Matt Yglesias has made the argument that the real world is often no place for moral idealism. That is, sometimes a less desirable, but more realistic choice must be made simply because the more desirable choice is plainly infeasible. In this scenario, it might at first appear that voting against a less desirable solution is the correct moral choice, but given that voting against it may lead to no solution or an even less desirable solution, clearly the most moral position is to vote for the solution which combines the appropriate levels of potency and feasibility. Thus, I tend to agree with Kevin Drum: pass the damn bailout already. Even if not’s perfect, the political capital to pursue a (non unanimously viewed as better) plan is simply non-existent. Therefore, poiting to the expediency the rapidly devolving banking system (peace, Wachovia — you still has my monies?), it doesn’t make any sense to waste time lamenting the Swedish option.