Well, probably not. But that's OK. He doesn't have to be. But it he's awfully libertarian-esque these days. I'll tell you one thing, though: Few things about politics bring a real smile to my face. But one of those things that does is when liberal concerns and sensibilities on outcomes are channeled through classical liberal/libertarian policy views. Not only does it bring a grin to the face of a libertarian like me but it also resonates with voters if given a chance...not only does it resonate, it's 100% correct! How about that? Getting a "HELL YEAH!" from voters and making real and tangible sense on policy...what a winning combo!!...in theory at least. :)

Anyway, McGovern, the former Democratic Senator and Presidential candidate vs. Nixon in '72, had a WSJ Op-Ed where he minces no words about his stern sense of caution for unintended consequences while expressing real and genuine concern for the economically troubled.

McGovern:

With liberalized credit rules, many people with limited income could access a mortgage and choose, for the first time, if they wanted to own a home. And most of those who chose to do so are hanging on to their mortgages. According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition,their holders neither delinquent nor in default.

There's no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market.

The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it).

Amen, Senator. It's truly refreshing to see a politician keep things measured and in perspective

As McGovern begins his concerns about economic paternalism and its dangers, he makes an incredibly simple, lucid and oft ignored observation about its effects on health care while giving a clear call for some much needed free market friendly deregulation:

Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states.

Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.

Excellent points. But like is often said about policy perspectives that are rooted in a sound understanding of WHY things are the way they are, the forth-coming answers and ideas are not very satisfying for those inclined to want a solution to have a large and grandiose government program in it.

To me, it seems pull-your-hair-out obvious that the first questions you ask yourself when a regulation-infested industry, like health care, isn't functioning well are:

(1) what regulations may be causing problems and harmful, unintended consequences?

(2) what regulations may be impeding normal market function that unaffected sectors don't have to deal with? And can we remove them without causing a clearly damaging trade-off?

In the case of health care, the regulation of WHO you can buy insurance from and WHERE is an obvious regulatory candidate for the gallows. The encouraging of employer provided health care is another.

I would phase out these regulations and behavior-altering rules. Products would become more varied and tailored to individual needs....both frugal and extravagant. Health care providers would also adapt to these changes in consumer behavior. Non or under insured services like Lasik eye surgery have seen costs plummet...coincidence? NO.

McGovern then goes back to finance and warns against the consequences of impetuous and short sighted new regulations on lenders (and borrowers) by looking at "Payday lending", small loans against future or pending paychecks:

Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next....Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it.

True and obvious. No further comment.

McGovern then closes with lessons and advice while sharing his new perspective on policy since leaving office:

Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.... Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

Glad to hear , Senator. Perhaps you could arrange a sit-down with the heirs to your party's leadership and explain these ideas. It's a powerful, majority-winning platform, IMO:

Liberal sensibilities on OUTCOMES discussed through libertarian rhetorical prisms. I tried to this angle at DailyKos a few years ago but most of the hysterical land hateful little socialists would have none of it. Thankfully, they are not the base.

This is incidentally the second time in recent months that I read about a refreshingly classical liberal view from a 1970's Democrat .

Where have you all gone? Where are your heirs? Come back! :)

BTW, libertarian praise for McGovern at Reason .