The System of the World (Sidebar)

Should John McCain lose the election "economic issues" will definitely (and rightfully) bear much of the "blame". (Though there will be plenty of "blame" to go around.) Oddly enough - and perhaps maddeningly frustrating to the McCain campaign - this will be so in spite of the fact that McCain's position was fundamentally correct (I'm not talking n^th details here). And just as (if not more so) with his position on Iraq (and a thousand smaller issues) his main problem wasn't the fierce opposition from across the aisle, it was from within his own Party.

I'm a believer in free markets and small governments. But that can't be taken to a point of absurdity; a do-nothing government that stands in silent witness to economic collapse will in turn collapse shortly thereafter. Thus the questions on our current situation boil down to

"How close were we to economic collapse a few short weeks ago?"

"On what scale?"

"How fast did/do we need to act?"

and "how close are we to collapse now?"

The answers to questions one, three, and four are "very". The answer to question two is "global". My answers come from my own research over the past several weeks, in which I've attempted to draw as much as possible from material published "pre-crisis" to avoid as much post-mortem spin as possible. I'll be sharing what I've found in this ongoing series, and you can draw your own conclusions from that. But one undeniable conclusion is that no one who hadn't done some amount of research could provide a quick answer to what was going on.

And anyone who had blind faith in the market to correct itself was dangerously wrong. But that was the knee-jerk reaction from a lot of talk radio (and other) pundits, who were dismayed (if not surprised) to discover John McCain didn't share their views. It may be that McCain should have followed the Obama example and kept his hands clean on the whole affair, and simply offered encouragement and assurance from the sidelines while those in the trenches praised his leadership and connectedness. But with a sizable percentage of Republicans (but not John McCain) wrongly convinced that "nothing" was exactly what congress should do, that option was perhaps perceived as off the table.

If it isn't obvious, I parted ways with many Republicans on the answer to question three above. If you were convinced - as I was - that the answer is "very" then you also must accept - as I did - that the solution will be far from perfect, involve much compromise and shifting of positions, and utlimately require additional solutions. (And if you're cynical as I am, you'd expect it to be loaded with previously unobtainable pork.) It was all that. The Democrats scored mightily in keeping their presidential candidate "above the fray" (even if in congress there really wasn't much of one after all). Republicans shot themselves in the foot (if not the head) by rapidly demanding exactly where their candidate should lead them. (Though McCain's initial claim that "the fundamentals of our economy are sound" may have been perceived as a rally point that moved drastically upon their arrival.)

What's done is done, what remains to be seen is whether those dirty hands are actually perceived as a plus or minus in the eyes of voters. After election night - even though the current conventional wisdom is that there is "much blame to go around" on the current crisis and no time now for finger pointing (beyond blaming "greed") - it will be decided exactly who will bear that blame (and personify "greed"). Unless one believes in "statesmanship" one shouldn't expect the designated deciders to accept their fair share. Likewise, unless one believes in freedom of the press one shouldn't expect much help from that quarter. So it may turn out that blame falls squarely on only a few.

Perhaps you.