September 22, 2009 11:13 AM

American Mob Rule

By
CBSNews
(National Review Online)  This column was written by Victor Davis Hanson.

In the last three months, we've been reduced to something like the ancient Athenian mob - with opportunistic politicians sometimes inciting, sometimes catering to an already-angry public.

The Greek comic playwright Aristophanes once described how screaming politicians - posing as men of the people - would sway Athenian citizens by offering them all sort of perks and goodies that the government had no idea of how to pay for.

The historian Thucydides offers even more frightening accounts of bloodthirsty voters after they were aroused by demagogues ("leaders or drivers of the people"). One day, in bloodthirsty rage, voters demanded the death of the rebellious men of the subject island city of Mytilene; yet on the very next, in sudden remorse, they rescinded that blanket death sentence.

Lately we've allowed our government to forget its calmer republican roots. We've gone Athenian whole hog.

Take the AIG debacle. The global insurance and financial-services company is broke and needed a federal loan guarantee of $180 billion to prevent bankruptcy. Some $165 million (about 1/1000th of that sum) had previously been contracted to give bonuses to its derelict executives.

That set off a firestorm in Congress. Politicians rushed before the cameras to demand all sorts of penalties for these greedy investment bankers. Soon, they passed an unprecedented special tax law just to confiscate 90 percent of these contracted bonuses.

Those who shouted the loudest for the heads of the AIG execs had the dirtiest hands. President Obama was outraged at their greed. But he alone signed their bonus provisions into law. And during the recent presidential campaign, no one forced him to accept over $100,000 in AIG donations.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D, N.Y.) was even more infuriated at such greed and helped pass the retroactive tax bill. Yet for years, the populist Rangel - who is in trouble over back taxes owed and misuse of his subsidized New York apartments - had tried to entice AIG executives to fund his Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D, Conn.) was the fieriest in his denunciations of Wall Street greed. Yet he was the very one who inserted the bonus provision into the bailout bill, despite later denying it. And Dodd has taken more AIG money than any in Congress - in addition to getting V.I.P. loan rates from the disgraced Countrywide mortgage bank.

Then there is the matter of blowing apart the budget. President Obama inherited from George Bush a $500 billion - and growing - annual budget deficit and a ballooning $11 trillion national debt. Obama nevertheless promised us an entirely new national health plan, bigger entitlements in education, and a vast new cap-and-trade energy program.

But there is a problem in paying for the $3.5 trillion in budgetary expenditures that Obama has called for in the coming fiscal year. Proposed vast additional taxes on the "rich" still won't be enough to avoid tripling the present budget deficit - and putting us on schedule over the next decade to add another $9 trillion to the existing national debt.

During the Clinton years, we got higher taxes but eventually balanced budgets. During the Bush administration, we got lower taxes but spiraling deficits. But now during the era of Obama, we apparently will get the worst of both worlds - higher taxes than under Clinton and higher deficits than under Bush.

In other words, we - through our government - are spending money that we don't have. We're told the rich will pick up the tab, even though there are not enough rich with enough money to squeeze out the necessary amounts. Our new demagogues, though, are arguing that this is the only fair course of action. Meanwhile, these leaders - who have taken so much Wall Street money in the past - are driving us into fury to punish the guilty on Wall Street. This is truly the age of mindless mob rule.

Of course, we probably won't hear any candidate in four years assure the voters, "I won't take any more money from Wall Street and will give back any that I already got. And if elected, I promise four consecutive years of budget cuts to achieve each year $1.5 trillion in annual budget surpluses. Only that way can we get the national debt back down to the past 'manageable' 2008 sum of $11 trillion."

We need such a Socrates in Washington right now, who would dare tell the American mob the truth of how we are descending into financial serfdom. But in this present mood, the aroused mob would first make him drink the hemlock.


Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.
By Victor Davis Hanson
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online

National Review Online
Add a Comment See all 36 Comments
by kansas1946 April 7, 2009 7:36 PM EDT
I noticed not one Republican was mentioned as responsible for anything. When an oppinion is so transparently biased, it is no opinion at all, but partisan propoganda.
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 April 2, 2009 4:41 PM EDT
That is the one thing that the right wing money establishment fears, that some group will confiscate their ill gotten gains. That is why they hate communism and socialism. As long as they have free rein to loot and plunder, they will call it freedom and hail it as a free market system. Free for them, slavery for everyone else.
Reply to this comment
by enriquecaliente March 31, 2009 2:34 PM EDT
Break up these companies that are too big to fail. Time to undo the Glass Stiegel repeal. A new form of the Glass-Steagall Act is needed NOW. Let banks, bank, insurance companies insure and investment houses to invest. As separate entities. Not as one big company. If AIG and Citicorp were just an insurance company and a Bank, then we could have let them fail and or made their senior management leave also.
Reply to this comment
by didserve March 30, 2009 6:48 AM EDT
War crimes trials are coming!
Reply to this comment
by elz523 March 29, 2009 10:39 PM EDT
I guess that if the government loaned them the money (which I don't agree with, by the way -- businesses that can't make it should be allowed to fail) I would assume that their research showed that these bonuses were already in place as part of contracted deals. Since the government DID loan AIG the cash then it seems to be a moot point as to whether or not the government should do that; additionally it would seem to me that borrowers are a large part of the problem, since they apparently borrowed more than they could pay back. Borrowers are complicit in this mess, whether or not they want to own up to it.

Bottom line: the government should not be involved in propping up businesses, and people shouldn't buy, as an example, more house than they can afford. Since it's been done, however, it seems irrelevant to complain about bonuses earned by AIG execs at this late date.
Posted by CaptHerp at 3:15 P

Research? I doubt there was much research at the time Bush granted AIG their first government bailout. It was a matter of do it or see the financial system brought to it's knees with MANY taxpayers paying a huge price as a result.
Reply to this comment
by CaptHerp March 29, 2009 9:42 PM EDT
I'm a dem and I dont need a job dooshbag. I built my business from the ground up and employ a dozen people who make over 70K a year.

2 kinds of republicans
1. millionaires
2. and some very serious suckers
Posted by ainttaken at 5:54 PM : Mar 29, 2009

Yeah, and how many kinds of DEMOCRATS are there? We all know how poor they are. Let's start with the Kennedy clan, Kerry's wife, and work our way from there.

It always amuses me to hear that only Republicans are rich.

Oh, and it's *********, not "dooshbag." Being a teacher I thought I'd help with your education. :)
Reply to this comment
by stevador39 March 29, 2009 8:33 PM EDT
AIG Is criminal. They are no better than terrorists. If we had a government the bail out bums at AIG would be in jail.
Reply to this comment
by CaptHerp March 29, 2009 6:15 PM EDT
I guess that if the government loaned them the money (which I don't agree with, by the way -- businesses that can't make it should be allowed to fail) I would assume that their research showed that these bonuses were already in place as part of contracted deals. Since the government DID loan AIG the cash then it seems to be a moot point as to whether or not the government should do that; additionally it would seem to me that borrowers are a large part of the problem, since they apparently borrowed more than they could pay back. Borrowers are complicit in this mess, whether or not they want to own up to it.

Bottom line: the government should not be involved in propping up businesses, and people shouldn't buy, as an example, more house than they can afford. Since it's been done, however, it seems irrelevant to complain about bonuses earned by AIG execs at this late date.
Reply to this comment
by elz523 March 29, 2009 2:30 PM EDT
I'd just like to know, from all the people who want to blame Bush and Republicans in general for everything from the crucifixion of Christ onward, where people get off telling people how much money they should make. If AIG execs had a deal to get bonuses, political correctness shouldn't nullify the deal.

I'm a teacher, and I'll never be rich unless I win the Powerball. However, I believe in the right of American citizens to do the best they can do and earn as much as they can earn, whether they be doctors, sports figures, or bankers.

It's time for the Republican bashers to get treatment for their wallet envy and perhaps go out and get a damned job.
Posted by CaptHerp at 8:48 AM : Mar 29, 2009

I don't think the problem is appropriately framed as you have done here. What has so many so very upset is that AIG was paying these retention bonuses to those who failed in their jobs and who, in many cases weren't, in fact, actually retained. Those who were receiving the bonuses were those most responsible for AIG's failure. Typically, and logically, bonuses are paid to encourage a job well done. In this case it was used to do that and also to keep the exec's on board to unwind the company. The problem was that these individual actually failed in their jobs and some had left the company, yet the bonuses were still being paid. If AIG's shareholders want to allow that, then fine, so long as they can stand on their own and not accept taxpayer money, but when they started accepting taxpayer money they are expected to behave in a manner that can be ethically supported.

The fallacy in all of this is that these individuals were absolutely critical to the company's success.
Reply to this comment
by elz523 March 29, 2009 2:22 PM EDT
The word NEOCON is used quite a lot on these boards. I would like for some of you to define what a NEOCON is. I would like to see several definition since this is used so often.
Posted by dmw1167 at 10:19 AM : Mar 29, 2009

A neocon is, as the name implies, a new conservative. They are conservatives who believe in an activist American foreign policy (generally in blind support of Israel), implemented through force if necessary, to save the world from itself. They don't care what it costs in American lives and treasure. Those who track such things say they are disaffected, long ago Democrats who decided that the Democratic party wouldn't do as they wish. That may or may not be true, but today, they are conservatives who generally support anyone, typically Republicans, who will implement policies that will achieve their goals. They do not generally support Democrats, because Democratic constituencies won't permit the wars that the neocons think are necessary to bring world peace.

The NRO is solidly neocon and if you read their material with an open mind, they definitely ape a neocon agenda.
Reply to this comment
See all 36 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook