The most common refrain I’ve heard lately from those who oppose the economic rescue plan is that “they got themselves into it, they can get themselves out of it” (to loosely quote a dear friend of mine).

It may be true for many people that “they,” others, created the mess. But, like it or not, every single one of us is now in the muck.

If “they” don’t get bailed out, neither do we. If “they” don’t get government help, people like me–who have never taken on a mortgage, do not have a car loan, did not make poor investments, and have “good debt” from student loans they have paid in full, on time, every month for years–will likely be affected just as much as the people who made bad, reckless choices.

Unfortunately, you can’t split the U.S. economy into two sectors: one for those who have been financially responsible and therefore shouldn’t have to pay for others’ mistakes, and one for those who were irresponsible and therefore deserve to suffer their particular consequences. There is one U.S. economy and it is in the middle of an implosion that, if not remedied, will certainly rival the Great Depression. And during the Great Depression, those who contributed to the economy’s crash and those who had never even been to a bank stood side by side in the bread lines. For years.

Because the government officials who developed the rescue plan have done such a poor job properly explaining it to the American people, the media seem to have taken up the cause. Thus we have the wonderfully educational video below, from the Today Show and CNBC’s Erin Burnett, my favorite economic tutor.

The first two-and-a-half minutes provide the simple version of some of the most indisputable, inescapable tenets of marco- and microeconomics. And no matter how loudly and how often you proclaim your innocence in this matter, your justified frustration at this mess, and your right to exemption from it, well…the tenets just won’t care.

This Monday, two hundred and twenty-eight of the men and women we elected to represent our interests and govern in good conscience proved themselves wholly undeserving of our trust. Make no mistake: Monday, the day that the U.S. House of Representatives refused to pass an economic rescue bill, is a day that all of us will live to regret.

It is not a coincidence or a conspiracy that the Secretary of the Treasury, the leader of the Federal Reserve, the President, the Democratic nominee for president, the Republican nominee for president, and every reputable analyst who covers the financial markets has insisted that, however distasteful a bailout may be, it is absolutely necessary.

When ignorance meets politics

What many Americans seem not to understand is that this “bailout” isn’t designed to save stock brokers and CEOs. This bailout is designed to save the entire U.S. economy. Bailout or not, Wall Street is suffering and will continue to suffer for a long time. For every “golden parachute” we hear about, there are hundreds of mid-level financial employees who have lost their jobs, their retirement funds, and their life savings.

Further, “bailout” is a misnomer. The rescue bill was a very sophisticated version of any generic investment plan: buy low, sell high. The American people were going to buy into tanking mortgages and securities and, by many accounts, make a profit as the economy righted itself and the value of our investment began to rise again. We, through the government, would eventually sell our shares back, and all those billions of dollars would be back in government coffers. The American people would stand to gain a great deal from that surplus through tax breaks, infrastructure, and social programs.

Sadly, it appears that we will never get to see this payoff. Instead, we’ll see what happens when our elected leaders place the well-being of their political careers above the well-being of every person they represent.

They plan to win, right before we all lose

As noted in the Washington Post: “It’s no coincidence then that of the 205 Members who voted in support of the bill today, there are only two — Reps. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) and Jon Porter (R-Nev.) — who find themselves in difficult reelection races this fall. The list of the 228 “nays” reads like a virtual target list for the two parties.”

Virtually every politician whose seat isn’t hotly contested in an upcoming election voted in favor of the economic rescue bill. Could it be that, free from the shackles of political strategizing and vote-seeking, these representatives deferred to the economic experts and made the right, if unpopular, decision in casting their “yeas”?

Then there are the “nays.” Two hundred and twenty-eight of them, to be exact; the majority of them face tough battles for re-election and need all the votes they can get. Surely they had access to the same information and warnings as those with secure seats who voted for the bill. Yet they took positions that seemed to disregard information and ignore warnings.

The fact that the explanation for this discrepancy is easy to pinpoint makes it no less infuriating. The variable here is constituent opinion.

Though it is self-evident that the average American has, at the very best, a weak grasp of the economic solution devised by financial experts with decades of experience, this didn’t stop them from forming opinions on the matter. Most Americans strongly and vocally opposed the rescue plan, though the fervency of their opinions vastly outweighed the understanding behind them. (Of course, I don’t claim a perfectly clear understanding of the rescue plan either, but that’s why I defer to the consensus of dozens of experts on the matter.)

As these under-informed, angry constituents made their opinions known, many representatives saw the dark clouds of potential political defeat on the horizon. For over two hundred of our so-called leaders, this overshadowed all other considerations. Though the collapse of the national economy looms on that same horizon, far larger than any other issue, these people trained their binoculars on one thing only: political self-interest.

With this, we all lose. As Americans start to see the repercussions of our leaders’ choice of popularity over responsibility, we will most certainly find ourselves far angrier–and far less financially secure–than we were before the bill was put on the House floor.

A very large glass house

Every American who has taken on more than he or she could afford in a home loan, car loan, or personal loan is partly responsible for this. Every politician who supported reckless deregulation, or did not sound the alarm bell for better oversight, is partly responsible for this. Every man and woman on Wall Street who proceeded with abandon in taking on too much risk, and every company who insured those risks, is partly responsible for this.

Yet, Monday, we had one last chance. After years of collective carelessness and greed, both on Wall Street and Main Street, we had a chance to get out before things got really, really bad. The reality is, this was America’s golden parachute. But when it came time for our leaders to do exactly what they have been elected to do–lead us–more than half of them failed.

Shame on us, and shame on them.

See whose side your representatives are on:

<http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml>

I’ll admit it. When John McCain announced at the RNC that he had chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate, I got caught up in the excitement.

As I listened to her speech, I had a number of reactions. I was impressed at McCain’s boldness. I was proud to see a woman on the Republican presidential ticket for the first time in history. I was completely clueless about who this woman was.

The speech Sarah Palin delivered that day was many things: memorable, sarcastic, bold, mean, funny, and extraordinarily well-delivered. I think a lot of us found ourselves liking her, or at least rooting for her, either in spite of or in continuation of whatever other opinions we hold about this election.

The Learning Curve

Since that day at the RNC, we’ve learned a lot about Sarah Palin. And it hasn’t always been easy.

For the first few weeks after Palin’s selection, her public appearances were limited to numerous deliveries of the same speech, almost verbatim, that made her famous at the convention. We heard a lot about her “thanks, but no thanks, for that bridge to nowhere.” We hear about her taking on the good ol’ boys, and fighting earmarks.

It took a good couple of weeks to hear from an unscripted Sarah Palin. First, we saw her interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson; next, with Sean Hannity of Fox News; last (to date), her interview with Katie Couric for CBS Nightly News.

As I’ve mentioned, part of me was rooting for this Alaskan governor who stepped on a stage and wowed us. (I say “part of me” because I had gotten a bit wary after learning more about Governor Palin’s positions on social issues like the environment, gay rights, and abortion.) Still, I genuinely like to see strong, savvy women take the world by storm.

However, as I watched John McCain’s running mate talk to Gibson, then Hannity, then Couric–all journalists known for being, shall we say, gentler interviewers than most–a single, prevailing impression dominated every other reaction I had to what I saw.

The conclusion I couldn’t help but arrive at, couldn’t believe I was arriving at, was this: John McCain can’t possibly have this country’s best interest at heart.

Country First

A Vice President has two primary responsibilities, as outlined in the United States Constitution. The first is to become President if the President becomes unable to serve; the second is to act as head of the U.S. Senate. It is by these standards that a potential Vice President should be judged.

One could make a number of arguments against Sarah Palin’s ability to preside over the Senate (namely, she has never served as a member of the Senate or the House). But that discussion is for a later time. Of much graver importance is the question of whether Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as President of the United States should John McCain be unable to complete his term. Even graver than that is the question of what this indicates about Senator McCain.

What we learned between the Republican National Convention and the interviews was that Sarah Palin had never met a foreign head of state. She did not obtain a passport or travel outside of North America until 2006. She attended five colleges as an undergraduate. Of course, these facts raised some eyebrows. They didn’t seem to reflect many of the traits we hope for in a leader: a wide swath of experience, a commitment to education, a desire to see the world, a history of building relationships with other world leaders. Still, we thought, maybe there’s an explanation. We’ll wait to hear from her.

Yet when Sarah Palin finally spoke without the aid of a teleprompter, we heard the voice of a person who lacks basic command of nearly every important issue–foreign policy, national security, the economy, and energy policy, to name a few.

Palin’s more disappointing moments, such as when the term “Bush Doctrine” seemed to stump her, or when she asserted that Alaska’s proximity to Russia lends her credence in foreign affairs, gained significant media attention. But just as revealing were her “better” moments. Even at her best, Sarah Palin demonstrated an amateur understanding of the issues. She was unable to offer a specific proposal or solution regarding any one of the numerous problems the inheritors of the White House will inevitably face. After her most recent interview, some Republican commentators began calling for her to bow out of the race before more damage could be done.

Judgment Matters

What baffles me is that some voters don’t see McCain’s choice as a game-changer. The logic is: if McCain wins the election, and is able to serve through his term, then his decision to make Sarah Palin second in command ceases to be a problem. Yet this logic is deeply flawed. Because, most essentially, this is not about Sarah Palin. This is about John McCain, and what his choice tells us about him.

John McCain chose as his running mate a person who draws a great deal of attention to his campaign, advances his maverick reputation, and, initially at least, seemed to have the potential to gain favor with women voters. In doing this, however, McCain also chose someone who has demonstrated on a number of occasions that she is fundamentally unqualified to lead this country. McCain made this decision voluntarily and in full knowledge of the fact that, if the worst-case scenario were to arise, his country would be left in the hands a person who is notably unequipped for the job.

Thus, on one side, there is the potential for great political gain for John McCain. On the other side, there is the potential for great national loss for all of us.

To be sure, every man or woman running for president makes decisions that are politically prudent. No one expects a politician to be apolitical. But there are occasions in which a politically advantageous choice is the same choice that has real potential to put our country into one of the most precarious, vulnerable positions it has ever been in. I don’t think my standards are too high if I expect that, on these occasions, a man deserving of the title of President of the United States should side with country.

Make no mistake: John McCain has most certainly put country first many times in his life. But this is not one of those times.

Imagine, if you will, the following fictitious presidential nominees:

Candidate A:

Black male, born in Central America. He has a Bachelor’s degree from the US Naval Academy, where he was ranked 894 in a class of 899. His first marriage ended in divorce (the candidate admitted to having an affair during his first marriage). Second marriage is to a woman 18 years younger than him, whose most notable negative mark on her reputation is that she went to rehab for a prescription drug addiction, in order not to face criminal charges. Candidate A’s most-criticized personality traits are that he is temperamental, aggressive, and “rough around the edges.”

Candidate B:

White male, born in the United States. He has a Bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a law degree from Harvard, where he held the top position on the Harvard Law Review. Candidate B is has been married to the same woman, who is three years younger than him, for sixteen years; her most notable negative mark is that she said, in response to her husband’s success in the presidential primaries, that she was “really proud of” the country “for the first time in [her] adult lifetime.” Candidate B’s most-criticized personality traits are that he is too reserved, intellectual, and “professorial.”

Who wins?

Fooling Ourselves

We hope that American prejudice has diminished over time, and there are certainly significant indications that it has. Yet to claim that prejudice–including, yes, that most-avoided word, racism–no longer plays a role in this country is to belie one’s inability or unwillingness to analyze basic facts.

YouTube videos of outrageous goings-on at Barack Obama’s church that happened on a day when he was not even in attendance dominate the news cycle and elicit outrage for weeks. YouTube videos of outrageous goings-on at Sarah Palin’s church, in which she is an actual participant in the goings-on, get little attention and certainly elicit no calls for a denouncement, public apology, or long, explanatory speech about her faith.

When the black candidate has a law degree and an Ivy-league education, he is an “elite” and “out of touch” man whom Americans claim they can’t identify with. Did we say the same about George W. Bush, who went to Yale? I don’t seem to recall President Bush’s Ivy-league education (nor having attended one of the most elite all-boys private high schools) being cited as a reason not to vote for him as he sought to become the leader of our country.

Differing Standards of Tolerance

Then there is the question of what sort of personality and emotional displays we permit in our candidates. McCain is known for having a fiery temper and an aggressive approach to politics. Lately, his integrity has come into question as a number of non-partisan fact-check organizations have accused him of including blatant falsehoods in his campaign advertising. Would the American people tolerate this in a black candidate?

When asked, “How do we beat the bitch?” in a reference to Hillary Clinton, McCain chuckled and answered the question. To be sure, Senator McCain caught flack for this, but it certainly didn’t do permanent damage to his campaign. Fortunately for Obama, there is no parallel blunder on his side to cite. We can’t be sure how the American people would react if Senator Obama laughed at and responded to a mean and disrespectful attack on a woman. But we can imagine.

Similarly, if Barack Obama stood in front of a crowd and sang about bombing other countries to the tune of the Beach Boys, would most Americans continue to think of him as “presidential”?

American prejudice has not gone away. It has just become more nuanced, more subversive, and harder to identify behind the many masks it wears. Apply the “reverse roles” trick though, and there it is, rearing its ugly and stubborn head right in the middle of the most important election this country has seen in decades.

Want more fodder? Nicholas Kristof’s excellent Op-Ed in The New York Times addresses conservative strategy of “otherizing” Obama.

The latest breaking news is that congressional negotiations of the financial bailout have come to a halt. Congressman Barney Frank announced to the press this evening that Republican representatives refused to continue the process of reaching an agreement on the bailout, asserting that they need additional time to devise a more acceptable plan.

Based on today’s timeline, it would seem that this deterioration is closely linked to Senator John McCain’s involvement in the crisis. Prior to the Republican nominee’s arrival in Washington, most indications showed that Congress was likely to come to an agreement by the week’s (if not the day’s) end.

As the day wore on, however, John McCain became increasingly involved in the congressional process. He proposed the idea of introducing a significantly altered or potentially new plan to solve the financial crisis. Accusations of political partisanship flew from one side of the aisle to the other. Republicans claimed that Democrats were going to refuse to support the bailout; Democrats said the same of Republicans.

Toying with a great American virtue

Americans have an impressive history (recent history, at least) of unity during times of extreme crisis. When our future is tangibly on the line, when tall buildings or centuries-old institutions are collapsing, our collective gut reaction is to face a challenge together, as one group of dynamic, resilient, spirited Americans. In times of extreme crisis, politics play second fiddle to old fashioned American problem-solving. This is one of our great strengths.

The snowballing economic problems we face most certainly qualify as an extreme crisis. Hence we found ourselves, this morning, relieved that politics were not going to get in the way. We were met with the heartening news that our leaders were brokering an agreement that would soon pass Congress.

Enter Politics

As the day wore on, though, speculation and analysis triggered by Senator McCain’s actions began to dominate the news cycle. Quickly, reports about the financial crisis were inextricable from news about political maneuverings. In introducing himself into the process, McCain reintroduced politics into a process that, previously, was largely and necessarily de-politicized

Thus we find ourselves tonight, clicking on the “Economy” page of our favorite news site and reading about the campaigns. We click on the “Election ‘08″ page and find that the top story is about the financial crisis. The two are one.

And in a more dire example of the same effect, politics weaseled their way into the greatest financial collapse this country has seen in nearly eighty years. We find ourselves absorbing the latest news with disbelief, dread.

The deal fell apart?

They want more time? Aren’t most experts saying we don’t have any more time?

What now? What next?