NYT's Krugman: Hillary -- the Next Grover Cleveland?

The following piece is part of an ongoing series of OffTheBus reports by citizen policy experts critiquing different aspects of Campaign 08.

"We hope we're about to elect FDR," New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman told me earlier this week, "but we might be about to elect Grover Cleveland." He said he was referring to the front-runner, Hillary Clinton.

Grover Cleveland, for those who don't know their 19th century presidents, was the only Democrat who made it to the White House between 1860 and 1912, the decades when Republican big money ruled the country. Cleveland, elected in 1885 and again in 1893, mobilized the army to crush the 1894 Pullman strike of railroad workers, and joined Wall Street in supporting the gold standard. "He was what they called a 'Bourbon Democrat,' as in the French royal family," Krugman explained. "He wasn't that different from the Republicans at the time."

Krugman said it appears that the key issue in the 2008 election will be health care, and that the Democrats have a health care plan that will work. His "biggest concern," he said, was "whether the next occupant of the White House will triangulate it into oblivion." He reiterated that he was talking about Hillary.

Earlier that day, the New York Times reported on page one that the health care industry has already contributed $2.7 million to Hillary, more than any other candidate in either party. Krugman indicated he was concerned that she might do too much compromising and negotiating with the insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital companies, as she did as First Lady in 1993.

Krugman pointed to one big difference between the Clintons' triangulation over health care in 1993 and the situation today, when "we have a self-conscious, aggressive progressive movement in a way we did not when Bill Clinton came into office. I think that does at least somewhat change the calculus," he said. If Hillary does concede too much to the other side, "there is an organized group that will make it clear that this is not what you're supposed to do."

On health care, Krugman said that, speaking as an economist--which he is --the best plan would be a single payer system, like the "Medicare for All" bill introduced by John Conyers. That would have the lowest administrative overhead and thus provide the most cost-effective system. In his book, The Conscience of a Liberal, he writes "America loves Medicare; let's give it to everyone." But politically that would be a struggle, because it would require a substantial tax increase.

Thus "the perfect can be the enemy of the good," Krugman says. The most politically feasible plan is the one proposed first by John Edwards and then by Barak Obama - a universal health care system run though private insurance companies. It mandates coverage for everybody and prohibits insurers from denying coverage to anyone or charging different premiums to different people, and it provides government subsidies for low-income people.

The main advantage is that it could be paid for without a tax increase, simply by reversing the Bush tax cuts for the rich. That's the one the Democrats will be pushing after the 2008 election, Krugman says, and that's the one Hillary must be prevented from triangulating into oblivion.

Krugman spoke with me at a public event, ALOUD at Central Library, a free series at the Los Angeles Public Library presented by the Library Foundation of Los Angeles.

Comments

[Listen2me]

In 1896, as the second Grover Cleveland administration stumbled from the effects of the greatest depression in our history up to that time, and spent what energy it had shooting down striking railroad workers, the rank and file of the Democratic Party, under the leadership of John Peter Altgeld of Illinois, overthrew the old party leadership---the Clevelandites who are known historically as the "Bourbon Democrats" (an allusion to French politics.)

In the thrill and confusion of the 1896 convention, Altgeld's own choice for the nomination, a Missouri congressman, was overborne by the sentiment for youthful William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska. The silver-tongued Boy Orator was swept onto the ticket following his incandescent, electrifying "Cross of Gold" speech.

Altgeld, ineligible himself to run for President due to his foreign birth, realized that Bryan was too inexperienced, and none too bright to boot---too much of an underdog. But it still required every ounce of Mark Hanna's corrupt and dirty political skill to bring down Bryan and the populist banner he carried. Hanna, McKinley's "manager," was Karl Rove's model---he used bribery, ballot-stuffing, systematic intimidation and threats from employers, bankers, and mortgage-holders---and many more foul schemes---to intimidate and coerce voters against Bryan; with the press howling that Bryan stood for anarchism and red bloody revolution (the equivalent of today's "terrorism.")

Bryan ran three times; never came close after 1896. But the Bourbons, too, "were history."

[Traxinet]

Sen. Clinton's Strangelove or: How she learned to love the bomb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAyrvbD3NTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tLn2T2vL-E

Hillary Clinton is just a wishy-washy Pseudo-Republican who masquerades around Washington as a Democrat, learns to Stop worrying about Bill and start Loving the bomb... Loving the bomb for a war with Iran.

"ALL OPTIONS ARE LEFT ON THE TABLE WITH RESPECT TO IRAN" = CODE FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS STRIKE

STOP THE BOMB - www.gravel2008.us

[splashy]

"But politically that would be a struggle, because it would require a substantial tax increase."

But think of all the money saved to put toward the tax from premiums, co-pays, Medicaid, Workman's Comp., insurance for doctors to cover malpractice suits that would be far fewer because people would not be suing for future health care costs, hospitals and doctors paying to have people argue with the insurance companies... I could go on and on with how much would be saved by ALL of us.

Bet that would EASILY cover the costs, and MORE!

[tbone99]

A universal healthcare system could be paid by actually requiring the many corporations who have moved their books off shore or defaulted on taxes to pay up WITH PENALTIES.These companies such as Blackwater,Haliburton and thousands of others have fattened themselves on american taxpayer dollars and then moved somewhere so they don't have to return the favor.

Corporations are entities that will profit most from a universal healthcare system when they are not required to pay for individual health insurance-they have said as much. Workers who can obtain preventive care are less days lost and more productive.
The onus should not be put on insurance companies alone to take the fall.The IRS has allowed lax collection for years on corporations.

[ProgressiveChange]

Insurance companies will never sign on to universal open enrollment unless the federal government underwrites their risk. Its a false dream ... pure fantasy ... but makes for political currency and doesn't scare potential voters (until of course, the GOP runs 'socialized medicine', 'tax increases', and other propaganda ads against it).

Single-payer universal healthcare could be funded in full without raising taxes. Eliminate fraud, waste (including paying hundreds of unnecessary insurance companies' operating expenses and for their profit troughs), and abuse (the Tsunami of unnecessary services prescribed for profit)... and Voila, we have an accountable, cost-effective healthcare system.

Candidates can blow all the smoke they want to under the cover of political campaigns. Special interests will prevail in the end until and unless Americans Wake Up and demand fundamental change.

[bolderdash]

Wiener's blog about Krugman's column that hillary could be the next President Grover Cleveland, should be replaced with the next President Margaret Thatcher, instead.

What is puzzling about Hillary Clinton's Health Care Plan for America if she's elected President, is her lobbyist donations to date is in the $Millions, far out pacing her rivals in either the Demo or Repub party.

Her health care reforms of appeasing private health care insurers to remain in charge of controlling the health care debate, will insure the continuation of the one third cost of every health care dollar to end up in their administrative costs of insurance companies profits and marketing costs.

The whole problem of America's health care out-of-contol-system, is directly attributed to the lack of any capping on annual health care premiums, co-payments, and large deductibles.
Hillary's health care plan does not address this very important issue.

If you think 50 million uninsured Americans today is bad news, wait until the next few years when inflation-recession takes a firmer grip on the American economy...you've seen nothing yet!

The only remedy is to pass a medicare-like one-payer health care bill, like Cong. Conyers legislated one. To be fair, all the tax cuts to the wealthy corporations and individuals of the last 10 years should be repealed to pay for it. The well-to-do want leave this country, because even if the taxes are raised on the wealthy in the future, the taxes will still be cheaper then any other democratic-industrialized country in Europe.

[TribunusPlebis]

Jon Weiner has his facts partly wrong when he refers to the decades "between 1860 and 1912...when Republican big money ruled the country." That was decidedly not true when Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were in office (1861-65 and 1901-1909). Lincoln, dedicated to using the federal government to make "national improvements," was responsible for such progressive initiatives as land-grant colleges and universities, and Roosevelt went after the trusts on Wall Street with a vengeance and backed reforms such as the Pure Food and Drug Act. Yes, there were more conservative Republican presidents in that era who were happily in league with big business, but not Lincoln or Roosevelt.

[ECJLA]

Grover Cleveland was no Abraham Lincoln (no one was) and full of contradictions, but he took office close enough in time to the Great Emancipator to voice a memorable and compelling politician's creed: "What the use of running for office if you don't stand for something?"

The spirit of this creed has been entirely lost on the contemporary Democrats and all but two of those running for president. Today instead of "standing for something" (i.e. coherent principles and resolute convictions) candidacies are "of by and for" special interests, poll-tested "issues", career politician "experience", personality and lifestyle enhancements. The Democratic presidential field with two exceptions is bereft anyone who has over their adult lifetime espoused clearly defined progressive principles and evinced resolute convictions. That is why, like Broadway's Damn Yankees, "we always lose."

Republican pols, phonies and cretins though they are, purport to "stand for something" (regressive to reactionary) throughout their lives. The through-lines that have informed most Democratic politician's life's work involve opportunism, calculation, tactics and networking with elites. They run as though presidential politics were the equivalent of high school politics, where name-recognition and "popularity" matters most. Small to (Mark Penn-esque) "micro-bore" issues, platitudes and boring mushy rhetoric are the order of the day. Candidacies are all about personal vanity, and upon election doling out perquisites of office including ambassadorships, White House internships, etc. to larger donor "friends", while, ironically, the complicit corporate media dubs the only real principle- and conviction-based Democrats running for president "vanity" candidates.

To paraphrase Paul Simon's lyric, "Where have you gone Howard Dean...Listen to the candidates debate...Any way you look at it, working-people-and-others-in-the-lower-half-of-the-American-and-world-socio-economic-spectrum lose."

The tin ear Democratic voters are displaying thus far towards the two presidential candidates espousing true progressive principles and conviction, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, shows that the fault, in Shakespeare's phrase, is "not in the stars but in ourselves."

Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California

[tomsthumb]

Insurance has driven the price of health care higher. When someone has insurance, they make no inquiry as to the cost. This leaves the doctors free to charge as much as they want. This in turn allows the insurance to increase their rates. Doctors love our insurance industry as much as the pharmaceutical industry.

[stlrfan]

Medicare for all.......nuff said.

[shelleybear]

Socialized medicine works like this:
You live in a town.
The town needs roads.
Now, if everyone paid separately for the road in front of their house to be the cost would be prohibitive.
BUT, if the whole town gets together everyone wins.
You negotiate out of strength.
THAT is very much how socialized medicine works.
You keep costs down by everyone paying into it.
You also monitor the quality of the system (as tax payers, you can audit and control misspending).
All of the candidates except Dennis support a system run by the private sector and subsidized by public funds.
Is this what you want?

[JimK2]

13 out of 14 democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee read the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s ability to attack the U.S. and Edwards lied about reading it till he got caught.

"Edwards said Friday that he did not need to read the report because he was receiving information directly from intelligence officers as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I had the information I needed,” he said. “I just voted wrong.”

[MyLadyMacbeth]

oops the truth is a very sticky little wicket here for some.Your absolutely right their plans are very similar and if Hillary hadn't been working on health care for a full 2 decades prior to Edwards his charge may have some validity.

[LeftistDragon]

What about Andrew Johnson, he was a Democrat...

[baseball101]

Interesting article, except one thing is missing from the 2nd paragraph. "Grover Cleveland, for those who don't know their 19th century presidents, was the only Democrat who made it to the White House between 1860 and 1912, the decades when Republican big money ruled the country."
Now it's true that the Republicans in those days (1868-1900) were backed by the big money of the early industrial complexes that were made into the giant monsters that has become the model for what big business wants to do in this country today, but that was not the only reason that the Republicans were always in the majority in Congress and occupying the Exeuctive Mansion (it wasn't officially called the White House until Teddy Roosevelt). Whenever politics of the late 1800's is referenced, we must make note of the political ramifications (some of which were felt until the 1960's) that Reconstuction (or rather it's monumental failure) was the biggest reason for the political landscape. These were the days of the north being dominated by the Republicans in the wake of Lincoln and the Civil War, and the former Confederacy creating it's "Solid South" Democrats. It's always seemed to me that everything in the period politically, actually stems from that basic fact. "Big Money" of the day was second.
I've always found it interesting how the blocs of a political party in this country change over time. It was one of LBJ's advisors who said when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, that "do you realise that we are going to lose the south to the Republicans for a generation, possibly two?" Man, that statement was right on wasn't it?
Just wanted to throw that out there, otherwise decent article.