Here's a theory:

Ron Paul 2008 supporters and Howard Dean 2004 supporters played an important role in the failure of the bailout bill in Congress. Both campaigns ran highly decentralized campaigns, leaving in their wake organized persistent groups, groups that were not waiting for campaign instructions, but scheduled their own ongoing meetings. And both cultures were strongly opposed to the shift to massive executive power over the purse as imagined by the bailout proposal.

The active citizens created by the Dean and Paul campaign were confident, curious, and capable of contacting their legislators. And they did; they were making phone calls and writing letters immediately, more confident in their skepticism than others because they had not just taken orders, but acted as leaders in their local groups.

People ask me sometimes why candidates should run decentralized campaigns, as the only purpose is winning, and decentralized power (instead of tasks) is more difficult to manage. I think history may show that this week's powerful rebuke to the powershift is one reason why.

Furthermore, the crisis has revealed the power of an interesting alliance between progressives and libertarians; none of us want a government run by the executive.