I watched President Obama’s speech about General Motors and Chrysler today, and I had the same reaction that most people had.  How can the President justify such a different tone between the banks and the auto industry?  And it wasn’t just the difference in tone.  I wondered: is the President overreaching in demanding that the CEO of GM, Rick Wagoner, resign as a condition of future taxpayer dollars to GM?  After all, I didn’t hear about Obama demanding that the CEOs of any of the banks resign as a condition of them receiving more money.

Don’t get me wrong: I think Obama is on the right course in trying to save GM while requiring the company to do major restructuring.  However, I can see major political problems developing for the President among auto workers who will see a double standard in the way that Obama is treating the financial industry compared to the auto industry.  That assessment may not be fair, in the end, but there is an appearance problem here.

And finally, although I’m not outraged by the President’s action Monday, I do think we need to have a debate about the limits of government intervention in the economy.  Is it a good development that the federal government is now basically making management decisions in one of the largest industries in the United States?  Was Obama justified in demanding the resignation of Wagoner, or should he have simply expressed his strong recommendation that Wagoner resign?

We’re definitely in uncharted territory.  I guess the thing about a mixed economy is that sometimes it just leaves you mixed up.  But, maybe that is a good thing, and a refreshing break from the ideological certainty of recent years.