Debate

Here are a few excerpts from an e-mail exchange I've been having with a pretty successful political cartoonist name Chuck Asay. While I disagree with just about every cartoon the guy puts out, I've had exchanges with him in the past, and he's not only been polite and willing to respond but also very fair about the points I make and more than willing to explain his own points of view. I've always found it fascinating to talk to somebody that views the world so differently, and I thought a few pieces of this particular exchange were interesting in how they show differences between your standard "liberal" vs. "conservative" thought process, even when we agree on the main issue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From e-mail #1, me to Mr. Asay:
"Dear Mr. Asay,I find it utterly unbelievable that you would choose to feature Sen. Dodd and Sen. Frank in your latest cartoon about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bail-out when the plan has been enthusiastically endorsed by the president himself! Save for a very small handful of libertarian leaning politicians, the basic idea is agreed upon by EVERYONE. And of course, the reason for the whole crisis, which was increased risky lending, was brought about because of deregulation by REPUBLICANS in congress! Of course whenever you address any problem that arises from congress, ... the blame lies with 'Congress' as a whole entity. It's convenient of course to blame congress now that it's democratically controlled while ignoring the fact that the problem originated in a congress that had a republican majority and was endorsed and facilitated by the president. It amazes me how you can find a way to blame democrats for EVERYTHING."



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-mail #2, Mr. Asay to me:

"Dear Rich, Thanks for your e-mail. ... I think our basic difference might be found in how we view our government. I see it as a Republic. You might see it as a Democracy. You mention in your e-mail that there is a consensus, including the President himself, that a taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie is in order. It could be. I do understand some institutions are 'too big to fail'. ... I see truth applying to individuals, not groups. If I buy a home or take some other risk, I think the consequences should fall on me not you. I've attached a cartoon I like, which demonstrates this view. I've been reading the Wall Street Journal editorial pages for many years now. They have been sounding the alarm of the risk to taxpayers of Fannie and Freddie for many years now. It has gone unnoticed. As recently as two weeks ago, both Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have been saying the two huge semi-government institutions are sound. Now it appears they need help. ... I think Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are worse than George Bush and John McCain on most issues because they seem to have different world-views. Democrats tend toward collective solutions. Republicans, though flawed, tend toward solutions based on Truth...which is not determined by our collective views, in poll-testing or a vote. That's why you see me being more critical of Democrats than I am of Republicans. ... "



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-mail #3 - me to Mr. Asay again:

" ... I feel I gave the impression that I think the bail-out is a good thing. Quite the opposite I'm incensed that tax payers have to save these companies from the burden they've brought upon themselves. What I gather from reading your e-mail is that what we disagree about is how to prevent problems like this in the future, or how this should have been prevented. I imagine you would suggest that by letting companies go under when they fail, other companies will be discouraged from taking on too much risk. I believe that in the case of a company whose survival is this important to the American economy, the government must regulate how much risk they can assume. That is the reason that I blame republicans for this crisis, because it was the deregulation of lenders that brought this about. ... As to your point about individuals, I feel that the bail out is also necessary to protect innocent individuals. These institutions are larger than just the decision makers that got them into this mess, and many homeowners have their fortunes tied up in what happens to them. These people aren't the ones that took the risk, and they were misled about how safe their investments were. To me that's what government regulation is all about, protecting people from the greed of others. ... My last point is that while I completely agree with you criticizing the bail-out, I find that you singling out democratic congressmen is unfair because of the reasons I've gone into. While they're certainly not without some blame (in my mind mostly for being complicit), they're not the only ones to blame, and shouldn't be treated as such."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-mail #4 - Mr. Asay to me once again:

"Rich, Thanks for your reply. We agree on many things...however, I think "Buyer Beware" is a better rule of thumb to protect people from their folly than the idea that it's the Government's job is to protect us from the greed of others. That's asking Government to do more than it should be doing. I've attached a cartoon here which I sent out yesterday which speaks to that point. I think Government should oversee contracts but when we ask our representatives to define, "greed", that's another matter. Greed if a subjective concept. Paul Gigot has an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal today which gives some background on Freddie and Fannie. If you get a chance to read it, I'd be interested in your take on his view. Thanks again. Chuck"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is so far the extent of the exchange and it may be for this issue, though I fully intend to e-mail him with disagreements in the future. Me, I think that this is the kind of exchange that people should be having with each other when it comes to politics. Too often acrimony renders us unable not just to concede any point to another opinion, but even to understand it. That's another reason that I started this blog, I want to have these kinds of conversations more often. Now let's see if I can get back into the swing of things :)