support of infantile armed-struggle groups, you name it...
great post and interesting comments.
Post a Comment