Are the Republicans showing the epithet to be true? Secretary Paulson and Senator McCain are good cases on point.

If the Secretary of the Treasury of the U.S. is not receiving money under the table from the Obama campaign, he is stupid. Economists (that is to say conservative economists, who have at least some grasp of finance, as opposed to politics) differ greatly about the causes and proper solutions to the ‘crisis’ in the U.S. and the world. However, even the Keynesian talking heads bloviating for the Democrats would probably be against shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre (although the presence of an actual fire might sway a few – Bill O’Reilly, whose favorite word is ‘bloviate,’ keeps going on about the politicians’ needing to have warned us about the shockingly obvious risks of borrowing more than we can afford, or investing in derivative securities.) Even with an actual fire, shouting, “Fire!” is likely to cause more harm than it avoids, but Sec. Paulson (R?), Speaker Pelosi (D), and Sen. Reid (D) all inflamed the markets into panic. This was unnecessary in any fiscal sense, because there was no panic to avoid yet, so all the necessity must therefore have been political.

Yes, Lehman Brothers and AIG might have been in trouble, but the long-expected receivership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provided the perfect means and justification for snuffing out risky mortgage derivatives. Almost as an aside, the “mark-to-market rule” could have been suspended unilaterally by Chairman Bernanke (R? D?), to see whether or not it is actually harmful, which we still do not know, empirically. Yes, world markets are in trouble, but the panic started here. Secretary Paulson is personally responsible for the one-quarter loss of value in the stock market and every retiree’s portfolio, which is a hardship to millions of voters. The retired, employed, and unemployed all now look askance at a Republican administration that gives away giant blank checks of dubious constitutionality to those who, by their own admission, are irresponsible. This was demanded by Speaker Pelosi (D) and Sen. Reid (D). The voting divided the Republican caucus, and put John McCain (R) on the same side as Barack Obama (D), denouncing capitalism. If the Secretary of the Treasury of the U.S. is not receiving money under the table from the Obama campaign, he is stupid.

If John McCain thinks that jumping on the ‘populist’ bandwagon will help his campaign, he is stupid. Populism can have many meanings: populism in France might mean opposition to high taxes and easy immigration, while populism in Palestine might simply mean opposition to Israel. In the U.S., Populism with a capital P was historically the opposition of farmers to railroads and workers to factories; this has almost exclusively been a movement within the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan was popular, but never a Populist in this sense. Confusing popularity with Populism is not only a nineteenth-century notion, it was wrong even then: William Jennings Bryan (D) lost the race for the presidency three times as a Populist.

Democratic politicians still pander to the public with Populist rhetoric because FDR made it respectable again in the 1930s. He won the Presidency because the previous Republican administration let a market crash become a disaster. Sound familiar? The American people know where to get socialist solutions to capitalism – from the Democratic Party; denouncing the markets belittles Republican candidate John McCain, and makes him seem desperate. When McCain runs against the Bush administration, he only confirms Obama’s claims that the Republicans can’t be trusted. Failing to connect Obama and other Democratic politicians to the grossly political and irresponsible practices of lending institutions does not insulate the administration from criticism; silence, rather, is a tacit admission that Democratic accusations are accurate. Collegiality, which is such a necessity to a Senator, is actively harmful in a candidate for President of the United States.

Reagan’s policies of strong defense and lower taxes were truly popular. Today’s truly popular policies would be those of populism in France: lower taxes and border control (assuming that the voters take McCain’s superiority on the subject of national defense as a given). These are not Obama’s policies, and part of the reason that Obama has never gotten a majority in any respectable poll. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be McCain’s policies, either. The Republican candidate should espouse Republican policies, which have been proven popular time and time again. If John McCain thinks that jumping on the ‘populist’ bandwagon will help his campaign, he is stupid.

Are Secretary Paulson and Senator McCain showing the epithet about Republicans to be true? As Fox News says, “We report, you decide.”