Note: The first entry was sent last night.
Like so many things, Enron takes me back to Teddy Roosevelt. During TR's administration, the American economy was moving from a small-scale agricultural and manufacturing economy to a large-scale industrial economy. Roosevelt supported the changes because they meant that America would possess the economic might to become the world's premier nation. But he recognized that the new structures created new opportunities for sin. The lords of Wall Street and the monopolists threatened to create a system of crony capitalism that would crush fair competition.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponEnron represents the same sort of corruption, updated. We are entering an information-age economy, with mass stock ownership, 401k plans, privatized energy markets, and so on. Americans are happy to move into this new world of increased choice and opportunity. But the new structures make new forms of crony capitalism possible. That's what Enron tried to create—through political contacts, through bogus partnerships, through pettifoggery that would confuse all but the insiders. So now the government has a legitimate interest in crushing these new cozy relationships in the name of fair competition. Basically this means making sure that small capitalists (stockholders) have honest information so they can compete with the big boys.
The Enron executives, who professed a love of free market capitalism, kept their love pure by never applying it. They are the enemies of the free market. If, as you say, the Republicans decide that their real allies in this are the plutocrats, then they are going to destroy themselves. But if they decide their real duty is to protect free competition, then they have a big progressive-conservative agenda ahead of them, which will be widely popular and could recast domestic politics.
I don't expect the folks at the New York Times to see this. They are treating this as scandal the way Clifford Odetts might have, or perhaps Hillary Clinton might have during her days on the Watergate committee. One of the many outrageous stories they've run is a front-page Sunday piece by Rick Berke and Janet Eldar, "Poll Finds Enron's Taint Clings More to GOP than Democrats." I see Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan have leveled their mighty guns on this article, showing how the evidence contradicts the reporter's spin. But let me just add that the crucial bit of poll data to come out this week was from a Tarrance Group poll showing that, for the first time in memory, more Americans now identify themselves as Republicans than Democrats (by 40 to 35). This is a slow moving number, suggesting something more fundamental than an Afghanistan halo effect. It suggests that Enron isn't hurting Bush or the Republicans and that Bush may turn out to be a transformational president after all, who can induce independents to swing over and join his party.
If the Republicans can clean up the information-age economy so that people have faith in it, then privatizing Social Security will be easy.
What Obama Meant—and Didn't Mean—About "Beginning" To Withdraw in July 2011
49 Million Americans Are Hungry. What Can You Do To Help? 
Admit It, Dems: These Reform Bills Won't Control Health Care Costs
Parks and Recreation Is Now Better Than 30 Rock and The Office
Lithwick: The Supreme Court's Best Beach-House Case Ever
The Economic Reports About Christmas Shopping Are Confusing, Contradictory, and Useless
Wednesday Notes From the Fray Editor:
The main topic in the Fray is the State of the Union speech. REW-OEM explains here why he was tempted to join the 84% but ended up in the 16%, and asks "Why is it not possible to respect and applaud President Bush's positively spun and well transformed public demeanor, acknowledge his strength and steadfastness in difficult times, and yet still question the will and wisdom of his plans for our future?" More questions: Anita tries to answer Joe Klein's "how do you convince people that a certain selflessness is good for the soul…?" John-Paul Spiro read "bourgeois democratic nations…don't breed poisonous ideological groups" and wants to ask "What do you call Timothy McVeigh?" Why does Peter Lahey feel like a character from Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Click here to find out.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
What Brooks calls idealism could itself be called, and often has been, imperialism or the spread of global capitalism or an arrogant disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations. To define the "spreading" of any cultural force or view (democracy, capitalism, or hmmm say Christianity) by force as "idealistic" seems on the face of it absurdly ethnocentric and arrogant. One must, like Hegel, be willing to assert that one's culture represents the historical pinnacle and telos of human endeavor--in which case, every other country, including Great Britain (with their nasty socialist ways!) would have to be invaded and made to conform to the US Constitution in the name of American idealism. To suggest, as Brooks does, that bourgeois democracy represents the best that can be aspired to--well, that's a dim thought, made no brighter by being pasted with the shiny label of "idealism."
--J
(To find or answer this post, click here .)
Monday Notes From The Fray Editor:
Always check your quotations or the Fray will get you. All together now: "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness." (We'll miss out the "starving hysterical naked" bit.) Other phrases that caught readers attention were "by any means necessary" (in regard to questioning suspects) and "congenital DNA" (What other kind is there, asked one poster.) Urquhart says Klein "gets points for use of the word 'dudgeon,' which I've never seen outside of a Wodehouse novel." And there are plenty of discussions on Enron and the economy.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
Klein thinks we should be "interrogating the hell out of them by any means necessary." Does this include torture? I'd like to hear his opinion. And his reference to the nine families who lost loved ones is weak. Yes, we should remember the damage done by the terrorists. But that doesn't mean that every policy argument needs to have the approval of the relatives of the victims.
--Leonard
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It seems to me the public's indifference about the extent of Enron's dealings with the Bush administration says more about the public than it does about our need to know. I doubt Cheney would risk the potential political damage of a court dispute if he didn't think the contents of his meeting notes were potentially more explosive. If Cheney's right, and this is just Dem hype, then prove us wrong and release the documents. Enron shareholders got screwed, in part, by a lack of corporate transparency. Cheney's claim that disclosing these documents could impair future leaders' ability to consult with corporation without fear of public scrutiny is, at best, disingenuous, at worst, more of the same opaqueness that got us in this mess.
--John Rogers
(To find or answer this post, click here.)