… there’s no way you can read this speech and give much credence to the right-wing voices describing Obama as a crypto-socialist.
Beldar (who says some very nice things about yours truly’s post on the speech):
I’m not saying Barack Obama is a wild-eyed Marxist. But he definitely shares their same basic conviction — the conviction that “I’m the smartest guy here, and I can fix all of this if you’ll just give me the power.” (A goody-basket of financial treats and preferences is then immediately promised in order to persuade the electorate to give him the power.) As with the rest of Barack Obama’s plans and platform, when you peel away the attractive messenger and articulate delivery, the underlying policy today showed itself to be sadly typical of hard-left Democratic politicians for the last seven-plus decades: pro-regulation, anti-free market, and arrogant as hell.
Obviously, I’m with Beldar on this one.
Having grown up in a labourite-socialist family, I can confirm that Obama’s speech would not have gone down well at the Militant Tendency convention of 1983. He didn’t call for the nationalization of the commanding heights of finance, nor did he break out into “The Banks are Made of Marble.” Americans who think that this is socialism are (fortunately for them) blissfully unaware of what the real thing looks like.
I find the “arrogance” criticism a bit overdone. Any policy proposal of any kind necessarily involves a claim that it is better than the opposite policy proposals. You can always spin that as the person making the policy proposal thinking he or she is smarter than everyone else. Does Greg Mankiw think he’s smarter than Keynes? Does Brad Delong think he’s smarter than Robert Lucas? It’s a cheap debating trick.
When you boil it down, Beldar is using a pseudo-Hayekian argument against all regulation whatsoever. Do you really want to defend that?
You know what the real problem is ethics. The accountants used to be the referees of finance. They called the fouls when they saw them. Not anymore, the refs are on the take. You can pass as many laws as you want but until we change society and get back the referees this will continue to happen again and again.
True, we do live in an ethical wasteland nowadays, in which all is relative. Do I faithfully guard the ethical standards I should uphold, or do I see to it that profits are “maximized” for the shareholders (and monetarily rewarding myself in the bargain)?
A desire to run other people’s lives for them is hardly confined to Marxists. Pretty much everyone running for office has that tendency other than a (very) few lonely libertarian types.
“pro-regulation, anti-free market, and arrogant as hell.”
So remind me how many regulations the Republicans repealed during the 12 years they controlled Congress? How much smaller is the tax code? Oh yeah, that’s right.
Next entry: 88-78
Previous entry: Parsing Obama's Financial Regulation Speech
"Obviously, I’m with Beldar on this one.”
Clearly, a “Mepps! Mepps! Unacceptable!” moment.