Of bailouts and such

I have been reading what was certainly William F. Buckley, Jr.'s last book, as opposed to another compilation of his essays, which his son Chris implies, in the Foreword, may be forthcoming. Regardless, Buckley was working on this book when he passed away last February. It is called The Reagan I Knew and contains many interesting anecdotes arranged mostly in chronological order from the beginning of their friendship until Reagan retired from public view.

I knew that Buckley and Reagan were on good terms, but didn't realize they were truly close friends. In any event, reexamining Reagan once again has brought several thoughts to the forefront. It is uncanny how we tend to think the times in which we are living are unprecedented when the sentiments of King Solomon are much more pertinent: "There is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9, NIV).

In Pat Buchanan's latest piece, he argues (or at least strongly implies) that Reagan would have supported a bailout of the Big 3 automakers since he failed to let Harley Davidson go under when it was in danger of closing its doors due to intense competition from Japanese cycle makers.

Buchanan, much as I love him, comes close to very skillful sophistry here. For what Reagan did was to slap a tariff on all foreign imports of steel and impose quotas on imports of Japanese autos. He did NOT bail out an industry that was swamped in union rules that failed to permit it to do what was necessary to remain solvent. And therein lies a very crucial difference, which I am sure Buchanan must know deep in his heart, having worked closely with Reagan, as his Communications Director, no less.

I don't know a soul that doesn't feel for the workers in these companies. But the unions are sucking the life and the finances out of the Big 3, and showing no signs of cessation of such activities, even in the face of catastrophe.

I am pro-tariff. Fight fire with fire; that is OK by me. I am a fair trader and not a free one. If other countries are going to shore up their own industries by tacking on tariffs, we need to do the same for our own workers. It is time that we put people in power who looked out for the interests of American workers first, rather than ceding our sovereignty to a global elite. But a bailout of the Big 3 will only delay the inevitable, and Buchanan is the only serious voice I know that is arguing that it is what should be done. George Will, Thomas Sowell, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney...the list of conservative naysayers to a bailout is endless.

Yet, in the end, it will happen. George W. Bush, in a move that elicited rare praise from Buchanan, has "abandoned free market principles to save the free market" (in the process, leaving us with a final phrase with which to memorialize his Presidency and what it has represented). He uttered this sentiment in defense of a bailout for the Big 3, which Obama also supports.

Buchanan's argument is that if bailouts are going to be offered, how can one logically deny GM, Ford and Chrysler their share of the pot while agreeing to the rescue of Lehman Brothers and other Wall Street entities? I suppose it is the best line of reasoning that can be presented, but what about the ancient axiom that "Two wrongs don't make a right?" Indeed, Buchanan, as the stout conservative that he is, does not support government bailouts in principle, yet is advocating for this one. Puzzling, yet somewhat understandable, but ultimately wrongheaded.

It is all quite surreal. This last year has provided so many classic textbook cases (and if there is any justice in the writing of history, these WILL be business case studies in good universities) of government run amok. In Dave Keene's most recent ACU fundraising letter, he spelled out in no uncertain terms how Republicans have fallen asleep at the switch and all too often colluded with their Democrat counterparts to spend like there is no tomorrow. In Keene's words, this has to change.

How right he is! And there are signs that it may be happening. More on that later.