D_Odds, I think you make a good distinction–between the political bearing of the Enron debacle, and the partisan political bearing–but I don’t think you can say that the former applies and the latter does not. Rather, both takes on the matter exist, however important it may be to distinguish between them.
Dewey, which Democrats are shouting Enron? I hear members of both political parties shouting Enron–as I’ve said repeatedly. I see Paul Krugman writing columns about Enron–and attacking laissez-faire ideology (i.e., what I’ve called deregulation of corporate oversight) on those grounds. Paul Krugman is an economist who tends to support Democrats. But I don’t think the thrust of his columns has been that Bush or even the Republicans are uniquely to blame for the upsurge of laissez-faire orthodoxy. There is a difference between an ideological commitment (supporting a belief that you really think is right) and narrow-minded partisanship (saying/doing anything that will support your own side, irrespective of your own principles/beliefs).
I would say that Krugman’s repeated attacks on Enron fall into the former designation, not the latter.
Now it just happens to be the case that Bush’s history with Enron goes way back; and Enron appears to have influenced Bush’s energy policy–both as Texas governor and as US president. You seem to suggest that if not for the machinations of Democrats, the public would not want to be informed of the extent of Bush’s involvement with this company. Yet polls demonstrate that these are precisely the things that most Americans, including Republicans, want to know. How can it possibly be irrelevant, or merely a partisan strategy, if it’s what voters want to know. After all, if Enron had been in close cahoots with the Democratic governor of California, I’m sure voters would want to know that as well. Consider: the matter of investigating political involvement with Enron isn’t itself partisan. The problem (for you) is that Republican involvement just happens to have been greater (longer lasting, more ideologically consistent) and therefore Republicans have a larger PR problem on their hands.
But most Democrats (including commentators like Krugman) are well aware that Democrats are also liable to the charge of taking large campaign contributions from this discredited corporation.
Now, as to my list of political issues involving Enron, several of which you disputed. Although the connection is less specific than, say, the matter of pension fund management, I don’t see how you can possibly argue that trend towards allowing corporate self-regulation isn’t connected to Enron. Here is an excerpt from an interesting article that makes precisely that case.
“In this era of deregulation and laissez-faire ideology, the essential premise has been that market forces discipline and punish the errant players more effectively than government does. To produce greater efficiency and innovation, government was told to back off, and it largely has. “Transparency” became the exalted buzzword. The market discipline would be exercised by investors acting on honest information supplied by the banks and brokerages holding their money, “independent” corporate directors and outside auditors, and regular disclosure reports required by the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory agencies. The Enron story makes a sick joke of all these safeguards.”
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020204&c=1&s=greider
I agree that deregulation of energy markets is a distinct issue: but the connection here is one of association. Enron aggressively sought deregulation of those markets (see the “How Enron did Texas” article posted early), using political influence wherever possible (including via Bush as Texas governor). Enron has now been seriously discredited.
Now it’s true enough, that Enron’s fraudulent accounting practices and shady partnerships needn’t suggest that deregulating energy is itself a bad idea. But there’s certainly nothing in the least unsusual about inquiring into the matter given the association. If Enron was willing to pursue selfish interests with its partnerships and other shenanigans, perhaps Enron’s deregulation plans were but a different kind of consumer rip-off. As a matter of fact, I happen to think that’s true. I thought deregulation was bad policy and a consumer rip-off before Enron; and I still think it. But even if I didn’t I don’t see how anyone can possibly argue that the evaluating the energy policy that Enron urged–and that Bush bought into–is a valid part of the political ramifications of this story.
By the sound of things, Dewey, you like energy deregulation and, perhaps, laissez-faire ideology in general. You may also like George Bush and feel that he is no more responsible for Enron’s specific crimes than were some of the Democrats who accepted campaign contributions from Enron, including Clinton. These are all fair opinions. And for anyone who holds them, the Enron story is a giant pain in the butt–justifying, as it does, additional scrutiny into cherished aspects of one’s neo-liberal economic agenda and the Prez who best supports them.
So I do understand why you wish the story would go away; and I certainly understood your desire to defend those aspects of Enron’s business model that you still feel are defensible.
But, in doing so, I think you’re going to have to deal with the fact that a lot of people are going to be skeptical and/or critical about what you believe in at this point in time. If all you can see in that is partisanship, so be it.
