The bailout split on the left

From the moment the financial crisis went critical, I decided that, as a relative economic naif, I would outsource my opinions on the bailout bill to left and center-left economists whom I most respect. Ultimately, the fact that Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, and Jamie Galbraith came down (however lightly) on the side of the bailout tipped me into its favor even though, for instance, Dean Baker, whom I admire enormously opposed it.

In the non-economic, left-wing commentariat, though, the schism hasn't been so much about the merits of the bill itself (whether it will work, whether it's fair enough) but about the more general nature of governance in America. And a lot of the players are talking quickly and loudly past each other.

Ezra, who, like me, wanted the bailout to pass, characterizes left opposition this way:

I'm a bit unnerved by the populist glee some folks are taking in the bailout bill's failure. Some people think they've put one over on the experts, who are always talking down to them. Others think they've finally stuck it to those fat cats on Wall Street. Still a few more are glad to have saddled Bush and the Republicans with one last reminder of the utter bankruptcy of their ideology.

And sure, some of that is out there. But it's a sideshow, I think, to their larger point. Their arguments have taken a number of different forms but the overarching idea is that the fail of the bailout is an important signal that the government's ability to cloak its actions in secrecy and game the legislative process for rich and powerful people is not, in fact, limitless. I don't happen agree with their proposition--I think the bailout failed not because of an overwhelming popular outcry, but because it was poorly politicked within the world of elites from beginning to end.

But that's their argument.

And I do sympathize--I think the American political system is in desperate need of a dramatic moment of public accountability. But my strong sense is that if the package had been given some Orwellian name, and the Repulbicans hadn't tried to bait and switch Democrats, this thing would have sailed through. Just like so many other complicated but important pieces of legislation. Likewise, i think that if the Democrats were to regroup now and create a perfect bill in broad daylight, it would still be unpopular, and would probably fail as well.

Which is all to say that to take pride in what happened yesterday as a moment when the American people were finally given a voice in Washington is, I feel, a bit misplaced. I'll uncork my champagne when the Congress overturns the FISA amendments and apologizes for reauthorizing the war over and over again.

But assuming for a second that yesterday really was a radical break with common practice, I still think the outcome was unfortunate. It's true that the Cossacks shouldn't overrun the will of the people on behalf of the czars as a matter of practice. But the people suffer from a failed press as much as a failed government, and on this, most complicated of issues, the press has been particularly hopeless.

I have no quarrel with people like Glenn and Markos over the way this bill, like so many other important bills, was conceived. Where we differ, I think, is in our interpretations of this particular political era. To them, the political response to the financial crisis has been eerily similar to the political response terrorist threat, and while I think that's superficially true, I don't think the two events are really comparable.

Whatever Republicans would have you believe, the fact is that if the Congress had transparently deliberated the PATRIOT Act, voted it down, and then taken a bit of time to write up a non-draconian alternative, they'd have been putting the country at little or no additional risk of another attack.

The financial crisis, by contrast, is more like a time bomb with a hidden countdown clock, or a category-five hurricane moving westward in the Atlantic at a speed we can't quite gauge. Imagine for a second that Congress had to reauthorize FEMA action every time the country sat on the precipice of a new emergency--I think people would place a high-priority on speed and a much lower priority on waiting for perfection.

It's frustrating, of course, that this disaster has been gathering steam for years now, caused, as it was, in large part by human villains . And it's even more frustrating that those villains continue to have sway over the Treasury department. But we are where we are, and, to me, it's not fair to treat the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who might suffer if the financial markets collapse as collateral damage in a battle to reform the government and the bankers who corrupt it.

A plan has been written. It's flawed. But it has the support of a very large number of credible experts, who seem, unlike some political junkies, to realizes that this is probably the best we can hope for under current political circumstances. And that we don't have time to wait for the system to undergo major reform before acting.