My colleague Mark Mitchell, a government professor at Patrick Henry College and currently a visiting scholar at Princeton, has written a penetrating and morally challenging essay on the economic crisis and the bailout. Read it at the website of the Center for a Just Society. It’s entitled “Ten Questions and a Modest Proposal.” Here are the ten questions. Follow the link for the modest proposal:

1. Is it a fundamental problem when a corporation becomes so big that its failure threatens to bring down the national economy? Could it be that scale matters? Can institutions become so large that their potential harm outweighs their actual (or occasional) good? If yes, then are there measures that could help ensure that economic power is decentralized and therefore less dangerous?

2. The bailout was ostensibly necessary to protect our “American way of life.” That such a reason was offered without justification indicates that our way of life is an axiom that must be assumed but never questioned. But is it too much to consider, if only for a moment, that perhaps our way of life is precisely the problem? Of course, a way of life is a complex thing, but insofar as the “American way of life” consists in living beyond our means, it is unsustainable. To the extent that consumer credit is at an all-time high and personal savings is at an all-time low, the “American way of life” is irresponsible.

3. Public debt mirrors private debt. Both publicly and privately, we have become a nation that demands immediate gratification. Is such a national disposition healthy? Psychologists tell us that adults are capable of delaying their gratification. If so, then publicly and privately we are, according to this measurement, behaving like a nation of children.

4. The best part of the American tradition is characterized by a can-do attitude and a willingness to face the consequences of our decisions. Consider, then, the fact that in many states home loans are, by law, non-recourse. This means that if a borrower cannot afford to make the payment, he can simply walk away from the deal. The property returns to the lender, and its value may or may not cover the outstanding debt. In essence, the bank runs the risk and the borrower runs away. If such laws were eliminated, borrowers would take care not to borrow more than they can afford. Does the fact that it is legal to walk away from a home mortgage make doing so morally right? Is a system based on no-risk credit and legal irresponsibility fundamentally flawed?

5. In our private lives, we expect that our “standard of living” will be higher than that of our parents, and our children will enjoy a higher standard than us. But is that expectation warranted? Do we need a higher standard of living than our parents? Exactly how high is high enough? When will we be able to say “my standard of living is just fine”? When a society finds itself animated by a fundamental desire for more stuff, the analogy to the nursery is hard to miss.

6. We are told that the catalyst for the current economic troubles is the housing market. Consider the following: in the 1950’s the average house had one bathroom and was something under one-thousand square feet. Today, the market standard is one bathroom for every bedroom and the average square footage has more than doubled. Ironically, the size of families declined precipitously during those same decades so that the average square footage per person has risen dramatically. How big is big enough? Would the current crisis be as acute if the houses we bought were more modest?

7. For years, Republicans championed tax reduction while Democrats emphasized government programs. Both sides won the debate. Today, the presidential candidates from both parties argue about whose plan will reduce taxes the most. At the same time, both candidates promise far more government programs than they can afford. The American people want both lower taxes and increased government spending. We want it all now and we want to defer the payment until later (preferably after we are safely dead). How’s that for family values?

8. Many of us have parents or grandparents who lived through the great depression (and a few among us remember it). My grandmother raised a family during those lean years and the frugal habits she acquired by necessity stayed with her the rest of her life. She saved and mended and lived well within her means. She was grateful to have a margin between her income and her expenses and thought it was wise to live modestly. What would our grandmothers say to us now as we struggle to maintain our “American way of life”?

9. Lord Acton’s hoary saying is pertinent: “power tends to corrupt.” If so, then we should make efforts to decentralize power. Such a sensibility is behind the separation of powers written into the fabric of the U.S. Constitution. We should be concerned, then, when big corporations get into bed with big government. The off-spring will be ugly and, we can rest assured, it will be big. This bailout represents a stunning consolidation of corporate and government power. Of course, we are promised that the government will regulate the corporations, but the conflict of interest is glaring. Could it be that the problem is not de-regulation but regulations that favor big corporations over small businesses?

10. In Greek drama hubris plays a key role. This is the fatal pride that brings down even the greatest of men. Is hubris at the heart of this crisis? Hubris is the failure to acknowledge limits. It is the failure to live within the bounds proper to human beings. Ultimately, it is a failure of virtue. When we delay payments rather than our gratification, we reveal our ill-formed character. When our demands for more things are limited only by our insatiable imaginations, vice is running the show. When our leaders tell us that they can solve any crisis if only we grant them more power, hubris has taken center stage.

I think John McCain did MUCH, MUCH better in this debate. Finally, he distinguished himself from the man whom he continually vexed for eight years: “Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.”
Bob Schiefer did a good job too, raising the issues of Barack Obama’s radical connections and abortion. But, again, I don’t think issues matter in this race. People are in a panic over the economy and want not specific solutions, which no one really has, but someone to save them.

Obama came across as cool, calm, and in control; he seemed like someone people can put their trust in. So no matter how radical and pro-abortion he may be, it will make no difference. This is going to be a religious election–not necessarily in a transcendent, spiritual sense (though for some it may be), but in a parallel secular sense–and Americans are going to put their faith in Obama.

Victor Davis Hanson quotes left-wing journalist Ben Wallace-Wells, writing in “The Rolling Stone” in 2007:

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama’s life, or his politics. The senator “affirmed” his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a “sounding board” to “make sure I’m not losing myself in the hype and hoopla.” Both the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”

Obama wasn’t born into Wright’s world. His parents were atheists, an African bureaucrat and a white grad student, Jerry Falwell’s nightmare vision of secular liberals come to life. Obama could have picked any church — the spare, spiritual places in Hyde Park, the awesome pomp and procession of the cathedrals downtown. He could have picked a mosque, for that matter, or even a synagogue. Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright, and “felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams.”

Obama has now spent two years in the Senate and written two books about himself, both remarkably frank: There is a desire to own his story, to be both his own Boswell and his own investigative reporter. When you read his autobiography, the surprising thing — for such a measured politician — is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that’s packed in there. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising. Obama’s life story is a splicing of two different roles, and two different ways of thinking about America’s. One is that of the consummate insider, someone who has been raised believing that he will help to lead America, who believes in this country’s capacity for acts of outstanding virtue. The other is that of a black man who feels very deeply that this country’s exercise of its great inherited wealth and power has been grossly unjust. This tension runs through his life; Obama is at once an insider and an outsider, a bomb thrower and the class president. “I’m somebody who believes in this country and its institutions,” he tells me. “But I often think they’re broken.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama/print

Other radicals are excited about Obama. Are they wrong?