by flory
As I'm sure most of you have seen, the NYTimes is doing a series of articles on Big Shitpile and who's to blame for the mess we find ourselves in. Various parties have weighed in on the blame game. All seem to be in agreement that Bunnypants and his fellow travelers (Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan et al) bear the lion's share of the blame, which is undoubtedly true.
But everyone is trying to view the Bush Administration's actions thru some kind of principled ideological lens. As if it was a true belief in market fundamentalism that led to the mistakes that led directly to Big Shitpile. The answer is much simpler than that, George W and his enablers -- like his father and St Ronnie before him -- entered office determined to soak up as much of the national wealth for themselves and their cronies as was humanly possible...and they bloody well succeeded.
There were no principles involved:
That Bush had as a goal increased home ownership is, quite bluntly, irrelevant. It is a worthy goal, and certainly one that could be achieved without forcing the collapse of the financial system.
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't a worthy goal -- but it was never the Bush Administration's goal. Their goal was not to increase home ownership, but to increase home construction, thereby increasing the wealth of their developer constituents. The fact that home ownership had to increase in order to drive increasing home construction was incidental to their 'goals'.
Likewise, eliminating oversight in the financial markets never had anything to do with any Friedmanesque argument for letting markets regulate themselves. It was simply a means of making sure that insiders were always dealt the winning hand. Those insiders contributed heavily to Republican causes.
(To be fair, they also contributed to Democrats -- but that doesn't change the storyline; the only ideology involved was making sure the rich got richer).
There are many other examples: Social Security privitazation is the most obvious. The Iraq war -- and Rummy's DoD 'transformation' -- had much more to do with funneling money to defense contractors than it did with "Teh War on Terror". The response to Katrina wasn't accidental incompetence at FEMA; it was a planned effort designed to depopulate the poorer parts of New Orleans in the interest of lucrative high-end redevelopment. School vouchers in a Republican fantasy world would decimate public schools and leave the 'business' of education in private -- and presumably conservative, science hating -- hands.
All of which is why Republican attempts to 'redefine' their brand are so fascinating. How do you redefine greed and the worst sorts of cronyism as something laudable and electorally attractive? More importantly, what does it say about the country if they manage to pull it off?