|
||
Not This Time, Mr. Krugman
Dear Paul Krugman:
You had to know what effect your pot-stirring yesterday would have on the painful Democratic debate going on between Clinton and Obama supporters, over which candidate should be our nominee.
Shame on you for singling out one side's support as nothing more than a cult following. And for likening our Democratic debate -- because let me assure you, sir, that this is a two-sided affair -- to something akin to Nixon-style "politics of slander and scare." This last bit is particularly ironic, as it is your column, Mr. Krugman, which you are wielding to launch the very kind of "slander and scare" of which you accuse Obama supporters.
Various factions on both sides of this Clinton/Obama divide are extremely hopped up about their candidate. Consider this fact, however: You have all but publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton, probably because you prefer her health care plan -- and this is your right, and I respect your efforts to make your views known. But as a columnist for the Times, you no doubt hear from people who disagree with you all the time, and I would venture to say that these responses are not always politely written.
It stands to reason that you cannot be, as you admitted yesterday, "even-handed" about the Clinton/Obama divide at this point, because most the angry mail you get is generated because you have all but endorsed Clinton. It's not like the Clinton loyalists are going to scream about how much they agree with you. So, most of the "venom" you are subjected to may come from Obama supporters. But there is plenty of "venom" coming from Clinton supporters.
Let me tell you about an email list I am on. There are perhaps 500 people on this list, and it's comprised of progressive and Democratic activists, bloggers, journalists, campaign staffers and others who are actively and passionately interested in who the Democratic nominee will be. This list has basically been crippled by vitriol in the past week -- and in particular after your column yesterday -- because of anger on both sides of this divide.
Contrary to your column yesterday, I find that while the anger is real on both sides, it is the Clinton supporters who are practicing the politics of slander and fear. When those of us who support Obama refuse to be won over by their policy-based arguments in favor of Clinton, they slip into the taunts.
According to them, we "follow St. Obama blindly," and we are weak-minded and falling prey to a "cult of personality." I have never once seen an Obama supporter attack a Clinton supporter with such base attacks.
And as for your claim that Obama supporters are "happy" about how "some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons... as proof of evil intent," and that you cast us into the same lot with MSNBC's David Schuster's sexist comment about Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out" is a sorry conflation of issues. One that is beneath your abilities, sir.
First, are you blaming the Obama Campaign, or its supporters, or the media for this "cult of personality"? Your exact words were: "I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." And then the rest of your column proceeds to cite examples of media wrong-doing, and your perception of Obama supporter "venom." You include not one example of the campaign's supposed culpability.
Second, I know of many people who have decided to support Obama who were disgusted with some of the sexist media coverage of Clinton earlier in the primary season. Many of us signed petitions to have MSNBC's Chris Matthews apologize, for example. The great majority of Obama supporters take no joy from seeing either candidate treated unfairly by the media.
Is it true that the great majority of Clinton supporters are gleeful about the success of your "cult of personality" meme against Obama? All Democrats should be fighting against any frames that damage our candidates. This one of yours is quite damaging. It's akin to what was done to Howard Dean in 2004, and to George McGovern in 1972. Is this the kind of blow you were intending?
And, your strange allusion to President Bush's "Operation Flight Suit" is, quite simply, dumb-founding. Please name one example of an action taken by Senator Obama that is anyhow akin to that ridiculous display.
What is your column from yesterday, if not a case-study in the "politics of slander and scare?" You are slandering the candidate, and Obama supporters, suggesting that we have fallen prey to some kind of cult mentality. That is a powerful and scary word, Mr. Krugman, and you knew just what you were doing when you used it.
I can only speak for myself on this last point. But over the past few years, I had a hand in publishing some of the most popular progressive books that made it into the public debate. I have been steeped in the issues and the fight to bring a Democrat to office for a long time now. My support of Obama is based on my studied, measured -- and yes, hopeful -- belief that he is the best candidate for this moment in our nation's history. I resent your suggestion that my informed choice has been made because I am under a cult-like influence.
If Obama does not win the nomination, like the majority of Obama supporters, I will be disappointed, but I will vote for Hillary Clinton. But you're sure not making that decision any easier.
If you would, in fact, like to "see more hopeful moments" in this presidential campaign, please stop using your Times column to contribute your own brand of venom to the debate. Do you want to turn this into another 1968?
I say: Not. This. Time.
Please apologize, and then let's all move on.
Loading comments…
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
Paul Kruman's use of the word "cult" is what is infact "dangeous" and careless. We all have our heros to worship and these are in fact personality cults. We need them in the process of maturing. But Paul suggesting a contemporary meaniing of cult in the worse sense namely, a phenomenon in which mindless followers have surrendered intellect and will, to a group or leader who accomplishes the surrender by pathological seduction and manipulaton amounts to scare tactic. The term "cult" carries connotations from benign to diabolical. Paul's use of "personality cult" is at best plain sloppy.
Mr. Krugman could be doing so much good commenting on the Bush economic disaster, but he instead borrows from Rush Limbaugh and slanders Democrats.
Paul Krugman is the columnist, above all, that I respect, even though he seems a bit dour at times. However, in "Hate Springs Eternal," he appears to be quite eager to explain the Barack Obama phenomenon as "dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." Could it be that he is just a bit jealous of someone generously endowed with an intelligent, commanding, and persuasive personality? Mr. Krugman forgets that a major component of his well-chosen hero FDR was his inspirational personal magnetism. Without it, all of FDR's intelligence, not to mention his critical and life-enhancing policies and programs, might have come to naught. Barack Obama has, I think, a similar commanding endowment, which he wisely uses, at the service of very intelligent positions. Likening him to George Bush has to be a joke.
Hillary Clinton has a much more modest endowment on the personality front. But far more critical, and overlooked by Mr. Krugman, is her unequivocal "F" rating on arguably the major issue before us: her role in enabling the Iraq invasion. This enabling shows that she does not deserve the trust of the American voter with the White House, any more than John McCain, or, of course, George Bush. The difference between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton is much greater than their personality endowments: it has to do with wisdom in the use of power.
No doubt a well written comment; somewhat lacking in logic but well written.
Hillary's Iraq vote notwithstanding, many a wise Senator made the same mistake, she ain't exactly a slouch in the intelligent department.
You reference Mr. Obama's talents, "...which he wisely uses, at the service of very intelligent positions". Which positions are you referring to? He has been somewhat deficient in the policy offering arena.
And then, "The difference between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton is much greater than their personality endowments: it has to do with wisdom in the use of power". Where exactly have we seen Mr. Obama use his "power", wisely or otherwise?
It is this kind of blowhard, unsubstantiated praise that lends one to the cult conclusion.
GWB came to office, questionably, with a lot of votes from those who believed what he had to say - certainly with nowhere near Mr. Obama's eloquence. Beyond what he had to say he was virtually a blank slate, much the same as is Obama. Do we really want to guess (hope) our way through another 4 years of possibly one calamitous decision after another?
An excellent point, englishprof: "But far more critical, and overlooked by Mr. Krugman, is her unequivocal 'F' rating on arguably the major issue before us: her role in enabling the Iraq invasion."
And an excellent rejoinder from ArtALayman: "Hillary's Iraq vote notwithstanding, many a wise Senator made the same mistake, she ain't exactly a slouch in the intelligent department."
Many senators did make the same mistake (and many of our fellow citizens believed Bush's lies and supported the war -- heck, we even got a new cable choice, the Military Channel). What PROFOUNDLY troubles me is Clinton's vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. And I don't feel her campaign can regain traction until she convincingly defends both votes.
I won't be drawn into a debate on whether Senator Obama's "intelligent, commanding, and persuasive personality" trumps Senator Clinton's less eloquent but kick-em-in-the-shins approach. Personally, I believe there will be a lot of shins (and whatnot) to be kicked when we retake the White House, just as I think the sole task of any new administration will be clean-up. I'm not sure that's a job ideally suited to Senator Obama.
Excellent points Lemeritus and ones with which I can find little argument.
I will serve Obama, to him I will sing praises in his holy temple.
Stay classy. You're really elevating the debate, friend.
Amen, sister.
Krugman has lost the aura of intellectual objectivity that used to be one of his most appealing qualities. What's the incentive? Council of Economic Advisers? Treasury? Commerce? He's been all in for Clinton, and using his bully pulpit to shill for her.
Did you say shrill for her? Oh, no shill. Whew that's better because she needs no help shrilling. It's what she does best other than election eve tears. While there's all this concern about Sen. Obama daring to offer us hope where are the questions about Shrillary's 35 years of experience. WHAT freakin experience? I've long been a fan of Krugman and am often in agreement with him, however he is a journalist and if he wants to be active in Shrillary's campaign he should resign albeit temporarily from the Times and go work for the bring back the nineties campaign. I say temporarily because I'm fairly sure that most of us are tired of the Bush/Clinton grip of death on power. I'm Shrill's age and by God, I'm happy to have some hope again.
Why can't someone, anyone at this point, please comment on the "how" behind Obama's campaign. I understand the hope, the desire to bridge the widening gap between the have and havenots, the "Yes We Can."
I want very much to understand the specifics of Obama's policy platform, and to ultimately believe that he can handle this challenge. But I'm not hearing anyone use or detail his substantive positions on the issues to support and defend him. It's not happening in the posts, and certainly not this one as an example. Commenters even? Anyone?
To me, the positions of both candidates are fuzzy (and I expect nothing less at this point) and they have staked out similar claims in terms of health care and the Iraq war. While there are differences, the end result is similar.
What I think must be explored to make an informed decision are the differences in their positions. In the interest of full disclosure, I happen to support Obama. I respect and admire Hillary but I have never understood and simply cannot forgive her for her vote on the Iraq war. Obama never supported the war and was, in fact, an outspoken opponent. Another case in point was the vote yesterday on telecom immunity. Barack voted against it while Hillary skipped the vote. Why she skipped the vote I can only presume to be political. I personally want a president who votes based on his/her conscience and not according to the political tradewinds.
Both candidates have websites where you can read more about their respective positions. Here is Obama's:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Estev, I hope this comes across as gently as I intend it -- one of my pet peeves is when a candidate's website is recommended as a resource to clarify that candidate's position. It seems to me that a campaign website is about as useful as a lawn sign or bumper sticker. Can I suggest instead: http://www.votesmart.org/election_president.php
Another pet peeve -- and, in this, I agree with you 100% -- is the failure of Clinton to vote on the FISA bill. There were at one time four senators running for the Democratic presidential nomination -- there were a lot of missed votes by all four of them on critical issues. I'd rather have a solid vote on the floor of the body to which these people were already elected than all the campaign rhetoric in the world!
This "hope without substance" talk is getting tiring. nyobserver, you obviously know how to use the web, so check out his policies on his website. Irregardless, I will lay out a premise and have you answer it. Myself, and many others think that among the things that the current administration has done, the worst has been to completely subvert the constitution. From Cheney's "Unitary Executive" theory(that basically says if there are US troops afield, the president has unlimited power to do as he pleases, ala a king) to signing statements that show contempt for the laws that have just been signed, to loss of habeaus corpus, illegal wiretaps, torture, etc. Who do you think is best suited to reverse this and follow the oath of the president, which is to uphold and defend the constitution? Do you think it would be someone who at every chance hedged her bets on her political future or someone who was an actual constitutional law professor? Is this a reasonable estimate of experience needed?
nyobserver: since you apparently are having access to a computer with internet: try here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
I will say this again: a campaign website is a campaign tool, accent on the word "campaign". Use http://www.votesmart.org/election_president.php
Or something similar.
This is a tired response. It is YOUR DUTY to read up on what candidate's positions are. Get thee to the Obama and Clinton web sites, and read up on their positions and policy proposals. STOP the whining. You're an adult, correct?
Would you prefer that it be characterized as the entire political campaign having been turned into an American Idol-style event? Only the most superficial of issues matter, if at all.
cognito ergo populistae
Maybe to you, if that's all you're going to whine about. Go read up, friend. No one is stopping you.
Read up? Read what? I have held political office and worked as an advisor to a presidential campaign back in the 70s. I served in Korea. I do voluteer work with the mentally ill on the streets and in the prisons. What have you done?
Some people seem to be satisfied with the present process since it has been dumbed down to their level. Enjoy.
cognito ergo populistae
"Cult" is a term that conventional thinkers like to point at anything that doesn't agree with their orthodoxy. Perhaps the word "cult" more aptly applies to those who think that all the old politcal models ought to still apply even though that kind of thinking is what got us into the mess we are in today.
That's why we are still driving gas guzzlers, poluting the world we leave our children and letting our infrastructure breakdown all the while we are subsidizing and giving tax breaks to companies who ship our jobs overseas. That's why we are outsourcing military work because we don't have the agreement of the country that would have a volunteer military sufficient to meet the needs for personnel and services where our boneheaded and tragic foreign policy has sent our all volunteer military.
PS - Krugman has dug himself into a foxhole with Hillary and he can't find a way out of it. That surely must make him cranky!
"Cult" is a term that conventional thinkers like to point at anything that doesn't agree with their orthodoxy. Perhaps the word "cult" more aptly applies to those who think that all the old politcal models ought to still apply even though that kind of thinking is what got us into the mess we are in today.
That's why we are still driving gas guzzlers, poluting the world we leave our children and letting our infrastructure breakdown all the while we are subsidizing and giving tax breaks to companies who ship our jobs overseas. That's why we are outsourcing military work because we don't have the agreement of the country that would have a volunteer military sufficient to meet the needs for personnel and services where our boneheaded and tragic foreign policy has sent our all volunteer military.
Krugman feels himself and his opinions becoming ever more irrelevant. Like an animal backed into a corner he is snarling as loud as he can, knowing the end is coming.
For those who would dismiss the reasoning that supporters of Barack Obama have engaged in their personal decisions to support Obama, I recommend that you read Gary Hart's blog here in Huff Post: "Politics as Transcendence." Old school thought just won't do. It's time for a change.
Sadly Paul Krugman lacks the attack skills of a Rush Limbaugh who coined the 'cult' smear much earlier than he.
Krugman has made himself irrelevant by being the Clinton attack dog this election season.
Would seem you doth protest too much.
Am not suggesting that Hillary or her staff are complete innocents either. It is the nature of the game. Would that it were different but what is, is.
Mr. Obama frequently, in his speeches, states that he does not seek the presidency because he feels he's owed it or that it's his turn. Now this is a "slander and scare" tactic. Hillary nor Bill nor anyone associated with her campaign has ever made that statement. It has pervaded the media, mainstream as well as right wing, being asserted over and over, almost even before her campaign began. There is no reason for Mr. Obama to make such a statement unless to "slander and scare".
His constant harangue that Hillary's health care plan will force people who can't afford insurance to comply. This is entirely disingenuous. He knows that her plan and others provide options and subsidies for those who suffer with the premiums. Mandates are a difficult issue and it is acceptable for him to argue that he feels they should not be effected in an initial plan. To then maintain that Hillary is seeking to impose hardships on people is another "slander and scare" tactic.
In the primaries, where policy differentiation is slim, each candidate looks for any point of difference to highlight and talk down their opponents ideas. This often gets to be a slippery slope leading to defamatory comments as opposed to valid critiques.
I like Mr. Obama and will vote for him should he be the eventual nominee. I am concerned about his inexperience and naivete in his constant harping of a "kindler, gentler" dialogue. It takes two to tango and in the near term the other side is driven almost entirely by ideology; an ideology that suggests their views are in the best interests of the American people. They will not question their own perspectives. Their attitude will be even more intense if they suffer significant losses in the November elections.
Continued due to ridiculous word limitation:
Mr. Obama is a magnificent speaker. In his mild mannered way he speaks this vitriol in a modest manner, almost obscurely. Those who are enraptured with his style, his calm delivery, hear the message, it sinks in, but it appears innocent, harmless, inoffensive. It has it's intended effect. There is much more of this nuance and innuendo coming from Mr. Obama and his minions, than from the other side. They have their guilts, their faults, but much of what Hillary has to say is in promoting her ideas, not necessarily degrading Mr. Obama's.
This is politics Jen. It's a dirty game, it has always been. Mr. Krugman's articles, regardless his personal preferences, are posited as an objective observer, often backed up by expositions from others familiar with the genre. To jump to emotional ranting, condemning someone for seemingly attacking your favorite does exemplify cult thinking.
Sit back, relax, have a drink and be amused by the Kabuki dance we call electionee
au contraire, friend.
calling a spade a spade (taking Krugman to task for his BS cult meme) is not emotional ranting. It is just what it is: calling him out for a mistake in judgment and a sloppy argument.
First part.
Would seem you doth protest too much.
Am not suggesting that Hillary or her staff are complete innocents either. It is the nature of the game.
Mr. Obama frequently, in his speeches, states that he does not seek the presidency because he feels he's owed it or that it's his turn. Now this is a "slander and scare" tactic. Hillary nor Bill nor anyone associated with her campaign has ever made that statement. It has pervaded the media, mainstream as well as right wing, being asserted over and over. There is no reason for Mr. Obama to make such a statement unless to "slander and scare".
His constant harangue that Hillary's health care plan will force people who can't afford insurance to comply. This is entirely disingenuous. He knows that her plan provides options and subsidies for those who suffer with the premiums. Mandates are a difficult issue and it is acceptable for him to argue that they should not be effected in an initial plan. To then maintain that Hillary is seeking to impose hardships on people is another "slander and scare" tactic.
In the primaries, where policy differentiation is slim, each candidate looks for any point of difference to highlight and talk down their opponents ideas. This often gets to be a slippery slope leading to defamatory comments as opposed to valid critiques.
I like Mr. Obama and will vote for him should he be the eventual nominee. I am concerned about his naivete in his constant harping of a "kindler, gentler" dialogue. It takes two to tango and the other side is driven entirely by ideology; an ideology that suggests their views are best for the American people. They will not question their own perspectives. Their attitude will be even more intense if they suffer significant losses in the November elections.
Mr. Obama's claims about "policies of the past", "politics of yesterday", "bridge to the twentieth century" all evoke derision. One can, and I do, appreciate the cute turn of a phrase, this is politics after all, but these are subtle slanderous intonations.
What would Krugman know about cults except he is fervent Pharisee in the cult of free trade and globalization.
Freedom, I think you may have confused Paul Krugman with Thomas Friedman. Same filthy liberal rag, though.
As I pointed out in my earlier comment I don’t think that “cult of personality” is really the right way to speak about what’s going on, here, and I also pointed out that to that regard, if one want to go there, the Clinton’s campaign was no exception:
Anyone who has been following this campaign is aware that for all the talk about “substance” and “experience” and whathaveyou, name recognition is a powerful thing, and the senator has been playing it to the max and also been doing quite well with the novellas and soap opera demographic - she knows her role and plays it well: the strong mother, the persevering wife, the wife who withstands the humiliations of a sexually immature husband… and lives on, despite overwhelming odds, to become the next president of the US.
The truth is that the way people vote is not always rational. And, in a way, it’s hard to blame the senator, and she might indeed be that strong mother and persevering wife---as I am sure she is---in which some people are recognizing themselves.
My "abuelita" love Novellas. She doesn’t vote though, but she loves Hillary Clinton.
And so, if this were a Novella, who would I be rooting for? I don’t know...LOL. If Barack Obama were a villain, like some people have been trying to make him, I would be rooting for the Clintons, of course. And this moment that we are experiencing would be a great cliff-hanger---as it still is. As the season would resume, we would find out that Hillary Clinton made it to the White House, after all---as she still can---just in time for the next installment in the series. Next, one can imagine, would come the rise of Jebb Bush, etc.
“Like sand through the hourglass, so go the days of our lives.”
The thing is, this is not a Novella. Or, at least, I sure hope it isn’t.
This is the real world: Barack Obama is not a villain, nor the shallow person his detractors have been trying to make him. And this is not about the Clinton dynasty either---or, at least, I sure hope it isn’t (though it does sometimes seem very much like it - that’s the thing with “cult of personality” phenomena.)
This is about America.
And when America has spoken, I sure hope we do, at long last cross the Bridge to the 21st Century.
Bill Clinton spoke of that bridge (and never crossed it.) And the Bush administration did everything it could to burn it down.
The bridge is still standing though. All that is missing is a will to cross it. Barack Obama’s candidacy has been seeming more and more like the kind of catalyst which can inspire this nation to cross it.
I hope we do.
Or, else, well…there is always those Novellas.
Here is hoping that 2008 won’t be another Novella.
Here is hoping we can all break with the past, and are inspired to move, at long last, into the real world!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
