- BIG NEWS:
- Glenn Beck
- |
- ABC
- |
- NBC
- |
- CNN
- |
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.
Loading comments…
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 4
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Krugman is a piece of work to think at one time I use to respect his opinion. At first he was all over Obama for denigrating the Clinton years and took Obama to task for saying the Reagan years were transformational and Clinton's were not. Now he has the nerve to say that the Clinton years were just OK and the Reagan years were transformational just like Obama said. You bring up a great point Obama is not Reagan, Clinton or like the Bush's or Carter for that matter, he is his own man. Obama has the vision of a Reagan, the practicality of Clinton on domestic policy and Bush I on foreign policy. He recognizes the mistakes made in the past.
cont...
I still think about Obama's two biggest proposals besides stopping the war in Iraq. Obama already sees that a mandatory universal health care system is doomed to failure. The last thing Americans want is another system thrust upon them with no choice. Sure his proposal is not as "progressive" as Clinton's but her plan had no chance of passing. It was not just how the plan was administered through a single payer system and/or an employer based system it was the mandatory nature of the system. We already see in MA that the mandatory system has been watered down to a semi-mandatory system because people would rather pay the penalty then for health care at a price they cannot afford and worse don't want. The second proposal is Obama's energy plan which he is willing to fund to the tune of $15MMM/year not with wishful tax credits or bogus game show rewards like McCain but with a real investment. His energy plan also has short term, mid term and long term goals.
You're so right on health care.
It mystified me, why people kept squawking that "Obama's is a mandate too, just only for children!" Well, duh. The adults who are resistant to the idea of a mandate are only resistant about a mandate being applied to them. They're the *most* likely to believe that parents have a responsibility to provide for their kids. It makes perfect sense to them, that parents would be required to provide for their children what they're not required to provide for themselves. It makes sense because it *is* sense. If I want to fast for a few weeks, I'm free to do that. I'm not free to fail to feed my 2-year-old for the same amount of time.
This writers queries whether Barama will be "just another Bill Clinton", like there are so many run-of-the-mill politicians like the man who gave America the best eight years of it's existence. If Obama turns out to be half the president that Bill Clinton was, I'll be happy.
Cool, so who is he?
jbatch;
I am jo so tired of people like you who keep repeating a falsehood that Democrats lost the the last two presidential elections. Please let's repeat: Gore won the 2000 election, and Kerry won the 2004 election. They did not become presidents because the elections were stolen by Katheline Harris and Keneth Blackwell. By the way Gore received 11 million more voters than Bill Clinton, and Kerry received 17 million more than Bill Clinton. I support the progressive agenda, but progressives must stop deluding themselves by thinking that the majority of Americans share the Progressive agenda. most Americans are now against the Iraq war but does not mean they are all of a sudden progressives.
So tell me, who was the worst president in American history, Gore or Kerry?
... since they both "won."
Too easy. George W. Bush since he stole both elections. And became a war criminal.
Well Hillary's out of the race, so maybe he's for McCain.
I had a lot of respect for Mr Krugman's thoughts until he became biased for HRC and against Obama. I don't bother to read his column anymore, he is not objective and not worth spending my time reading.
Just because a columnist tells you what you don't want to hear doesn't mean that columnist is not objective.
I think that Krugman is miffed that the somewhat opaque Obama was able to trump HRC with a campaign based on a vague promise of "hope" and "change". Since Krugman has made his career trying to fashion some sense of order out of the chaos that is economics you can would expect him to find him less than pleased with Obama's low entropy campaign.
When Krugman strongly wrote against Bush's policies, I thought that we were motivated by the same reasons. I was wrong. Krugman cares shockingly little about the lives in Iraq, and for that matter, Rwanda. He continues to see the Clinton years as good, despite the disastrous deregulation, the privatizing of government, the proliferation of corporate influence, and the admittance of torture as a govt policy (yes, Clinton did it first). Krugman and I do not share the same values. I don't read his columns anymore.
He's said he's much more of a free trader than most Democrats.
Once you go there, the rest is trivia.
He's an economist, not a foreign policy wonk.
He may be pro-free-trade, but Krugman is among the most progressive economists you'll find anywhere. He claims that that FDR created the middle class following the Great Depression, and it's been under constant assault by rich families funding what he calls Movement Conservatism (an interlocking network of radio talk show hosts, pundits, lobbyists, and thinktanks) for the last forty years. He has come out explicitly against many of the things qwr mentioned as Clinton's failures.
His biggest beef with Obama is that Obama compared his own candidacy to Reagan (our last charisma-based president) - who Krugman believes has fired as many major shots as Bush in this class war.
"Krugman cares shockingly little about the lives in Iraq, "
Utter nonsense. Krugman was speaking the truth to power on the Iraq War all the time the Congressional Democrats were hiding under their desks and triangulating votes on the War and Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
You should be THANKING Paul Krugman for standing up to Bush on the War when precious few were willing to do so.
Interesting post and comments. I don't know what to think now. I was feeling so depressed and de energized with the combination of congresss's continual cave-ins on every single of issue of importance to a president and a party with approval ratings circling the drain plus Obamas horrible triangulations.
But you're right. Exactly. Look at Bush and the Repubs, stole two elections, fucked up everything worse than you could possible imagine, still totally enacting their agenda while collecting cash and a cushy, long, protected life. Youv'e got to be elected before you can do anything. Then, with even the slimmest and wobbliest majority, you can get away with murder.
Obama needs to do what he's gotta do to get elected. I agree with Arianna but I agree with this too. Middle somewhereish, for now, then, in the house, will be the test. Right now, we have no choice -- its gotta be Obama. We'll have to grumble and go along to get along. What else? A McCain repub victory? Say it ain't so.
Well no, only a _Republican_ with a slim wobbly majority can do anything. Because they have the global economy obstructing the Democrats.
Democrats with a 2/3 voting majority still have the global economy obstructing them.
Right--he'll just be a nobody!
OK, so Reagan was someone "progressives" widely despised. Often for good reason.
He was, as Krugman points out, less likely to do whatever some fool thought would make him win.
And, hey, he won anyway.
Was he a figurehead, someone who, if you could contact him directly, would be a warm and compassionate man? One who didn't really think that a small paper cup of ketchup was a vegetable? I always thought so. But that's not really what's under discussion in Krugman's piece.
We need a great president right now. Not someone who watches the polls and flutters accordingly.
Excellent post. Krugman is also naive enough to fail to recognize that Obama's recent "moves" to the center are SOP for candidates, including FDR, who ardently refused to discuss any details of domestic policies he wanted to consider enacting. The politicians who win with majorities are the ones with real mandates. Assembling a large win with big coattails and these arguments we've had over the last seven years -albeit much longer will cease.
Krugman may be many things. Naive is not one of them. That adjective is more appropriate for the Obamaniacs during the primary season.
Good one. You are so clever.
I've got two words for you: Bob Shrumm. How about two more: John Kerry.
Krugman is spot on -- going center scuttles a mandate he will need; and it's bad poltics. Read Ariana's post today -- it captures the later point eloquently.
Why do you think the strategy that has lost us two elections we should have won in a cake-walk has suddenly become a good idea?
85 million people who could have voted in previous elections didn't. A huge slice of them participated in the primaries, supporting Obama. I wonder if they'll stick around now?
And by the way, they outnumber the few bigot rednecks you're so worried about.
Obama's strategy and campaign thus far have not been just like the two elections we lost recently.
Obama's strategy is to mobilize Americans at the grassroots level in all 50 states in order to elect a majority in the House and Senate, as well as himself as President. Kerry and Gore focused on Floria and Ohio. Obama's been an extraordinarily strong and transformative figure in American politics. Gore and Kerry shrank when people questioned their patriotism or their influence in popularizing the internet, they were not able to energize a nation (not to mention Europe, Africa and parts of Asia) around a common goal, they were not able to raise millions and millions and millions of dollars online in small amounts. Their campaigns were very different from Obama's.
This is not going to be like the past two elections. The RNC is going to have to spend a lot of money in what they thought were Republican strongholds. As for Obama's "centering," most people don't even know what FISA is and don't care. They are going to see the (D) next to Obama's name and the (R) next to McBush's and make the obvious and easy choice. This "centering" of Obama is not going to cost him the election, as you allege.
So he's just doing it for the hell of it?
Thank you. I have been a longtime fan of Paul Krugman and considered him a remarkably clear voice of reason on many issues. Which he is.
But apparently everyone has his/her "hot spot."
Caveat emptor, no matter whose line you want to "buy."
months all of the Hillary bashing on this site. Whenever Hillary flip flopped on an issue she was a lying no good neo con left hating bitch, now that Obama is doing it it's political savvy. It is totally disgusting that the obamabots are so blinded by the rhetoric of St. Barack they cannot see that they have been had. Obama lied to you, so therefore he is a LYING NO GOOD CHEATING POLITICIAN. Be honest with yourself and tell the truth, what you would be saying now if HRC had won the nomination, then voted for FISA, and flip flopped on Nafta. Hillary's vote for the war WAS a politically motivated move, she was thinking about the general election and was worried about looking soft on terror. This was when everyone thought that the dem nom. was in the bag. She was looking at the bigger picture. Then Obama came along and lied to you so he could win the nomination. After seeing what he just did do you honestly think if he were in the Senate w/ aspirations of the Presidency at the time he would not have voted for the war. Now the greatest democratic presiden
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
