We have a very low capacity for self-criticism.

One of the media narratives I've found incredibly irritating over the past year is the implication, given Bush's historic low approval ratings, of "How'd this happen?" Apparently we have no idea.

My question is: where are all these people who voted for Bush?

In a different media universe, you might think there'd be more stories (I don't think I've seen any) trying to find people who voted for Bush but have now soured on him, and going into detail about why that is. But I suspect such a story wouldn't reflect very well on the American character, as the likely answers would reveal a lot of ignorance, selfishness, and bovine herd mentality (He was kicking Arab butt! My gas prices went way too high last summer! My preacher told me to vote for him!).

So what the media have done is largely ignore the question of how Bush went from 51% of the popular vote in 2004 to the lowest approval ratings ever recorded. But of course, we're not going to learn anything from our history if we're too afraid to - ahem - interrogate it.

Lest any of us ever forget, I'm reminded again by reading those Friedman excerpts ("they must be held accountable," etc.) how prevalent the conflation of the Iraq War and 9/11 was in the public consciousness at the time. Accountable for what? To whom? Repeating the Bush administration's sleazy insinuations was an enterprise most of the pundit class was engaged in in some fashion or another. You'd think they'd be embarrassed nowadays, but then that would be asking a great deal of pundit psychology.

It's a lot like the experience of looking through newspapers from the early 1950s and seeing all the commentary obsessing about communism and how any means are justified to deal with the menace. (The subsequent horrifying record of people like John Foster Dulles would, I doubt, have been possible without the intensity of fear-mongering that occurred earlier.) But of course in this case we don't even have the comfort of historical distance to make ourselves feel better.

Most disturbingly, these comments are also a reminder of how, if there were any justice in the world, the entire Bush administration would be defending itself against war crimes charges.

Good point about how elite universities have played a significant role in the nepotism business. I'm not sure to what degree this has changed in recent decades, but the examples of George W. Bush and John McCain are powerful nonetheless.

Given that admissions to those schools (Yale and the Naval Academy) have always been highly competitive, don't you wonder what prospects *weren't* admitted in order to make room for the worse-than-mediocre George and John? Sure, maybe it was just another worthless legacy case, but then again maybe it was someone who would've actually done something with the opportunity. In George's case maybe it was someone who went on to fight and die in Vietnam.

That's the real tragedy of nepotism. For the most part, we live in a zero-sum world where opportunities are not limitless. When they are denied to someone worthy, it simply isn't always the case that an equivalent will arise somewhere else for that person. So the mediocre (or worse) get promoted based on family name and the rest of society suffers for it. Look no further than the Current Occupant.

Yes, we get it. The economy sucks right now. Unemployment will likely get worse before it gets better, and the U.S. definitely has an interest in preserving high-paying manufacturing jobs.

All the above is a no-brainer. We don't need a columnist to tell us this. The real question is: what should be done to ensure that Ford, GM, and Chrysler don't simply drunkenly swill billions in taxpayer dollars and emerge from the recession just as dysfunctional and stupid as they are now? Is handing over $34 billion in taxpayer dollars to the same bunch of dumb clucks running these companies - with no meaningful oversight or consequences for lack of achievement - really the answer?

I don't claim any expertise in the manufacturing sector, but I expect more from the Salon business and economics writer than panic. The Chicken Little approach has exhausted itself (it was all used up on the financial industry bailout). As a taxpayer, I want to see the government take meaningful steps to ensure that vast public investment comes with teeth.

Given the dire circumstances, why not some bold thinking? Here's one: is out-and-out nationalization (citizen equity) of these companies such a bad idea? Can the government really do a poorer job of running them than they have of running themselves? I don't know, but the notion that taxpayers should continue to hand over bags of money - no questions asked - is what's really criminal.