Socrates was right

The New York Times provides quotes from leading members of the House of Representatives before yesterday's failed bailout vote; nearly all of them, from both parties, urged their colleagues to pass the measure. Even the President tried to prevail upon the members of his party to support the bill, but without success. But Bush is shooting blanks now.

As things fell out, 67 percent of House Republicans voted it down; and even more startlingly, to my mind, 40 percent of Democrats followed suit. Nobody seems to be talking about that figure much in the MSM; but what the hell goes on here? How can the Dems not support this crucial emergency legislation, which I heard one solon yesterday compare to a tourniquet applied to stop the patient from bleeding to death?

It would seem that on the right and on the left, representatives and their constituents are deeply opposed to "bailing out" Wall Street fat cats, and they should be; however, that's not the point here. The point is to keep the entire economy from tanking right here and now; and those who fail to do so will suffer condign ignomy in days to come, if people's jobs, savings, and retirement funds are wiped out.

I found this statement, by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), from the article linked above to be highly revealing (emphasis mine):

This will be the most difficult decision I make in my 16 years in this body. And I have decided that the cost of not acting outweighs the cost of acting. ... None of us in this body have any really good judgment or insight into what happens if we fail to pass this bill. It could mean companies going out of business. We've been told it would. It could mean more bank failures. Probably will. It will mean impairment of our parents and grandparents' pensions. I'm not willing to put that bullet in the revolver and spin it. I'm not willing to take that gamble. I'm not willing to pull that trigger. Because I am not willing to subject the American people to the worst-case scenario. I don't have a crystal ball. And that is one reason that I'll be voting yes. Because I am unwilling, I will take the political risk, but I will not take a risk on the American people and their future.

I applaud Rep. Bachus for doing the right thing based on what he knows at this time. But how appaling to realize--and I've read and heard similar statements from other legislators in the last few days--that our elected representatives in Congress, the vast majority, really have no better understanding of the whole big economic picture than I do. Which is not saying much.

Now the circumstances of my life have never required a knowledge of macroeconomics; but how shameful is the ignorance of those who are elected (and who frequently campaign on such talk) to ensure that the national economy is well-run and well-regulated for the common good.

Well, here we can see clearly that politics is an empty show, smoke and mirrors, full of sound and fury--but much of the time merely a show, not substance. But hasn't it always been so?

As Socrates said in the Apology:

I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him, his name I need not mention; he was a politician . . . , and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and still wiser by himself; . . . . So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: . . . although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is, for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.

Listening to the pols blather on during this crisis, I know just how ol' Soc felt.