So What Exactly Was The Point, Gentlemen?

Two columns that I've read in the past week make me wonder we've reached the point at which both sides of our political divide are so hell-been on arguing that we're all prepared to argue ourselves into oblivion--or onto the other side of the divide.

First comes George Will, with a column in which he argues that Romney could take the election by coming out foursquare against "too big to fail" banks.  Why he thinks that there is even the remotest chance of Romney doing this beyond me; everything about Romney's "economic policy" screams economic royalism.  But the most unbelievable portion of the column is probably this:

 At bottom, the TBTF phenomenon raises questions not merely about the financial system but also about the nature of the American regime. These are Jacksonian questions, implicating issues Old Hickory raised in 1832 when vetoing the Second Bank of the United States: Should the government be complicit in protecting — and by doing so, enlarging — huge economic interests? (Emphasis added.)

Capitalism — which is, as Milton Friedman tirelessly insisted, a profit and loss system — is subverted by TBTF, which socializes losses while leaving profits private. And which enhances the profits of those whose losses it socializes. TBTF is a double moral disaster: It creates moral hazard by encouraging risky behavior, and it delegitimizes capitalism by validating public cynicism about its risk-reward ratios.

Wow.

George Will is now against the government "protecting--and by doing so, enlarging--huge economic interests."  Which means he is effectively admitting that Reaganomics, and three decades of Will-led cheerleading on behalf thereof, was and is a total fraud.  Guess what, George?  America's on the phone.  It wants the last 32 years back.  And it wouldn't mind if, in the process, you went straight to hell.

On the other hand, what is one to make of Frank Rich?

Here, he suggests that the triumph of the Tea Party is inevitable, and the rest of us, including Rich's friends on the left, should just sit back and enjoy it.  Next thing you know, he'll take a page from Todd Akin's book, and call it a legitimate rape.

Well, gee whiskers, Frank, why the hell have progressives in America spent over a century trying to make America live up to its ideals?  Even worse yet, they've succeeded from time to time.  Are you suggesting that we save the Tea Party the trouble of dismantling it, because you've somehow decided that they can't be stopped?  Are you suggesting that everyone who has sacrificed in some measure--completely, in many cases--was just wasting their time getting our hopes up?

Tell me, how much DID Roger Ailes pay you to write that column, anyway?

Both Will and Rich exemplify an American phenomenon:  they love politics for its potential for conflict, not its potential for progress.  The process is now completely about competing and winning, not about advancing one or more ideals.  Hell, if it means you'll win, throw your ideals out the window.

And don't give a damn if America goes with it.