Paul Krugman writes terrifically about so many things--most recently his dissection of America's insanely unbalanced subsidies for owner-occupied housing.
Yet when the name "Barack Obama" appears, the great economist seems to lose his moorings. This morning's column slams Obama for his alleged centrist tendencies.
As Krugman begins:
It's feeling a lot like 1992 right now. It's also feeling a lot like 1980. But which parallel is closer? Is Barack Obama going to be a Ronald Reagan of the left, a president who fundamentally changes the country's direction? Or will he be just another Bill Clinton?
This sounds odd coming from Krugman, who spent months knocking Obama for allegedly denigrating the Clinton years. Krugman also omits any mention of that little Iraq matter, on which Obama has not been a waffling centrist.
Krugman denigrates both Clinton and Obama by holding them against a false standard of what liberal Democratic politics is about. Krugman also offers a rather naïve analysis of American politics. President Clinton was a centrist for many reasons. The most important ones had nothing to do with his inner feelings or his personal ideology. He was centrist because he could count the wafer-thin majority he struggled to hold in the Senate and the House. If he had captured the support of seven more reliable Senators, Clinton would have enjoyed a different presidency.
FDR enacted the New Deal with a huge legislative majority. Rick Perlstein's engrossing Nixonland notes that LBJ enacted Medicare, Medicaid, and civil rights legislation with a 2-1 House majority. Before and after this unique period, LBJ was perhaps the ultimate dealmaker and triangulating politician.
If Barack Obama enjoys a large majority, he will be positioned to enact a very progressive legislative agenda. If he doesn't, he will have to make painful compromises. Without the votes, full-throated partisan rhetoric quickly becomes empty bluster.
My jaw dropped farthest when I read Krugman's twin dismissal of Obama's political challenge and the historical nature of a potential Obama victory. He writes: "One thing is clear: for Democrats, winning this election should be the easy part." Man, I wish I had this confidence.
Electing an African-American president of the United States named Barack Hussein Obama is never going to be the easy part. Lest you have any doubts, read Andrew Golis's sobering Talking Points Memo commentary.
Golis notes what another story in today's Times can only discuss through polite euphemism: Even in 2008, many American voters are racially prejudiced.
Given this American reality, one might say it is a mistake for Democrats to nominate a black man as its standard bearer. I refuse to make this concession. Can we say the obvious? An Obama victory would be a huge moment in American history. If anyone can climb this mountain, Obama is the one to do it.
His presidency might succeed or fail. We cannot know today if he would deliver on health reform, or whether his presidency will be swallowed by a terrorist attack, budget problems, or Iraq. One thing we do know: He won't be remembered as another Carter or another Clinton. He won't be remembered as another Reagan. He will be remembered as himself, not another anybody.
Make no mistake. This election will be a dogfight. The best thing Obama can do for every progressive cause is to assemble an electoral majority. Paul Krugman worries that an Obama victory would be less transformative than Reagan's was. I can only wonder what country Krugman is talking about.
I've been a _huge_ fan of Krugman's for years. He was explaining the tactics of "Economic Hit Men" long before John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" bestseller hit bookstores.
http://www.johnperkins.org/
Krugman's specialty as an economics professor, PhD, & researcher, was the "liquidity crisis" economic meltdown of foreign countries, such as the Russian rubble crisis, the Mexican peso crisis, the Thai baht crisis, and the Argentina crisis, etc.
Ironically, the Times' publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, thought he was getting another Neo-Con economic hit-man (right-wing swindler) when he hired Krugman, but Krugman surprised everyone by bucking the Times pro-Wall Street / neo-con agenda,
by exposing the follies of right-wing economic frauds, such as those "DEREGULATION" policies pushed by Phil Gramm, Ken Lay, and the Bush family in Texas and nationally
- which led to the S&L trillion-dollar debacle and the resulting Bush1 Recession (that led to dozens of "hate-government" right-wing hate-radio shock jocks urging Americans to join militias, of the type that Tim McVeigh was associated with before he blew up the Oklahoma government building.)
Krugman was the lone sane NYT columist to REJECT the Right-Wing Koolaid - even token Black Bob Herbert, token Irish female Maureen Dowd, & uber-liberal Society writer Frank Rich joined the "Texas Gov. Bush is a harmless fun-loving guy" bandwagon in that long, critical summer of campaign 2000 - but his infatuation with Hillary finally has him drinking the kool-aid..
So there's no chance of that.
As long as Obama is not going to be another Carter or Jesse Jackson.
Hillary was a "safer" bet in terms of where her adminstration would have done well in terms of a restored economy and some equity.
No question that Obama's the more exciting choice. No question that Obama will excite the World at large even more than Jack Kennedy did. Kennedy wasn't a good President in many respects. Being a good President is a long shot. Clinton was the best in my life-time, despite his non-transformational nature. With the exception of interest paymentst, Clinton balanced all his budgets. Clinton kept his promises better than other Presidents, and he did it from day one at great cost to his standing, such as his failed attempt to improve the lot of gays in the military. Most of Clinton's judicial appointments were decent, despite difficulties getting them through a Republican Congress. In that first year, as he tried to implement promises, the political sand shifted under his feet.
Obama may be able to finesse those pitfalls better than Clinton did. I hope so. I hope he will match Clinton's simple paygo based fiscal discipline, and exceed Clinton in terms of minimum wages and postcard union registration. Krugman wants that too.
Since Reagan, at least, our country has been moving to the right of the center of “mean.” We should be about compassion and we should be fiscally conservative. We have seen neither from the party that ran on this platform and has brought us this buffoon in the White House. We saw more fiscal conservatism during Clinton's era than we've had from the party that runs and runs on 3 things: security, fear and no taxes (which they incorrectly define as fiscal conservatism).
If we allow Obama to chart a strategic course to the White House, then the next few months probably won't be exciting like the primary, but when my team is winning I don't want exciting; I want crushing. I want to go tailgate at halftime. If the vociferous left can keep their pants from getting in a wad and Obama continues to attract the middle and some conservatives, I'll meet you at the tailgate as this will be over (if we remember to vote) at halftime.
In today's Seattle P.I., there is an article advising McCain to take an oath, at the Republican National Convention, that he will serve only one term. This would moderate, supposedly, the alarm about his age. Well, Gore Vidal proposed years ago that a sworn one term President with a majority in Congress would be all that could save this Republic. Since McCain will certainly not have a majority, his oath will not mean much. If McCain is elected, the general disgust with his party will mean his hands will be tied. Obama should really be the one to make this oath. Otherwise, just like Bill Clinton, Obama will begin to position himself for a second term as soon as his feet touch that nice hooked rug in the oval office. How refreshing if both candidates swore to serve one term. I'm telling you, it would be genius if the McCain campaign swore one term and it would be checkmate if Obama followed.
All of these comments from Krugman et al are opinions. Each has it's value even if not always factual. They do encourage people to think. ( Ouch, what's that pain in my head? )
While I am disappointed by Omaba's abandonment, so far, of his promise to fight to remove immunity for telcos from the FISA bill, I still support him as being head and shoulders above McCain in over-all trustworthiness as a president.
Never forget everyone's right to express their opinions even if you don't agree. So far neither Congress nor Bush has proposed limiting our opinions to state sanctioned versions. But if they get away with allowing illegal wire taps, can the first amendment be far behind?
Everytime a Paul Krugman column appears, I first scan it to see if the word 'Obama' is there. If so, I don't read what he has to say. This man has been on some kind of mission to hinder/stop Obama's candidacy. Sometimes his anti-Obama digs are blatant, and sometimes subtle -- almost in passing. Wonder where he is coming from -- and, why.
Anyhow, a lot of talkers are going to be winded after this year. One week, they're worried about the middle, the next, they'd be worried about him going too far to the middle. We had a couple of issues recently that Obama was stuck making a strategic decision on...if the FISA compromise bill hadn't been passed, and we were still under the "Protect America" nonsense as we've been living in (where you can't hold anyone accountable for anything), who knows what kind of mischief Bush and the Republicans could wreak before the November elections?