MyDD :: Paul Krugman has advice for Barack Obama

Paul Krugman has advice for Barack Obama

by Jim in Chicago, Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 06:38:37 PM EST

I did not see this posted anywhere on MyDD and thought it too important a point to leave unsaid:

In his NY Times column today, Paul Krugman writes the following:

Barack Obama recently lamented the fact that "politics has become so bitter and partisan" - which it certainly has.

But he then went on to say that partisanship is why "we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first." Um, no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. If all goes well, we'll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship - but that will be the end of the story, not the beginning.

Or to put it another way: what we need now is another F.D.R., not another Dwight Eisenhower....

It was only after F.D.R. had created a more equal society, and the old class warriors of the G.O.P. were replaced by "modern Republicans" who accepted the New Deal, that bipartisanship began to prevail.

Krugman goes on to argue that we are in a similar era to that which proceeded the New Deal and that similar politics (and policies) to FDR's is what is needed to change our reality of accelerated income inequality and all the ills that come with it.

Of course, this rapidly expanding income inequality is exactly what Jim Webb touched on in his SOTU response Tuesday and the theme John Edwards has been running on for 5 years now, so some important Democrats really do "get" it.

Blogger "Big Tent Democrat" explains (in a post from over 6 months ago) the problem with politicians like Obama who don't get it and peddle this "why can't we just get along" malarky:

FDR's lesson for Obama [is] Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle. . . . FDR governed as a liberal but politicked like a populist....

In a follow-up post today, Big Tent quotes blogger Brad Delong's own thoughts on a discussion with Paul Krugman:

while I [Delong] am profoundly, profoundly disappointed and disgusted by the surrender of the reality-based wing of the Republican policy community to the gang of Republican political spivs who currently hold the levers of power, I do think that there is hope that they will come to their senses and that building pragmatic technocratic policy coalitions from the center outward will be possible and is our best chance.

Paul, I think, believes otherwise: The events of the past decade and a half have convinced him, I think, that people like me are hopelessly naive, and that the Democratic coalition is the only place where reality-based discourse is possible. Thus, in his view, the best road forward to (a) make the Democratic coalition politically dominant through aggressive populism, and then (b) to argue for pragmatic reality-based technocratic rather than idealistic fantasy-based ideological policies within the Democratic coalition.

He may well be right.

As Big Tent notes, today's Krugman column explains exactly why he is right. Those who have TimesSelect, should read the whole thing (linked above). If the full column is posted on a free site in the future (I checked Truthout but it was not there) I will update this diary with a link.

(Simliar versions of this diary are posted at DailyKos, and for those in Illinois, on the front page of Prairie State Blue.)

Poll

Votes: 29
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Paul Krugman, Barack Obama, partisanship (all tags)

Permalink :: 79 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Paul Krugman has advice for Barack Obama (3.00 / 2)

Krugman makes sense. The old style Republicans were chased out of power by Reagan and received obituaries this November for a few survivors who were essentially museum relics (Jim Leach, Sherry Boehlert, Lincoln Chafee).

The old class warrior Republicans simply died out for decades under FDR. It was far more acceptable to run as a socialist in the south in FDR's time than as a Republican. I'd like to see the same thing happen in the Northeast and Midwest following a new FDR-type's election.

Progressives like David Loesback and Carol Shea-Porter were the ones who came from nowhere. It was the Georgia twins and Leonard Boswell who are the walking wounded "moderstes" of the Democratic Party.

Two statistics show the absolute disappearance of the Republicans during FDR's term. The number of Republican House members in the South dropped from a pretty poor 12 in 1930 to a pathetic two and never rose above six at any time during the seven elections he was in office. In 1934, Republicans failed to run a candidate against a southern Democrat in an incredible 79 districts. I didn't check the rest of the country.

For trivia fans, east Tennessee was the only GOP holdout during that era. Republicans showed occassional strength in West Virginia (mainly in the 1942 off-year election) and parts of Kentucky. In at least one election, the entire contingent of 21 Democrats from Texas was unopposed and in another only a "scattering" of votes prevented that (usually less than twenty per district).

Yes, I'm licking my chops for the next FDR.

by David Kowalski on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 07:36:04 PM EST

Re: Paul Krugman has advice for Barack Obama (none / 0)

The South becoming more Democratic just meant more racist at the time. I'm all for partisanship now, but the party labels were not particularly meaningful in the 30's. The Democrats were a mixture of ethnic urbans and KKK members while the Republicans were big business and small town America. Neither makes sense in the least.

by CT student on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:44:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Krugman has advice for Barack Obama (none / 0)

True, but FDR's mandate and personal popularity did get those Dixiecrats to vote for Social Security.

Strom Thurmond actually considered himself a liberal in those days.

That's what an FDR type figure can do to change the discourse in the country.

by adamterando on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 10:57:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Krugman has advice for Barack Obama (none / 0)

"Yes, I'm licking my chops for the next FDR."

_____

I'm not looking for the next anybody.
I'm looking for the 1st somebody -- somebody ready to make their OWN mark

by v2aggie2 on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:37:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Sure Krugman Has Obama Right (3.00 / 2)

I am not sure exactly which speech Krugman is referring to but I just finished reading Obama's book and while he does lament the discourse today I did not think he shied away from partisan politics at all. Instead, he raised the point that in order to make major changes in public policy we need to obtain concensus on what to do. I tend to agree.

Forging ahead without that concensus is very difficult and likely to result in a backlash. Our current President with his 30% approval rating is a good example of what happens when you don't pay attention to what the people want. Clinton, in his first two years, is another since he behaved like a President who had won with 60% of the vote when in fact he won with 43%.

FDR is one of our greatest Presidents for all he did for this country but let us not forget he came to power in extraordinary times with a country on its knees and employment b/w 20-25%. He had a mandate to fix that and had a lot leeway in which to do it. I doubt whoever wins in 2008 (I have not chosen a candidate yet) is coming to power under those circumstances or with that kind of a mandate.

In order to pursue a progressive agenda, we will have to sell it and obtain public consensus. Does that mean making it bi-partisan? Not necessarily but it will mean selling it to the public, something Dems have not been particularly adept at for the last 40 yrs.

by John Mills on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 09:40:01 PM EST

A Crucial Distinction (3.00 / 3)

We need a popular consensus--which we already have, in many respects--we do not need a consensus with the GOP leadership.

I am all for reaching out to Republican and independent voters. We do that by attacking the GOP leadership for being so diametrically opposed to what they want--on health care, an increased minimum wage, withdrawal from Iraq, serious action on global warming, etc. Not by joining the GOP leadership in being diametrically opposed to what they want.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 09:28:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Crucial Distinction (none / 0)

Completely agree. However, obtaining popular concensus sometimes requires compromise and changing course a little to acomodate differing views. It's easy to poll test and pass the 6 issues Congress is considering in its 100 hours, a completely different thing to come up with popular concensus on a complicated issue like energy policy.

by John Mills on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 11:47:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Crucial Distinction (3.00 / 1)

a) A compromise when necessary makes sense, but is it necessary here?

b) The follow to the first question is with whom are you compromising? With the American people or the GOP leadership? Those are two different things. The debate being had here is whether one needs to compromise with the GOP leadership. I think people too often confuse the two things. When it is pointed out, over and over again, that poll after poll shows that the American people overwhelming support the Democratic positions on issues, especially those done in the last 100 hours, the response in invariably about how we need to compromise. WHo are we compromising for or with? The American people, or the GOP? Those aren't the same thing. The cognitive dissonance in this sort of discussion is what I, personally, find frustrating because for some of our allies GOP narratives=American public, when that is simply false. It's more accurate to say GOP narrative obscures the American public's narrative. That the American public narrative is closer to the Democratic, rather than GOP agenda, but we can't see that because its obscured by the smoke screen coming out of the GOP.

by bruh21 on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:35:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Campaigning v Governing (none / 0)

What are we talking about? The 6 simple, poll tested issues or the complicated ones we are going to face going forward? On 6 in 100 hours, no we don't need to compromise.

On something like energy, we are absolutely going to need to compromise and find concensus. After all, even amongst those supporting alternative sources there are major differences. What should we be funding? Ethanol, bio-fuels, hydrogen, electric cars, hybrid electric cars, solar power, wind power? And that's just one piece of an energy policy. It would be great to fund all but limited money will not make that possible and hence a concensus about which direction to go will need to be reached.

People confuse campaigning and governing. Campaigns are about differentiation. It is one thing to ask a poll question about whether or not people support this policy or that policy, it is a completely different thing to get into the details of actually implementing it and making the tough decisions to make it happen. Successful governing involves finding concensus with the American people. FDR found it, even if he was being sniped at by both sides. Any new progressive agenda will to do so as well.

by John Mills on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Campaigning v Governing (3.00 / 2)

I am not disagreeing with you- I am adding additional points. That in trying to compromise- we need to redefine with whom because we are confusing that with what.

by bruh21 on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:53:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Krugman is a genius (3.00 / 2)

I've always been in awe, but I'd tell him if I met him the comparison is erroneous.

FDR enacted his vision against the backdrop of the Great Depression. And with 2/3 of the country standing in soup lines, I don't think it was partisanship that enabled FDR to get done what needed to get done. So the comparison is really specious from the get go.

Also. The idea that FDR gave a partisan middle finger to folks who didn't agree with him ideologically is also bunk. Some business leaders remained defiant. Others, people who might not agree with FDR's politics, were swayed by the simple fact that if the American economy became truly unhinged in an absolutely irreconcialable sense, then they'd go down too.

So. Two things to sum up to Mr. Krugman, and Big Tent Democrat: While I'm sure partisanship existed then as it exists today to various degrees and while I'm sure FDR would be classified as a partisan politician, it WAS NOT partisanship itself that allowed FDR's vision to be implemented. It was an Event. That Event was called The Great Depression.

And, second, FDR's partisanship did not over-rule his ability to make an argument for a rational, practical, and necessary solution to people who would, had circumstances been any different, remained FDR's political foes.

It would appear Krugman has put his econ. books up on the shelf and traded them for the political rhetoric of Molly Ivins.

Good for him.

by Stewieeeee on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:08:54 AM EST

It's Not Either/Or (3.00 / 4)

Sure the Great Depression was the reason folks abandoned the GOP in droves. They lost a 52 House seats in the 1930 election, leaving them with just a 1-seat majority over the Democrats and Farmer-Labor. But the 1932 result was still a sweeping partisan victory, based on FDR promising something dramatically different than Hoover had delivered. And he had his record as governor of NY to point to as an example. He didn't run on a platform of cooperating with GOP. Then, when he was elected, he first tried to work with big business as well as labor. When business walked out on him--figuring he would have to capitulate--he said, "fine," then I'll do it with labor alone." And that's just what he did.

The end result is that some business Dems--such as Al Smith, the 1928 nominee, who hated Roosevelt anyway--left the Democratic Party for being "too extreme" and "too partisan." But millions more switched the other way. FDR carried 42 states in 1932. He carried 46 in 1936.

Now, if you're arguing that the Great Depression gave Roosevelt a tremendous opportunity, much bigger than the Dems have today, then you certainly have a point. But Al Smith--Roosevelt's main rival for the nomination--would not have exploited that opportunity anywhere close to the way that Roosevelt did. And he wouldn't have laid the groundwork for 60+ years of almost continuous control of the House of Representatives. So Krugman's point still stands.

Folks who've grown to political maturity during the post-1992 era have a very limited experience of what government and politics can be. It's the most conservative era of American politics since the 1920s. And Smith would not have moved the country very far to the left if he had been the Democratic Party nominee in 1932. (That's a big part of why the party didn't nominate him.)

We've now seen dramatic proof that conservatism is just as disasterous a governing philosophy in the 2000s as it was in 1920s--even though American public opinion has changed very little since 1972, except to become more liberal on race and gender politics. We may not have an opening as big as FDR had in 1932, but this certainly gives us an opening much bigger than the Versailles CW recognizes--bigger than we've had any time since Watergate, in fact. And Obama's response--based on his experience of the post-1992 world--is much more like Al Smith than FDR, much closer to the Versailles CW than it is to reality.

You've certainly got a point when you say:

FDR's partisanship did not over-rule his ability to make an argument for a rational, practical, and necessary solution to people who would, had circumstances been any different, remained FDR's political foes.

This was particularly true of the Protestant working class, although I'd say it puts too much emphasis on reason and wonkishness. (I only wish it were so!) But your underlying point--that partisanship alone was not enough--is certainly true. And we should never forget it.

The problem is, you seem to be making the same mistake Obama does--confusing the voters we need to reach and persuade with the politicians we need to oppose and create contrast with.

This confusion not only fails to take advantage of an historic opportunity (though admittedly not as great as the Great Depression), it actually aids the GOP in maintaining power. The GOP political leadership--as well as its entire political infrastructure--is far to the right of its voter base. The Schiavo incident was a rare, glaring demonstration of this. The more we try to get along with the GOP, the more cover we give them for their extremism.

Praising them for finally realizing there's a health care crisis in the country, for example, is the wrong response. Instead, we should say, "Well, at least there's one good thing about Iraq. It's finally convinced the Bush Administration that they should be talking about health care reform. Unfortunately, their ideas would make health care as big of a mess as Iraq is. But at least they've acknowledged that something needs to be done."

This isn't rocket science. When you've got a President who lives in the 30s, and may soon descend to the 20s, you don't praise him for desperately trying to change the subject.

Instead, here's Obama with Anderson Cooper after the SOTU:

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), ILLINOIS: Well, a couple of things.

Look, the -- the president recognized that health care and energy are two critical issues facing the country. And I think he put forward some serious proposals, not necessarily ones that I would have put forward. But they're serious ways to engage the problem.

And I think the Democrats should be constructive. We should sit down with the president, and say that we are ready and willing to sit down and see if we can make progress on those two critical issues. So, I think that was -- that was an area where we could get some work going.

I don't think that Karl Rove could have scripted it better for Bush. Lieberman, maybe. But not Rove.

Bush's proposals are nutcase proposals, he's only talking about them to distract from Iraq, and any Democrat who says otherwise is just doing Rove's job for him.

Whatever happened to going to Mars?

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 09:02:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not Either/Or (none / 0)

I know this: Rove would have scripted it much different for a Republican responding to a Dem's SOTU address.

While I myself would have pointed out Bush's track record at implementing anything at all, I don't fret as much over Obama's response because I think there are limits to what partisanship can do either way.

Here's a good way to put it. The Bush Admin was partisan in 2002 and 2003 when his approval ratings were nudging at the 70s. Are they any less partisan now that he's dropped below the 30s?

by Stewieeeee on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 11:13:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So? (3.00 / 1)

While I myself would have pointed out Bush's track record at implementing anything at all, I don't fret as much over Obama's response because I think there are limits to what partisanship can do either way.

There are limits to everything. Krugman's point is that "bipartisanship" in the sort of climate we're in today is limiting in the extreme, whereas the proper form of partisanship--as shown by FDR--is both the key to accomplishment, and to the sort of collegeal bipartisanship that Obama longs for.

As for going after Bush's implementation--that implies that Bush's policies could have worked if only they'd been done properly. But the problem isn't Bush alone. It's the entire conservative program, which has never had full reign until the period after 9/11--at least not since the 1920s. Going after Bush's poor implementation just lets conservatism itself off the hook. And this is what Krugman wisely warns we should not do.

Among it's many sins, conservatism both attempts to reduce everything to individual personal responsibility (as if the poor schmoes standing in breadlines in 1932 caused the Great Depression all by themselves) and employs a deeply flawed model of personal responsibility in doing so. (For example, Lakoff explains how authoritarian childrearing, on which the Strict Father model is based, does not produce the sort of upright autonomous moral agents it is supposed to.)

It's not that conservatism doesn't work. It's that it can't work. The same way that adding two negative numbers together can't give you a positive.

This doesn't mean there is only one possible way to do things. There are plenty of ways to choose from that are "good enough," and a monomaniacal insistence on "the best" way is almost certain to cause havoc. But conservatism is simply off the table if we're talking about possible ways of understanding and responding to a world as complicated as the one we live in.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 11:58:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So? (none / 0)

If the debate is between statements like....

2+2 doesn't equal 5.

or....

2+2 can't equal 5.

You're quibbling.

But now that I think about it saying something doesn't work denotes the practical perspective. Saying something can't work denotes a more ideological driven agenda.

The answer I have yet to receive from you or Krugman or any of the people here who are making the same consistent arguement is: How has partisanship enabled the Republican party to reduce the Democratic party to permanent minority status?

The reason why that question isn't answered is because we know full well what the answer is: It hasn't.

So I'm going to persist in my naive idea that there must be something more to the equation, and that in that equation, partisanship itself is not even factored by a very high number at all.

by Stewieeeee on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 06:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So? (none / 0)

"How has partisanship enabled the Republican party to reduce the Democratic party to permanent minority status?"

There are a couple of things you're missing. First, you're assuming that the ideologies of the two parties are both equally popular amongst the population. That isn't true. Sometimes or even most of the time cutting taxes is very popular with people. But when you get down to it and get past the one sentence GOP slogans, a much larger percentage of people favor Democratic policies compared to Republican policies. So it would be impossible for the Democratic party to be a permanent minority party.

Second, it WAS possible for the Democratic Party to be in the minority and to be weakened for a time due to mealy-mouthed Democratic leaders, BI-partisanship on the part of Democrats (say, to save their skin on an Iraq War vote), full throated partisanship on the part of the GOP that claimed that Democrats were aiding and abetting the terrorists (c.f. Daschle, Tom and Cleland, Max), and partisan gerrymandering of Congressional districts. But we never went into deep minority status because people in their heart of hearts still want the government to fight for them.

So it would never work for the GOP. But it CAN work for us to use partisanship to relegate the GOP to permanent (or at least for a generation or more) minority status because the majority of people are already on our side.

by adamterando on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 09:42:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well Said, But There's More (none / 0)

Stewieeeee is making very simple-minded arguments which depend on believing that (a) things (such as partisanship) have a black-or-white impact and (b) things (such as partisanship and the soundness of policy) don't interact with one another to produce effects that are different from the effects they might produce alone.

In short, it's not just the content of his arguments in this diary discussion that are mistaken. It's the very form of his arguments that's deficient.

That form makes it very easy for him to "prove" whatever he already believes is right. But it makes it nearly impossible to have an informed discussion that leads to a more nuanced understanding on either side.

See my ancient diary "Terri Schiavo: We're Too Smart!" for more on this.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:51:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (none / 0)

don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Just explain how Republican partisanship has led to permanent Democratic Party status. Ok. You can't.

So now it's not black and white?

Ok. Bottom line: Does Partisanship trump soundness of policy?

My ONLY contention here. Yes. The ONLY claim I made on this discussion here is this: It does not.

Who knows. We might agree on this!

So. Back to FDR. was he popular because he was partisan?? Sure. Why not? Or was he popular cause his policies solved people's problems??

I think we know the answer to these questions.

by Stewieeeee on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So? (none / 0)

I was not assuming any of those things.

What I'm getting from the observations that you just made is this: A larger % of people favoring one party's policies will, in the end, always TRUMP the partisanship of the other party.

I agree.

by Stewieeeee on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:48:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So? (none / 0)

Right, so it is better to exploit that superiority and further relegate the other party to minority status by pointing out how out of touch their ideology is with what the majority of the people want. I don't see how you get there through bipartisanhip when by definition that means incorporating the ideas of the other party which you just agreed were not what the people wanted! So why muddy the waters?

Also as to your previous response:

There are two instances where the two political parties were relegated to permanent (which by defninition we'll say is at least one generation or more than 30 years, which is long enough to enact core legislation of the party) minority status.

1. 1865 - 1932. The Democratic Party was relegated to minority status during this time. It was especially so from 1865 - 1884 due to rabid partisanship where the GOP 'waved the bloody shirt' to remind voters that all Confederates were Democrats.

2. 1932 - 1980. The Republican party was the permanent minority party due to New Deal policies that were associated (through active partisanship) with the Democratic Party.

by adamterando on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 11:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So? (3.00 / 1)

My guess is Obama feels there is no need to exploit being right.

Eh. He might be wrong about that.

But I hope I've got my point across. As it seems to me to be an extension of this idea that politicians, simply by standing up for what they believe in, will have much of an impact on the will of the people. People want solutions. If they get them from people being partisan, great. If they get them from people appealing to bi-partisanship, so be it.

Yes. FDR was partisan. 30% of the country agreed with his Ideology. The other 40% was literally crushed (a word that's overused these days to describe the middle class of America -- if you want to see CRUSHED, do some more reading up on the Great Depression) by the perniciousness of the opposition's ideology.

So that's the context. It's a context I won't forget. Also. Note that while FDR used partisanship to implement the New Deal, he did appeal to Bi-Partisanship during the War Years. And retained his popularity as time went on.

But I don't think that was due to the bi-partisanship any moreso than the margin of victory he enjoyed in his first election was due to partisanship.

It was due to the events of WWII. And FDR's ability to unite (not divide) America in a time of war.

Which might have also had something to do with the longevity of Democratic Party superiority up until the 1980s.

by Stewieeeee on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:15:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not Either/Or (none / 0)

In all fairness, most of the programs that Roosevelt brought from NY were developed by Al Smith including worker safety, child labor laws and the minimum wage. Historians note that FDR would privately acknowledge that debt of gratitude.

Al Smith became very jealous after FDR won and became a major critic which I always found ironic since FDR took Smith's ideas national. The big difference b/w them was less policy based and more personality based. FDR was an extremely charasmatic man and understood the power of radio which he used to his advantage. Al Smith was not.

I find the fact that Krugman put FDR in his column ironic because FDR faced harsh criticism from those to the left of him such as Huey Long. He was lambasted for being too timid and not nationalizing industries. History proved FDR right but it is interesting to look at the paralells.

by John Mills on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:06:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

'Implemented,' Yes. 'Developed,' No. (3.00 / 2)

The programs in question had been developed by European socialists a minimum of 50 years earlier--along with universal health care, btw. In many cases, they were first implemented by the socialists' political enemies (as Bismarck did with universal health care) in order to undermine the socialists' support.

It's definitely true that Smith was more progressive in 1928 than was in 1936. But what earns him the label of "business Democrat" in my post is precisely that trajectory. I'm not an essentialist. People are what they do. Or, put another way, people are what they make themselves.

That's why, for example, I don't rule out supporting Obama sometime in the future, even though he's deeply confused and mistaken right now. He does have notable positive qualities, and if he learns some basic lessons--such as Krugman offers here, for example--I could well see myself supporting him. If it comes to pass, he would be the fifth black candidate I've supported for President. Fifth time's a charm?

Finally, it's not clear that history proved FDR correct in steering the course he did. Huey Long wasn't the only figure to his left he opposed. Upton Sinclair won the Democratic nomination for governor in California in 1934, but Roosevelt refused to back him.

While we can say that Roosevelt's course proved politically viable, that's not quite the same as saying history proved him right. The American welfare state is widely regarded as framentary, underfunded and inefficient compared to more robust European welfare states, which produce significantly higher levels of social welfare (longer, healthier lives, greater security, more secure civil liberties, etc.)

Ironically, it's the relatively conservative nature of our welfare state that has made it more vulnerable to political attack. The narrower, less expensive needs-based programs like welfare, food stamps and housing aid have always been the most politically unpopular, while the more expensive universalist entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security have been the most broadly popular.

Even Head Start, which is broadly popular, has never been fully funded, while universal pre-school is common in Europe.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'Implemented,' Yes. 'Developed,' No. (none / 0)

Fair enough about where the programs were developed but Smith was one of the first to bring them to the US and for that he deserves a lot of credit. By the time Smith was becoming a "business Democrat" as you call it, he was out of power and couldn't do anything but sqawk so I look at all the good things he did as NY Gov and ignore the bitter old man part.

Actually I think it is pretty clear history proved FDR right. One of the major things Huey Long and others were pushing was nationalization of the banking system and other industries which, last time I looked, hasn't work well. I am believer in capitalism I just believe it needs to be tempered with a solid dose of social programs, progressive taxation and regulation.

Re Prez Race - I am underwhelmed by the choices. I tend to like Govs, and shy away from House/Senate members, because they have actually run govts. I am impressed by Obama's charisma and his understanding of policy but he is very, very green. I find Richardson somewhat intriguing but overall I wish there were better choices. I guess it is a rare election where I actually have an Eliot Spitzer running for something who actually gets me excited.

by John Mills on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:14:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm Not Trying To Bash Smith, But... (3.00 / 2)

the adoption of European-style welfare state ideas dates to the early Progressive Era. Some of what was implemented was subsequently struck down by the activist conservative Supreme Court (which discovered a copy of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations tucked inside the Constitution, complete with margin notes by the top neo-classical economists.) But some was not. Wilson's war pulled progressives into disrepute, resulting in a fallow period, generally, which Smith bucked.

He certainly moved the ball forward, and I have no desire to denigrate what he did. The fact that New York was the pre-eminant state at the time only adds to the importance of what he accomplished. But he was building on the work of others, just as FDR built on his.

You will note that I did not talk about Huey Long, but Upton Sinclair. The original Townsend Plan for Social Security was also a good deal more generous than what was passed.

My argument is not that any one specific example was neccesarily superior--one could argue this, but never prove it--but rather that people were not wrong to argue for something more robust and agressive, since more robust and aggressive welfare states produced superior results in other countries. And did so rather quickly, btw, as Sweden became the first country in the world to emerge from the Depression in 1935.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 02:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Not Trying To Bash Smith, But... (none / 0)

My argument is not that any one specific example was neccesarily superior"

Agreed.

by John Mills on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 03:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not Either/Or (none / 0)

I agree that it is time for a sweeping change along the lines of what FDR accomplished in the Thirties, and that this opportunity now exists; and I don't imagine there are many progressive Democrats who would dispute this.

However, in response to the suggestion that it was accomplished by FDR's 'ability to make an argument for a rational, practical, and necessary solution to people who would, had circumstances been any different, remained FDR's political foes' you assert this makes:

the same mistake Obama does--confusing the voters we need to reach and persuade with the politicians we need to oppose and create contrast with.

Well, I don't think there is much in this argument but a quibble over tactics. The goal itself, the renewal of the Party and the country through populist progressive Democratic policies, seems to be one we all agree on; you, your interlocuter, Krugman, Obama and hopefully the electorate as well. If Obama seeks to take a conciliatory approach with his political adversaries and still manages to reach and persuade the electorate on these issues I fail to see the downside. He certainly is a populist and is arguably progressive.

I may be missing something here but I assume you are simply suggesting that this approach will not succeed or is not optimal. To my mind Senator Obama can be as conciliatory as he likes to his political adversaries so long as he captures the hearts and minds of the electorate in this endeavour. Adversaries will shift closer to our position if that is where the electorate is, may even abet the process, or move further to the right and hopefully be marginalised.

And wouldn't you agree that the new FDR, if you will, would have as novel a solution set to our current problems as FDR did in the situation that pertained during the Depression? One that may even be difficult to 'frame' into paradigms familiar to party traditionalists as I assume FDR's was in his time?

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:41:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's Not Just Tactics (3.00 / 2)

If what you propose were possible I would certainly not oppose it. But it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of history, politics and political economy, just for starters.

The fact that you label it a "quibble over tactics" is indicative of the difference in viewpoint--yours vastly underestimates the depth, scope and magnitude of opposition we face.

Of course I wish it could be so. But there simply is no precedent for populists gaining power without a fight. It's never happened in the past, and certainly won't happen now, given the extreme sense of entitlement that grips the nation's elites. Could it possibly happen, in theory? Sure. But it would require a much more magnanimous and enlightened elite than we now have.

We had an elite more like that back in the 1960s and early 70s. But instead of expanding the sharing of wealth and opportunity, it moved us sharply and steadily in the opposite direction. So why would the much more conservative elite of today act dramatically more liberal than the more liberal elite of 30+ years ago?

And that's not even talking about partisan dynamics. Compare the liberal Republicans of that era--Rockefeller, Javits, Lindsay, Brooke, Percy, etc.--with crypto-fascist gang we have today. It's nothing short of delusional to think that a politics of nicey-nice could succeed with this crew where it could not with a GOP two standard deviations to its left 30+ years ago.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:02:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not Just Tactics (none / 0)

I basically agree with everything you have said on the nature of the struggle which faces us, and I appreciate your position and perception of it's essential form. What differentiates us perhaps is that I sense you have a frustration with Senator Obama that he is not more polemic when, in fact, he is a politician.

Personally I don't think he underestimates the depth of opposition in the GOP, either. It seems to me that he has merely adopted a different way of engaging. If this is a flawed approach I will be profoundly disappointed and I guess that would put us in the same boat.

All I am suggesting is that I believe that the fairly impressive populist successes which the Senator has achieved are somehow related to this more dignified and respectful approach he has adopted. I don't think his commitment or capabilities are undermined by this and find his advocacy for important progressive issues strong and unyielding.

My assumption is that he intends to speak convincingly and directly to the electorate, tunnelling through the debate at the institutional level, and make them the source of the power he brings to bear in the political struggle.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Motorpsycho Nightmare (none / 0)

I was sleepin' like a rat
When I heard something jerkin'.
There stood Rita
Lookin' just like Tony Perkins.
She said, "Would you like to take a shower?
I'll show you up to the door."
I said, "Oh, no! no!
I've been through this before."
--Bob Dylan

We've been through this movie before back in 2000, when someone with a record as a state-level bipartisan wunderkint ran for President as "A uniter, not a divider."

Remember?

"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
--Karl Marx

Butta-Bat!

"You know what they say: 'those of us who fail History... doomed to repeat it in Summer school."
--Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

Butta-Boom!

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 02:09:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not Either/Or (none / 0)

The opportunity does not exist as it existed when 40% of the country was unemployed during the Great Depresssion.

by Stewieeeee on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 05:46:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Krugman is a genius (3.00 / 3)

"I don't think it was partisanship that enabled FDR to get done what needed to get done. So the comparison is really specious from the get go."

You need to go back and read his speeches. He brought class front and center and he firmly allied himself and the Democratic Party with the lower and middle class and put the GOP squarely where it should have been, allied with the upper class (or "economic royalists" as FDR put it).

In his 1936 reelection campaign one workingman summed it up best,
"FDR is the only president we've had that understands that my boss is a son-of-a-bitch"

FDR didn't seek consensus, he brought power to the consensus that was already amongst the people but was not enacted due to the lack of consensus in Washington.

We already have our little consensus factory in Washington, it's called the Senate. And if you've been following the minimum wage debate this week you know that the GOP does not plan on reaching consensus with us even on POPULAR issues (when we were in the minority, we refused to reach consensus on UNPOPULAR issues). So we have to beat back this party to deep minority and regional status (deep south plus Utah and Idaho) in order to enact progressive legislation in which there already is a consensus.

by adamterando on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 11:04:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Krugman is a genius (none / 0)

The way I read that: the GOP will pay a price for their PARTISANSHIP on the Min. Wage Bill.

by Stewieeeee on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 11:18:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're Deliberately Obscuring Things (3.00 / 2)

They won't pay a price for being partisan. They'll pay a price for opposing 80% of public opinion on a clear-cut high-salience issue.

The Democrats are being just as partisan as the Republican on this, but they won't pay a price at all. That's because they're on the same side as 80% of public opinion on a clear-cut high-salience issue.

You've perfectly illustrated the sorts of misleading contortionism that folks like Obama have to engage in to perpetuate the fantasy that it's "partisanship" that's the bogeyman here.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:08:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0)

I've perfectly illustrated that it's not partisanship or non-partisanship itself that will result in political rewards and penalties from the electorate, but the policies themselves being implemented and the consequences thereof.

I'll try not to tell you what it is I think you and Krugman are illustrating, I doubt it would mesh quite well with what it is you think you're illustrating.

I just wanted to post this to make it clear what it is I'm illustrating. Thanks!

by Stewieeeee on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:28:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (3.00 / 2)

You haven't demonstrated what you claim. Minimum wage is a partisan position, but it's one that's popular. That doesn't change the fact it's a partisan issue. You are defining, or i should say redefining terms, to make your argument right, but in so doing, you are doing what the press has tried to do with Jim Webb- when they couldn't deal with their own cognitive dissonance, they redefined him as a conservative, although he is not one. Likewise here, you are redefining partisan to be something other than what it means.

by bruh21 on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:38:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Youre Right! There's An Entire Orwellian Language (3.00 / 2)

System We're Up Against

If you make it impossible to call things by their proper names, then it's impossible to describe things as they really are, and therefore impossible to organize and change them.

What's happened here is an illustrative linguistic shift that deeply obscures the underlying political dynamic.

I'm going to have to chew on this a bit and probably do a diary about it to give the systematic distortion of language here the treatment it deserves. But there's some very telling history to narrowly illuminate the way the term "partisan" has been cynically manipulated.

Originally, both in England and America, the emergence of anti-establishment parties was regarded as close to treasonous, and no equivalence whatsoever was admitted between establishment and anti-establishment parties: only the later were regarded as partisan. The former were simply patriotic subjects or citizens.

In England, the lexicographer Ben Johnson defined "Whig" as "a faction" not a political party. In America, this didn't turn around until the Alien and Sedition Acts pushed things over the cliff, resulting in the "Revolution of 1800," as the Democratic-Republicans' dramatic electoral sweep was known.

And here we're seeing much the same thing, again. It's only the anti-establishement party that gets tagged with being "partisan." While the GOP is simply "American," the Democrats are traitors at worst, and partisan obstructionists at best. The triangulators then come along, and say, "No, no, the problem isn't the cryoto-fascist GOP leadership. The problem is partisanship, of whichever side."

And this, we are supposed to believe, constitutes a great leap forward.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:39:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

It may be both a partisan and popular issue, but what will make it rewarding to Democrats is NOT that it's a partisan issue.

What will make it rewarding to Democrats is that it's a popular issue.

It's really as simple as that.

by Stewieeeee on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 05:42:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, maybe because it's not partisan?

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:32:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My question (3.00 / 1)

Are you looking for consensus for policies among lawmakers or consensus among the electorate?

If it's the former then I don't see how we can go forward with a progressive agenda without relegating the GOP to a regional minority party. There are too many free-market worshipping ideologues to allow for lawmaker consensus.

If you're looking for the latter, then I don't see how we can go forward with a progressive agenda without relegating the GOP to a regional minority party (yes I realize I'm repeating myself). The electorate has made it clear that it overwhelmingly approves of key progressive goals that are currently only espoused by the Democratic Party. We must reach consensus on these issues within the Democratic Party. If the GOP wants to join fine, but from the minimum wage debate, it's clear that all they want to do is to insert poison pills and to prevent anything that requires regulation, taxes, redistribution or wealth, or protections for workers and the environment.

by adamterando on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My question (none / 0)

Relegating the GOP, particularly in the latter scenario, to a regional minority party works fine for me. The question is how?

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tom Schaller Talks About This (3.00 / 2)

in Whistling Past Dixie. Instead of trying to appeal to votes who are most hostile to our core values and core voters, he argues, we should seek to stick the GOP with the most unattractive aspects of its Southern base, and use this to woo voters in the Midwest and different sectors of the interior West, where even a good portion of self-described "conservatives" are more libertarian (not necessarily Club-for-Growth/"free market"), less the Bible-thumping kind.

We need not abandon party-building efforts within the South to do this. Indeed, I would argue, at some point down the line there will come a tipping point where the GOP will be seen as the party that's trying to hold the South back. But that will only come once we've shown how Democrats are moving the rest of the country forward. (And, surprise! surprise! the angel of death has not laid waste all the land from Plymouth Rock to Malibu!)

In other words, he's made a polarization argument based on cultural geography. Interestingly, he's got a blurb on his book from Kevin Phillips, the grand old man of polarization based on cultural geography.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:54:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tom Schaller Talks About This (none / 0)

I agree with Schaller's analysis too. The November elections fall right into line with this thinking.

But, as much as they deserve it, do we have to take the GOP out behind the wood-shed and give 'em a whooping to achieve this?

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 06:46:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0)

We don't have to take the GOP out behind the woodshed.

Public humiliation is necessary. Hiding their shame will not do.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:17:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Krugman is a genius (none / 0)

Your analysis also doesn't explain why it lasted for decades after the depression.

by bruh21 on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:36:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Krugman is a genius (3.00 / 1)

The idea that FDR gave a partisan middle finger to folks who didn't agree with him ideologically is also bunk.

Franklin Roosevelt, 1938:

Most people, if they know both sides of a question and are asked to support the public good, will step forward and lay aside selfishness. But we must admit that there are some people who honestly believe in a wholly different theory of government than the one our Constitution provides.

You know their reasoning. They say that in the competition of life for the good things of life "some people are successful because they have better brains or are more efficient; the wise, the swift and the strong are able to outstrip their fellowmen." And they say that that is nature itself and you cannot do anything about it and it is just too bad if some, the minority of people, get left behind.

It is that attitude which leads such people to give little thought, to give anything but lip service, to the one-third of our population which I have described as being ill-fed, ill-clad, and ill-housed. The majority of them say, "I am not my brother's keeper" -- and they "pass by on the other side." Most of them are honest people. Most of them consider themselves excellent citizens. ...

Yes, they have the same type of mind as those representatives of the people who vote against legislation to help social and economic conditions, proclaiming loudly that they are for the objectives but they do not like the methods and then fail utterly to offer a better method of their own.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

by Rob in Vermont on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 03:49:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Krugman has advice for Barack Obama (none / 0)

Hmmm...so Krugman doesn't even address the other candidates.

I wonder if he feels Obama is going to be the candidate?

by BrionLutz on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:31:39 AM EST

That Would Be A 'No' (3.00 / 2)

Krugman's column begins:

American politics is ugly these days, and many people wish things were different. For example, Barack Obama recently lamented the fact that "politics has become so bitter and partisan" -- which it certainly has.

His only other mention of Obama is:

Then came the New Deal. I urge Mr. Obama -- and everyone else who thinks that good will alone is enough to change the tone of our politics -- to read the speeches of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the quintessential example of a president who tackled big problems that demanded solutions.

In short, it's a column about a political delusion, not about Campaign '08.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 09:20:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Krugman has advice for Barack Obama (3.00 / 1)

Offically unemployment during the Great Depression was 25%. Economists believe it was actually closer to 40%.

It is because of "bipartisanship" that the US is like a third world country with respect to the rest of the industrialized world, in terms of social policy such as healthcare. Now the bottom is threatening to fall out of the national finances because of the decades-long failure to deal with funding healthcare in an efficient manner.

Bipartisanship, and the fact that large corporations own Washington DC, have prevented any progress on this. Something has to give. Either someone forges a large enough coalition to get universal healthcare passed, or the population accedes to being cut off at the knees (possible, under the guise of medical accounts), or the US economy goes the way of Detroit (over a cliff from which it will not recover in our lifetimes). Mr Obama should decide which alternative he favors and get back to us.

Perhaps people should consider Clem Atlee's post-WWII government in Britain. There you had a population who were tired of Churchill and felt they had earned their due after defeating the Nazis. I know it's a different political system, and that is the scary thought: perhaps the US is fundamentally incapable, because of its constitutional structures, of dealing with the fiscal trainwreck that only a blind man cannot see in the not-so-distant future.

by Taylor26 on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 08:27:56 AM EST

This Is Quite True (none / 0)

Our Constitution was a great advance for the time. The only problem was, we made it too damn hard to change. France started off much worse than us--the Terror, Napoleon, etc.--but they've rewritten their constitution almost half a dozen times since then.

Us? We're still waiting for 2.0. No, scratch that. We're not even talking about 2.0.

Imagine you were running Windows 1.0. Imagine you were living inside Windows 1.0.

You are.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 09:08:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Is Quite True (none / 0)

Perhaps Windows v3.0 would have been a sharper analogue, since that was the first version ever publicly released post-Beta, which, I suppose would make the Magna Carta and the Westminster Parliament versions 1.0 and 2.0 respectively.

But haven't we applied twenty-seven Service Packs to this version in the course of our political evolution?

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 06:59:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But he only mentions Obama. (none / 0)

is the point. Why did Krugman only address Obama.

"His only other mention of Obama is..."

Was it intentional, the other candidates were not of interest to him?

by BrionLutz on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 10:04:25 AM EST

Re: But he only mentions Obama. (3.00 / 1)

Because Obama's way of talking was an entry for Krugman to make the point he wanted to make (and demonstrate its relevance) in the limited space he has to write in his semi-weekly column. I really wouldn't read more into it than that.

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 10:23:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But he only mentions Obama. (none / 0)

"I really wouldn't read more into it than that."

Well you have to think he gave some thought to writing the article.

by BrionLutz on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But he only mentions Obama. (3.00 / 1)

The other Democratic candidates don't make bipartisanship a central platform of their campaign.

by adamterando on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 11:06:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But he only mentions Obama. (none / 0)

See if you can access the piece in full. It's not a survey of the Democratic candidates. (Take another look at the diary, which shows how Obama is mentioned in the context of what Krugman is saying.)

by justinh on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 11:19:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I Gave The Link Above (none / 0)

It's right here.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:12:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But he only mentions Obama. (2.50 / 2)

brion isn't interested in context, just victimhood

by bruh21 on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But he only mentions Obama. (none / 0)

"brion isn't interested in context, just victimhood"

FYI you got it backwards. Since Krugman only addresses Obama, it's as though he has dismissed the other candidates as irrelevant.

by BrionLutz on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They ARE Irrelevant (none / 0)

because they don't suffer from the delusion Krugman is talking about.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:57:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They ARE Irrelevant (none / 0)

Interesting that you think people like Krugman are writing off Clinton and Edwards as irrelevant.

by BrionLutz on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 02:39:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They ARE Irrelevant (none / 0)

Dude, focus. Reread the thread--you keep getting off topic.

by justinh on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 03:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's A Monomaniac. Obama's His ONLY Focus (2.50 / 2)

The only question is: who's he working for?

Is he the most counterproductive employee of the Obama campaign?

Or the most carefully placed employee of the Clinton campaign?

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 04:43:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But he only mentions Obama. (3.00 / 1)

he was using obama to illustrate a point about a strategic approach that is unique to obama in this cycle. if you don't like that, take it up with obama since it's his style- not even HRC seems to be focused on bipartisanship, whatever that means on issues like Mimimum wage where 80 percent of the public are with the Democratic partisans against the GOP partisans. The point is that he's calling into question a particular strategy, but all of this has been explained to you above. You simply ignore that because it fits into your victimhood complex whenever challenged. It's like I said in the Edwards diary (who I think is the better choice right now but may change my mind with Clark) the reaility is that none of these candidates should be above critique. I got annoyed with my fellow supporters there for the same reason I got a problem with you. The ideal that rather than speaking to the question being asked you whine about how you are being singled out. You are being singled out because this is your strategy. It's what obama has been running on since last year. If this were more closely trinagulation as in the HRC style of it, then you would have a point, but clearly "why can't all just get a long" is particular to Obama. HRC's triangulation is more a long the lines of figuring out where the wind is blowing and pretending she was already there in the first place, a la her new position on Iraq.

by bruh21 on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 02:04:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well Said, But... (none / 0)

paragrpah breaks are your friend.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 02:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Said, But... (none / 0)

not when you are trying to do this fast and then work on a real article due tomoorrow.

by bruh21 on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 02:47:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But he only mentions Obama. (none / 0)

"You simply ignore that because it fits into your victimhood complex whenever challenged."

So you think Edwards is being "victimized" because Krugman does not mention him in his opinion piece?

by BrionLutz on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 02:41:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But he only mentions Obama. (none / 0)

This site suffers with a bug which can delete paragraph breaks without the anticipation of a poster. If you make one post in 'HTML Formatted' mode, that gets set and remembered by the system. If you subsequently do a post with hard returns, those hard returns vanish because the pre-set 'HTML Formatted' mode ignores them -- It only recognises the '{br /}' code.

by blues on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 04:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But he only mentions Obama. (3.00 / 3)

Since Krugman only addresses Obama, it's as though he has dismissed the other candidates as irrelevant.

In a way you're right. Given Sen Obama's enviable position as a media darling (FauxNews yellow journalism excluded), it is extremely relevant that Sen Obama continues to lend legitimacy to the incredibly wrong headed and vacuous Can-we-all-just-get-along-bipartisanship -meme that only distracts and dilutes the necessary resolve to oppose the very forces that FDR cited in the speech that Krugman quoted.

Here's the full excerpt from FDR's speech:

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace: business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master. [ link + audio ]

Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus

by bedobe on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 02:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But he only mentions Obama. (none / 0)

PS. I love that last line. Also, the tone kinda reminds me of Sen Webb's State of the Union Response: strong and direct.

Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus

by bedobe on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 02:14:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But he only mentions Obama. (none / 0)

Thank you!

That was the speech I was trying to think of before.

The last two sentences really capture the essence of what the Democratic Party can be and the electoral successes that await it if he seeks to follow that path.

Can you imagine HRC, or sadly even Barack Obama giving such a speech today?

I don't even know if Edwards has the guts to make that kind of speech but I think he'd be the closest of the three at this point.

by adamterando on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 10:05:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A way to do it? (3.00 / 1)

"In 1936, FDR said...

...and unfortunately, my friends, many of the same factors are at work today...."

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 12:47:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Partisanship vs Bipartisanship (none / 0)

"It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."

Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997)

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:58:12 PM EST

Re: Partisanship vs Bipartisanship (none / 0)

But it does matter if the cat has a psychopathic tendency towards cannibalism and seeks to attack all the other cats at the expense of the greater good of the entire cat population.

by adamterando on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisanship vs Bipartisanship (none / 0)

Is this another 'cat herding' aphorism or a koan?

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:40:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisanship vs Bipartisanship (3.00 / 1)

it matters if it catches mice, but in an effort to be bipartisan, then lets the mice go.

by bruh21 on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 02:06:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Krugman has advice for Barack Obama (none / 0)

"The only question is: who's he working for?"

Wow...you think Krugman is working for Obama? I doubt Krugman would be buying or Obama selling.

by BrionLutz on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 05:40:14 PM EST

Re: Paul Krugman has advice for Barack Obama (none / 0)

He was clearly referring to you, not Krugman.

Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus

by bedobe on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 08:11:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

National interest requires bipartisanship. (none / 0)

"He was clearly referring to you, not Krugman."

Ah...and here the discussion was about Krugman and his focus on Obama in an editorial piece where he was talking about the need for bipartisanship to get things done.

For example, on one of the most pressing needs for US, our No. 1 national security threat, oil. There's certainly room and a need for bi-partisanship.

A lot of hard core conservatives are very much for US becoming independent of imported oil.

That is an example of bi-partisanship that is necessary to save the nation from losing another $1T war in Iraq, suffering more 911 terrorist attacks, losing 100,000's auto industry mfg. jobs...it goes on and on.

So it looks like Obama's call for bipartisanship on matters of vital national interest are totally correct.

by BrionLutz on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 10:24:09 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.