The Bosque Boys

The deal is struck. Crisis averted temporarily.

Take the deal. Applaud the deal. It was the right thing to do. The calls on C-SPAN are running fifty to no one against "bailing out the fat cats." No matter, this is one of those instances in which sincere statesmen could not afford to indulge in populist poppycock.

What the misguided callers and disgruntled denizens of "Main Street" fail to realize is that we are all corrupted and connected. We are "fat cats" in our own right. In my small city, USA, every successful lawyer and doctor and small-business owner drives a forty-thousand-dollar-plus vehicle, university faculty live higher than pre-modern nobility, and even the community college teachers live in big houses and drive new cars.

We should suppress our understandable human desire to find malefactors in distant places. The "robber barons of Wall Street" make for colorful villains--but our rush to shift our own complicity clouds the real issue:

We have been living above our means for decades.

This plan avoids the looming cataclysmic crash--but it does not solve our problem.

Some of this I wrote about earlier this week.

This fix is not really a fix. It is only a stopgap. The deal is merely a STAY OF EXECUTION. We can overcome this current crisis, but it is a fire bell in the night. It is a warning, which, if unheeded, signals the beginning of the end for us.

Our only real solution? Repentance.

If we are actually to heal ourselves, we are going to need to change our lifestyles. We must conserve more of our resources. We must practice self denial more and indulge in instant gratification less.

Hopefully, we have avoided a Second Great Depression--but, if we are honest with ourselves, we will grasp this opportunity to recommit ourselves to a healthier and more sustainable culture of reality and sobriety.

This $700 Billion RESCUE was necessary--but it is not a "get out of jail free card." We have an opportunity to turn from our folly. We must seize it. Moving forward with a "business as usual" mindset would be suicidal.

Support the deal and commit yourself to a cultural makeover. A time is coming in which we can no longer have it all.

A Parting Thought: in that vein, perhaps a "spending freeze" is the most practical suggestion put forward by a candidate for national office in the new century.

The death of Paul Newman is incredibly political. With his passing, the liberal John Wayne has died. Prepare yourself for a secular canonization.

I will pass on the politics, however, and offer an appraisal of Newman the movie star.

I was never a great fan of Newman as an actor. The NYT et al will inevitably describe him repeatedly as the greatest student of Lee Strasberg and the pride of the Actor's Studio. But Newman was not in the same class as Brando or De Niro or Duvall or Hoffman or even Jack Nicholson. Newman was a beautiful man and the camera adored him. No one ever looked better on a towering movie screen than Paul Newman. No one ever proved so charming and handsome over a longer period.

But Newman was much more than a pretty face. While he was not the greatest actor of his generation, he was an immensely talented movie star.

Why?

Two Reasons:

1. Newman understood his limits. He never tried to play a bald-headed paraplegic. He never donned a funny mustache and tried to lose himself in a quirky character. Newman understood who he was and why people liked him. He played Paul Newman every time out--but he played him better than anybody else in Hollywood.

2. As an actor, Newman understood the necessity of quality material. Once an actor achieves mega-star status, he enjoys the opportunity to pick his roles (virtually any role). The nature of Hollywood means that almost every notable part and/or script, at some point, comes within the grasp of the town's top two or three male stars. Although he had the power to play almost any lead role in Hollywood for at least two decades, he chose his projects with great skill and discipline, understanding, perhaps sensing, what a high quality script and a Newman-vehicle felt like.

Newman will be remembered fondly forever for his penetrating blue eyes and his incredibly handsome face. He will also be remembered for great movies:

Cool Hand Luke

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

The Sting

Absence of Malice

The Verdict

Paul Newman, rest in peace.

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Commenting on my post, in which I asserted McCain won on foreign policy but nobody cares very much, one of my friends (RB) came away seeing McCain as rigid:

"McCain looked every bit the over-zealous Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,...Bomb, Bomb, Iran candidate with his stiff body language and his even stiffer rhetoric that allows no flexibility for a political world that is far different than the one that McCain grew up in."

BTW, kudos to Obama for inserting McCain's "lighthearted" Dr. Strangelove moment into the debate. It was the only time McCain actually winced. It is obviously an exceedingly embarrassing incident, which Team McCain would rather forget. After last night, not bloody likely. The old clip received a new life in the post-debate coverage.

RB also agreed with me (and the conventional wisdom) "that foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's territory, but it came across as more of a draw...that's not good enough for McCain who has to land knockout punches to overcome...his voting record over the last eight years."

While I actually agreed in large part with RB's analysis in re style, our differences in re substance speak to the human propensity to see these things depending on our predispositions.

Nothing that might have happened in the debate last night was likely to change my opinion or that of RB.

Who were they talking to?

What is the import of these productions?

The big TV debates are meaningful in changing people's minds in two ways:

1. for the very small number of actual voters who are so un-interested in politics that they have not formed an opinion yet, but for some reason tuned in on a Friday night, the TV duel might have made an impact (did I mention this is a very small number).

2. much more important is the buzz (non viewers who will hear who won). This is why whoever wins the spin really won this debate. Right now RB's analysis is emerging as the consensus (another reason why McCain had little advantage in showing up to the debate--although he had no better option).

Without the knockout, or knockdown, or even a stagger--nothing changed. Obama went into the round ahead on points, and he emerged from the round still ahead on points, and he is now one round closer to the conclusion of the contest.

It was a good night for Obama.

See also Tocqueville's addition of Quin Hilyer's take, which also asserts that McCain lost in the perception wars.

Just when I had called all TV debates meaningless, Jim Lehrer and his friends offer a vastly improved format designed to encourage more substantial interaction. The new regime was not perfect. Too often, just when the two principals began to find a rhythm, Moderator Lehrer started blowing his whistle and instructing the two contestants to reset for a new line of questioning. Having said that, this was the most fluid and meaningful debate in recent memory.

Some quick thoughts:

1. The so-called Truth Squads are all over McCain and his extemporaneous (I presume) use of Dwight Eisenhower and the Longest Day (following Jim Lehrer's prefatory remarks noting Ike's 1952 quote concerning "national security and solvency").

Some smarties are upset that Johnny Mac called D-Day the "greatest invasion in history" (numerically it was not). Many are jubilantly noting that McCain inaccurately described Ike's famous letter of responsibility (written beforehand in case of failure) as a letter of resignation.

Come on fellas. Is this the best we can do? At worst, this was a harmless error that did not alter McCain's obvious point on accountability. And, arguably, it is a semantic distinction without a difference. It is easy to read that note as a letter of resignation (one old warrior confessed to me that he always saw it as a suicide note). In any event, it is a document speaking to the tradition of falling on one's sword, which is a practice that has fallen severely out of favor in modern culture. It is a long way from "mistakes were made," which illustrated brilliantly McCain's simple assertion.

2. The exchange on the economy was less than revealing. McCain got the best of the debate with his promise to freeze spending, drill offshore, and pursue nukes--but the economy remains Barack Obama's major asset in this campaign. Nothing transpired tonight to alter that basic fact of life.

3. McCain won the battle of the Surge. Obama cannot compete with McCain on the current facts concerning Iraq. Obama repeatedly staggered under the weight of recent events, invoking the specter of Osama bin Laden, evading 2007 by emphasizing the decisions of 2003, and even reminding his audience that Joe (Biden) knows. But again--does any of that really matter right now? Remember when we thought this election was going to be about Iraq?

4. McCain gave a tour de force on foreign affairs knowledge, effortlessly integrating into the conversation unpronounceable names and obscure faraway places. During these riffs, Obama could do little more than furrow his brow and nod his head in a serious way. McCain pounded the point that Obama had no idea or understanding of American foreign relations. I believe him. But, again, does anyone really care about foreign policy experience in this election? My hunch is not so much.

5. I don't have FOX News--but it certainly seems that Obama is dominating the spin on TV (the networks and PBS). The mainstream consensus: draw (or, slight edge for Obama). Considering that this debate was McCain's strong suit, a draw for Obama equals BIG CASINO.

My sense is that McCain did better than the talking heads think right now. We will see how this all plays out over the next forty-eight hours. My guess is the "take away" (the on-again, off-again drama) generated more interest in the debate than we might have seen otherwise; therefore, I would expect some high numbers in re viewers.

My guess: not as bad for McCain as the pundits are predicting-- but, certainly, no dramatic knock down for the maverick.

Revised and extended version of the comments section here.

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

Remember this?

UPDATE: Watch Video Here

Enough with all the talk about whether McCain is going to show up for the debate, whether he made a good political move asking for a postponement, or whether he blinked by relenting.

If this were some ordinary time, all that campaign kibbitzing might be tolerable (perhaps even enjoyable).

If this were some ordinary time, a McCain "snub" of David Letterman might be of some interest and comedic value.

If this were some ordinary time, a televised presidential debate might be a harmless and entertaining diversion.

But clearly this is no ordinary time.

Shame on McCain for giving in to the clamor.

More importantly, shame on us for acting like David Letterman and presidential debates have any substantive importance. Sure, modern TV debates are consequential because they shape perception--and perception is reality--but nothing is ever actually revealed in one of these spectacles. Surely, no one expects either candidate to seriously address substantive issues in a format designed to create soundbites and retain the attention of a serially inattentive nation. Surely, we will discover nothing new about Senators Obama and McCain tonight that any reasonably informed voter did not already know.

But the show must go on.

McCain backed down because his opponents across the aisle and in the media would have likely spun his refusal as cowardice and/or a cynical ploy--but so what? If you truly are genuine about saving the country at any personal price, what does it matter what the dream merchants say about you?

The REAL ISSUE. This economic precipice is a defining moment in American history. We are not treating this crossroads with the seriousness it deserves. Rather, we continue to react to the potentially crippling financial crisis as if it is just one more installment of a melodrama in which the fate of the characters bear no relation to our real lives. Will the Wall Street fat cats bilk the people once again? Will Bernanke and Paulson talk Congress into a deal? Will the House Republicans outsmart the Democrats? "Turn it up, dear, this is getting good." Or, more likely, "what else is on?"

Tune in next week to see if the USA survives.

From Patrick Deneen:

“My friends, during the primaries I insisted that I would rather lose an election than lose a war. I was honored to receive my party's nomination, and have had the honor to represent my party during this election season. However, with the coming of this economic crisis that threatens to undermine the American economic system, it is time to put aside partisan bickering and to offer some straight talk. And, given that this threat is as grave to our country as a military conflict, I want to state that I am willing to lose the election if it means that straight talk will help defeat this threat to our national well-being.

“Congress and the administration have reached the outlines of an agreement that would restore confidence to our financial system and allow it again to provide essential loans necessary for the functioning of our economy. But make no mistake about it, my friends — this agreement is only a temporary solution, one that will require oversight and accountability. I make it my solemn oath that this short term solution will not become yet another permanent government entitlement program. Like the Surge, it is a temporary measure — needed to restore confidence in our financial system and prevent a collapse of our economy; when its work is done, I will be vigilant that our government stands down and returns the essential workings of the economy to the private sector. In this, I believe that I will be more vigilant in preventing further permanent expansion of our federal government than my opponent, who believes that every problem can be solved by yet another permanent government program.

“However, as part of that vigilance, I will also seek to prevent this sort of crisis from ever happening again. Many people in our nation have made bad choices and share the blame over the past several months and even years leading up to this crisis. Many on Wall Street acted with greed and lack of restraint. Our regulators have not exercised their proper authority and watchfulness. Lenders were unscrupulous and speculators sought to make a quick dollar at the expense of ordinary citizens. Under my administration, this will cease.

“However, we must also be willing to consider our own participation in this crisis. We have become a nation of debtors and spenders, and no nation — no republic — has long persisted where appetite replaces self-governance. My friends, when our nation called me to serve as a young man, I did not hesitate to heed that call, and I bear the scars and, yes, the medals of one who sacrificed much for his nation. Today we need a renewal of a spirit of devotion to a cause greater than ourselves — a devotion to the health of our nation, vitality that is built on the bedrock of the decencies and virtues of our citizens.

“For the past several decades leaders of both parties have watched, and even encouraged, rising levels of debt and consumption in both the public and the private spheres. We have wagered our future by allowing foreign powers to hold most of our national debt, and we have indirectly supported people who seek our destruction when we fill our gas tanks. We have ceased to encourage and support many of the virtues of frugality and responsibility that a citizenry needs to embody for its nation to flourish, and have mortgaged the future sometimes for fleeting pleasures. I promise to you today, my fellow Americans, that I if I have the honor and privilege of serving as your next President, I will make it my foremost task to endeavor to restore the esteemed place of these virtues of self-sacrifice and commitment to a greater good than ourselves by means of example, encouragement, and, yes, legislation that will reward savings and not spending, conservation and not waste, and a promise to future generations to leave the our nation at least as good if not better than we found it.”

"Do you think Wall Street owes the American people an apology?"

It was the soundbite of the day earlier this week. On Monday and Tuesday the world watched breathlessly and angrily as the Senate Committee on Banking grilled the Fed Chair, Ben Bernanke, and Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson.

Against the weight of the political extravaganza, Bernanke patiently attempted to explain American economic history and Business 101 to a gaggle of self-aggrandizing politicians amid the clicking, clucking, and buzzing of the political press. On a desperate mission to save the US economy from collapse, the indefatigable Fed Chair pressed on through congressional willful ignorance and gratuitous disdain.

"Do you think Wall Street owes the American people an apology?" asked a grandstanding freshman senator.

An Aside: my immediate reaction (with my face changing color and fire rising in my eyes): "with all due respect, Senator Brown, do you ever wonder if the Senate of the United States owes the American people an apology?"

It is good that I am merely an obscure history teacher and an anonymous blogger. Rejoinders of that nature are not productive.

Bernanke, the Southern-born, Harvard- and MIT-educated gentle intellectual giant, responded with grace, explaining finally that "Wall Street" was something of an "abstraction."

Otherwise intelligent people have been asserting all week that the fat cats are to blame. If you actually believe in capitalism, they say, you must agree that heads need to roll, markets need to work, and we need to let the chips fall where they may. Who's at fault? George Bush and his corrupt business cronies. Or, Bill Clinton, big-government liberalism, and political correctness. Or, greedy mortgage bundlers on Wall Street. Or, deceptive lenders who forced people with bad credit into loans they had no intention of paying back while living in houses that they could not afford.

Bailout? "Not with my money you don't."

Here's the problem:

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.

Who's in trouble? We are. Who's needs bailing out? We do. Who's to blame? We are. Who's going to save our asses in this moment of crisis? We are--if we can muster the good sense and stifle the self-righteous indignation.

First Step: stop pointing fingers. Our overall mess is seven decades in the making. We are a spoiled rotten bunch and a society too often unconnected to reality. "Wall Street" has done our bidding. Every mug on "Main Street" NOW can tell you how idiotic the mortgage derivatives were. Where were all these geniuses a few years ago when we were all slurping up our low-interest, no-questions-asked home loans? We could have used some of that 20-20 hindsight in real time.

An Aside: what often goes unsaid is that there were many more innovative financial mechanisms that worked as advertised. Innovation means taking chances. When things work everyone is happy. When they don't: get a rope.

More importantly, we need to face this reality: we did this to ourselves. Face up to our own complicity. We wanted it all (and still do).

Number Two: come together, stop whining and blaming, and do the right thing. We can beat this crisis together. Right now we still have enough collective punch and stamina as a super power to overcome this mighty financial blow of our own making. Let's do it. Stop talking. Stop the CYA. Make the right deal.

Number Three: Repent. This fix is not really a fix. It is only a stopgap. We can overcome this current crisis, but it is a fire bell in the night. It is a warning, which, if unheeded, signals the beginning of the end for us.

If we are actually to heal ourselves, we are going to need to change our ways. More conservation of resources. More self denial and less instant gratification. Fewer vacations. Older cars. More walking. Less gardeners, maids, and nannies. More reading. More church. More saving. Less fast food. More vegetables. Less TV. Fewer designer labels. Less NFL. More playing in the yard. More studying. Less drinking beer. More gardens. More respect. Less snark. More grace.

Quick Thought:

Team McCain should suggest that the VP debate be moved to Friday. This flies in the face of the media template that Sarah Palin must be protected. Let everybody know that Sarah is ready for prime time. Bring on Joe and the pr0bama press volcano.

The VP debate will be a circus. Let the crowds watch the spectacle while the business of government is done in executive session over the weekend.

Plan B: if Obama insists on showing up on Friday, send Sarah Palin to debate him (while McCain stays "suspended" and engaged in important matters of state).