Posted by
dieneces on Friday, October 03, 2008 1:30:19 PM
On Brit Hume's all-star panel last night Fred Barnes suggested that Alexander Hamilton would be in favor of the bail-out. Perhaps Mr. Barnes needs a cigarette, mixed drink, and a late-night-audience. After all, he's clearly trying his luck as a stand-up comic: this attempt fell flat on its face, not to mention it seems to be incorrect.
In my readings of Hamilton, I see no way he would support this measure. At best, he would be for some government intervention, not this intervention. Indeed, Hamilton was much more in favor of long-term solutions - the mess on which the House is voting today isn't a long-term solution. More likely, it will have a negative impact in at least two ways: inflation/ devaluation of currency and setting a horrific precedent.
I haven't touched on the most ridiculous part of this assertion is the underlying premise: That Hamilton could have envisioned this current state of affairs in the federal government! Hamilton was clear about needing a national bank to centralize capital. But this was a measure that brought cohesion to a failing republic; indeed, these were steps necessary only at the beginning of the republic. He said as much himself. Also, he clearly stated that such moves wouldn't be necessary beyond the national bank.
This statement by Barnes is another illustration between a pundit and a political thinker. A pundit is a booster of a certain party, they have some good ideas about how to win; but, most of them have never taken the time to truly understand the political philosophy that underpins the values which lie beneath the symbols. Clearly, Barnes is a pundit.