The Revolt of the Nihilists

September 30th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:
Leave a comment


David Brooks explains in his latest column for the Washington Post that the decision of the House not to support the ‘bailout plan’ was nothing more than a revolt of nihilists. Those who voted against the plan, on both sides, Brooks argues, did what was in their own short term interest, but horrendous in the mid term for their country, and probably not in their own political interest in the long run either.

It was, to a very large degree, an opportunistic vote.

There is more to it than opportunism, however. To a very large degree, House Republicans who voted against the bill truly believe that it would be the end of the free market if they would support it. Democrats, on the other hand, truly believed that the bill would be an undeserved bailout for rich Wall Street investors.

Furthermore, and to me this is the most important issue and Brooks seems to agree with it to a some extent, leadership was missing. As Brooks writes, ‘was the media darling Barney Frank too busy to notice the 95 Democrats who opposed his bill?’ And Pelosi, did she ‘have to act like a Democratic fund-raiser at the most important moment of her career?’

And on the Republican side, nobody could pursuade the opportunistic / extreme capitalistic members to support the bill. George W. Bush could not, Dick Cheney could not, John McCain could not, the House and Senate leaders could not. They tried, but failed sorely.

Here’s to hoping that all those who voted against this bill and who, in one way or another, contributed to its failure lose their seat during the next elections (or afterwards).

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.