To exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not. And what I'm saying to you is that I found a flaw - I don't know how significant or permanent it is - but I've been very distressed by that fact...I found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.
I, like Tyler Cowen, am not quite sure what Greenspan conceded here. However, he leaves open the possibility of people interpreting his words as a requiem for capitalism.
The ideological champion of new atheism and the ideological champion of free markets have given the impression that they have serious reservations about their ideologies.
"The question is whether [your ideology] is accurate or not". I remain convinced that laissez-faire is the best model for economics and theism the best model for belief and life. The current financial market perturbations, pace Greenspan's comments, does not shake my belief in the former. However, Dawkins' Concession is one more (minor) data point for belief in the latter.
We are living in times where governing ideologies are coming under sustained attack. Change we can believe in?
In his book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning Jonah Goldberg begins by noting the "not even the professionals have figured out what exactly fascism is". One definition, proffered by Emilio Gentile, is:
A mass movement, that combines different classes but is prevalently of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy.
Let's consider each of these elements as it may apply to Obama.