As foreign critics of market economics seek to push America to impose new, heavy regulations on its financial system in response to the recession — one might say they never want to see a crisis go to waste — at least some analysts are questioning how a rushed rulemaking process would avoid causing the same kinds of problems as past iterations. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette coverage of this week’s G-20 meeting there:

Former Canadian Foreign Minister Barbara McDougall, who served in the Brian Mulroney government, said some U.S. regulatory efforts made in crisis mode have not turned out well. She pointed to the relatively speedy passage of legislation in 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley, also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act, directed at boards and accounting firms in the wake of the Enron, Worldcom and several other major U.S. accounting scandals.
“Sarbanes-Oxley has become a real problem. It affects everyone beyond the United States who wants to make money in the United States,” Ms. McDougall said in an interview. “It was a real step backwards in terms of regulatory reform, because it is so bureaucratic and so intrusive. It’s an example of what happens when people have a knee-jerk response to a crisis.”

My operating assumption about government at all levels — local, state, federal, black helicopter, and galactic — is that if politicians seem to be in a big hurry, be suspicious. What they want to do is probably dangerous to liberty and contrary to the wishes of the majority of their constituents. If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing very slowly.