Last night was another Republican debate, this time minus “The Donald.” It’s difficult to believe that this assortment of wannabes is the best a once-serious political party can muster.
How have we come to this?
David Brooks, the conservative columnist for the New York Times, is a thoughtful observer of the American scene, and while (in my opinion) he often misses with his analysis, he also often contributes to our understanding of the America we inhabit.
In a recent column, Brooks honed in on the public’s pervasive feelings of powerlessness:
The Republican establishment thinks the grass roots have the power but the grass roots think the reverse. The unions think the corporations have the power but the corporations think the start-ups do. Regulators think Wall Street has the power but Wall Street thinks the regulators do. The Pew Research Center asked Americans, “Would you say your side has been winning or losing more?” Sixty-four percent of Americans, with majorities of both parties, believe their side has been losing more.
These days people seem to underestimate their own power or suffer from what Giridharadas calls the “anxiety of impotence.”…
There are, as Brooks points out, many reasons for these perceptions of powerlessness, and certainly not all of them are political. That said, however, a case can be made that one of the great frustrations fueling the palpable anger in today’s electorate is the realization by so many citizens that their votes don’t count.
The American message has always been that we have political choice. If we don’t approve of the behavior of our political representatives, we can vote them out. Increasingly, that’s not true; gerrymandering has produced Congressional districts that would re-elect dead people if they ran with the correct political label.
At the federal level, the House of Representatives is unrepresentative of the American public, and likely to remain that way. In the last Congressional cycle, Democrats garnered a million more votes than the Republicans who nevertheless remain firmly in control—and, thanks to checks and balances—able to obstruct and defeat policies favored by a popularly-elected President.
I’ve written previously about the lack of competitiveness that gerrymandering produces, and about other deleterious consequences of the practice. Brooks points to one I omitted: the frustration experienced by citizens who feel—with considerable justification—that they have no voice.
Plagued by the anxiety of impotence many voters are drawn to leaders who pretend that our problems could be solved by defeating some villain. Donald Trump says stupid elites are the problem. Ted Cruz says it’s the Washington cartel. Bernie Sanders says it’s Wall Street.
When voters feel powerless, they are vulnerable to simple messages, identifiable villains, and candidates who channel their anger.
If history is any guide, that has never turned out well.
OK; probably due to a lack of civics class in high school I don’t understand the gerrymandering system/procedure/rules (if there are rules) so do not understand how it can arbitrarily be changed by individual elected officials at their whim. Yes; I know that is a long, convoluted sentence, reminiscent of a Sarah Palin rant but know of no other way to state it. The fact that gerrymandering borders cross county lines is especially confusing; due to my long misunderstanding that representatives represented THEIR general area or expanded “neighborhood”. Who assigns these constantly changing areas to specific elected officials and their hopeful replacements? One of the commenters on “Indiana’s Own Dana Black” Facebook page posted two maps; one showing her own area (which may or many not put me in her district) and Dana’s which is primarily across the east side county line.
To quote the King of Siam’s oft repeated comment, “Is a puzzlement!”
Spot on. Trump’s supporters appear to be blind, deaf and dumb to everything except Trump’s endless, factless drivel.
Imagine my surprise as I read a WAPO article from Eugene Robinson about Bernie and Trump and expanded the comments to see someone share Professor Kennedy’s post. Hmmm, you’re getting national exposure. I digress.
I thought you were doing a study on gerrymandering? If so, how can it be fixed? When can it be fixed (besides at the next census?) When Democrats got a million more votes than Republicans, I didn’t see anybody put up a fight. How do we fix this when both sides are trying to overpower the other?
We really do feel powerless that our vote doesn’t matter which is why I didn’t vote for 20 yrs.
JoAnn, if you are interested – here is a link to an article that will give you a little bit of gerrymandering history.
An even better explanation of how gerrymandering works:
http://politicsandpolicy.org/article/gerrymandering-proving-all-politics-local
For ideas on how to fix the redistricting problem, I recommend the Brennan Center’s “A Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting,” available at http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/citizens-guide-redistricting. Of course, the main thing necessary for any meaningful change is plenty of citizen involvement.
Oops – this is the first link that I forgot to include in the post:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/the-twisted-history-of-gerrymandering-in-american-politics/262369/
Funny, the Democrats didn’t have a problem with gerrymandering when they controlled the House for 40 something years.
Nancy; thank you for both web sites, I THINK I understand a little better…still don’t agree with the elected official’s input and control over the decision. Taken literally, and putting aside the term “Gerrymandering” as explained, it still doesn’t make sense to me that redistricting should cross county lines into different governments with their own county laws and ordinances.
Of course I still don’t understand two senators per state no matter the population and/or size. Founding fathers couldn’t possibly foresee the expansion to the current levels of population any more than they could foresee freedom of government intervention into religion becoming religious intervention into government or freedom of speech becoming an abused freedom overrun by lies and liars by such as Donald Trump and his ilk. Back to the lack of civics education in high school. My lack of education is showing today.
Paul, you are right. Neither side thinks that their s#*&@ don’t stink, when in fact the whole pile of gerrymandering smells to high heavens. Gerrymandering, to my way of thinking, is what is at the root of this country’s inability to get anything meaningful done. The majority no longer rules, and there is no “fair and balanced”. A large portion of the population knows this and has given up. We are ALL in deep doo doo.
Good post Prof K. Some folks are turning away from looking to federal solutions and looking to local and NGO solutions to things. In more progressive states, the city and state and local business folks make more real progress on things like clean energy and such than the feds do. I lost any influence when my home in Indianapolis was assigned to the Carmel district of a crazy right wing republican. The person in the chair changes but it is always a crazy right wing republican.
The only way to fix the gerrymandering problem is with a Constitutional Amendment, probably requiring computerization of the process, with the parameters being regularity of the districts and the number of people. Unfortunately, that is highly unlikely to happen in my lifetime.
Those people who don’t vote because their vote won’t count only make the problem worse. How do you know the dead guy will get reelected? Sixty percent of you don’t vote. I may be a broken record, but here I go again, “In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.” Can anyone say we don’t have exactly what we paid for? deTocqueville was spot on.
Peggy, the reason so many people don’t vote is because they don’t have a choice of candidates and don’t want the people that are on the ballot. Why bother to go to the polls if there is absolutely no one that you would vote for.
Too bad we don’t have the option to ‘vote against’ a candidate. That might bring the voters to the polls to send a message of disapproval of the candidates that have the jobs locked up due to no opposition.
It is very hard to vote in any meaningful way when gerrymandered districts, by default, may have only one candidate of one party running for the office. How do you vote for change when the only candidate wins even if the only one voting is him/her?
Peggy; thank you for stating what I was thinking. I need to go through my copy of the Constitution and Amendments to read up on Representatives and qualifications/requirements before I do.
Engaging in a bit of blue sky thinking (aka ‘creative ideas that are not limited by any restrictions including past thinking or beliefs), I’d first need to set aside the fact that we live in a representative republic, not a democracy. Despite the genius of our Founding Fathers, they were not omnipotent, not infallible, and not in possession of a crystal ball that provided an accurate view into the future of our nation.
My personal opinion is that our Founding Fathers unknowingly were influenced by the prevailing culture of their time, a paternalistic view which at that time seemed a noble viewpoint providing guidance to the largely uneducated population. In short, the voters lacked the wisdom, the education, and the time away from their labor intensive jobs to understand the issues of the day; therefore, the voters needed a properly educated wise person to represent their best interests.
Jumping into the future, the present, voters no longer are clueless uneducated bumpkins who require oversight from a bunch of jack-leg representatives to speak for them at the polling place. I believe that voters would feel like their votes counted if direct popular votes were the determining factor in national elections. This is a personal opinion which may or may not change in the near future. Just something to consider.
From whence cometh the “anxiety of impotence”?
From where most of our modern anxiety comes from….it’s a useful tool of modern politics distributed through mass media. It’s the opiate (today crack) of the masses manufactured and distributed by politicians for politicians.
They have learned to amplify their meager capabilities by avoiding problems that need solutions and focusing on make believe problems that can be presented through scary campfire stories and solved by fictional superhero powers.
And before Paul comes back with the traditional Republican salutation of “you’re as bad as I am” let me say that fear mongering is used by both parties now that conservatives have demonstrated that it is the most potent political propaganda. It’s fire that can only be fought with fire.
The worst case scenario would be if Obama was the last President elected on the promise of “hope and change” and all future Presidents got there through “fear and loathing”.
The solution though is still democracy but it has to be informed, not entertained. Sheila has the answer right here. Turn off TV, use social media for social things, fire up Google and find real political research and think, think, think. Put education on steroids not celebrities.
Gerrymandering is a real problem, immigration is not. ISIS is a Middle East problem, 90 gun deaths a day is here. Climate change is a global problem but we and a small handful of other countries are a disproportionate cause.
Think, think, think.
Common Dreams has a good article. http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/22/seven-stages-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition. We are in Stage 6 – STAGE 6: Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse if the establishment candidate is rejected.
Bill Moyers has a similar article. The Escalating Media Assault on Bernie Sanders
Media outlets cannot resist lumping together Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, convinced that right-wing and progressive populism walk the same path. http://billmoyers.com/story/the-escalating-media-assault-on-bernie-sanders/
Chicago Tribune editorial that appeared in print on Monday. The newspaper editorialized that nomination of Trump, Cruz or Sanders “could be politically disastrous,” and it declared: “Wise heads in both parties are verging on panic.”
So guess who the Trib endorses: Each party’s dalliance with candidates who could be politically disastrous gives the other an opportunity to capture the broad, sensible center. Clinton and Bush, once considered the likely nominees, look the best positioned to do that.
These were the two candidates the Establishment read 1% had selected for us about a year ago.
I read an article on line this am that posits that Sanders 2016 is a duplicate of Obama 2008 and Hillary 2016 is a duplicate of Obama 2016. That seems fairly insightful to me but what’s to be made of it?
One conclusion is that hope and change met reality and became cynical. Another might be that hope and change met a cynical opposition and became realistic.
The latter seems on the average more realistic than the former IMO.
Of course that’s my view because I believe that Cheney et al destroyed the Republican Party and the GOP’s cynical behavior from 2008 through 2016 came from trying to survive through an alliance of the dysfunctional. Tea Party. Evangelicals. NRA. Racists. Kochs. Islamaphobes. That was accomplished by fanning the flames of fear and hate.
So which Obama, the 2008 or 2016 model, would govern best through 2024?
I believe that either will be given a huge mandate this year and the cynical opposition will have to deal with recovery. So what changed Obama through his term will be back burner.
Of course if I’m wrong and the Mano a Mano continues the 2016 model will be required.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we as voters could arrive at our polling places on a national election day, sign in as a voter, enter the voter booth, select the person of our choice, leave the polling place, and go home with the knowledge that our particular vote indeed was counted, was important in the millions of other votes tabulated in a direct election free from the electoral college?
I can understand the Trump part, but if you look at Bernie Sander’s issues, this is not an ‘equivalency’ situation. Whereas socialism is as american as apple pie, it has taken the best efforts of the oligarchs to stamp it out–but guess what–it’s flamed up again. Gerrymandering didn’t lead to Sanders–americans who know they didn’t go anywhere but the the politics did lead to Sanders. If you haven’t noticed, the Indiana Evan Bayh party (generally known as the Democrats) haven’t run a Democrat since Birch Bayh lost to Dan Quayle. We haven’t gone anywhere. The state party, however, has made itself irrelevant by running candidate after candidate as ‘republican lite’ because they want to maintain the status quo.
@girl cousin, an honest question follows. Are you more concerned about beloved partisan issues in Indiana, (i.e., Democrats, Republicans, Republican-lite, Democrat-lite) or more concerned about moving our state in a forward fashion despite any partisan labels?
girl cousin; Evan Bayh was/is an apple that fell far, far away from that Birch tree. He was never and will never be the man his father was.
BSH; shouldn’t we all be much more concerned about constituent issues than partisan issues…shouldn’t this be the primary concern of both parties but is not, making it the source of most of today’s problems?
Actually; we need to see a written copy of the oath of office made by Senators and Representatives at state and federal levels to know where they loyalties should be concerned.
Imagine that! Republicans were the first party to use fear! People do not understand the logic behind a Senate that equally represents each state. Bernie Sanders is the solution to all of our problems. Hope and Change, which was no more than a slogan supporting the concept of image over substance, is viewed with reverence. Pay no attention to the divisiveness from the Oval Office and just blame it all on Republicans. It is hard for me to determine who is more delusional; those who favor Trump or those who feel the Bern. Neither one has enough historical perspective or macro economic savvy to solve anything. Neither is a tiny bit interested in negotiating a compromise to address the most pressing issues of the day. Nobody currently in Washington makes any effort to be an honest negotiator. The last time there was compromise in DC was when Bush41 agreed to tax hikes ibex change for spending cuts that the democrat congress promptly renegged on and then ran against him for lying to the voters.
In exchange
“It is hard for me to determine who is more delusional; those who favor Trump or those who feel the Bern.”
Ken believes that hope and change and fear and loathing are all delusional and therefore the same.
So what political positions are real?
Remember this that’s going on today is not governing, it’s marketing. It’s like the ads on TV. It’s an idealized presentation of a brand that people will see themselves into.
So which brand do you favor – hope and change or fear and loathing?
Seems like an easy call to me for people who love and respect their country.
Am I missing something?
Pete! The difference is that conservatives have hope and love for their country while they have fear and loathing for the ever encroaching government. With liberals, the situation is reversed
I get really tired of conservatives defining liberals as people who don’t love their country, but love big government. Yes, Ken Glass, I’m talking about you, among others.
Liberals don’t care about the size of government. They only care that it is big enough to do what needs to be done, however “what needs to be done” is defined by the citizens of the country. My cynical guess is that “what needs to be done” is not seen as being tax cuts for billionaires while shipping jobs overseas, cutting programs upon which the poor depend while devoting over half of our annual budget to war, etc., but that is a discussion for another time.
Liberals love their country just as much as conservatives do. The difference is that liberals have more concern (‘love”) for the people who are the citizens of the country, while, in my view, conservatives love a concept or image of their country more than the people in it.
All statements are much too broad, of course, but being raised in a conservative Republican household, and being married to a conservative for 40+ years (and arguing politics with him for more years than that) has led me to those conclusions.
Pete, with all respect, I suspect you might be living in a gated condo community in a sunny area like Florida where everyone is predisposed to abdicate elements of their personal lifestyles to align with the collective thoughts of the greater community as represented by the homeowner association which usually is a small group of owners who thrive off their power controlling the lifestyles of their community members.
Wherever you live and whatever local lifestyles invariably impact your thinking, there’s a big wide world out there where many voters are no longer satisfied with the old-guard Democrats and the old-guard Republicans. In fact, there’s a revolution occurring in both parties, and you might be missing it.
Ken and BSH, in a democracy the country is the people and the people are the government.
It’s not possible in a democracy to love the country but fear the government which translates to mistrusting the people.
“many voters are no longer satisfied with the old-guard Democrats and the old-guard Republicans.”
That leaves who exactly to vote for?
Ken: “The difference is that conservatives have hope and love for their country while they have fear and loathing for the ever encroaching government. With liberals, the situation is reversed”.
Are you serious???!!!
If so, then please explain why the Republicans waste so much time and money governing women’s bodies and the rights of citizens who are LBGT.
The real truth of the matter is that Republicans don’t see their overzealous rules and regulations as a bad thing if it is what they want or are interested in. However if it is something they don’t want, then it is, as you would say, government encroachment.
“It’s not possible in a democracy to love the country but fear the government which translates to mistrusting the people.”
Pete; this is without a doubt the most foolish statement posted on this blog since Gopper was evicted. Your lengthy lectures post your views and beliefs as fact and you seem to believe the rest of us need to be educated by you who believe yourself to be all-knowing and wise. You do have much information at your disposal (I do sometimes wonder about your sources) and are obviously intelligent but if honestly believe the above copied and pasted statement; you are totally off track about democracy and the people who are fighting to see it restored to America and all Americans.
Pete, I continue to marvel at your total distrust for all businesses and equal blind trust of anyone in government. Nancy, I have as much contempt for the hypocrisy of republicans as democrats in government. Something I urge you to consider. In the sixties, Cabrini Green was built in Chicago to house the poor and they moved in and trashed. No ownership and no time investment. Habitat for Humanity realized the problem and requires owners to contribute time and energy into the home giving them a vested interest. Kindness that breaks the spirit is not kindness. Conservatives want to lift people out of poverty while President Obama is bragging about adding millions to the welfare roles
Ken; it is the conservatives who are keeping people in poverty and adding to their numbers daily. It is the conservatives who have taken Medicaid from elderly and disabled, pushing them deeper into poverty. It is the conservatives who have stopped food stamps to those who are forced to remain in poverty; that now includes many former middle-income families who no longer have income or are underemployed due to job losses and being forced to work for minimum or barely above wages. It is the conservatives who refuse to allow anything to be done regarding immigration reform which is also adding to the poverty level in this nation. It is fools like Trump, Cruz, Ryan, Carson and Bush who will, if given the opportunity, increase the vast number of those in poverty by destroying Social Security and Medicaid. IT IS THE CONSERVATIVES! And you are one of them.
Virginia, I still believe that the briefest way to express your sentiment is that liberals and conservatives want the same thing, liberals for everyone.
By my estimation we are the freest humans to ever walk the planet. Why? Because we have a strong liberal democracy. Is it perfect? No and it will never be beyond improvement. It’s a human institution.
The U.S. Is we the people and our collective voice is our government. Weakening our voice because of the historical fear of tyrannical governments can only reduce our freedom and invite in those who pretend to know better than we what’s good for us.
We need to never stop improving and never concede power to those over which we have no control.
To me that’s hope and change.
JoAnn, gotta say that you are a unique piece of work.
“if honestly believe the above copied and pasted statement; you are totally off track about democracy and the people who are fighting to see it restored to America and all Americans.”
Just how are you fighting JoAnn? Are you one of the Oregon land rustlers? I’ll bet that you’re not.
I’ll bet you plan on solving problems by voting. Maybe helping someone’s campaign. Maybe blogging some.
See that’s what democracy is. That’s why I like it. That’s why I’m hard on those wanting to ditch democracy in favor of oligarchy or theocracy.
You see I don’t have to fear the government because in a democracy I am the government. That’s why you should feel powerful and not impotent.
Ken, there are good people and bad people. They are pretty much evenly distributed among all human institutions. In a democracy we hire and fire politicians. In business we have no control over the bad people who land there. They thrive in institutions designed to make more money regardless of the cost to others.
I’m not at all against business or government. I just am against people who feel that imposing what’s best for them on others is ok. If they’re politicians they get fired. If they’re business people they get rich.
There are very, VERY few politicians who ever get voted out of office and unfortunately it is often the better statesmen and states women who get voted out. The most secure politicians are often the most detrimental to the cause.
There are no business people who get voted out of office. Of course some get thrown in jail by government. The ones with their hands in our pockets.
JoAnn, the vision of JFK for a poverty program to lift the poor out of poverty has been stood on its head. 50+ years and we have succeeded in alienating fathers, and holding people down. We have made it impossible for a single mother to work without sacrificing her family’s financial security. She gives up on including her man in his children’s lives, she gives up on seeking a career because welfare makes that impossible. Conservatives believe we can do better, but the minute any suggestion is made to reevaluate any program, the hater and fear-mongering liberals portray us as starving children and throwing granny off the cliff. You may remember the hand-wringing when Clinton did welfare reform. Somehow, people didn’t starve. Part of that reform was that able bodied people with no dependents must be working or be in a work training program in order to receive benefits. President Obama, by executive order, ended that feature. I don’t appreciate anyone who brags about more people on welfare.
The only cure for welfare are jobs. Give people the opportunity for living wage. Apparently business is not good enough at doing that. Liberals accept that but do not accept that we can’t in some partial way save future generations. They also accept that people do not die just because nobody has a job for them. They survive doing what ever they have to.
So, as is typical, liberals try for everybody free from disaster, but they fall short. Conservatives would prefer poorer poor because they believe that those with everything deserve more.
I think that Ken would do a good job of telling the sick and homeless and elderly living day to day that what they really need is freedom from the government that’s keeping them alive and giving them some hope. I’m sure that they would sympathize with his need for Lexus over Camry.
Well Done Virginia.
Ken, if the conservatives are so special with their dismissal of welfare, where is that job bill for the country so that we won’t need welfare? Where is the infrastructure bill to replace our aging systems? Where is all that military money going? We want an audit! Those are only some of the bills that Sen Sanders wants to present to the people and the conservatives have no answer except to scream “Socialist” at him. Don’t even get me started on health care because the facts show, we spent more per capita per person than any other country in the world and yet, we have lower results. Where is the conservatives bill to improve our health care system so that the insurance industry profit-based system doesn’t continue to kill people? You guys are all talk but I haven’t seen anything presented to overcome the greed in this country and the GOP only serve to dismantle or destroy anything these so-called “liberals” have tried to provide for people in need. Where are the damn BILLS?
Pete! Once again I suggest a need for more effective aid to the poor and you fear-monger that into my desire to make them poorer. Fear and loathing of my position as misrepresented by you. Stop demonizing conservatives and work together to fix a severely broken system. Not happening because liberals are too busy marketing fear and hatred about conservatives.
Ken, Aging Girl in the post right above yours clearly pointed out the disingenuousness of conservatives who have demonstrated clearly their intentions to reduce poverty by making the poor poorer and the rich richer.
Liberals know what that results in. Less democracy and more crime.
I don’t spread fear I spread realism.
Aging Girl, a jobs bill suggests that the government can do anything to create jobs. Take it all the way back to before the New Deal. By June of 1930 (following the crash in 1929), unemployment was back under 6%. Then the government started “helping” which was followed by more trouble. FDR doubled down with the New Deal and somehow the US recovery took 10 years and a war to catch up with Europe. The liberal (or progressive if you prefer) continue to live under the delusion that government helps stimulate the economy. Usually by spending money. Most recent occupant of the office has added 10 trillion to the debt and middle class income has never taken a bigger hit than in the last seven years. Wake up!
Ken. The economy was fine when Clinton left office and the CBO told Cheney that if he continued Clinton’s economic policies the entire US debt would be paid off by 2006. Instead Cheney told Greenspan to fan the economic fires while he waved the greed flag over Wall St, he told Rumsfeld to declare holy wars and handed his rich friends the biggest tax cut they had ever seen.
By the time Bush escaped back to Crawford where he had spent most of his time while Cheney ran the country, things were in ruins.
It’s taken Obama a somewhat shorter time to undue all of that damage but the bills for Cheney’s big adventure kept rolling in.
So now we’re here and you are still operating under the marketing based myth that conservatism is about saving money.
I on the other hand disregard the marketing myth making and consider only the evidence. It’s very compelling.
No country, business or religion can afford conservatism with it’s assumption that people are stupid and the future is doomed.
Hope and change require investment in the future but we have many conservative years to make up.
Pete! Republicans tried to stop the bleeding with changes to the mortgage lending fiasco, but Barney Frank assured us that FannieMae and FreddieMac were just fine. You ignoring the role of democrat decisions in the crash of ’07/’08 does not change the fact that the problem started when lenders were forced to ignore a proven formula for minimizing foreclosures and then exacerbated when, in spite of indication of a problem, democrats ignored the warning signs. I do not suggest that businesses play no role in the crisis, but your failure to hold others accountable ignores reality.
Ken, I absolutely remember the mortgage loan housing bubble that originated with supposedly good political intentions allowing middle-class and marginal middle-class earners to be approved for home mortgages via mortgage underwriters using a relaxed formula for approval. And, I also was a co-worker with several younger public school teachers who took advantage of these too good to be true easy mortgage loans, not realizing they’d never be able to afford the homes for which they pre-qualified, and never knowing their mortgage loans were far greater than the worth of their homes. The entire mortgage lending fiasco was a cheap trick on behalf of our government.
Ken and BSH; can you be specific about “when lenders were forced to ignore a proven formula for minimizing foreclosures and then exacerbated when, in spite of indication of a problem democrats ignored the warning signs”?
It sounds like you believe that the only thing that kept Wall St greed in check was the process of redlining, the exclusion of certain poor neighborhoods in the process of granting mortgages.
Do you really believe that? Holy wars, artificially low interest rates and huge tax cuts for the wealthy had nothing to do with the Great Recession? It was all the elimination of redlining? Really?
Pete! There was never any reduction in federal revenue in spite of the Bush tax cuts. Why are you in denial about softening underwriting rules to lure poor people into mortgages that were bigger than they could afford. Those changes were not voluntary. The govt required those changes and then Barney Frank lied about how safe it all was. Did the bundling of bad mortgages into crappy “investments” exacerbate the problem? Sure did. If those vehicles were marketed not following proper disclosure procedures then the culprits should be prosecuted. This situation reminds me of the junk bond crisis in the 80’s. They were, after all called junk bonds