I made it through the Newsweek cover-story. Nothing new, except for Robert Rubin’s schadenfreude and a Begala-like quote from pseudo-populist Bob Shrum. But it does strike me that there is a real story of comparison here. What both Bushes have in common is an undemonstrative determination to correct the abuses they inherited. 41 had to deal with the soaring deficits left by Reagan. He did so calmly, bravely, suicidally. His budget deal was the foundation stone of the 1990s boom. He managed the collapse of the Soviet Union without any blood being spilled. Yes, he misjudged Gorbachev. Yes, he bungled the Iraq war end-game. But in my view, the first Bush administration is one of the most seriously under-rated of modern times: it got its biggest challenge right. The parallel with his son’s administration is obvious. 43 inherited a seriously delinquent anti-terrorism policy, in which his predecessor’s feckless national security apparatus had left the United States vulnerable to the worst slaughter of American citizens in history. W didn’t do enough immediately to reectify this, but he has performed superbly since on the matter. But 43 also inherited what I think we should start calling the Rubin Bubble. It was bursting before W took office and has continued ever since. It may take more time to recover from it, and Bush, like his father, may well suffer politically from the consequences. But 43’s caution in not grasping immediate Gephardt-style measures will be judged more favorably by history than by instapundits; as will the tax cut, the one firewall against a massive new expansion of government. If this winter’s war against Iraq succeeds, 43 will enter a re-election cycle with a growing economy and a safer world as his legacy. That wasn’t enough for his dad, but this time the timing’s better. More to the point, if W runs again with a Democratic Congress, he may be paradoxically harder to beat. Triangulation and all that.
BUT THE DEMS MAY STILL LOSE: The Ipsos/Reid-Cook Report on voters finds only marginal change in voting intentions after the last few weeks of bad market news. College-educated women and non-college edcuated men have moved toward the Democrats, making it a statistical tie in voting intentions in the fall. But among likely voters, Republicans still lead 48 – 40 percent. That’s striking.
TIPTOEING THROUGH “TULIP”: “I know much of this is probably projection on my part. At the same time, what Dusty has taught me in our three and a half years together is that the relationship between humans and animals is a real and sacred one. And the reason I’m such a champion of this little dog book is because of the sheer delicacy and subtlety with which Ackerley understands and expresses this. What he achieves is not an anthropomorphic sentimentality. He combines an admirable refusal to condescend to dogs or to engage in facile sentiment about pets with a deep attempt to see the world from their point of view. What he sees is what my mother has always shown with regard to children: he sees their dignity.” – The Book Club discussion of “My Dog Tulip,” continues on the Book Club page.
RACIALISM IN LEFTIST HELL: a look at this website detailing the Rent Board Commission in San Francisco. Everyone not only has a name but a race. One guy who’s “Caucasian” also gets the “Gay” label. I guess to these leftist-racialists, that other identifier makes him more palatable. Do these people realize how all this racial identifiers and categories make them look more and more like apartheid South Africa?
RAINES WATCH: Amazing one-two punch against the Times’ much vaunted cover-story on Sunday claiming vast numbers of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. It turns out they’re relying on a notorious leftist and dubious numbers. James Taranto and Michael Moynihan’s Politburo nail it. How many more ideologically-driven, factually challenged headlines do we have to read in the paper of record?
THE CASE FOR GLOOM: Steven Roach writes a depressing but interesting case for the imminence of a double-dip recession. He blames much of the current crash on Greenspan:
In my opinion, the Fed squandered the opportunity to pop the equity bubble in late 1996 and early 1997. Back then, an “irrationally exuberant” equity bubble was suddenly rationalized by a Fed that embraced the New Economy with open arms. Today’s script seems hauntingly familiar. An overly extended housing cycle is now being legitimized as a sustainable source of economic expansion. From bubble to bubble — there seems to be no stopping the follies and perils of asset- and debt-driven economic growth.
Maybe we should call it the Rubin-Greenspan Bubble. For more bearish assessments, check out this site. I don’t buy a lot of it, but I was far too sanguine about this market in years gone by, so give the bears their say.
The Dish 