In terms of the political discourse, it's safe to say that Class Theory and Government Failure have become dominating topics(as pretty much predicted on this site in the wake of the TARP bailouts). Even Reason got the memo, plastering the big boot of Class War on the latest edition of the magazine. Larry Lessig, continuing his discussion with the "libertarians", recently had an extended debate with Nick Gillespie on the topic on Bill Moyers' PBS show. But this is just a sliver of the activity; it's become a predominating topic over the entire blogopshere and is beginning to filter into the establishment media.

It's not difficult to see why this has occurred and, frankly, was hardly unpredictable. The overall context for this, I maintain, is the TARP Bailouts. Contra David Brooks, it's clear that the post-liberal, post-conservative "elite corporate class" hasn't exactly gone over well with those outside of Washington or a few street corners in downtown Manhattan. TARP is rightly viewed as a bi-partisan affair, and thus it has fueled a general anti-incumbent fever. The Stimulus has been a political loser for the Democrats because the public generally, in light of declining asset prices of their portfolios(primarily real estate and 401Ks), began to pare down debt and spending, which was in sharp contrast to the federal government rapidly ramping up deficit spending, which, in the end, is (rightly) being viewed as an increased future tax burden in the context of a potential long-term stagnated economy. State and local government, often bound by the constraint of balanced budgets, are taxing anything that moves to make up the shortfalls. From a partisan angle, the political right viewed the Stimulus as "socialism" or primarily aiding democratic political constituencies and contributors. For progressives, the inability to enact a broad-based legislative agenda in the context of a modern historical majorities enjoyed by the Democrats, has fragmented the progressive movement, with one one side, lead by the likes of Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher, increasingly adopting the language of a type of libertarian class theory to assail primarily the Dem Party establishment and to adopt an overriding analytical theme of "corporatism." To boot, the National Security State continues unabated, with Obama even recently admitting the obvious, that he is no different than Bush on prosecuting the War on Terror; I suppose, an unintended, but honest "Meet the New Boss" moment...

Out of this cauldron has emerged the meme that "America has become ungovernable." From a political science standpoint, it's interesting to purview the explanations for this, which are being offered up from many quarters, but which, frankly, aren't particularly compelling. I watched the Lessig vs Gillispie debate, and is apparent that both in substantial agreement for the most part, but, nonetheless, neither really was able to make a convincing case. Lessig made it clear that his support for public financing was more or less a hail mary to restore "trust" in public institutions, noting that polls demonstrate that Americans view government(the legislative branch) as fundamentally corrupt(a side note, Lessig is backing up my argument, disputed by some here, that Americans are very much cognizant, at least at the surface, of libertarian class ideas, even if not schooled formally in the scholarly tradition). But how does "trust" solve the problem of money asymmetry, which Lessig views as the primary problem. I have no idea. Gillespie, on the other hand downplays the influence of money, assuming more of a "median voter" outlook to public choice; well, "median voter" theory is at best an incomplete framework, noting that it has fallen out of favor of sorts in political science, being replaced by probabilistic voting theory(well-funded social groups which have a great homogeneity of preferences can have a disparate political impact). Median voter theory doesn't explain why we are tolerating a long drawn out multi-front war in the middle east and southern asia. Probabilistic voting, with the merger of fundmentalist eschatologist christianity and straussian neoconservativism, does however. Money certainly does play a role in politics, but it's not the result of a money asymmetry per se; indeed, I would argue, contra Lessig, that public financing in a disparate political and cultural context, would actually create a money asymmetry problem in favor of establishment representations of such things as libertarianism in the political discourse. Libertarianism would become overtly nationalist, because that's the only form that would be tolerated, for the most part, in terms of public financing, and then the private money would largely chase the only palatable political outlet for "libertarian expression."

The likes of Jacob Weisberg, who undoubtedly felt that TARP rewrote the social contract in terms of American government, now rails against an irrational electorate. I'm always amused by progressive elites, who are always citing "the social contract" nonetheless babbling about how the people are too stupid to enter into such a contract. Yglesias' solution hints at dictatorship. In other words, a dictatorship to enforce his own individual policy preferences(think Anthony de Jasay here).

On the conservative side, the Tea Party has been officially rebranded as a branch of the republican Party. Libertarians have been writing the Tea Party obituaries for quite a while now, but now it's becoming evident to almost everyone. Ron Paul's weaknesses, which been have documented repeatedly here, namely talking radical liberty out the left side of his mouth mouth while the right side is indelibly wedged to some of the worst aspects of the GOP base, have once again come to light. Actively promoting the endorsement of Sarah palin, promoting pro-war establishment republican candidates, and Rand Paul, the supposed great political hope of the Campaign for Liberty, now sounding like a Neocon, fairly ironic I should say for a grassroots movement that was borne out of opposition to neoconservatism. I'm sorry, i didn't think much of Obama's 11th dimensional chess at the time, and I don't think much of Ron Paul's 11th Dimensional Chess at this time, either.

Radical libertarianism is often criticized for it's impracticality. Nonetheless, the practical case for politics is hardly convincing, either...