For a few hours on Thursday, it looked like it was September 2008 all over again, as the global financial system appeared to be on the brink of having a meltdown. This time, the crisis wasn’t over banks, but over countries — specifically over fears that Greece won’t be able to pay back its mounting debt. While the massive stock market drop may have been made worse due to a computer glitch and fears of a Lehman-style meltdown have somewhat subsided, the fact is that the global economy is by no means out of the woods.

There can be little surprise that conservatives in America are drawing the exact wrong lessons from the Greek debt crisis. Dave Weigel points out that “Greece has become the new France” to conservatives, as Rep. Tod Tiahrt (R-KS) exclaimed:

[O]ur nation’s debt held by the public will reach an astonishing 90 percent of Gross Domestic Product within ten years. By comparison, Greece’s current debt to GDP ratio of 112.5 percent has resulted in a lowering of their credit rating to junk status. Without dramatic spending restraint, the U.S. is on a path toward the same crisis.

This is dangerous and misguided. The United States is in no danger of defaulting — our economy is growing and due to fears over the Euro, investors are boosting the value of the dollar. Yes debt is bad, and a lot of debt is really bad. Greece is definitely to blame for a failure to modernize its state and its economy over the last decade, but this isn’t about bailing out Greece any more — it is about Europe.

Just as the failure to rescue Lehman Brothers allowed the floodgates of the crisis to open, endangering other banks and the whole financial system, the failure to promptly and aggressively deal with Greece has lead to fears that contagion will spread to other European countries – such as Portugal and Spain. And just as the financial bailout was not about saving a particular bank — but about preventing America’s financial collapse and therefore the U.S. economy — the belated Greek bailout is not about saving lazy Greek pensioners — it’s about saving European banks and Europe’s financial system.

The problem is that the bailout for Greece and the subsequent austerity plan in many ways seems likely to fail. As Paul Krugman fears, it could send Greece into a deflationary death spiral, where its economy rapidly shrinks following cuts in public spending, this economic contraction leads to lower revenues, only making Greece less able to pay back its debts, which as a result lead to further economic collapse with Greece having to leave the Euro. This is the deflationary death spiral that America faced in ’08-’09 and would have certainly commenced if conservative austerity plans had carried the day. Yet the stimulus package and the Federal Reserve’s aggressive expansionary policy successfully avoided this outcome and now growth has returned.

Yet in Europe, efforts to stimulate have been limited. This is largely the result of German Chancellor Angela Merkel — the leader of Europe’s economic engine. Contrary to most American assumptions, Germany is highly conservative economically and has consistently adopted an approach that was overly preoccupied with fighting non-existent inflation and was highly suspicious of deficit spending. Last year Merkel and Larry Summers even publicly sparred over U.S. stimulus funding, and as Matt Yglesias has pointed out, the European Central Bank — which is largely under the thumb of Germany — has resisted injecting any life into the broader European economy. This suits Germany fine, but it is detrimental to the economies of countries on Europe’s periphery.

Now Merkel, realizing that the whole European monetary system could crash, has gotten on board a bailout package to help pay off its debt — much of which just happens to be owed to German banks. But this may have come too little too late. And any efforts to stimulate the Euro-zone have been punted by the European Central Bank, which has resisted lowering interest rates. In an excellent analysis of the crisis, the Washington Post’s Steve Pearlstein notes the emerging irony:

Back when the global financial crisis began in earnest in 2008, Europeans were quick to blame it all on Americans who lent unwisely and borrowed excessively. So it is more than a bit ironic that, having long denied its own forays into unwise lending and excessive borrowing, it is Europe that seems to be leading the global economy into the second phase of the crisis.

Merkel’s reluctance to act is not just a failure of German economic thinking, but a failure of German international leadership. In the wake of the ’08 economic crisis, European eyes turned to Berlin and Brussels. This gave Germany the opportunity over the course of the last two years to both assert itself as Europe’s leader, as well as set a clear course for the European project, which had gone adrift over the last half decade. Instead, Merkel has balked, choosing parochialism over bold leadership.

While this can all be seen as rational, since one could argue she is just pursuing what is in Germany’s national interest. But this is a very limited view of “national interest.” A larger conception of national interest understands the fact that Germany needs a strong Europe. Bailing out Greece and taking a leadership role in Europe is not charity, it is about enlightened self-interest. Instead, Merkel’s approach toward Europe and international affairs is one that leaves Germany, as well as the EU, punching below its weight on the international stage.

This past Thursday, in what’s become a pretty typical move for Florida senatorial candidate Marco Rubio (R), he flip-flopped on his opposition to Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB-1070. While as little as a week ago, Rubio was concerned the law would “unreasonably single out people who are here legally,” now he’s not so worried. In fact, Rubio told Human Events editor Jason Mattera that he would vote for the law now that certain changes have been made:

MATTERA: If you were in the Arizona state legislature, would you have voted for the law?

RUBIO: The second one that passed hit the right note. Yes.

MATTERA: The first time around, would you have?

RUBIO: Well, I would have wanted to see changes like the ones that were made because I know that that’s not the intent of the bill. We’re always concerned. I mean no one is in favor of a bill that would force American citizens to have to interact with law enforcement in a way that wasn’t appropriate. And the first bill I thought held that door open.

Since then, the changes that have been made to the bill I think greatly improve it.

The changes that Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) recently signed into law include replacing the phrase “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest” to “apparently clarify that officers don’t need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.” The word “solely” was also removed from the sentence, “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.”

However, many have referred to the revisions as purely “cosmetic” changes that have made the bill “minimally less racist.” One reason is a third change that was made to the bill that has been described as “frightening.” As part of the amended bill, a police officer responding to city ordinance violations would also be required to determine the immigration status of an individual they have “reasonable suspicion” of being an undocumented immigrant. One of the bill’s architects, lawyer Kris Kobach, said himself that it essentially means police can use violations such as “cars on blocks in the yard” as an excuse to “initiate queries” in light of the “lawful contact” deletion. In other words, the law will still cast a wide net that gives Arizona a police an excuse to start knocking on the door of what will undoubtedly be mostly poor brown people and demand documentation.

In addition, as the president of the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association, David Leopold, points out, “‘reasonable suspicion’ under S.B. 1070 is based on a subjective notion of a person’s status.” Ultimately, despite the changes, the law still “gives police license to determine a person’s immigration status based on their appearance,” writes Leopold. While Terry v. Ohio established a “reasonable suspicion” standard, that standard is based on the notion that “criminal activity” is “rapidly unfolding.” Other than when an undocumented immigrant has immediately crossed the border and entered into the country, it’s difficult to establish “reasonable suspicion” and separate immigrants without documents from immigrants with documents who belong to same culture, wear the same clothes, and speak the same language. Chances are that unless a police officer is pulling over a van overpacked with foreigners covered in desert sand, that officer is going to have to determine “reasonable suspicion” almost entirely based on how that person looks — and that leaves a lot of room for error.

Perhaps the most damning evidence that the law hasn’t really changed is the fact that its main sponsor, state Sen. Russell Pearce (R) admitted himself that the new wording won’t alter how the law is enforced. The changes also do not address the fact that the new law is likely unconstitutional on the grounds that it allows the state to regulate immigration — a power which the Constitution explicitly assigns to the federal government.