Forget Sarah Palin, forget bridges to nowhere. Is John McCain going soft on Conservatism?
One of the central tenets of the neo-liberal economic theory is the belief that privatization is a positive move, and that economic stagnation inevitably results from the nationalization of industries. And despite the use of the term "liberal" in neo-liberalism, it is the touchstone of conservative economic theory.
Of course a liberal liberal thinker would often realize that the market does not always work for the general welfare of the nation, that the powers of Government are sometimes needed to influence or correct the market.
The recent Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae takeover by the feds seems to illustrate this point. But how should a conservative view this?
Well, if you are George Bush, you blame it on Congress:
The White House said Tuesday that the giant federal takeover of troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have been prevented if Congress had acted on its recommendations for changing the system.
They didn't want to do this, Congress forced them to do it.
But McCain? McCain seems to think that this was a good idea (pdf):
SCHIEFFER: And thank you for saying that.
Let’s talk a little bit about the big news of the day.
Sen. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.
SCHIEFFER: Both the Post and The New York Times report that the administration is preparing to put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two guarantors of mortgages, in some sort of a conservorship***(as spoken). Basically what they’re going to do is dismiss the officers, the government will take over. There’s no way you can say this is not going to cost the taxpayers billions of dollars. Do you think this is a good idea, Senator McCain?
Sen. McCAIN: I think it has to be done, Bob. I think that we’ve got to keep people in their homes. There’s got to be restructuring, there’s got to be reorganization and there’s got to be some confidence that we’ve stopped this downward spiral. It’s hard, it’s tough, but it’s also the classic example of why we need change in Washington. It’s an example of cronyism, special interest, lobbyists, a quasi-governmental organization where the executives were making hundreds of–hundred and some million dollars a year while things were going downhill, going to hell in a handbasket. This is–this is the kind of cronyism and corruption that has made people so justifiably angered. I did have a long conversation with Secretary Paulson, a man I admire and respect, and he did say that when the housing market starts back up–and it will, it will in America–then the taxpayers are going to be the first to be paid off. They’re the ones that are going to be reimbursed when the values of the homes start–hit bottom and start back up and they start getting more money back in. And that has to be a vital part of it. And again, this is a system that cries out for reform.
SCHIEFFER: You’re talking about–they’re going to have some more regulation. Is that what you’re saying? More control?
Sen. McCAIN: More regulation, more oversight, more transparency, more of everything. And frankly, a dramatic reduction in what they do. You know, they are originally designed to provide a chance for middle income people to have an affordable home loan mortgage, and it grew into this sprawling, massive bureaucracy rife with corruption, cronyism, special interests, lobbyists and a relationship with Congress. Congress passed these laws that allowed these massive loopholes to be there. And so obviously, it’s got not only to be fixed, but it’s a system. It’s an example and a symptom of a system where we’re so close to the special interests that somehow–in Washington, we’re so close that somehow the average American is totally disregarded.
In between the political jabbering about 'reform' and 'cronyism', McCain comes out strongly in favor of this industry takeover. And greater regulation. Whatever happened to the invisible hand, Mr. McCain?
I thought you were campaigning on your "True ConservativeMaverick" credentials?
We know that your base considers you a RINO. We know that your selection of Palin was in large part a ploy to keep your conservative base energized. Why the flip-flop on a central tenet of conservatism? Why endorse something in the US you decry in Venezuela? This seems like a dangerous move, and one that will likely cost you conservative votes, if your base is aware of these comments.
It's like you're admitting the liberals were right all along.
Oh, and PS:
Picking Palin isn't helping on this score.
Recommended reading:
Bad Samaritans by Ha-Joon Chan