Coming into focus

Whenever C and I talk about politics lately, we always come back to the bailout and the election, not to other common issues that interest us. He campaigned for Edwards, and refuses to vote for Obama, whom he does not trust. Of course, he doesn't trust McCain either, although he admires him as a veteran. Me, I can respect a veteran without wanting him to run my country. But the bailout? We both express our frustration with the idea while acknowledging the economic necessity.

There's an article over at the Post this morning that articulates my ambivalence about the bailout in a way that I had not managed. (They're journalists, they ought to be able to use words better than I can, right?)

To a degree that few Americans could have appreciated just a few weeks ago, the economy runs on credit. But politics runs on a form of credit, too, generically known as trust, and trust has been a scarce commodity recently in Washington.

President Bush, burdened with historically low approval ratings, was slow to try to sell to the American people what he called a "rescue." Academic economists frowned upon the legislation, and radio talk show hosts railed against it.

The bailout lacked a sympathetic character at the heart of the narrative. And many Americans simply did not believe that the government had the basic competence to do the right thing.

"You've got massive public distrust and dissatisfaction, with the bailout specifically, with government in general, and George Bush and the entire political establishment," said Doug Muzzio, professor of public affairs at Baruch College in New York.

That's it, exactly. I believe that a bailout is necessary, but I don't feel as if I can rely on anyone in the current administration or Congress to do the job. Or even to start the clean up in an intelligent way, since this is going to go on long after the November elections.

Added emphasis is mine.