It seems to me that one reason we are all a little dismayed by the somewhat dreary compromise in the stimulus bill and the lack of detail in the Geithner proposal or the painful inheritance of Bush’s torture program is that we want closure and clarity now. We have been conditioned, in a way, to rhetorical absolutism, to declarations of clear intent, to the notion that an idea clearly expressed solves everything. This was how the Decider decided. But that didn’t turn out so well, did it? This reader makes an important point:
Looking at Geithner’s plan it appears to me that he has set the legislative agenda and the expectations of the administration.
Remember TARP II needs to come out of Congress before the President can sign it into law. Geithner can’t simply institute a plan by his order. It will be up to Congress, in conjunction with the administration, to fill in blanks. Everyone gets a shot at being held accountable. Since the era of "The Decider" is over we need to keep that in mind.
This is a process, and not a declaration. The stimulus package may not be perfect but it will surely help arrest a downward spiral in demand; the bank bailout will require pragmatic adjustment, just as we were forced into in the 1930s, but the goals are clear enough, and the means of accountability pretty open; Obama has ended torture, but there will be messay hangovers from the war crimes of his predecessor. The messiness is, in part, the point. Politics can be simple. Government less so. What we are watching is the return of pragmatic governance.And it should be held accountable by its results.
The Dish 