Nothing more starkly illustrates the differences in political philosophy between the Republican and Democratic Parties than their respective responses to the Sub-prime housing "crisis". Perfectly encapsulating the silliness of Therapeutic Liberalism, Obama criticized the position of McCain (government shouldn't reward the irresponsible behavior of individuals) as indicative of what he characterized as a "you're on your own society." This is a debate worth having. For in contradistinction to the Democrats view of the ever-expansive and ameliorative role of government, McCain's position reflects the overall political theory of Republicans: it should not and cannot be the business of government to protect individuals from the consequences of a bad contractual bargain into which they freely entered.

What percentage of sub-prime borrowers were speculators and used the easy money in an environment of rising real estate prices to flip properties for a quick profit? How many borrowers provided misleading financial statements to lenders? How many knew that they could ill-afford to purchase a home under the conditions as disclosed in the loan documents? Why is it "just" to reward your neighbor who bought more house than he could afford when you lived within your means? Required disclosures by lenders pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act are onerous and mandatory. Would Obama please detail for us exactly which terms of the lending contract were misleading to borrowers? Predictably, Democrats don't ask these questions,

The Democrats response to the sub-prime mortgage problem follows a typical Democratic Party template: find a problem; elevate it into a "crisis"; demagogue the issue by finding an evil wrongdoer (in this case "predatory lenders"); propose draconian measures and top-heavy federal regulations as a panacea to cure what application of a dose of common sense would have prevented in the first place. In the case of foreclosures, a simple question arises; why didn't people live within their means?

Curiously, what is absent in the Democratic Party's discussion of this issue is the concept of individual responsibility and culpability. Instead of following a familiar script for fear of being painted as heartless, Republicans ought to respond by pointing out that the Democrats want those who lived within their means to help bail out those who chose not to.

Though the Democrats are inclined to view their bailout proposals as evidence of their moral superiority and "compassion" the application of the heavy hand of government in this instance will only lead inexorably to tighter credit for everyone. What is it about Democrats that they always think that the hand of government always leads to beneficent consequences? How many banks will make loans to people who are not prime credit candidates if they know the government is waiting in the wings to save them should things go awry? Hillary's proposal to freeze interest rates for a period of five years is ludicrous. Someone should ask her: do you think that voiding, by government coercion, the terms of contracts freely entered into between borrowers and lenders might have insalubrious consequences for commerce in a civil society?

In essence, the dictates of Nanny State Liberalism encompassed in the Democratic Candidates platform is a radical redefinition of the permissible power of the state: Government as insurer to allow its citizens to guard against all risk attendant to living in a free society.