Consensus

Earlier today I read someone somewhere compare the Democrats' various caves on national security issues to possibility that they'll be pressured into green-lighting a bailout plan that's too generous to Wall Street barons and totally insensitive to the needs of regular people. Well, by now, I've forgotten who wrote that, and where I read it, but I don't think it's quite right. If the Democrats give Hank Paulson $700 billion with no strings attached, then everyone invested in the progressive project might as well riot or move to Sweeden, but it'll be a sell out of a distinct species.

For one thing, the Treasury Department isn't Bushified in the same way the Justice and Defense Departments are, and Democrats might be forgiven for taking what Paulson says at least somewhat seriously. But, of course, they should also listen to an awful lot of other people--this is a complicated issue after all--and the risk is that, between Paulson's urgent tone and their own unfortunate belief that swift action is politically necessary, they won't.

On national security issues, by contrast, the Democrats capitulate when Republicans assail their patriotism and willingness to protect America--and they implicitly endorse progressive ideas such as warrantless wiretapping, endless war, torture, and the obsolescence of Habeas Corpus in the process. Fortunately, the Democrats don't act quite as weenie-like on economic issues as they do on national security issues. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they won't pony up anyhow.