Money; or, how greed is the true ruling party in the U.S.

After eight years of truly unprecedented expansion of presidential powers (see The Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendments Act, the Detainee Treatment Act, and the Patriot Act), is it really surprising that the Bush administration is so keen on now controlling financial markets as well?

(If I were really cynical, I might suggest that Bush would never let the market correct itself, because that might lead to a depression, which would be bad for Republicans during an election year).

The reaction from the Right has been interesting. Some, indeed, are skeptical of the $700 billion bailout plan, justifying their skepticism by citing their "conservative" political ideology. But where were they when the Bush administration justified new law after new law that expanded executive power with the argument that essentially tells us to "trust them"? Trust that they won't abuse their new spying powers; trust that they'll conduct the war soundly despite their lies which led to the war; trust they not turn the "War on Terror" into a justification for torture, etc., etc. Meanwhile, Bush issues "signing statements" that allow him to circumvent any legislation that pertains to the executive branch, he installs Justice Department lawyers who were required to pass ideological litmus tests, he practices political vindictiveness when anyone in the administration is criticized from within the government (his administration's outing of CIA agent Plame), and he regularly stonewalls, or lies to, the media, or just doesn't talk to them (Palin has recently picked up on this tactic, preferring stump speeches to interviews and press conferences).

In sum, whenever Bush has the option between more or less power, he has ALWAYS chosen more.

The reaction from the Left (although I think there isn't really a true "Left" in this country) has been curious as well. Democrats in this country are as culpable for our economic welfare as anyone. Though Phil Gramm [R, and McCain adviser] wrote and sponsored the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which overturned Depression era regulations on the market--which helped to grant banks the type of decision-making power they so abused in the recent decade--several Democratic Senators signed it, as did President Clinton; I'm thoroughly convinced that Democrats are just as beholden to capitalism, in all its good and bad qualities, as Republicans are. It's a complete myth that Democrats are not friendly to business. Clinton, for all the hatred he incites from the Right, made economic decisions based upon a free-market mindset. Now, the economy did well in the 90's (due in part to the "dot.com" boom, which history, not Clinton, was responsible for), but perhaps only now we're experiencing the long-term effects of laissez-faire economic policies.

What's been curious about the past eight years is that, in terms of the the war, and other domestic policies that stem from it (like FISA, which intrudes upon every American's privacy by making warrants obsolete), it has been Democrats (or at least a handful of them) that have been arguing for prudence and governmental restraint. It's been Republicans who have been more than willing to expand government, and its power over citizens, to an extent this country has not seen. I wonder if a Democratic president would have been granted the same powers by a Republican legislature? Probably not. That is why purely Partisan politics is so unhealthy. It's a voluntary abnegation of one's brain--and makes people (in this case Republicans) do things they normally wouldn't do (grant goverment more and more power). Partisanship makes it impossible to hold leaders accountable for their bad decisions.

Now it will be up to Democrats, and a handful of "conservatives", to at least make sure there's some restraint practiced in this bailout.

There really is no ideological consistency left in American politics. Sometimes that's good: you don't want your leaders to be absolutely ruled by any dogma to the point they become so inflexible that all their ideas and decisions are prescribed by some program or philosophy (if that were the case all you'd need is a copy of said program, and anyone could be president). On the other hand, it's getting really hard to tell right from left these days.

Perhaps "bipartisanship" is just a ruse, so that those without any values can cater to what they really care about: money, and those they are beholden to because of money.