On the Road With the Bailout Vote: A Final Good, Bad & Ugly Analysis

I just arrived at my destination point at a secure undisclosed location in the mountains of Western Colorado. I just had to get away for a little bit - the last two weeks have been really intense. Of course, I spent the day listening to C-SPAN radio - specifically, to the speeches of Democratic lawmakers switching their votes to support giving almost $1 trillion to one man - a former Goldman Sachs executive - to "save our economy." The final House roll call vote is here [1]. And so, before I sign off for the next three days, I wanted to just post a few final thoughts. Here they are in a good, bad and ugly sequence:

- GOOD: The fact that democracy made a cameo appearance on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on Monday was truly something special - something we should all savor and be inspired by (and not in spite of the fact that the "no" vote that day was a product of Democratic AND Republican votes, but BECAUSE of that fact). I'm not giving the "we won a moral victory even though we lost" speech, I'm simply reminding us all what we already know: Namely, that because of our campaign finance system, the rigged math of the U.S. Senate [2], and the rise of presidentialism [3] and the imperial presidency, we don't live in anything that resembles a functioning democracy, despite the Super Bowl-style sensationalism of the presidential contest. And so when democracy does poke its head out, it at least reminds us of the possibility that democracy can - one day - be resurrected. Let's hope it's in our lifetime (and I will add that the fact that there as was the fact that there were so many "no" votes today, and so many lawmakers of both parties didn't switch their votes, suggests it may well be in our lifetime).

- BAD: This photograph [4] may very well go down in infamy, both in Democratic Party history, and American history overall. Though this bailout was rhetorically packaged in somber themes, the wide grins of Democrats holding up the bill after it passed is a symbol that the Congress wasn't sad to pass this bill - it was overjoyed to have a Shock Doctrine-scorched political battlefield on which to ram a $700 billion Wall Street gift into law.

- UGLY: Here's a list [5] of the House members who switched their vote on this bill. They are an embarrassment - in some respects, even more of an embarrassment than those who originally voted for the bill. I say that because the bill did not substantially change from when it was originally voted down on Monday. In fact, between Monday and today, more experts came out against it, and worse - the Treasury Department held a conference call [6] admitting that most of the mildly progressive language that had been added to Paulson's original plan was written to be unenforceable. So while those who originally voted for this bill may not have known all that when they voted for the bill, those who voted no and then voted yes probably knew that - but switched their votes anyway, most likely because of corruption, inexplicable fear of Mr. 19 Percent [7], or both. As I said, that's just embarrassing. And while some like Donna Edwards are definitely great people and may have gotten rhetorical commitments for progressive reforms in the future, all of the switchers deserve whatever primaries or electoral challenges that are borne out of that flip flop.

Two last things I wanted to add.

First, to those who attacked the patriotism/integrity [8] of bailout opponents, and who pointed to the Dow's plummet earlier this week as proof that bailout opponents were helping drive the stock market down, please notice that after the bill passed today, the Dow also plummeted [9]. Holding aside the fascist notion of voting for legislation based on what the stock market wants, let me just say that today's Dow drop should prove the idiocy of trying to cite the Dow as the reason to vilify a bill's opponents (or proponents). Put more succintly, to those who cited a Dow drop as a reason to vote for this bill, STFU.

Second (and finally), I agree with the spirit of Ari Melber's new piece in The Nation [10] - this last week and a half could be one of the progressive blogosphere/Netroots foundational moments. Most major progressive organizations (though not all [11]) stayed out of the debate over the bailout - a humiliating and disturbing display of putting their partisan affinities over their mission's movement goals, even in the face of the most important economic legislation in a half century.

The same can't be said for the blogosphere/Netroots - and I think we had a huge impact in a way that made the fight against this bailout our first truly major - and potentially transformative - fight on an economic issue.

We've had formative fights on national security (Iraq) and civil liberties (FISA), but this is our first fight at such a high level on an economic issue. And let's be clear: this was unlike the fights we've had on other economic issues like Social Security and taxes because we actually took a real leadership role. And sure, maybe we were only able to assume that leadership role because of the vacuum (ie. we were among the only progressive movement actors really fighting back in a cohesive way). But the reasons for our prominence and leadership are less important than the reality - we played a big role, and if that helps sharpen us and toughen us for the future economic fights ahead, then it was a fight worth having because this bailout isn't going to solve our economic problems (it may even make them worse) - and that means the fights on economic issues are just beginning.