Contra Krugman: President Obama Won't be Another Clinton or another Reagan -- He Won't be Another Anybody

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.

Comments

[veracity]

Great catch, Harold.

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..

[mamamay]

What ever Obama directs for this country will be Reagan and Clinton right for our country. We need to get back on track and go in the direction that is right for America. We need to balance a budget again, as Clinton did, we need to move these people in Washington with some gusto to get the economy, going, We need to bring our troops carefully and safely home. We the people, need to start thinking green for Country, and yes we need to get the health care, for eveyone, and help our young people go to better schools and produce for us better teachers,engineers, biochemists and technologist to help rejuvenate the mindset of all folks. Then we can start taking care of the older members in our family. Hopefully the revamping of the economy will increase the SS and other benefits, including higher wages. Yes Obama will be good for this country. No more JMcBush, no 4 more years of the CBC legacy and no more dumb wars, we will all have to roll up our sleeves and erase the wars we're in.

[mredder4]

I thought we were told in the primary that he was the next JFK.

[wrabbitt]

I have set my sights low on this one. Just another politician who will say anything to get elected? America can't take another 4 years of economic stagnation,we will all end up living under bridges. or in tents,We have all been shot down many times by speeches that inspire,and actions that prove other wise, If his mouth moves he's lying. Our antiquated political electoral system that resembles something dreamed up, will not work like it did 200 years ago. we are supposedly better educated, all tho schools are not what they used to be. We are all just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Make gas 10$ a gallon, make health care 250$ a week,make the price of a stamp 2$.When nobody has a job who will support the government? Maybe we can sell America to the Saudis.

[MagisterLudi]

Obama lacks the political talent of Bill Clinton.
So there's no chance of that.

As long as Obama is not going to be another Carter or Jesse Jackson.

[cheforacle]

Clinton would not have beaten George HW Bush but for Perot's involvement in the campaign. Whereas Obama is 4 to 6 points up in all of the polls except for the few that have him up by 14 to 15 points. Obama has been much more skillful than Clinton who admittedly was an impressive politiican.

[rasthedestroyer]

Jesse Jackson never held political office. Maybe you were just doing to much at the time and your brain shut down . don;t worry it will all be better tomorrow just go get some sleep now . Please.

[ched]

Seems to me that Obama just beat both Bill and Hillary Clinton. By himself. So, if by "lacks the political talent of Bill Clinton" you mean "makes Bill Clinton's political skills look pale (get it?) by comparison," then I agree.

[swift goat pet for truth]

The way he is going, he might not even be another Barrack Obama.

[pointpetre]

Krugman condems the negative traformation of the Reagan Administration. This means Krugman prefers fiscal soundness to harmful transformation. He is withholding judgement on Obama because Obama is not a known quanity. Obama is brilliant, but that does not mean that Obama is a safe bet. He may pay off or Carterize.

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.

[rasthedestroyer]

Primary's over, let it go. If you don't like the guy then don't vote for him. But you can't keep living in the past, it's not healthy for you.

[hopeless277]

He's starting to look like another Bush. Once he capitulates on Iraq the transformation will be complete.

[ratcityreprobate]

Agreed.

[george082257]

Good article and right to the point. You would think that the Left would be tired of losing elections but I guess not. If this country really wanted a "progressive" government why doesn't Nader and his folk get more votes? Why don't all of you disillusioned ObamaItes go and vote for He of the Craggy Face. You don't because HE WILL NOT GET ELECTED. Politics is the art of the possible as any first year Poly Sci student can tell you. If Obama wants to win outside of Illinois and Berkeley he needs to get away from the Extremists, all the idiots that think that comprimise is "waffling" and "centrist" a dirty word, and try to run as the candidate for everyone. There are plenty of independents, moderates and even Republicans that are sick of Bush. Take the Anti Bush bump and get elected and then worry about throwing some bones to the "base". Krugmann needs to take a nap and quit whining.

[Johnjlws]

This article hits the nail on the head in terms of what happens if Obama is elected with a substantial majority (both are within the reach of the party that may yet figure out a way to swipe defeat from the jaws of victory). We haven't seen the stars align like this in generations; FDR is a reasonably good example.

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.

[Tulka2]

What Obama may need more that money for his own campaign is money sent to the Democratic National Committee. Only if a he has a comfortable majority in Congress will he be able to pull off any kind of a repeat of F.D.R.'s first 100 days, New Deal.

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.

[Cosatjockomo]

Racism is a wipe. As many racists will vote for Obama as will vote against him. Additionally he will get the guilt vote from those who wish to "prove" they're not racist.

[ReElectNoOne]

WATCH OUT ! The waters are aswarm with pundits and opinions.

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?

[OmnesOmnibus]

The only way Paul Krugman could be called "great" would be to characterize him as a "great sourpuss." He is the most negative columnist around. Anywhere. And he's tiresomely so. I stopped paying attention long ago.

[Hanuman]

Finally, I get a chance to say this:
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.

[dwt]

HRC had promised him Secretary of the Treasury?

[zull2]

A lot of folks really can't wrap their heads around Obama. People get behind a particular ideology or platform, and any lack of cohesiveness is bad. Obama, in a lot of ways, is kind of like the left wing's version of John McCain. McCain isn't evangelical enough for the Republican base, Obama sometimes comes across as being a little "too religious" for a lot of the Democratic base. McCain, while he does usually vote in line with his party, does on occasion take a different stance. So does Obama. In McCain's case, he does it to fuel an image. In Obama's case, the answers lie more with his understanding of the Constitution and his history as a Constitutional Law professor. Some of it is pure strategy, some of it is his unique set of experiences.

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?