The Right CW
by digby
Mark Halperin said something on Hardball he seems to think is a truism. Speaking about GOP obstructionism on financial reform, he said "you can't sustain something if you don't believe it and it isn't true. You can have one or the other, but not both." Is that true? It sounds like it could be, but my observation is that politicians routinely believe things that aren't true and don't believe things that are true and also don't believe things that aren't true. What's he talking about?
The upshot of the interview is that the GOP is falling into line and will vote for the bill. Halperin even thinks McConnell will join in. This because they believe that people are really really angry about the banks, which seems logical, but I'm not sure it's true (at least as compared to other reasons they're angry.) The NY Times poll from last week said that only 2% named it as the primary thing they're angry about, far behind things like "partisanship' and health care reform. 52% of the country thinks Obama is moving the country toward socialism. According to the Pew poll the country is bi-polar on the issue: 58% say that "the government has gone too far in regulating business and interfering with the free enterprise system" but 61% of those polled also say they want stricter regulation of financial companies." I'm guessing that there are some messaging opportunities for all sides in that.
That's not to say this isn't a fertile issue for Democrats. In fact, it's the most fertile issue, in my opinion, long overdue, and their single best hope for gaining traction on economic issues for 2010. But it isn't obvious to me that Republicans must see this as something they need to jump on. They already have an argument and it has some resonance, no matter how illogical and stupid it might be: government is the problem, not the solution and if you just let the market work --- let the banks fail as the Invisible Hand ordains --- everything will be fine. Anything else is a bailout --- even regulation. After decades of indoctrination, to an awful lot of people that argument makes more sense than complicated legislation about derivatives and bailout funds.
I'm hopeful that the Village CW is having a beneficial effect for a change and actually leading the Republicans to be fearful that their arguments aren't working. It's got to go our way once in a while. But I'm not convinced the GOP follows the Villager CW. Usually, they create it and they may not know what to make of all this.
And anyway, at the end of the day they are going to do mot of what the banks want them to do. So will most of the Democrats. They may not know they are doing what the banks want them to do, but they will be doing it nonetheless. The amount of money being applied to all this isn't for nothing. However, after watching the bankers' hubristic behavior lately, I'm slightly optimistic. The Masters of the Universe haven't been as deft at handling this as one might have expected.
.