10/04/2008
On September 26, 2008, "The Editors" at National Review came out for the now-passed bailout, after making some conservative noises of regret, of the kind that John Ehrlichman called a "modified limited hangout."We understand, and share, the instinctive repulsion many conservatives feel for the plan. But in a true crisis, the financial system needs a government backstop. Panics must be stopped because it is their very nature to damage the economy out of all proportion to reason. So something must be done, and it appears that the Paulson plan is going to have to be the template for that something.But as William Kristol said recently, "What are cherished principles for but to be violated in emergencies?"Reasonable conservatives might well disagree with that judgment. We understand our compatriots who consider it too risky and too costly, not just to the U.S. government but to our principles.[The Paulson Predicament by The Editors on National Review Online ]
What could cause "The Editors" at National Review to support this massive bailout of Wall Street against all free-market and fiscally conservative principle? Well, here, with no comment attached, is the biography of National Review's President, Thomas L. (Dusty) Rhodes:
Prior to joining National Review, Rhodes held several posts at Goldman, Sachs & Company in New York. He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974 and subsequently served as vice president (1977-1982); vice chairman, Goldman Sachs Limited, London, England (1982-1985); and partner (1986-1992).
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.