0.00
(0 votes)
You must login to vote
|
|
|
By
Fritzwilliam
"Questionable conduct" is just that--questionable. . .which also begs the question(1).
In this election year everyone is missing the point behind #6 (out of the 6) biggest political scandals in U.S. history, beginning, in one professional ranking at least, with the Teapot Dome affair (Warren G. Harding administration--1922). Coming in at #2, in case you're interested, is Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick. Then we move all the way up to Watergate at #3 and close with the "Keating Five." That's where we are today (#6). After Watergate comes a scandal involving an elected official (Wilbur Mills, #4) and (you wouldn't believe) a woman named "Fanne Foxe." The one remaining at #5 is the Iran-Contra affair.
The collapse of the so-called "thrift" financial industry began with the failure of the Southern California based Lincoln Savings and Loan. It's chief executive officer, Charles Keating came under investigation for engaging in some "creative lending" practices and a series of less-than-creative "borrowing" schemes following the deregulation of what we once knew as the "Savings and Loans." So you see, we've been through all this before and we've allowed it to spread to the mainstream commercial banking community. Which means that #7 is probably fait accompli and just awaiting the next Woodward and Bernstein.
Ronald Reagan, also known as the "Teflon" president, and for good reason since he had two major scandals and neither one seemed to stick, was highly "anti-regulation" as we all know, and left behind a legacy that might very well be remembered as the point where the wheels had begun to come off of the American dream machine. Now if you want to talk about legacies of the past, here it comes. . .flying directly into our faces.
So the thrifts went under while *still* requiring a government bailout(2) at a cost of billions to the American taxpayer. Now if we'd had the thrifts today and they were properly regulated, we'd likely have avoided the massive real estate collapse and the predatory "sub-prime" lending practices where mortgages are being traded like commodities--all major factors behind our great economic woes in this election year of 2008.
Don't like regulation? Think of it this way. Regulations are laws. That's all they are. We're a nation of laws. Laws are everywhere. . .even laws designed to protect me from myself. That's what the seat belt law is. It's a law designed to protect us from ourselves. . .while helping the insurance industry along in the process, of course. Federal regulation is exactly the same thing. It's designed to protect business from itself(3).
We're a nation of laws, and we're also a nation of greed. Amazingly. . .perhaps not 'oh-so'. . .I hear now and then from the *haves* among us that greed has been given a bad name. Now having already put "amazingly" on the table, the next higher up would be "shockingly," when one thinks that these new-found greed worshippers come mainly from the "Bible thumping" party. When last I looked, greed was still one of the Seven Deadly Sins. But to find out where we are, we need to examine where we've come from. This is unfortunate, because the chapter's first page invokes the name of the dear departed--very recently, I'm afraid, and so I offer my condolences to the family of William F. Buckley, Jr.
Bill Buckley stated many times that he was proud of his role in having established the neoconservative movement insofar as it has evolved to this point. In his view, conservatism needed to regain respectability in the political arena. I always thought that a rather odd statement, unless you want to think all the way back to Hoover and the Great Depression. Certainly there was nothing about Eisenhower, the next Republican in the presidential lineup, that could be considered less than respectable. There was, of course, the Nixon debacle, but today there's the Bush debacle and I think Bill Buckley was critical of both, actually.
I'm not even sure Hoover figured all that prominently in any discussion of respectability as affecting the conservative movement beyond the fact that if you have bad ideas and you implement them, it's going to be hard to maintain respectability. Can anyone think of a [current] president to whom this aphorism might apply?
Which forces comment on the second leg of Bill Buckley's milking stool. . .ideas. Probably more than anyone else, Bill Buckley duped (a pejorative term, but I can't think of a better one) the public into believing that the Republican Party is the "party of ideas," not the Democrats. No question about it--this was a much-needed infusion, or transfusion, if you will. But if he in fact succeeded, then what he has to point to is Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. I can think of some ideas among this group--some even quite memorable. Whether they're any good, though, is quite another story.
The third leg, which is just my assessment of the aura which surrounded the man mind you, was humor--a charming combination of intellectual flair and style. I agreed with very little of what Bill Buckley had to say, but I loved the way he said it. The quote I love, which has now been repeated by tele-eulegists since his passing, is in his answer to the question, "What would you do if elected President?" Bill replied, "Demand a recount." Surprisingly, this witty rejoinder is missed even by others in the same discussion room. I feel as though it's certainly worth a hearty chuckle or two, at least.
Fare-thee-well, Bill Buckley. You will be truly missed. . .even by this flaming liberal.
------
(1) The phrase, ". . .which begs the question," is widely misused, even among seasoned journalists. The phrase is not invoking, suggesting or inferring something unstated or unasked. The phrase *does* suggest, however, that the answer--yours, we're assuming--to a certain question is unsatisfactory, i.e., it has left the question "still begging" for an answer. In other words, if I tell you that your answer "begs the question," I'm not looking for a better question. I'm asking you for a better answer.
What more poignant example might there be than a legislative "investigation" into alleged member misconduct where a conclusion is reached citing "questionable conduct" by some, but not all, of the defendants. Excuse me, but isn't the goal of a hearing before members of Congress to arrive at answers to questions?. . .not to say, "Well, we don't really know, but your conduct appears questionable?"
This is apparently how four out of the "Keating Five" escaped censure in the Senate, leaving only Alan Cranston as the one to take the fall. What?. . .was Cranston the "ring leader," maybe? Was he the "big cheese" behind the scheme, and therefore the guy who had to take the fall? This isn't how it works for most of us little guys. In our case, if we're part of a conspiracy to do something we shouldn't be doing, we're all equally guilty. Can we imagine a scene where five Senators have dogs in the same race, but one of them has a greater stake in the outcome than all the others? If I'm John McCain or John Glenn, why do I expose myself to the same amount of risk without equal reward? Why am I even part of this scheme?
This is the result one should expect when government investigates itself. We don't know what John McCain did or did not do as a figure in the Keating Five, and we'll obviously never know. The fact is that all of the four besides Cranston ran for reelection in the next election cycle and succeeded in their bids. Now one of them is running for President--again. Maybe "questionable conduct" isn't enough to scare away most voters. Well it's sure enough to scare me, thank you very much.
(2) The words "government bailout" was rarely heard before the Republicans' great ideas concerning deregulation.
(3) And sorely needed. Nothing spells out that need any better than the words "Enron," "Global Crossing," "Tyco" and "Arthur Anderson."
------
Copyright (c) 2008 F. Willam Bracy
All rights reserved.
------
Fritzwilliam
|
Issue Two--Skidding on Oil
