Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In a post from May 2009 about bloc voting creating effective one-party rule, Arnold Kling throws out this aside:

I saw this scenario playing out way back in September [2008], when I tried (unsuccessfully) to convince a Republican Congressperson to vote against what we now call TARP. I said that this would be exactly what the Democrats needed — much greater government control over the financial system and big business in general. From now on, every Fortune 500 company has to align itself with the party in power.

I am curious what Arnold thinks of this now. It seems to me that in hindsight, even a conservative/libertarian TARP skeptic should be willing to concede that Obama never had any intention of using TARP to assert greater control over the financial system and, in the event, didn’t use it to assert greater control over the financial system. Ditto for the auto bailouts and the stress tests. The financial reform bill, conversely, was designed to regulate the financial system, but did it in the most minimal way possible considering the vast damage that the financial system had just finished causing us all. 

In fact, all things considered, Obama treated the financial system with kid gloves, and despite — or because of? — that treatment, the financial industry (and big business in general) rather flamboyantly declined to align itself with the party in power this year. We saw the results of that yesterday.

But I wonder if Arnold sees things that way too? Probably not.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate