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
Ms Nix, show me there is not a difference between the Obama cultists supporting him and those cultists who support Scientolog
Both movements are idealistic and believe in dreams with no specifics in how to attain those dreams... Putting your hands together in one giant orgasmic stadium wave is not the way.
If you haven't seen the specifics of Obama's plan and the depth of his experience and education then you haven't done your homework.
Did you read Jennifer's bio? I am pretty sure she is well-educated on both our problems and our potential solutions. She, like me, are very excited about Barack's ability to actually get some of that stuff done.
Your comment is cynical and insulting, but no less than I would expect from neocon trolls or some (not all) Clinton backers.
Your challenge: "Prove my crazy theory wrong."
Okay. I'm not all that familiar with Scientology, but I am an Obama supporter. I have not been brainwashed or given in to peer pressure. I've been following his career since he was an Illinois legislator. I think he has an impressive record, a compelling life story, good judgment, and I think he's consistently conducted himself with integrety. He has plenty of specifics: a detailed health care plan, detailed plans on the environment and alternative energy, education, etc. I'm particularly fond of his proposal for giving money to college students in return for civil service. He was against the war from the beginning.
Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean we're crazy. Don't be so arrogant.
Clinton acolytes use this "empty suit" rhetoric against Obama as a political talking point/weapon. People who say it, if they believe it, are every bit as blinded to the facts as any unswerving idealogue or cultist.
"his proposal for giving money to college students in return for civil service"?? You mean Americorp, which was started under President Bill Clinton.
No I think Scientologists have a plan. I think it involves aliens. Why don't we just nominate Tom Cruise for president? He's got the cult AND the plan.
Krugman knew what he was doing when he said "cult"; Hillary knew what she was doing when she said "it took a president, not a King"; Bill knew what he was doing when he said "biggest fairy tale I ever saw" and "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, too"; Mark Penn knew what he was doing when he said "used cocaine" over and over. Three of those four quotes are directly from the Clinton campaign. Plolitics of slander and fear? Heck, Bill is a master at it.
Obama's supporters are going to have to toughen up, though. Barack rarely responds to those kinds of things because he sees them for what they are - distractions that are beneath contempt. His entire campaign theme is ot bring a different kind of politics, a politics of unity and common ground and common purposes. He speaks against Krugman's kind of slander every day. If Barack doesn't respond to it, why should we? - except to set the record straight in factual ways and get on with the program.
After Barack wins the nomination - and he will - the Republicans are going to attack him with everythign they've got (at least they don't have as much ammunition as Bill and Hillary have given them). When they do, all the Obama campaign has to do is cut out the most slanderous, offensive attacks, build an ad with the attack at the beginning, then a repudiation of the facts, then a clear statement that this is exactly the kind of gutter politics that has paralyzed government and failed the American people, and wrap it up with Barack doing his famous, "There is no liberal America and conservative America, there is only the United States of America".
Turn the attack on the attacker. Pretty soon, the attacker figures out that the gun he's shooting has a U-shaped barrel.
SShaw490, very well said!!
As supporters of Obama, we must follow his example and each lead with the change we want to see in others.
For some reason (which I don't care to revisit), I quoted Ghandi in the heat of debate Monday: "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind." I hate to see us set upon one another when we really have much greater foes to fight.
Today, because I seem to be Ghandi-sensitive, I'd just like to remark that Obama's invocation is also a Ghandi sentiment: “We must be the change we wish to see in the world.” A good thought from both men.
We also have to call a spade a spade. And we help our candidate by responding to unfair public attacks--this time by Mr. Krugman in the NYT--so that Sen. Obama and his campaign can stay focused.
But, as a Democrat, I have also fought in this cycle against unfair/sexist media treatment of HRC. So, I don't buy the cult of personality meme that I'm under some spell, rabidly defending Obama. That is insulting, and just plain false.
I prefer Obama as a candidate for many reasons, including my belief that we need a new kind of American majority to break out of our deadlock and get anything accomplished. We did not have that kind of majority under Clinton I, and from what I've seen, there's no chance of building that majority under Clinton II. Obama does seem to be building a broad coalition of citizens, and I'm hopeful that this country will try his brand of politics.
If Obama supporters are a bunch of zombie-like followers, why is he doing so well among higher educated people?
Ever thought that Obama is doing well because college educated follow the news, remember history, understand economics and realize that Obama is far better positioned to lead us that Clinton?
Last night, in the highly educated, racially diverse Potomac Primaries, Obama cleaned the board. His worst showing was in Maryland, with 60% of the vote. He won the rich, he won the poor. He won blacks, he won Latinos, he won whites. He won among men, he won among women. He won Independents by 2-1.
Meanwhile, Clinton got only 10% of the black vote in Virginia. That's only slightly better than George Bush got. Is the problem with blacks, or with Clinton?
Remember: Hillary Clinton is a woman, not the symbol of women. People vote for or against because of who she is, not what she is.
A Cult is not reserved for the uneducated
I have never once seen an Obama supporter attack a Clinton supporter with such base attacks.
`````
Where have you been?
Name them, friend. I'll happily go toe to toe discussing what you see as attacks. Be specific.
Nice straw dog set afire, But thank you for proving Krugman's point.
Of course, there are Obamaniacs on this board and on several similar boards who've engaged in character assassination against anyone who dared interrupt the St. Barack Traveling Salvation Show with rational policy analysis of his policies, particularly his weak health care plans.
There are a lot of positive reasons to support Senator Obama and of course not everyone of Obama's supporters is part of a "cult". However, there sure are a lot of people on these boards who act like they are.
And before you accuse me of being a Clinton hack, I didn't vote for her or Obama, for they are both DLC to the bone.
Krugman cares deeply about universal health care and has shown in my opinion convincingly that Obama's plan is the weakest one on offer from the Democrats this season. He has shown how Obama uses right-wing talking points regarding social security and health care, including those disgusting "Harry and Louise revisited" ads which will only make it harder to get real reform through Congress.
So sorry that Krguman's analysis is inconvenient for his supporters who want to pretend Obama is more progressive and liberal than his actual actions are revealing him to be. After his windy rhetoric has blown away, pay attention to his actual actions.
It's a colossal disappointment and near tragedy to see the hope for single-payer that Kucinich and Krugman promoted, be made way for Edward's still competent transitional plan, then to Clinton's ripoff of Edwards' plan, finally down to Obama's weak and embarassing proposals. That Obama's health care plans have holes that are big enough to drive a truck through and Krugman tells the truth about these plans isn't Krugman's fault. It's Obama's fault for not being liberal or progressive or courageous enough to come up with a universal plan in the first place. At least Clinton has plan, for all her many faults as a candidate and on Iraq, that tried to cover everyone. Obama just voted "present".
Two points about Omama's health care proposal. First of all, his proposal is basically the same one that Bill Bradley proposed in the 2000 campaign, the one that Gore criticized as being too liberal and pie-in-the-sky. Secondly, whatever plan, be it Hillary's or Barack's, will be unrecognizable when it comes out of the sausage factory that is the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
In particular, Hillary's mandate deal is a non-starter. As soon as you complete the sentance,"If you don't buy insurance we're going to ...", it's a dead duck. And if you take the mandate part out of Hillary's plan, it's basically Barack's plan.
If you want to see John McCain sitting in the Oval Office next January, nominate Hillary and send her around the country telling the populace that garnishment of pay is the punishment for not purchasing health care insurance. If Iraq, Iran, flag burning, a 47% "won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances" and $12 million in campaign contributions from "other sources" don't shoot her down, garnishment of wages for health care insurance will.
Both points are correct.
For those of us who support Universal Health Care, I guess our best effort is supporting the single-payer bill already in Congress. A single-payer bill passed the California legislature. Unlike the governator, I do not think President Obama would veto a single-payer bill that achieve the Herculean effort necessary to reach his desk.
It's still a colossal disappointment.
"The great majority of Obama supporters take no joy from seeing either candidate treated unfairly by the media."
I'm sorry but many of the comments on this very site simply do not bear that out. You should visit Facebook sometime and see how nasty it gets there. I've seen disgusting venom come from Obama and Clinton supporters alike and even before I decided to back Clinton I'd noticed more of it coming from Obama supporters. I do not hold Barack Obama in any way responsible for this atmosphere though, or Hillary Clinton for that matter. People make their own choice to behave like idiots.
Well, you inadvertently make the very same point I make in my piece. The anger and venom is on both sides, but to single out one side as having fallen prey to a cult of personality, is where Krugman goes over the line.
And, sorry but it's true: the majority of Dems on both sides of the divide take no joy in seeing either candidate treated unfairly by the media.
Also when I said that I haven't seen Obama supporters using such base attacks against Clinton supporters, I was talking about comments on the political email list I mentioned in the piece.
Yeah. Why do you people care what Paul Krugman has to say?
As an Obama supporter, I am neither particularly inclined toward cults of personality nor particularly swayed by rhetoric. I don't even sit through his victory speeches because, while I can appreciate his skill as an orator, I'm just better than he is so it doesn't move me.
I am a beef-eating far-left African-American Socialist Liberal raised in Texas by a single mother and I got an Ivy-League education on an academic scholarship. I don't hate people who call themselves Republicans. I don't fall in love with people who put a D in front of their name. I have been against the Iraq invasion since 2002. I protested -- a lot.
That said, I am the least likely to latch onto a person just because he has pretty words. This is why I am an Obama supporter. I don't like Hillary Clinton, and my distaste toward her is made the worse because she has repeatedly betrayed what I thought the Democratic Party stood for.
I vote for Obama because I want the moral high ground and Hillary Clinton just offers 4 years of using the Democratic Party as a human shield to disguise her greed and powermongering. I despise her, not because she's a strong woman, but because she uses her being a strong woman as her chit to cash in for the presidency.
Hell, I don't even really like John Edwards that much. It has nothing to do with gender, it's policy and principle. I like being able to vote for somebody on principle, not because self-absorbed old white people tell me that's how the game is played -- yeah, I'm talking about Paul Krugman with that comment. Psh.
The moral high ground is where Democrats stand every four years, and every four years they lose. Except when a Clinton runs.
Well said.
I generally admire Krugman, so have been trying to figure out the source of his persistent animus towards Barack Obama, who seems to have become the 24/7 subject of his ire, in fact, his venom. So I'm going to take a stab, assuming benevolent motives, which I don't assume with key Clinton people like her union-busting chief campaign strategist Mark Penn.
My sense is that Krugman is so much of a policy wonk that he magnifies relatively minor differences on the details of specific policies, like the candidates' health plans, and then blows them up as indications of moral character. (In fact, both plans would be significant steps forward, and as Physicians for National Health Care has pointed out, mandates have hit significant problems everywhere they've been tried).
What Krugman seems to have no sense about is how social movements work, and what it takes to build enough grassroots pressure to pass any kind of progressive legislation. So while he may be right that Hillary"s health plan (which seems borrowed from that of Edwards) has some advantages over Obama's, he overlooks the fact that Obama is far more likely to galvanize the kinds of grassroots energy that's needed to pass any major health care reform through Congress. And as we might remember, Hillary got completely rolled and blind-sided when she tried to create a health plan last round. I didn't like her Rube Goldberg plan, but more important, she failed utterly to understand the politics required to get it through, and that defeat helped pave the way for Bush to "win" the presidency in 2,000. Krugman has far better targets for his outrage than Obama.
Paul Loeb
Author Soul of a Citizen
www.paullo
Maybe you've seen this already Paul, but this is an excellent article that gives you a view of how Obama would operate as a President. I swear, the more I read about the guy, the more I admire and respect him.
As you'll see, businessmen don't like his liberal policies, but they respect him, and feel they can work with him, even though they know he's not necessarily on their side. It's a perfect example of how Obama will get legislation passed. He's an incredibly talented politician. (And I mean that in the best sense of the term.)
http://www
Yes, and as counter-intuitive as it may seem, in a very real sense the vehement Clinton supporters are the ones operating most from emotion, while the Obama supporters are more pragmatic. Not to over-generalize, but the Krugman types seem like they'd rather spend the next eight years fighting the good fight against the baddies (even if the result is stalemate) instead of re-envisioning a political/cultural landscape in which majority opinions fundamentally change.
I'll go further out on a limb here. Some of us have so fully cemented our personal identities into the good-guy/bad-guy narrative of the past few decades that, when someone suggests a new story, it feels like an attack on our very beings.
Thanks for yet another thoughtful post Jennifer,
It's a grievous thing to witness an educated mind stooping to employ hot button words like "cult" or anonymous source phrases like, "I'm not the first to point out" to support an essay which preys upon what will never be called the best in any of us. It bears mentioning that such descriptions could be used to acrimoniously describe almost all devoted volunteers.
Experience and education are not cures for the kind of bias that foments the politics of distortion and fear. That antidote runs deeper in the conscience and heart.
I hope it will give Professor Krugman pause to consider that leading the vanguard of Senator Obama's so called personality following are JFK's daughter, his brother, a nephew, a niece, and his sister in law (RFK's widow).
One would think a journalist might feel deeply ashamed to realize he has inadvertently described members of a family, who have sacrificed greatly for American politics, as those who seem "dangerously close to becoming a cult of personalit
Like yourself Jennifer, I have defended Senator Clinton since her White House days and continue to do so now to my Republican friends. My support of Senator Obama was arrived at by close examination of his positions on issues and embracing his belief in hope.
I am disappointed that Professor Krugman chose to incite fear rather than attempting to bring to light the virtues of the candidate he prefers. Cynicism and distortion may continue to win some battles, but, as Victor Hugo wrote, "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come."
"Please apologize, and then let's all move on."
Nonsense. After their character assassination of Krugman for merely daring to analyze Obama's policies and differ with them, he owe's teh Obamaniacs nothing.
Keep telling the truth, Paul!!!
Thank you. I could not agree with you more. Alerted by Krugman, I looked into the mandate question, and even if I agree that it is better to have mandates, I realized that he was being alarmist, and misleading. He threw around the term "universal healthcare" and tied it to Clinton's plan. Furthermore, one post on his blog got it right: Krugman seems to have no concern about questions fundamental to progressives, such as war, ethics, and corporate influence. I think we gave him too much credit because of his columns during these past few years. He is incredibly deaf to what is going on in the grassroots, which had turned against the Clintons a long time ago. Krugman is a tenacious, partisan fighter. I do not share his position. I despise the Repubs, but I am equally at odds with much of the Democratic party. All Krugman needs is the "D."
Very well said.
The idea that suddenly the majority of Dems have joined a Moonie like cult is as ridiculous as the notion that there is a vast media conspiracy against Clinton and that's why we all mindlessly rejected her.
Paranoic graspings of a desperate mind.
Time for the tin foil hat Paul you cult expert you.
The New Yawk Clintonites are only going to get worse when Clinton has to concede.
How will Gloria (Vote Clinton or you are a sexist) Steinem take it for example?
Bill ruined this for Hillary plain and simple.
Wake up Clinton supporters.
It's time to join the rest of the party again.
the invective discourse and vitriol from fans of both candidates is alarming (these comment sides show the extremes). - Talk radio has reduced the concept of American debate to name-calling and innuendo. - I think the Founding Fathers would be appalled.
Only blog readers know who Paul Krugman is...most Americans don't, so his opinions are worthless.
The fact that Obama is attacked by the NYT is a plus to middle America (and those Blue collar workers). So please Krugman keep it up.
Are you on crack? More Republican talking points from the Obama folks. Now the NYT is too... what? liberal?
You go Jen!! I really like your writing. Very thorough and thought-provoking!!
Oh, that was well stated Ms Nix.
I am an admirer of Krugman, but the "Hate Springs Eternal" gave me that same feeling I had several years ago when Tom Friedman started wandering into the darkness. But, whereas with Friedman “springing” from the plutocratic class as he does I could understand and accept his transformation, it will be very difficult for me if this change in behavior manifest in Krugman’s writing is more than just an aberration to be quickly left behind with a very animated Democratic primary campaign. Mr Krugman seems to have angered you as much as he did me, and I applaud your constraint in countering his undignified insinuations. I felt as much offended by them as you did.
I didn't vote for or support Clinton in the primary, but my respect for Krugman has only grown as he has withstood the worst kind of character assassination from Obama supporters who know nothing about him or his writing other than he dared interrupt the St. Barack Traveling Salvation Show with rational policy analysis.
I am neither pro-Clinton, nor pro-Obama, and but I am increasingly more pro-Krugman.
So it's not OK for people to impugn the character of Paul Krugman, but it IS OK for you to impugn the character of Obama supporters.
Mr. Pot, have you met Mr. Kettle?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
