Obama v. Krugman Round A Million

I think this is getting a bit silly. In his column, Paul Krugman seems to suggest that the main reason the Clinton administration failed to bring about major progressive change in the 1990s is that they didn't talk enough smack about Ronald Reagan. And now on the blog we learn that Clinton is clearly the more progressive alternative to Obama because here's one quote of Clinton saying something lefty sounding and here's one quote which Krugman insists on willfully misconstruing.

Whatever happened to the Krugman who used to urge journalists to worry less about what rhetorical style politicians adopt and more looking at their policies? Didn't this all start because Krugman thought Obama's health care plan, while constituting an improvement over the status quo, isn't as good as Hillary Clinton's? That's what I remember. And I think it was a fair point. But now we're supposed to believe that Obama's the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Or something. Meanwhile, I wish Krugman would at least acknowledge that there are foreign policy issues facing the country and some of us think they're important. I don't think "that Candidate B [i.e, Hillary Clinton], despite the progressive talk, is just Bush the third" but at times she's shown a disturbing amount of common ground with Bush's foreign policy views. At other times, she's seemed quite good, but her record on Iraq is bad.

Back to the beginning, I think it's extremely clear that the meager results of the Clinton administration relate, in the first instance, to the large number of conservatives in congress when Clinton was president, and in the second instance to the moderate views of Clinton administration figures. An inability to upend narratives about Reagan was neither here nor there. In terms of congress, again, one thing a lot of people like about Obama is that Democratic politicians running in marginal areas overwhelmingly seem to believe that they would do better with Obama at the head of the ticket.

That said, I'll freely grant that I'm getting a bit tired of defending Obama and his campaign. Stuff like this from Krugman clearly hurts them, but the easiest way to deflect claims that Obama is the more conservative choice would be for Obama to say so himself in a clear and direct way. Given that Clinton is very much running as her husband's wife, it should hardly be impossible to make the case that establishing continuity with the moderate Clinton administration is the moderate choice.

Comments

"Didn't this all start because Krugman thought Obama's health care plan, while constituting an improvement over the status quo, isn't as good as Hillary Clinton's? That's what I remember."

Obama has been clearly and self-consciously running to the right of the field since February 2007. That's what I remember.

Why do you find it odd that someone who would write a book titled "Conscience of a Liberal" would have a problem with Obama's positioning?

-----

"the easiest way to deflect claims that Obama is the more conservative choice would be for Obama to say so himself in a clear and direct way."

But, of course, Obama will do no such thing. Have you been ignoring the campaign for the past 11 months?

If your entire strategy is to run as the less progressive choice, you can't very well upend your entire strategy to respond to Paul Krugman.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 10:54 AM

My theory: Krugman has decided that American politics is actually all about race (he's been saying this all over the place for the past year). He's scared that America will never elect Obama because Obama is black. Thus, he's exaggerating his concerns about Obama in order to serve what he thinks is the greater good, i.e. a Democrat getting elected.

Posted by Mr. Noah | January 21, 2008 11:09 AM

Tangentially, I just googled the following phrases:

"I'm the liberal candidate." 4 results
"I'm the progressive candidate." 2 results
"I'm the conservative candidate." 1,640 results

. . . obviously this is unscientific, but it seems hardly anyone takes pride in being the candidate running to the left. It's a problem, but not just Obama's.

Posted by southpaw | January 21, 2008 11:09 AM

An inability to upend narratives about Reagan was neither here nor there.

Except that this inability led directly to the Bush 2 tax cuts not being booed off the stage. Bush's tax cuts only made sense in a world in which narratives about Reagan have been maintained.

The argument about whether or not Clinton created lasting change doesn't end on 1-20-00. And Krugman is exactly right that, until Dems consign Reagan to the dustbin of history, Americans will have a warm, fuzzy feeling in their hearts for terrible economic policies and cruel social policies. If Obama feels the need to talk nice about a Republican president, perhaps he should choose Gerald Ford.

Posted by JRoth | January 21, 2008 11:10 AM

"it seems hardly anyone takes pride in being the candidate running to the left."

Hence why I think nominating Edwards is a good idea.

Electing a candidate unafraid to stand proudly with the left is the only thing that would fundamentally change the post-1980 political status quo in this country.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 11:17 AM

Yes, I think that Mr. Noah is correct, though I'd argue that the issue is more Obama's overall political weaknesses rather than just his race.

Frankly, I'd bet that 80% of the on-line pundits who criticize Obama allegedly on policy grounds are mostly doing so for exactly these same reasons.

Since it's totally verboten in the Left-Blogosphere to say that Obama's probably not electable in November, people come up with the most convoluted policy reasoning to produce this same conclusion...

Posted by RKU | January 21, 2008 11:17 AM

Obama has been clearly and self-consciously running to the right of the field since February 2007. That's what I remember.

You remember wrong. Obama has very clearly been trying to position himself as in the "middle," between Edwards and Clinton. As Ezra Klein has said numerous times, at the time Obama's plan came out, there was a deliberate attempt to position Obama's plan as slightly to the right of Edwards and somewhat to the left of where everyone assumed Clinton's would be (based on her record, her advisers and her rhetoric). And as Klein has also noted, the difference between Obama's plan and the Edwards/Clinton plans is negligible: Obama's camp has admitted they'll probably include mandates down the road.

And Matt's post is dead on as far as Krugman's drift is concerned. This thing with Obama really has gotten out of hand; the man has gone off the rails, and has let a personal grudge hijack his analysis.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 11:19 AM

"The argument about whether or not Clinton created lasting change doesn't end on 1-20-00. And Krugman is exactly right that, until Dems consign Reagan to the dustbin of history, Americans will have a warm, fuzzy feeling in their hearts for terrible economic policies and cruel social policies. If Obama feels the need to talk nice about a Republican president, perhaps he should choose Gerald Ford.

Posted by JRoth | January 21, 2008 11:10 AM"

I'm not sure that will really work. In fact, by the end of Reagan's presidency he was unpopular due to scandals, but his Alzheimer's made him popular again in the 1990's. However, that doesn't change how he shifted the center of American politics to the right. You don't win elections by telling Americans they were stupid to elect a guy and then re-elect him in a landslide. Voters don't exactly seem to go for the guy who confuses a history seminar with a campaign. Obama's larger point was about how leadership can help shift public opinion in massive ways. Reagen did it one way and Obama hopes to do it the other.

Also, I would consider race-baiting *cough*Clintons*cough* to be as far to the right as you can in American politics without running as a fascist.

Posted by Reality Man | January 21, 2008 11:20 AM

Yes, I think that Mr. Noah is correct, though I'd argue that the issue is more Obama's overall political weaknesses rather than just his race.

Frankly, I'd bet that 80% of the on-line pundits who criticize Obama allegedly on policy grounds are mostly doing so for exactly these same reasons.

And Clinton is more electable than Obama? If you people think sexism is less pervasive than racism, you're nuts.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 11:22 AM

"the meager results of the Clinton administration ..."
The Clinton administration did a great deal, especially in terms of competent, intelligent handling of the basics of government - responsible budgets, effective disaster relief agencies, etc.

I think there were two reasons they didn't accomplish more in terms of real progressive change. One was the health care reform mess - they totally screwed the pooch on that one. Brad DeLong has an excellent review of the whole thing: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TotW/system.html
The second was the scorched earth, basically criminal nature of the Republican opposition - the administration never knew how to handle that.

The next Democratic administration will have the same two problems. It will need to successfully manage reforms which are very complex from both a policy and a political point of view; and it will face utterly vile opposition. Minor policy differences between the candidates don't matter - the best candidate is the one who can do a good job with these challenges.

Posted by peter | January 21, 2008 11:23 AM

Come on Matt, it doesn't bother you that a potential nominee for the Democratic party has embraced a strategy of flipping off core Democratic values to pander dumb independents and disgruntled Republicans? Oh I know, "you gotta do what you gotta do. right?" Well no, not in a primary. There is a fine line between pragmatic triangulation, and unethical, crass opportunism. Obama crossed that line.

There is something wrong with having an anti-gay bigot run your rallies in SC; there is something wrong with attacking your opponents' health care plan from the right, when your plan sucks; there is something wrong with cueing up right-wing talking points on social security to "distinguish" yourself from your opponents, just so you can call yourself "post-partisan" or whatever; there is something wrong with reaching out to the memory of Ronald Reagan to make the point that you're a messiah who's above politics - sure, ignore the Southern Strategy and the anti-excesses rhetoric Reagan used to get elected; there is something wrong with obsessively keeping away from black issues, hoping that if whites give you the nod, your black brethren will fall in line (b/c, well that's what they do right?), instead of inspiring blacks to vote for you from the beginning.

I'm tired, as a loyal Democrat, I'm tired. This is a damn primary and we have choices, we don't need to put up with this crap. I was an Obama supporter, no longer.

Posted by Israel | January 21, 2008 11:23 AM

JRoth: With all due respect, I am getting a little bored of the talking point that Obama was in has ever proposed to imitate any of Ronald Reagan's actual policies. For the record, here is what he actually said:

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Note, Obama does not say that Reagan put America on a "better path" - he says a "different path". And that in itself is hard to deny. For better or for worse, Ronald Reagan fundamentally altered the nature of US politics in ways that have echoed for generations. That is a bad thing, because his ideas were in fact damaging to the people he claimed to represent (the working poor), but it is undeniable that Reagan was politically effective in a way that Bill Clinton was not.

I have been an Obama supporter since relatively early on because I can see the potential for him to achieve that same type of political shift towards PROGRESSIVE policies - changing the electorate from the 51-49 split we have lived with for a long time into a workable governing majority for Democrats. This is a good thing, because it is the only way we can as liberals get our ideas implemented in such a way that they will servive the next shift in the political winds. That's precisely what Obama's been talking about from the beginning - Hillary is shooting for a cage match 50-50 contest that she plans to win tactically, Obama is aiming for a broad realignment of the political map that we can bank on for years to come.

And that, incidentally, makes him the more progressive candidate by far, if the "progress" part of the word is supposed to mean anything.

Posted by KarinJR | January 21, 2008 11:23 AM

All this talk about Obama and the Reagan legacy is rather funny now, since it is Bill Clinton who ran in the nineties as the very model of the modern New Democrat who had absorbed the Reagan lesson that "the era of big government" is over. The DLC was created as a virtual Clinton vehicle, and Hillary Clinton is still one of the DLC's leaders. Krugman weirdly writes as though the failure of the Clinton administration to produce progressive change was some sort of tactical blunder by people who really, really, really wanted to undo the Reagan legacy in their hearts, but miscalculated the politics and failed to challenge Reagan more stridently in their rhetoric. But the "Third Way" was never about reversing the Reagan legacy. It was about absorbing much of that legacy, its neoliberal love of markets, and it's critique of New Deal welfare liberalism - while advancing a more liberal agenda in some of the "social" areas.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 21, 2008 11:25 AM

My hypothesis: Krugman (like me) really, really, really, really hates Reagan and the whole Reagan counter-revolution mythos.

He is also, like me, really, really, really worried by anything which fails to sound like someone is going to strongly move away from the right wing dogma which has dominated U.S. politics for the last 30 years.

Krugman may be reading too much into Obama's statements, or may be just using the debate as an excuse to crank out a column (and controversies attract columnists like colorful similes), but I think if those two points above are your particular sensitivities, it will really, really, really grate on you whenever a leading Democrat even partially sounds vulnerable to that crap.

Posted by El Cid | January 21, 2008 11:27 AM

JRoth: With all due respect, I am getting a little bored of the talking point that Obama has ever proposed to imitate any of Ronald Reagan's actual policies. For the record, here is what he actually said:

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Note, Obama does not say that Reagan put America on a "better path" - he says a "different path". And that in itself is hard to deny. For better or for worse, Ronald Reagan fundamentally altered the nature of US politics in ways that have echoed for generations (and Obama's assessment of how he achieved this - by tapping into a frustration with cultural change - is also an accurate description). That is a bad thing, because Reagan's ideas were in fact damaging to the people he claimed to represent (the working poor). But it is undeniable that Reagan was politically effective in a way that Bill Clinton was not - he shifted the landscape of the politically possible for at least a generation.

I have been an Obama supporter since relatively early on because I can see the potential for him to achieve that same type of political shift towards PROGRESSIVE policies - changing the electorate from the 51-49 split we have lived with for a long time into a workable governing majority for Democrats. This is a good thing, because it is the only way we as liberals can get our ideas implemented in such a way that they will survive the next shift in the political winds. That's precisely what Obama's been talking about from the beginning - Hillary is shooting for a cage match 50-50 contest that she plans to win tactically, Obama is aiming for a broad realignment of the political map that we can bank on for years to come.

And that, incidentally, makes him the more progressive candidate by far, if the "progress" part of the word is supposed to mean anything.

Posted by KarinJR | January 21, 2008 11:28 AM

The Clinton administration did a great deal, especially in terms of competent, intelligent handling of the basics of government - responsible budgets, effective disaster relief agencies, etc.

Unless you were poor or black. "Welfare reform," anyone? How about a crime bill that dramatically increased the number of nonviolent drug offenders in prison? On top of that throw massive corporate deregulation, "free trade," DOMA, "don't ask don't tell," and a habit of bombing third-world countries whenever a sex scandal resurfaced, and Bill Clinton was a great president as long as you were straight, white, and well-off.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 11:30 AM

I actually think this started with Social Security, not healthcare.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/why-barack-why/

I think Krugman is right, in a sense, about a lot of these things, but his tone, his relentless Obama-bashing, and his willful blindness to similar flaws in other candidates makes me think there's something else going on here.

Posted by minderbender | January 21, 2008 11:32 AM

Come on Matt, it doesn't bother you that a potential nominee for the Democratic party has embraced a strategy of flipping off core Democratic values to pander dumb independents and disgruntled Republicans?

Who do you mean, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996? Or do you mean Hillary Clinton now?

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 11:33 AM

"You remember wrong. Obama has very clearly been trying to position himself as in the "middle," between Edwards and Clinton."

That's just not the campaign I've been watching.

Obama has consistently been attempting to position himself to the right of the field in rhetoric, in policy, and in which political groups he's willing to stand with.

I think we all understand the calculations that have led him there, and many of us have some sympathy for his situation. But that doesn't change the fact that someone like Krugman is naturally going to be an antagonist of the '08 Obama campaign.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 11:35 AM

There is no "post-partisan" America. That's a fluffy myth Obama is peddling because he has to. He's a smart politician. He has to be "non-threatening" to whitey--which is why he's running a "conservative-lite" campaign.

I have to admit: I'm getting a charge out of all these self-styled "progressives" falling head over heels for the man.

These are probably the same people who seriously pondered the question of whether there was a difference between Bush and Al Gore.

Posted by John Petty | January 21, 2008 11:37 AM

Krugman is jockeying for position on the Clinton gravy train. We all know that when a new administration sweeps into town, everyone in sight starts throwing their credentials (i.e., resume) around. I'm sure that is part of the reason some establishment "liberals" are praying for a Hillary victory. I can really think of no other reason anyone would argue that Hillary is a "progressive." The actual progressives I know abandoned the Clintons by 1996. Actually, most of them abandoned the Democratic party altogether.

Whether or not Obama is a "progressive" is another question -- and it is perfectly fine to reject him on that basis, if you like -- but to distort his comments about Reagan like Krugman does (not to mention Billary) is too dishonest for me to believe that Krugman doesn't have an obvious ulterior motive. He isn't that dumb.

Posted by jim | January 21, 2008 11:40 AM

The easiest way for Obama to deflect claims that he is conservative would be for him to stop saying conservative things and having his supporters with the tutti-frutti decoder rings tell me that I am too stupid to understand that he is not saying conservative things. Senators Brown, Webb, McCaskill and Tester all ran on progressive platforms in reddish states and won. Obama could do the same. The fact that he chooses not to and Krugman (and many others) continue to criticize him does not mean that their criticism is wrong. It also does not mean that Obama should change his message. But if he doesn't change his message, he should stop whining about being criticized for making it and start defending his message on the merits.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 21, 2008 11:42 AM

I actually think this started with Social Security, not healthcare.

That's where Krugman first went off the rails. This is what Obama has been saying about Social Security:

We don't have an immediate problem, we have a long-term problem. We've got 78 million baby boomers who are set to retire and so we've got more retirees, fewer [inaudible]. If we don't do anything, then by about 2040, the benefits will have declined to where you're getting about 75 cents out of every dollar you were promised on Social Security. That is a problem. It has to be solved...

Now there's one more way of solving the problem. And that is raising the cap on the payroll tax. Now what that means is, currently, you only pay Social Security on the first $97,000 of income. Now it turns out that here in Nevada, 97% of the people in Nevada make $97,000 a year or less. So essentially, everybody except 3% -- if this was a random sample of Nevada, there are only about 3% of you who make more than that, everybody else, you gotta pay payroll tax on 100% of your income.

Now, what I've said is that what we should do is we should adjust the cap, so that billionaires like Warren Buffett are paying more, because right now they're paying a fraction of 1% of their income to payroll tax. And my answer is, that's not fair. Why would we have the wealthiest Americans pay such a smaller percentage of the payroll tax when everyone else is
paying basically 100%?

So I propose raising the cap. We might exempt middle class folks for maybe $97,000 for up to $200,000; there might be some exemptions, but those people are making over $200, $250,000, they can afford to pay a little more on payroll tax. So this is what I propose, this is what Senator Clinton is calling a trillion-dollar tax cut on hard-working Americans.

For those who've forgotten, this is exactly what Paul Krugman was saying a couple years ago: that Social Security wasn't in crisis, that it was a long-term problem, that it faced a potential shortfall many years down the road that would be ideally dealt with by raising the cap on payroll taxes. I know Paul Krugman said this because it was Paul Krugman and his columns on Social Security that convinced me that not only was SS not in crisis, but that raising the cap on the payroll tax was a good idea. And I simply don't know why the man has gotten so batty about this that he started attacking a candidate for advocating the same policy he endorses.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 11:42 AM

My point exactly, Christmas, this needs to end. We need to stop running against our base, but for that to happen, people in the base need to step up, loudly.

We have a real shot at changing that pattern this election, that's exactly Krugman's point. And its a valid one.

If Obama were truly the Change candidate, he would start there.

Posted by Israel | January 21, 2008 11:48 AM

And I get a little tired of you defending Obama time after time by claiming that he did not say what he obviously did say. Maybe, like Buchanon's '92 convention speech, it sounded better in the original Obamaese. But since I don't speak that lanaguage, unlike you and the other Obama-bots, IMO Krugman, as usual, is spot on. Here was Obama actively insulting the Democratic/liberal agenda of the '60s and '70s (I guess "excesses" is not a pejorative word in Obamaese), while panderingly buying into the Republican falsification of history. I was undecided on my vote in the 2/5 primary (since my actual favorite, Edwards, appears DOA), but Obama's incredible Reagan statement has moved me irrevocably to Clinton. Those of us liberals who, unlike Matt, actually voted and lived through the Reagan years, can't help but be disconcerted, at minimum, by this statement.

Posted by Marlowe | January 21, 2008 11:49 AM

"(SS is) where Krugman first went off the rails."

Krugman, and many other Dems, first got annoyed with Obama about SS not because of Obama's willingness to follow Edwards in discussing the cap in terms of social justice, but instead because of Obama's willingness to buy into Tim Russert's GOP leaning analysis of a "system in crisis".

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 11:49 AM

I think Krugman is right, in a sense, about a lot of these things, but his tone, his relentless Obama-bashing, and his willful blindness to similar flaws in other candidates makes me think there's something else going on here.

Same here. That blog post is a perfect example. Krugman picks out the worst possible quote from Obama and the best possible one from Clinton. It's a dishonest way of making an argument. And he's been doing it repeatedly. It's impossible to take him seriously on this.

Posted by Mike | January 21, 2008 11:50 AM

I don't think Krugman is angling for a spot in a Clinton administration.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/unfit-to-serve/

I think he's angling for an influential place in the progressive movement. He's throwing his weight around. Warning to the next promising young Democratic candidate: don't piss Paul Krugman off. That kind of thing.

Posted by minderbender | January 21, 2008 11:53 AM

That's just not the campaign I've been watching.

Petey, I think it's fair to say you were watching an entirely different campaign - the campaign in the parallel universe where John Edwards was going to win the nomination and sweep to victory. Obama's been consistently to the left of Clinton on foreign policy, on energy and the environment, on science funding, on social security - taking Paul Krugman's and John Edwards's stance on raising the payroll tax cap, despite whatever bullshit Krugman himself is saying about it - and his health care plan, as Ezra Klein has recently said, will end up looking more or less the same as Clinton's and Edwards's. Like a lot of superficial observers, you're conflating Obama's unity rhetoric with a rightward policy shift that just isn't there.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 11:54 AM

"I was undecided on my vote in the 2/5 primary (since my actual favorite, Edwards, appears DOA)"

Vote Edwards anyway.

Even if you think he's DOA this year, (which despite being realistic about the outlook, I still refuse to fully accept), letting yourself be counted for the lefty candidate will let future Dem candidates know that there is an electorate out there for them if they run as a proud progressive.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 11:55 AM

"it's extremely clear that the meager results of the Clinton administration relate, in the first instance, to the large number of conservatives in congress when Clinton was president, and in the second instance to the moderate views of Clinton administration figures." - Matt

The liberal legislation that Clinton couldn't pass after he lost both houses of Congress is one thing. The illiberal Republican stuff he in most cases sponsored and in all cases signed is another thing entirely: NAFTA, Welfare Reform, The Omnibus Crime Bill, Federal Defense of Marriage Act, Communications Decency Act, DMCA.

About Obama, in my opinion he is angling for 60 votes in the Senate and could probably get them. For almost identical legislation, Clinton would be lucky to get 57 votes.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 21, 2008 11:55 AM

"Petey, I think it's fair to say you were watching an entirely different campaign - the campaign in the parallel universe where John Edwards was going to win the nomination and sweep to victory."

I was repeatedly on record throughout 2007 as saying that parlaying an Iowa win into the nomination would be considerably easier for Edwards than folks were assuming.

But I was also repeatedly on record throughout 2007 as saying that winning Iowa would be considerably harder for Edwards than folks were assuming.

I think I was watching the correct campaign.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 11:58 AM

Christmas is either on the Obama payroll or forgot the morning pills. Seriously dude, tone it down, especially with the spurious arguments.

Posted by Israel | January 21, 2008 11:59 AM

"Like a lot of superficial observers, you're conflating Obama's unity rhetoric with a rightward policy shift that just isn't there."

There has been a consistent rightward slant to pretty much every facet of Obama's campaign, Christmas, policy included. The slant may be quite mild in absolute terms, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

If Clinton came out tomorrow for killing all the Republicans in the country, I think we could reliably count on Obama countering with a proposal for killing 90% of the Republicans and 10% of the Democrats.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 12:04 PM

But Petey,
Edwards also bought into that same "crisis" rhetoric. He's been using that for many years now. And that's the problem. Krugman only attacked Obama for it. He ignored when Edwards said it.

Posted by Mike | January 21, 2008 12:05 PM

for a lot of people, krugman's unhappiness with obama makes obama look better, not worse.

Posted by dj superflat | January 21, 2008 12:06 PM

Obama's incredible Reagan statement has moved me irrevocably to Clinton

The era of big government is finally over!

Fascinating how you lived through the Reagan years but not the Clinton years, and are somehow still around today.

Posted by Barbar | January 21, 2008 12:06 PM

Petey, stop posting under sockpuppets. It's unbecoming. Also, as you should know, I supported Edwards throughout last year and through Iowa. After Iowa, though, he's toast, and my priority, as a progressive with a working brain and a memory of the 1990s, is preventing a Clinton nomination. Your suggestion that Obama has been self-consciously running "to the right of the field" - including Clinton - since the beginning of the race is utterly divorced from reality. Obama uses his rhetoric to reach out beyond the party base; so does Edwards. This doesn't place Edwards to the right of Clinton, either.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 12:09 PM

I don't trust Obama on Social Security because he suggested raising the cap on payroll taxes. Now Clinton, who attacked this proposal as a massive tax increase on the middle class, that's a liberal I can trust.

Posted by Barbar | January 21, 2008 12:09 PM

Regardless of the outcome of this primary, in 5-10 years Democrats will look back and see "Obama is a crytpo-conservative" as the "Gore is a pathological exaggerator" of the 2008 race.

I could see voting for Clinton because of the experience issue or because nominating a black man is a "roll of the dice" or because you don't think he's tough enough to survive a general election against the Republicans. I disagree, but I could see the argument. But voting for Clinton because you think Obama is more conservative than her is just not knowing what the hell you're doing.

Posted by Led | January 21, 2008 12:09 PM

Edwards supporters and Clinton supporters here are willfully misconstruing things.

Matt is right about Krugman. It's weird and it looks personal. Obama's legislative record is as liberal as Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Actually, Hillary voted for the bankruptcy law. What's liberal about that? She's running on her husband's moderate Republican record?

And Hillary's supporters keep using a Republican Congress as an alibi for why Bill didn't get anything done? Come on.

What I see is record turnout, more new voters and young people getting into politics and supporting the Democrats. This is because of the Obama campaign, which is why I think Bill Clinton repeatedly throws tantrums

Meanwhile Hillary's campaign is led by
Terry McAuliffe fund-raiser extraordinaire. People back the Clintons mostly it seems b/c the Republicans hate them so much. This isn't a good reason.

Edwards is better than Hillary, but he lost in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada. We'll see how he does in S. Carolina and on Super Tuesday. To me it looks like a choice between the Clinton machine and Obama and either will beat whoever the Republicans field.

I don't like Dave Eggers but in a NYTimes op-ed he had some anecdotal evidence that Obama is inspiring the young to get into politics. And he had a nice quote:

"And wasn’t it the other Clinton who liked to quote from “The Cure at Troy,” Seamus Heaney’s version of Sophocles’ “Philoctetes,” which seems ludicrously apt right about now?

History says, Don’t hope
On this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up
And hope and history rhyme.

Happy MLK day!

Posted by Peter K. | January 21, 2008 12:11 PM

If I say Bill Belichick is a great football coach, does that necessarily mean that: a) I like Bill Belichick, b) I like the Patriots, c) that all other coaches suck? No, of course not. It could just mean that Bill Belichick is, objectively, a good football coach. Similarly, Reagan was a "transformational" president in that he transformed the political climate country. Does that mean it was a good transformation or that Obama likes the transformation? I think not. If he did, one would assume he'd be a Republican or have a conservative voting record. But he's a Democrat and has a liberal voting record. So maybe Krugman should pay attention to objective realities rather than attempt to sniff out the subjective intent behind a sentence. Or better yet, a columnist at a major American paper like the New York Times could call Barack Obama's campaign and ask him what he meant, if he was really concerned about it.

On another note, I've noticed a lot of people assuming that Obama meant "civil rights and feminism" when he referred to the "excesses" of the 60's and 70's. Wouldn't a more obvious meaning of "excesses" be oh, I don't know, rampant drug abuse, escalating crime rates, etc.?

Posted by LeChuck | January 21, 2008 12:11 PM

There has been a consistent rightward slant to pretty much every facet of Obama's campaign, Christmas, policy included.

Well, if you say so without any evidence, I guess it must be true!

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 12:12 PM

"Petey, I think it's fair to say you were watching an entirely different campaign - the campaign in the parallel universe where John Edwards was going to win the nomination and sweep to victory."

I'll also note that I've been consistently on record throughout 2007 as saying that I didn't think Obama could win the nomination unless Clinton and Edwards collided in a very peculiar manner, precisely because Obama was positioning himself to the right of the field.

And I've repeatedly made the point that by positioning himself to the right, Obama was setting himself up to have a 45% ceiling in a two candidate race even if everything went swimmingly, which is precisely where we are now.

I've also repeatedly made the point that Team Obama's primary goal seemed to be preserving the Obama brand for post-'08 political life, not winning the '08 nomination race. And again, that's precisely where we find ourselves now.

Team Obama made decisions about the DNA of the campaign in the first quarter of 2007, (if not earlier), which left him vulnerable on the left. Krugman is correctly playing his role as a tribune of the left in pointing out those vulnerabilities.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 12:14 PM

"Petey, stop posting under sockpuppets."

Never have. Never will.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 12:16 PM

Obama voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill; Clinton did not. But I thought Obama was against the entrenched interests in Washington!

Posted by Israel | January 21, 2008 12:16 PM

Although Matt referenced it, I think it worthwhile to emphasize the key paragraphs at the end of the column which suggest Krugman's eager attention to anything which even faintly smells of a praise for the Reaganite / New Right corrosion of U.S. politics, which has dominated the agenda for 30 years.

...It’s not just a matter of what happens in the next election. Mr. Clinton won his elections, but — as Mr. Obama correctly pointed out — he didn’t change America’s trajectory the way Reagan did. Why?

Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.

Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.

So, for example, declaring the "era of Big Government" over, or "ending welfare as we know it," or pushing the Republican-designed NAFTA "free trade" agreement over the objections of the majority of Democrats -- this helped continue the Reaganite governing philosophies on which Bush Jr. et al played.

Governing philosophies which, I had previously thought, had been finally undermined in the public eye by the Bush Jr Republicans' full bore, unrestrained, and free-form Reaganite radicalism with the domination of every branch of government 2004 - 2006. For a while the vast majority of the public seemed pretty clear that that was a bunch of crappy horrific nonsense, not least of which was the Bush Jr / Reagan II disciples' approach to Katrina.

And although I think I know what Obama was saying, it is also true that I had to support John Edwards as the only one openly pushing rhetoric and policies to get us back to pre-Reaganite / Nu Right sanity, and not just the saner, competent executive Clintonite version of Reaganism.

Posted by El Cid | January 21, 2008 12:18 PM

The Reagan quote was about popular perceptions that allowed Reagan to be popular in each and every universe except the ZOMG! Philadelphia, MS! one. It is not an endorsement of the Reaganite program. His Shrillness is smart and committed (both of which are useful things), and I think it is fine for him to support his own candidates, but it's time for his acolytes in the blogosphere to (1) realize there is no reason to follow everything he writes and (2) stop wasting their time with blogs and rebuild better media instead.

Posted by Moral Panicker | January 21, 2008 12:19 PM

I'll also note that I've been consistently on record throughout 2007 as saying that I didn't think Obama could win the nomination unless Clinton and Edwards collided in a very peculiar manner, precisely because Obama was positioning himself to the right of the field.

Bullshit. You used to repeatedly take the position that you'd be "happy" to support Obama if Edwards flamed out - which he has - because he was running a more liberal campaign than Clinton was.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 12:20 PM

"Edwards also bought into that same "crisis" rhetoric. He's been using that for many years now. And that's the problem. Krugman only attacked Obama for it. He ignored when Edwards said it."

The two candidates had some significant rhetorical differences in terms of the future stability of the system, with Obama staking out a position more hawkish on the system needing a fix to avoid future shortfalls.

-----

As stated, Obama's decision seems to be to get a smidgen to the right on any given issue, SS included. The problem is not the difference on any given issue. The problem is the pattern, what that pattern would mean for a potential Obama administration, and what that pattern would mean for the future of the Democratic Party and progressives.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 12:23 PM

"Petey, stop posting under sockpuppets."
Never have. Never will.

Petey, to "sockpuppet" effectively you have to change the writing style and tone slightly, otherwise we can tell it's you. Anyone one who doesn't comment regularly or submit a URL/blog can be suspect. I always give anonymous posts less cred.

Posted by Peter K. | January 21, 2008 12:24 PM

"Bullshit. You used to repeatedly take the position that you'd be "happy" to support Obama if Edwards flamed out - which he has - because he was running a more liberal campaign than Clinton was."

I intend to vote Edwards on 2/5 as long as he's on the ballot, but Obama remains my weak second choice ahead of Clinton if Edwards dropped dead tomorrow.

But that's not because I think Obama is "running a more liberal campaign than Clinton". I don't think that, and I've never thought that. I just find Clinton to have more downsides for the Party going forward than Obama.

However, just because I find Obama less odious than Clinton doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that Obama isn't noticeably worse on ideology and positioning than Clinton. I think there is value in the truth.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 12:30 PM

Memo to Paul Krugman:
You are too tainted as a "liberal" for Hillary to ever consider you for a cabinet position. So stop with the increasingly petty and inaccurate ad hominem attacks on a fellow liberal. You and Bill are both making fools of yourselves and causing serious damage to the party. If the general election were tomorrow I would vote for McCain out of spite for all you establismentarians who are so upset that someone had the gall to challenge the coronation.

Posted by John Y. | January 21, 2008 12:30 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Krugman do some work with the Clinotn administration? May be that explains his antipathy toward Obama.

Posted by MGJ | January 21, 2008 12:34 PM

"Petey, to "sockpuppet" effectively you have to change the writing style and tone slightly, otherwise we can tell it's you."

And I repeat that I've never sockpuppeted here. I conduct myself online as if IP addresses are logged, since they are. My general rule is to always imagine the end game.

If you want to think me a liar, that's your business.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 12:34 PM

"The problem is the pattern, what that pattern would mean for a potential Obama administration, and what that pattern would mean for the future of the Democratic Party and progressives."

Is that why Senators Leahy, Durbin, etc. are supporting Obama? (meanwhile you have Schumer, friend of hedge fund managers everywhere backing Hillary)

The pattern of his legistlative record is more liberal than the Clinton's. And as it seems to be a Obama-Hillary contest, you're carrying the Clinton's watere by bashing Obama.

Posted by Peter K. | January 21, 2008 12:35 PM

Krugman, and many other Dems, first got annoyed with Obama about SS not because of Obama's willingness to follow Edwards in discussing the cap in terms of social justice, but instead because of Obama's willingness to buy into Tim Russert's GOP leaning analysis of a "system in crisis".

And that's why Krugman and a lot of other Democrats are morons. They think that by ignoring your opponent's Lakoff "frames" they just go away. They don't. The Republican political machines will never let those frames die. The only sustainable way to deal with your opponent's frame is to have enough judo and bricolage to co-opt it into supporting policies you like instead of policies your opponent likes.

Progressivism is set back by Krugman's misguided advocacy today.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 21, 2008 12:37 PM

For those Obama supporters suggesting that I am somehow Petey's sockpuppet, you should know that I am a regular reader of Matt's website but rarely comment. You boys are cearly wrong about many, many things, this being one of them.

Posted by Israel | January 21, 2008 12:39 PM

Regardless of the outcome of this primary, in 5-10 years Democrats will look back and see "Obama is a crytpo-conservative" as the "Gore is a pathological exaggerator" of the 2008 race.

This is what is troubling. Do people honestly look at Obama's resume, writings, and record and think, "This person doesn't belong in the Democratic Party?".
Is the advice to future would-be candidates, "Don't worry about actually working for progressive ideals. It's more important to write a few Kos/Krugman-approved stem-winders to pull out for presidential campaigns."?

Posted by ao | January 21, 2008 12:41 PM

As stated, Obama's decision seems to be to get a smidgen to the right on any given issue

Yeah, unless war, torture, extraordinary rendition, gay rights, Israel/Palestine and poverty count as issues, on which he's put himself considerably to the left of Clinton. Jesus Christ, Petey, at least pretend to be informed on this stuff.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 12:41 PM

Petey, you've clearly sockpuppeted before on Tapped.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 12:43 PM

I like the name "Christmas."

Can I sit on your lap and ask for the present I want the mostest in the whole world -- my Unity Pony?

Oh, and I keep hearing that Obama is aiming for a massive realignment by appealing to low information voters and the "good, decent" Republicans. Maybe somebody could tell me if there's any evidence how that's going to work, why it's any different from a generic surge all Democrats benefit from, and how it's different from the usual Village consultant strategy of picking up the "centrists" in the battleground states?

Sure, it's all dressed up in fancy verbiage, but underneath, it looks like the same old, same old.

Posted by lambert strether | January 21, 2008 12:45 PM

"And as it seems to be a Obama-Hillary contest, you're carrying the Clinton's watere by bashing Obama."

I'm not carrying anyone's water. I just agree with what Krugman is writing.

And it may be an Obama-Hillary contest for you, but I'm voting for Edwards. As stated, Obama is my second choice preference over Clinton, but that preference is pretty weak at this point.

I'm simply not a fan of candidates like Obama who constantly need to distance themselves from the Democratic Party. I just find Clinton's downsides to be even worse.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 12:46 PM

Although it was a speech honoring MLK Jr's life and work, and it was given in a black church in Atlanta (and thus not a policy speech), it seemed to me like Obama's speech at Ebenezer Baptist on Sunday seemed to pretty strongly suggest that "unity" meant "unity for difficult-to-achieve progressive and just goals", not just "unity".

Posted by El Cid | January 21, 2008 12:49 PM

I am a committed progressive. I support Obama because he is too. The commentary on this topic is so incredibly disjointed. The idea that he is right of Clinton is lunacy. The guy was a community organizer for chrissakes....He has a plan to make cities more _bike friendly_. Clinton's legacies are balanced budgets, the end of welfare, don't ask, don't tell and several national parks. To say that Obama has participated in the apotheosis of Reagan is intellectually dishonest. His point is that if you can't understand why Reagan wiped the stage with the Dems in three elections, if you cannot understand his appeal, you will never be able to get progressive reforms passed. Acknowledging the political realities and accepting the ideologies that support them are two different creatures.

I grew up gritting my teeth at Reagan, and then Clinton came like a breath of fresh air until he threw it all away because he couldn't control himself. Gore lost. Then Wellstone died. Dean lost. Kerry lost. Now for the first time since maybe Carter we now have a guy who speaks about progressive issues with moral authority. And Krugman is bashing him? It's crazy.

I swear to god, if Obama loses, progressives will wake up and wonder what they lost. If there is one constituency in America that should be solidly behind Obama, it is progressives. I just don't get it.

Posted by JC | January 21, 2008 12:49 PM

And that's why Krugman and a lot of other Democrats are morons. They think that by ignoring your opponent's Lakoff "frames" they just go away. They don't. The Republican political machines will never let those frames die. The only sustainable way to deal with your opponent's frame is to have enough judo and bricolage to co-opt it into supporting policies you like instead of policies your opponent likes.

As an Obama supporter, I'll happily say that Obama f-ed up big time on this. And when Krugman called him out, the campaign f-ed up the response too.

As for the issue of electability, today's polling is meaningless. By the time the Republican noise machine is in full swing, combined with the MSM's idolatry of Granpa McCain, Obama's negatives will be considerably higher than today.

One reason I support Obama is because he's the higher-risk candidate with greater potential return.

Posted by SavageView | January 21, 2008 12:52 PM

"Petey, you've clearly sockpuppeted before on Tapped."

I have never sockpuppeted on Tapped. I have never sockpuppeted here. I have never sockpuppeted on Ezra's site.

Does it ever occur to you that there are other folks who share my general political outlook?

You're free to consider me a liar, but I think you'll find that I try pretty hard to color within the lines.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 12:53 PM

"Now for the first time since maybe Carter we now have a guy who speaks about progressive issues with moral authority. And Krugman is bashing him? It's crazy."

Are you aware that Carter faced a serious primary challenge from the left as a sitting President?

Are you aware that Carter left office with higher approval ratings among Republicans than Democrats?

We all love Jimmy now, but if you read your history books, you'll find that he was a disaster for the left at the time.

Obama has appropriated much of Carter's '76 campaign for his bid this time, which is one of the core reasons he leaves progressives cold.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 12:59 PM

Even on Social Security, Petey, Obama is to the left of Clinton. Obama advocates the same policy as Edwards and Krugman. What does Clinton want to do?

She said she would follow President Ronald Reagan's example by appointing a bipartisan commission to study the issue and avoid making her own recommendations until it reports back.

"I'm not advocating any of it as a presidential candidate or as a president," she said. "But I am strongly advocating a bipartisan process, similar to what we had in '83, and when that gets set up, as I hope it will be when I'm president, then I'm going to see what the bipartisan members are going to come up with."

Yep, there's Clinton, the more progressive choice. Obama is bad because he rhetorically cites Reagan. Clinton is good because she endorses an actual Reaganite policy.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 1:02 PM

I've been a huge fan of Krugman for many years. During the dark times of 2001/2002 he was pretty much the lone voice of sanity in the world of mainstream punditry and journalism. He has consistently been right on almost every issue almost all the time.

But I don't know what's going on with him about Obama. I don't particularly care for Obama's silly message about non-partisanship, and I don't think he's going to be the strongest candidate in the general or that he'll be tough enough to actually get his agenda passed into law. But the idea that he's a closet conservative is ridiculous. There has probably not been a more genuinely progressive candidate on the Democratic ticket since FDR.

Something weird is going on with Krugman. I don't buy that he wants a spot in the HRC administration. But he just really really doesn't seem to like Obama.

All that said, I think there's hardly any daylight at all between the positions of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards on pretty much every issue. (For the record, HRC did NOT vote for the bankruptcy bill. She was absent from the Senate that day because Bill was undergoing open-heart surgery, and she stated at the time that she opposed the bill. Jinchi has a good summary here.)

Yeah, Clinton might be a bit too far to the right on foreign policy but I'm not at all convinced that Obama would actually do anything differently from her were he in power.

So I think HRC supporters need to stop the claims that Obama is some kind of closet Reagan clone who will end Social Security and the Obama supporters need to stop trotting out tired old scandal stories and conspiracy theories about Clinton race baiting and such nonsense.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 21, 2008 1:03 PM

Are you aware

Are you aware that Petey has responded to precisely none of my comments about Clinton's actual policies? Are you aware that this could be because Petey is actually full of shit?

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 1:04 PM

You keep bringing up a multitude of aspects of the SS debate, Christmas, while studiously ignoring the actual problem Krugman and many other Dems have with Obama on the SS issue.

You can falsely accuse me of sockpuppeting all you like, but you're truly guilty of strawmaning the issue here.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 1:09 PM

I've been a huge fan of Krugman for many years. ... But I don't know what's going on with him about Obama.

Krugman's gone Ahab on us. This thing has been way too personal for him for months now, and if he doesn't back off soon I think it's going to send him into some pretty dark and unsettling territory.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 1:09 PM

Ao quotes and writes:

Regardless of the outcome of this primary, in 5-10 years Democrats will look back and see "Obama is a crytpo-conservative" as the "Gore is a pathological exaggerator" of the 2008 race.[1]

This is what is troubling. Do people honestly look at Obama's resume, writings, and record and think, "This person doesn't belong in the Democratic Party?"[2]

Is the advice to future would-be candidates, "Don't worry about actually working for progressive ideals. It's more important to write a few Kos/Krugman-approved[3] stem-winders to pull out for presidential campaigns."?[4]

Comments:

[1] Well, in the Gore case, the talking point was propagated by Gore-haters in our famously free press, who endlessly repeated actual, made-up lies on the teebee in print. And in the Obama case, our famously press isn't propagating it, and the people who argue for it cite to quotations and offer interpretations (which, I grant, you don't agree with). Other than that, the two cases are identical!

[2] No, they don't. Could that be because they don't want to hear about Obama's 10-year-old book, think his legislative record is thin, and have real problems with Obama dilating uncritically on Reagan, rather than, say, Dwight D. Eisenhower? I've been hearing right wing dogwhistles for 7 long years under the Bush administration, and playing whackamole with them, too. So, I know one when I hear one. I understand the calculation that Obama would need to bring in Republicans and low information voters into Democratic primaries to win, but it doesn't make the dog whistles any more pleasant to hear. I care about what Obama's campaigning on now.

[3] Kos-Krugman? What is this, some sort of Kos-Krugman axis of evil? Are you paying attention? Kos voted for Obama -- although in his last postings, sounded discouraged that Obama would be the progressive Kos thought he would become. I wonder why?

[4] Yeah, why not? Maybe Obama could send some dog whistles progressives way, instead of only to the right? Of course, they'd have to be extra loud now, but we're still listening. That's why we have this nice long primary season, which hopefully will go all the way to the Convention, and then be brokered by Edwards. Heh.

Posted by lambert strether | January 21, 2008 1:09 PM

"Are you aware that this could be because Petey is actually full of shit? ... Krugman's gone Ahab on us."

So I'm full of shit, a liar, and a sockpuppet. And Krugman has lost his mind in personal obsession, even though he's merely echoing the progressive CW on Obama.

I've always thought of you as a sane commenter, Christmas, but this thread is certainly causing me to reevaluate.

If you don't value your own words, why should anyone else reading value them?

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 1:14 PM

You keep bringing up a multitude of aspects of the SS debate, Christmas, while studiously ignoring the actual problem Krugman and many other Dems have with Obama on the SS issue.

Read the Obama quote I pasted above, Petey, and tell me where it differs from Paul Krugman circa 2005, in policy or in tone. Note, for example, where Obama says it's not an immediate problem but a long-term problem. Then go back and read Clinton's screeds denouncing any raising of the payroll tax cap as a "trillion-dollar tax on the middle class." Then come back here and tell me which one of them is tacking to the right.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 1:15 PM

I think Obama screwed up the optics on his interview, but that's no reason for Krugman to deliberately leave out sections of the interview that don't jibe with his narrative. This is what Krugman quoted:

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

This is what he left out:

"...sense of dynamic and entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright? I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the Presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times. And some of it's, I think, there's maybe a generation element to this, partly. In the sense that there's a, I didn't did come of age in the battles of the 60s. I'm not as invested in them. And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values. And that's why, I think we've been resonating with the American people."

Now, there's some good stuff there on the bankruptcy of conservative ideas from the 90s on. Why wouldn't Krugman have wanted to draw attention to this?

Posted by Nigel Aimes | January 21, 2008 1:16 PM

"For the record, HRC did NOT vote for the bankruptcy bill."

She voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill and now claims that her vote shouldn't be held against her because the bill was later defeated in the House. Now that is some impressive Clintonizing. How do you people ever believe anything she says?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/clinton-and-the-bankruptcy-law/

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 21, 2008 1:23 PM

Note to Krugman: It's not the economy (and Krugman's not stupid, so he knows better than to insinuate such).

What Reagan restored was the spirit of American grandeur and readiness to lead. He brought new ideas that moved the country in a dramatically different direction. Instead of telling Americans we can't do it, we can't improve out lives - turn down your thermostat and put on that sweater - he said our best days are ahead of us, and we'll continue to be that shining city on a hill. Reagan rightly belongs in the pantheon of great 20th century presidents.

Posted by Americaneocon | January 21, 2008 1:24 PM

So I'm full of shit, a liar, and a sockpuppet.

You're full of shit because you've said that Obama has consistently and self-consciously positioned himself to the right of Clinton on every issue, which is outright bullshit. It is. It's untrue. It's a lie. I'm taking the fact that you haven't bothered to refute anything I've said - about Clinton's record on foreign policy, on torture, on extraordinary rendition, on DOMA, on the bankruptcy bill, on Social Security, on drug sentencing - as recognition that you either don't care about this stuff, don't know about this stuff, or know perfectly well that Obama is more liberal than Clinton but are making shit up about the candidates anyway.

As for the sockpuppetry, I was pretty damn sure you were sockpuppeting in various Garance threads on Tapped. Maybe that wasn't you, in which case I apologize. It doesn't change anything about the substance of the argument.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 1:24 PM

More on Matt's point about Krugman's selective quote mining. The Obama quote is from a wide-ranging interview with a conservative editorial board in Reno; the Clinton quote is from "one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy," with the New York Times. That's like comparing a draft with the finished product.

Posted by Nigel Aimes | January 21, 2008 1:26 PM

Obama's big selling point, to me, has been foreign policy. I think he's ready to accept reality in Iraq, and that Clinton long ago drank the koolaid. And I think that the issue of getting out of Iraq dovetails with the issue of recognizing Iran. If Iran isn't recognized, the U.S. will still be involved in futile, expensive and bloody games in the Middle East. Although Obama has made hawk noises about some issues - notably Pakistan - as if pretty evident from the abysmal and sleazy U.S. relationship with the Pakistan military over the last thirty some years, which has resulted in Pakistan being both a borderline psycho state and one too heavily armed to deal with in a military way, I seriously doubt Obama's rhetoric there. I don't doubt his suggestion of unconditional talks with Iran, because that is something he could actually do.

To my mind, there is more of a 'bleed', now, between domestic issues and foreign policy ones than ever before. I don't believe we will be able to have decent government backed health care while we are spending as much as we are on the military, and while that spending actually goes into making the U.S. less secure, by creating a myriad of enemies. A good instance of the drain that creates is oil, which has been selling at a premium way above the traditional premium on its costs of production. Normally, that would put the price of oil at around sixty dollars per barrel - the extra thirty to forty dollars is, in my opinion, a direct result of the uncertainties introduced by the Bush foreign policy, which seems to be one that Clinton wants to continue. That is mad.

However, I am sorta resigned to the fact that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. I think Osama does suffer from the Bradley effect - not the famous one of white voters not voting for blacks, but the Senator Bradley, high minded/higher income progressive effect - the constituency of Obama is the same one that went out for Adlai Stevenson, McCarthy, and Bradley. There aren't enough of those people in the party, and their candidates always get fabulous play in the papers and then fade. Nevada was definitely a fade.

Posted by roger | January 21, 2008 1:27 PM

I think there is some kind of real gap here between younger and older folks on the left; one can be a strong "progressive" without being a strong "Democrat". The rhetoric/policy distinction, which seems glaringly obvious to me, can be explained along those lines. For Petey, Krugman, etc, it's a binary world: if you're not speaking in traditional Dem language, you must be speaking in Rep talking points. But Obama isn't as invested in the existing Democratic party as the source of all possible movement to the left. This is either his great weakness or his great strength...

Posted by metalpetic | January 21, 2008 1:28 PM

Whatever happened to the Krugman who used to urge journalists to worry less about what rhetorical style politicians adopt and more looking at their policies?

He never existed and I've been trying to explain that for months.

Posted by Shinyk | January 21, 2008 1:33 PM

Thanks for the link, Gary Sugar. Very informative.

I actually think it puts HRC in a much better light than you imply. She fought various version of the bankruptcy bill over a period of about 10 years but voted for one version of it. She claims it contained compromises in it that made it reasonable. I'm not going to compare the text of the two bills so I'm in no position to judge whether she was right or wrong on that.

But this his hardly proof that she's a right-winger on the subject or a liar.

Really, the stridency and obnoxiousness of the anti-Clinton shouters on this thread (and in general in this blog) is very off-putting. Christmas, your half-hearted apology not-withstanding, your baseless accusation against Petey and your calling of "bullshit" a position that is simply different from your own completely undermine the substance of your argument.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 21, 2008 1:34 PM

Obama, at some point, has to center himself politically. Being a black man named Barack Obama, he may have to over compensate. When a good portion of America looks at you as a black, liberal Muslim then you are forced to paint yourself a little redder than blue at times.
Look at Hillary. She has been moving to the center for the last 8 years! No way she would have stayed left of center and been able to run a national campaign for President. Obama is trying to do in 8 months what Hillary did in 8 years. It's normal, folks.

Obama '08

Posted by dave | January 21, 2008 1:40 PM

Christmas, your half-hearted apology not-withstanding, your baseless accusation against Petey and your calling of "bullshit" a position that is simply different from your own completely undermine the substance of your argument.

"Baseless"? I've listed a host of issues where Obama stands to the left of Clinton, including Social Security, which is what kicked off the whole "Obama is a closet conservative" idiocy in the first place. Petey has been unable to refute a single one. What's "baseless" is the charge that Obama is some kind of secretly triangulating, fatally compromised neo-Reaganite. By the way: there's a name for the kind of Democrat who is a triangulating, fatally compromised neo-Reaganite - the kind who pushes to cut badly-needed social programs in order to look "tough" on welfare, votes for war when it's fashionable, and constantly sucks up to giant corporations - we call those people Clintonites.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 1:43 PM

"For Petey, Krugman, etc, it's a binary world: if you're not speaking in traditional Dem language, you must be speaking in Rep talking points. "

I can't speak for Krugman, but for me, this isn't quite it, (though it's in the right ballpark).

Obama is repeatedly signaling that he stands apart from the Party.

That's not quite the same thing as signaling that you're a Republican.

But given that mainstream progressive thought tends to see change as coming through a strong Party, Obama is obviously not going to be seen as an ally.

"I think there is some kind of real gap here between younger and older folks on the left"

I think the generation gap is specifically about Obama's personal characteristics, not about theories of change. I think all the evidence shows that young lefties aren't any more in favor of triangulation in principle than old lefties. Young lefties weren't big Lieberman fans.

Similarly, Obama is going to win the AA vote, even though AA's usually prefer the candidate that stands proudly with the Party. Again, it's about the personal characteristics, not about theories of change.

Personal characteristics shouldn't be underestimated in this primary race.

Krugman is sticking to ideology and theories of change, which is why he's mystifying the nescient around here.

-----

In short:

The lefty Obama fans are interested in the head of state role.

The lefty Obama doubters are interested in the head of government role.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 1:44 PM

Rob Mac:

Yeah, I regretted posting only that very reasonable link. I'll make up for it with this, the part that I called impressive Clintonizing:

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, you voted for the same 2001 bankruptcy bill that Senator Edwards just said he was wrong about. After you did that, the Consumer Federation of America said that your reversal on that bill, voting for it, was the death knell for the opponents of the bill. Do you regret that vote?

CLINTON: Sure I do, but it never became law, as you know. It got tied up. It was a bill that had some things I agreed with and other things I didn’t agree with, and I was happy that it never became law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4088519

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 21, 2008 1:46 PM

Clinton on torture:

Clinton was similarly vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA. She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unless selected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies.

Obama on torture:

White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday condemned the CIA’s use of brutal interrogation techniques and said the Bush administration’s reported authorization of such methods “is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security.” (...) "torture is not a part of the answer — it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach" (...) [it is] "time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows."

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 1:46 PM

"And I've repeatedly made the point that by positioning himself to the right, Obama was setting himself up to have a 45% ceiling in a two candidate race even if everything went swimmingly, which is precisely where we are now."

Three contests and you've decided that Obama's hit some "Petey-designated" ceiling? Check the head-to-head GE polls; Obama breaks 50% quite often, while Clinton can't make it past 47%.

Posted by converse | January 21, 2008 1:47 PM

Obama is repeatedly signaling that he stands apart from the Party.

So is Edwards. Why are they doing this, I wonder? It's because both of them want more people to vote for them than just Democrats. I can't believe you don't recognize this, Petey, because you aren't actually that stupid.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2008 1:49 PM

Christmas, your half-hearted apology not-withstanding, your baseless accusation against Petey and your calling of "bullshit" a position that is simply different from your own completely undermine the substance of your argument.

Hmmm..

"[Obama's] entire strategy is to run as the less progressive choice" (Petey at 10:54) = Bullshit

"There has been a consistent rightward slant to pretty much every facet of Obama's campaign, Christmas, policy included." (Petey at 12:04) = Bullshit

"Obama's decision seems to be to get a smidgen to the right on any given issue" (Petey at 12:23) = Bullshit

Posted by Tractarian | January 21, 2008 1:49 PM

"As for the sockpuppetry, I was pretty damn sure you were sockpuppeting in various Garance threads on Tapped. Maybe that wasn't you, in which case I apologize."

As stated, it wasn't me.

Apology accepted.

Everyone hated Garance.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 1:54 PM

1.) The 'beef' between Krugman and Obama didn't REALLY start until Obama truncated some of Krugman's quotes to make it seem as though Krugman was 'for it before he was against it'.

2.) Krugman's complaints about Obama rhetoric (raygun) is separate from his complaints about policy.

3.) Krugman does NOT have a son, and that non-existent son does NOT work for the Clinton campaign.

4.) Obama is WRONG for bringing up SS.

5.) Obama is WRONG for characterizing 'mandates' as 'punishment'.

6.) It wasn't that Obama mentioned Raygun, it's that he felt the need to mention Raygun and Clinton in front of a conservative editorial board in an attempt to PANDER.

7.) I might be boycotting the superbowl!!! Giants? Man DAMN!

Posted by willyjsimmons | January 21, 2008 1:54 PM

"Three contests and you've decided that Obama's hit some "Petey-designated" ceiling? Check the head-to-head GE polls; Obama breaks 50% quite often, while Clinton can't make it past 47%."

I'm talking about the nomination race, not the general election.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 1:56 PM

Christmas, the baseless accusation I was referring to (sorry if I was unclear) was your accusation that he was using a sock puppet.

I agree (as I've stated elsewhere) that accusations that Obama is a closet conservative are about as accurate as accusations that he's a closet Muslim. But Petey does have a point, though I think he takes it too far. Obama has been chasing the center hard in this primary campaign. That's his entire argument. The whole uniter message is basically all about that. Many of the specific comments (about Social Security and Ronald Reagan) seem to have been taken out of context and blown all out of proportion. But Obama clearly doesn't want to be seen as the fired up liberal in this election. It's natural that some on the left would get annoyed with him about this.

Gary Sugar--legislating is the art of sausage making. It's ugly. So she voted for it before she voted against it. No legislator has a perfect record. She's pretty clearly against the bankruptcy bill and she's no more of a closet conservative that Obama is.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 21, 2008 2:00 PM

The irony of Krugman's column is rather striking. Reversing the Reagan narrative has been the fundamental premise of Obama's candidacy from the start. He has been attempting to take progressive moral values and reseat them in an optimistic, uplifting, and patriotic frame while at the same time downplaying traditional partisan divides, all aimed at creating a massive popular movement to bring an end to the still-potent Reagan political narrative. Even the quote Krugman picks on was Obama discussing how this is exactly what he seeks to achieve. And here Krugman pens a column claiming that what we need is exactly what Obama is doing, and somehow he manages to turn around use that column to bash Obama. Krugman is a real piece of work...

Posted by J.B. | January 21, 2008 2:25 PM

Obama has been chasing the center hard in this primary campaign. That's his entire argument. The whole uniter message is basically all about that.

Are you sure that's what the "uniter message" is about? If you ask me, Obama is trying to get the nation to unite around progressive policy solutions, like ending the war in Iraq, universal health care, energy policy, etc. Surely you see the difference between that and Broder-style (and dare I say, Clinton-style) centrism?

Posted by Tractarian | January 21, 2008 2:29 PM

This Obama too-far-to-the-right thing is preposterous. Let me assure you none of us on "the right" are under that illusion.

Any warmth shown by the right toward Obama has to do with the fact that he's the one Democrat who isn't proposing to wreck something important.

In Edwards' case, it's the macroeconomy.

In Clinton's case, it's the individual's relationship with the state.

Posted by Shinyk | January 21, 2008 2:35 PM

For those who are wondering what Krugman has against Obama, my guess is that he doesn't care too much for Obama's economic advisors, Austan Goolsbee & Jeffrey Liebman. (Obama's health care guy is David Cutler, who I like and who I suspect Krugman gets on better with).

My problem with Goolsbee is that he's smart, but I think he's too comfortable with free-market dogma, which leads to him missing the story of what's really going on. See this March 2007 article arguing that mortgage innovation had done more good than harm:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29scene.html?scp=10&sq=goolsbee

This was true if the situation was stable and the market behavior was rational, but what Goolsbee missed was that underneath the data, the real behaviour of the players from 2004-2007 was completely crazy. Goolsbee doesn't seem to have a real understanding of how and why markets can go wrong sometimes, an understanding that you need in order to deal with situations like the California energy crisis in 2001, the housing bubble, effective foreign aid, etc.

That, and he was praised by Bushie Greg Mankiw, Worst Economic Advisor Ever.

Posted by roublen | January 21, 2008 2:37 PM

Goolsbee doesn't seem to have a real understanding of how and why markets can go wrong sometimes, an understanding that you need in order to deal with situations like the California energy crisis in 2001, the housing bubble,

The housing bubble isn't a market failure if the government doesn't bail out the banks. Lenders find out the unprofitable endpoints of risky lending practices and find out the hard way. Let the banks eat their losses and it will never happen again. You learn more in defeat than in victory.

And the California energy crises wasn't a market failure either. It was an example of fraud, which is illegal in any market system.

Posted by Shinyk | January 21, 2008 2:48 PM

>It was an example of fraud

yes, but free-market dogma was used to create a system that strongly encouraged fraud, rewarded fraud with huge profits, then had no mechanisms for dealing with fraud until almost all of the damage had already been done.

Posted by roublen | January 21, 2008 2:57 PM

As if Obama TODAY (stop, stop bringing up how he felt on Iraq before his election, tell me what he's doing today) is really much different than Clinton on Iraq, Matt.

C'mon.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | January 21, 2008 3:07 PM

roublen- you stole my thunder. Goolsbee is precisely why I distrust Obama. George Will has a lot of admiration for him, though.

I don't like Hillary on foreign policy, mostly because she's too pandering to the Israeli lobby. Of course, the Iraq vote was tres infuriating, but I think she's smart enough to not go blowing more crap up, especially with the economic insanity we have now. Too bad John Edwards has not broken through.

My issue is the economy and unless Obama gives me a clear picture of his economic plan (and that plan includes challenging everything Reagan) I'm not buying. It seems a lot of Obama supporters want to serve His interest than their own.

Posted by magisterludi | January 21, 2008 3:11 PM

Krugman made the point in 2001 that Bush was governing how he campaigned, regardless of the glaze of 'compassionate conservatism'. Why should he not make the same point with Obama?

It's not his fault that the Obamabots are blinded by the aura. The campaign I've been watching is one where Obama is setting himself up to be circumscribed and even judged by Village conservatives, particularly Reagan hagiographers. You really think that Noonan would have been a panellist on MSNBC last Saturday absent Obama's invocation of Saint Ronnie Of Perpetual Forgetfulness?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 21, 2008 3:13 PM

Shinyk, Goolsbee ignores the bubbles bursting in Florida and California and to some degree Arizona and Nevada to try to twist facts on the ground to fit his interpretation of how good subprime mortgages are.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | January 21, 2008 3:14 PM

I find Krugman's economic columns to be very informative, but I've tuned him out as a Democratic primary commentator. It's a shame that he feels the need to use his inkspace at the Times to mount a personal crusade against Obama. How many columns is this now? Quote twisting and personal political theories belong in Daily Kos diaries, not in the nation's paper of record.

Posted by Fox | January 21, 2008 3:16 PM

Just to be clear, I meant Will admires Goolsbee. I don't know how Will feels about Obama.

Posted by magisterludi | January 21, 2008 3:17 PM

"It's a shame that (Krugman) feels the need to use his inkspace at the Times to mount a personal crusade against Obama. How many columns is this now?"

The problem is that everything Krugman is saying is correct.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 3:24 PM

Let's see who will win this fight: the writer for the U.S. newspaper of record, or the politician responding on his campaign website? Not a very smart strategy by the Obama camp.

I used to support Obama. But now, I don't. The more I've heard, the less progressive he sounds. I've started to believe he's not just pandering to the right; he actually believes what he says about social security, health insurance policy, Ronald Reagan, etc.

Posted by DevilDog | January 21, 2008 3:28 PM

"Too bad John Edwards has not broken through."

Vote for the proud progressive. Both Obama and Clinton are badly flawed candidacies.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 3:30 PM

Obama is repeatedly signaling that he stands apart from the Party.

That's not quite the same thing as signaling that you're a Republican.

But given that mainstream progressive thought tends to see change as coming through a strong Party, Obama is obviously not going to be seen as an ally.

This elides important distinctions. Obama repeatedly signals himself as apart from the party establishment and political machine, not apart from the ideology of progressivism, which is what the Clintons do anytime other than primary season.

I think all the evidence shows that young lefties aren't any more in favor of triangulation in principle than old lefties.

Do I want triangulation of my policy preferences, ideology, and social goals? No. Do I want triangulation of the personal baggage and grudges over who was right about yesteryear? Hell yes.

Obama, at least rhetorically, shares that point of view. The Clintons' record is the converse--Bill Clinton's veins will pop out when he's defending his personal legacy against anyone who attacks it from the left or right, but they'll be happy to end big government and start the next war whenever it's convenient. It's a matter of which you prioritize--the policies and ideology, or the personalities and the history.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 21, 2008 3:35 PM

yeah, magisterludi, I'll be voting for Edwards (FWIW), but at this point am thoroughly conflicted on Clinton v. Obama. My inclination is to support Obama, OTOH Clinton's economic policy has been consistently better. In defense of Goolsbee, his heart does seem to be in the right place. It's probably more a question of different opinions, rather than different values. Obama's stimulus plan does contain some aid to state and local govt. + extended unemployment benefits, which I initially thought it didn't.

Posted by roublen | January 21, 2008 3:39 PM

This doesn't seem that difficult, controversial, or wrongheaded to me, Matthew. One of the main points of Krugman's book is that politics affects economics, and (naturally) that politics affects policy. Anybody who's read Lakoff knows that how you talk about politics affects your success in politics. So it would make a lot of sense that Krugman would be criticizing Obama's rhetoric. Talking about "the number of Republicans in Congress" is putting the cart before the horse- the Republicans are far, far more successful with both majorities and minorities than the Dems, and have a stranglehold on political discourse.

I hate to be loud, but it needs to be emphasized: IT ISN'T THE NUMBER OF CONGRESSMEN WITH AN "R" BESIDE THEIR NAME THAT MADE "LIBERAL" A DIRTY WORD. And, yes, that is why you're all calling yourselves "progressives"... because you're afraid of the "l" word. That's what framing does. You lost, they won.

The sort of babble about "Co-opting" that's been seen in this thread misses the point that the Republicans don't co-opt, because "co-opting" is another word for capitulation. Use their rhetoric, they win, it's as simple as that. Avoid using the word "liberal", talk about how great Reagan was, complain about the "Social Security crisis" using language Luntz would be proud of... yeah, they've won.

You may win seats, but you won't get anything more done than Clinton did, or the Pelosi/Reid Congress did. Krugman understands that, and it's a pity that so many otherwise sensible Dems still seem to think that bipartisanship is anything other than Norquist's "date rape".

Posted by Demosthenes | January 21, 2008 3:47 PM

Both Petey and Krugman give Hillary a free pass while taking Obama's out of context quotes and making mountains out of molehills. That's what's happening. Of course we Obamabots are getting annoyed at Petey and Krugman's spinning. I don't blame Christmas for going overboard at all.

Both of these guys should know better. To take one of many examples:

In the Krugman column Matt is blogging about, Krugman's concern is "historical narrative."

He writes:
"It’s not just a matter of what happens in the next election. Mr. Clinton won his elections, but — as Mr. Obama correctly pointed out — he didn’t change America’s trajectory the way Reagan did. Why?

Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan."

Yeah, Obama was praising the way Reagan got the conservatives fired up and inspired. Clinton in fact echoed Reagan when he said, as President, the "era of Big Government is over." Doesn't Krugman know many people are aware of this?

OH NO YOU DIDN'T!
-----
By AARON GOULD SHEININ
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/21/08
With former President Bill Clinton standing not 20 feet in front of her, Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin took what appeared to be a political shot at the former president's comments about Barack Obama's candidacy.

Speaking at the 40th annual MLK commemorative service at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Franklin said the country is on the "cusp of turning the impossible into reality. Yes this is reality, not fantasy or fairy tales."
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/01/21/kingpolitics_0122.html

Posted by Peter K. | January 21, 2008 3:51 PM

yes, but free-market dogma was used to create a system that strongly encouraged fraud, rewarded fraud with huge profits, then had no mechanisms for dealing with fraud until almost all of the damage had already been done.

After seeing what became of Enron and its executives for perpetrating that fraud, no other business will follow suit. That's hardly an encouragement of rampant, large-scale fraud. Risk of the pursuit of such a strategy greatly outweighs the benefits. The aftermath of Enron underscores that in a very concrete way. That there have been no Post-Enron Enrons undermines the argument that the market encourages fraud.

Shinyk, Goolsbee ignores the bubbles bursting in Florida and California and to some degree Arizona and Nevada to try to twist facts on the ground to fit his interpretation of how good subprime mortgages are.

I don't know what Goolsbee, specifically, thinks or does not think about subprime mortgages in concept. I was speaking to the notion that the subprime mess was a market failure. It wasn't. It was the market teaching banks a business lesson that won't soon be forgotten.

Posted by Shinyk | January 21, 2008 3:52 PM

"Obama repeatedly signals himself as apart from the party establishment and political machine, not apart from the ideology of progressivism, which is what the Clintons do anytime other than primary season."

I think this is an accurate reading of what Obama wants to do--but here's the question: what other plausible agent for progressive politics is there than said party?

I mean, the name for progressive politics that operates outside the two-party framework, in this country, is activism, no? And that's a whole nother game....

Posted by metalpetic | January 21, 2008 4:01 PM

The consequence of the energy crisis was the huge amounts of taxpayer money lost. That money was never recovered. No amount of Enron executives in jail can make up for that.

Posted by roublen | January 21, 2008 4:02 PM

One of the main points of Krugman's book is that politics affects economics, and (naturally) that politics affects policy. Anybody who's read Lakoff knows that how you talk about politics affects your success in politics.

I, from the other side, think this is the issue. People accusing Krugman of dishonesty or careerism here have it wrong--the problem is that he's bought into Lakoff's bullshit.

the Republicans don't co-opt

Yeah, bullshit like this. "Compassionate" conservatism, no child left behind, Medicare part D--they co-opt the liberal themes of compassion, education, and medicine. Medicare Part D is the "bad guy" version Obama and Edwards call to fix SS by raising taxes for the rich--co-opt a desire to provide medicine for the elderly into a scheme to enrich Big Pharma. Look at Huckabee, Michael Gerson and David Frum.

Moreover, this is a process that inherently favors our side--if people of different backgrounds, assumptions and motivations can reach an agreement or compromise on policies, that dramatically strengthens the case for larger government. If it's just an intractable screaming fest of "frame! frame! frame!", that kind of proves democratic government unworkable.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 21, 2008 4:09 PM

I think this is an accurate reading of what Obama wants to do--but here's the question: what other plausible agent for progressive politics is there than said party?

Not apart from the party but apart from the the old establishment and personalities of the party--apart from the DLC centrists. New faces, new names, new teams of advisors more committed to the goals of liberalism, less committed to the old grudges.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 21, 2008 4:18 PM

Bill Clinton's veins will pop out when he's defending his personal legacy against anyone who attacks it from the left or right, but they'll be happy to end big government

I renew my call for Democrats to read Hillary Clinton's book before talking about her ideology. She is neither a "more conventional progressive" nor is she a right-winger who would "end big government" (the latter is so laughable I can't believe it was said). Hillary is a stone's throw from full-blown communism and a soft dictatorship of censorship, silliness and whim. She believes she is the only adult in a world with 6 billion children--and is, therefore, the only person who should be afforded the right of self-determination. Why anyone would think she's a wise nominee (and, more importantly, a wise steward of power) is beyond me.

Thinking about it, McCain looks likely on the Republican side. McCain looks likely to beat a Hillary who appears deadset on drumming the black vote out of her party. McCain also looks likely to pick Fred for his VP. McCain looks unlikely to finish out two terms as President. Therefore, a McCain presidency probably means a Fred presidency, which is what I've wanted all along.

By all means, Democrats, nominate this woman and throw yourselves off your collectivist bridge.

Posted by Shinyk | January 21, 2008 4:23 PM

She is neither a "more conventional progressive" nor is she a right-winger who would "end big government" (the latter is so laughable I can't believe it was said).

Well, you're insane, but you're also distorting what I said. I never said she was a right-winger, I just said both Clintons prioritize themselves and their legacy over progressivism. Obviously, the fact that they ruled for eight years without us becoming a communistic yet soft dictatorship of censorship, silliness and whim should cause you to agree with me on that assessment, though you'll pardon me if I find that to be little comfort.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 21, 2008 4:32 PM

The consequence of the energy crisis was the huge amounts of taxpayer money lost. That money was never recovered. No amount of Enron executives in jail can make up for that.

The market works through competition, innovation, destruction, copy-catting, reaction and deterrence.

When someone successfully designs a more efficient system that is simultaneously predictive and impossible to exploit, we should switch to that, but I should point out

It Will Never Happen.

Posted by Shinyk | January 21, 2008 4:33 PM

gotcha, consumatopia....I'm more skeptical than you about the problem (what's the ultimately problem, a particular sclerotic generational party hierarchy, or the rigidity of the two-party system itself?)...you're right on about Krugman, though; all he knows about rhetoric is that he doesn't like it...

Posted by metalpetic | January 21, 2008 4:34 PM

I should be impressed that after the de-regulated looting that was predicted for Enron actually happened it will be a while before it happens again?

This is evidence for the wisdom of the market???

Posted by El Cid | January 21, 2008 4:41 PM

Consumatopia, please. Leave aside Lakoff's specific messaging for a second: if you actually think that messaging and dominance of the political narrative hasn't been an important tool of the Republican party, you're just being naive. Maybe Lakoff doesn't fully understand how to pull off this sort of manipulation, but you better damned well believe Frank Luntz did. That's why they won, case closed.

As for Co-option? Forests and trees. Yes, they used Orwellian language in order to make some regressive programs seem progressive. They still did it within the context of making liberals out to be Red Commie Pinkos, and on that front, they succeeded wonderfully.

Again, YOU CANNOT CALL YOURSELF A LIBERAL IN AMERICAN POLITICS. You have to use weaselly words like "progressive" and try to make them sound like anything other than they are, which just makes the Dems look that much weaker and the Republicans that much stronger.

"Big government" or no...You call that a victory?

Posted by Demosthenes | January 21, 2008 4:42 PM

Whatever happened to the Krugman who used to urge journalists to worry less about what rhetorical style politicians adopt and more looking at their policies?

This is not just about the current political game for Krugman.

Obama brought the Reagan talking point into the national discourse, and spun it in a positive manner.

He's taking the talking point and using it to write about what he cares about.

Krugman loathes Reaganomics and Reaganism with a passion like no other and will seize any opportunity to point it out.

It's like a "never again" thing with him, as in never again does he want to see so many people fall for such crap. Look at his summary paragraph in this op-ed: "Reaganism is fundamentally wrong."

He very much takes issue with Obama's statement that Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entreprneurship that had been missing," that's not the way he sees the 80's. He hates any support of revisionist economic history on this point. He is right at the beginning to point out what Clinton said in 1991. It was, afterall, Clinton's DLC that pushed small business and "enterpreneurship" to counter Reaganomics, the 80's gilded age, the buy-out frenzy and Gordon Gekko "greed is good." Trickle-down economics was blatantly not pro-smallbusiness, it was pro-big capital and pro-big-business, top down, not bottom up, the theory being that the little worker will benefit with fine jobs from big business and the capital backing it.

He cares more about dispelling the Reagan myth he thinks is still strong out there, rather than letting someone in the current political campaign play the myth for political points, spinning the myth as good among the people to their own end.

The op-ed is about taking the opportunity to point out to progressives that it's still important to attack Reagan.

Posted by artappraiser | January 21, 2008 4:43 PM

In fact, look at idiots like Shinyk there. Look at him hit those buttons: "collectivist", "only adult in a world full of children" ("nanny state" rhetoric"), "soft dictatorship", "silliness" (ever the Republican castigation of compassion), and the paternalistic framework of "advice from the enemy".

If you think this sort of thing wasn't created, Consumatopia, you're ignorant of the history of the conservative movement.

If you think it isn't effective, you're simply ignorant.

Posted by Demosthenes | January 21, 2008 4:46 PM

"they'll be happy to end big government and start the next war whenever it's convenient."

Can't twist a Quote.

Obviously, the fact that they ruled for eight years without us becoming a communistic yet soft dictatorship of censorship, silliness and whim

Apples and Submarines.

Bill was president for eight years. Hillary was watching Benazir Bhutto give speeches from behind a divider (according to Hillary) when she wasn't penning a political manifesto. Bill faced a strong, hostile Legislative branch that wanted his head. Hillary will face a sympathetic, obsequious, impotent Legislative. Bill has no ideology but himself. Hillary has an ideology that is as well-thought out as it is terrifying.

Plus, Bush has now normalized a theory of executive power that makes her (and anyone who subscribes to that theory as it remains unchallenged) more dangerous.

Read
Her
Book

Posted by Shinyk | January 21, 2008 4:50 PM

What I can't decide is which campaign has been the most weirdly lackluster: Fred Thompson's or Rudy Giuliani's.

Posted by Peter K. | January 21, 2008 4:52 PM

Shinyk, you're one of those people who thinks that Bob Barr is still a racist, don't you?

People change. It's actually kind of a pity, as I would have been quite fond of a presidential run by the Hillary of the 1990s. That isn't what we've got, any more than we've got candidate that (somehow) doesn't have to belong to a political party in Obama.

That's the problem with Obama. He's a fine candidate with some good ideas, but he thinks he doesn't have to soil himself with (ergh)..."politics"... in order to make it happen. Even if he is nominated, the first few weeks of the General, where he finds out just what it's really like, is going to be absolutely hysterical to watch. I imagine he'll grow up out of that Norquists-date-rape-scenario idealism a little bit, and will definitely make him a better candidate, but it's baffling watching him assume that he's going to out-moderate a Clinton right now.

Posted by Demosthenes | January 21, 2008 5:02 PM

In fact, look at idiots like Shinyk there. Look at him hit those buttons: "collectivist", "only adult in a world full of children" ("nanny state" rhetoric"), "soft dictatorship", "silliness" (ever the Republican castigation of compassion), and the paternalistic framework of "advice from the enemy".

Hmm. I've read the Audacity of Hope and I'm not making any of those charges against Obama, a stronger general election candidate and, as Yglesias notes, probably a better voice for selling "Progressivism." Notice also I didn't say any of those key words about Edwards and Edwards's Southern populism, brainless as it may be, would result in a cross-party landslide in the Democrats favor should he ever get to the general.

No, I'm not pulling those words out of the ether and applying them to Clinton. I read her book. That's her vision. It frightens me. Read it yourself and tell me which of those "hit buttons" is inappropriate.

Nominate Clinton and you'll see a lot of those "hit buttons" in the general. And they will be effective because they are, in this case, true.

Posted by Shinyk | January 21, 2008 5:03 PM

"This is not just about the current political game for Krugman."

Yup.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 5:30 PM

"Edwards's Southern populism, brainless as it may be, would result in a cross-party landslide in the Democrats favor should he ever get to the general."

And a generation long realignment towards the left...

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 5:33 PM

I heard on Fox News that Krugman has been holding a grudge ever since his son was converted to Islam by Obama.

Posted by Jacob | January 21, 2008 5:37 PM

Bob Barr seems to have changed his tune on a whole host of issues, notably race and, his old signature issue, the drug war.

Clinton has, since coming to Congress, called for nanny-based censorship of movies, television, computer games and radio, and profit confiscation from any industry she doesn't like. She presently pledges to involve the feds in a nursery-school system (what could be more nannying than that. Her only objection to the "Unitary Executive Theory" is in the identity of the current executive. All of which is consistent with her horrible, horrible book. So no, she hasn't changed.

Posted by Shinyk | January 21, 2008 5:39 PM

Yes, they used Orwellian language in order to make some regressive programs seem progressive.

And watch Andrew Sullivan go on about how Obama's straight forwardly progressive policies make him the next reincarnation of Oakeshott. It's funny how policies can be arrived at from more than one set of "frames".

Posted by Consumatopia | January 21, 2008 5:54 PM

there is something wrong with reaching out to the memory of Ronald Reagan to make the point that you're a messiah who's above politics

I'm surprised that no one remembers that this is exactly what Reagan did with the memory of FDR. It worked. And, of course, his fondness for FDR had zero effect on what he did in office.

Posted by Sean McCann | January 21, 2008 5:56 PM

"they'll be happy to end big government and start the next war whenever it's convenient."

Can't twist a Quote.

yeah, Shinyk you just lie about it. I never said either Clinton had right wing beliefs, but they did govern to the right on both foreign and domestic policy. Being a right-winger means you have right wing beliefs. I'm simply saying she's unprincipled.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 21, 2008 5:57 PM

yeah, Shinyk you just lie about it. I never said either Clinton had right wing beliefs, but they did govern to the right on both foreign and domestic policy-Consumatopia

1. "they'll be happy to end big government and start the next war whenever it's convenient."-Consumatopia

2. How is the advocacy of two invasions in the Balkans and one in Rwanda (Hillary claims to disagree with Bill on his noninvasion) evidence that Hillary Clinton advocates a "right-wing" foreign policy when the "right-wing" exploded in opposition to those invasions?

Who's lying here?

Posted by Shinyk | January 21, 2008 6:29 PM

Sean McCann's point about Reagan and FDR is well worth remembering here.

A couple of points beyond that.

Firstly, who gives a damn about policy positioning in a primary campaign? In the first place, the positioning that Clinton and Obama have done is for the most part identical. Clinton is apparently slightly to the left on some economic stuff, and Obama is slightly to the left on some other stuff, but there's not much air between them, and trying to say that Obama is positioning himself as the more conservative alternative to Clinton on that basis is completely ridiculous. Beyond that, this stuff doesn't matter - does anyone remember what Clinton's signature issue in the 1992 primaries was? I believe it was "middle class tax cuts". Huh.

So far as I can tell, none of these policy papers gives us any basis to determine who the more liberal candidate is (and I, in firm rebellion against republicans and in agreement, on this point at least, with Demosthenes, refuse to use "progressive" to refer to any Democrat since Woodrow Wilson).

So, how are we to do this? The second possibility is rhetoric. It is true that during this primary season, Obama has had a rhetoric of reaching out to Republicans, while Clinton mostly has not. I will just say that this is an option that Clinton doesn't really have - she can't reach out to Republicans because they are crazy people like Shinyk who think she wants to be a dictator. I don't think, then, that this establishes much. Furthermore, I don't see as Obama has actually used his inclusive rhetoric to stake out actual positions which are departures from Democratic orthodoxy. He's not like Joe Lieberman, and comparing him with Joe Lieberman is absurd. What Obama is trying to do, so far as I can tell, is the opposite of what Lieberman is. This may not work, but I don't think it demonstrates that Obama is the less liberal candidate (though none of this makes him the more liberal candidate).

But then we have something that we can actually use to gage Hillary Clinton - she and her husband's long history at the forefront of national politics. On any number of issues, the Clintons have been pretty terrible from a liberal point of view - rhetorically, substantively, even electorally. Obama, on the other hand, has a pretty orthodox liberal record, and the guy was a community organizer in Chicago. Whatever either of them is saying now seems irrelevant to the fact that we are pretty much guaranteed that Hillary Clinton, she of the "Mark Penn is my closest advisor," and "I supported the Iraq war," and "Hey, wouldn't an anti-flag burning amendment be sweet?" and "ooh...how about some sort of laws about violent video games" and so on and so forth, is not going to be particularly liberal in office. Maybe Obama won't either, but I think he's almost guaranteed to be better on most things than Clinton, ideologically.

There might be other reasons to vote for Clinton - she's arguably more prepared to be a general election candidate, and to be president, than Obama, for instance, but the idea that one should vote for Clinton because she's the more liberal candidate is completely absurd.

Posted by John | January 21, 2008 7:17 PM

When I read Amanda Marcotte or Neil the Ethical Werewolf advocate for Edwards, I start to think and wonder if he might be the best candidate.

When I read Petey advocate for Edwards, I want to run over Edwards with a bulldozer.

Just an observation.

Posted by Julian Elson | January 21, 2008 8:51 PM

She's only running as her husband's wife for as long as she's running against a black man.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | January 21, 2008 8:52 PM

Matt: "Meanwhile, I wish Krugman would at least acknowledge that there are foreign policy issues facing the country and some of us think they're important."

They're not just important, they're critical.

If Clinton or whoever starts a war with Iran, the resulting oil spike and the Chinese dumping the US dollar in retaliation for being cut off from Iranian oil and gas will sink the already fragile US economy.

Getting the US more deeply involved with Pakistan is likely to end up in the same situation, and certainly the expense won't help the economy.

FP concerns are critical to get right at this point - and none of the candidates have shown any indication that they WILL get it right, certainly not Hillary.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 21, 2008 8:54 PM

Do people honestly look at Obama's resume, writings, and record and think, "This person doesn't belong in the Democratic Party?".

Yeah, I've wondered about that, especially since-- let's be honest here-- the GOP would practically auction Reagan's dessicated corpse on eBay for a candidate like Obama. A rhetorically gifted, 'post-racial,' AA political prodigy?- good lord, if he was really disposed to favor the right, he'd be president right now, because the GOP actually cultivates its talent more than it punishes them for minor heresies. It's up to Democrats to grind our people down to uninspired nubs, ones armed with white papers that no one has the talent or energy to actually implement as policy.

Posted by latts | January 21, 2008 9:47 PM

I didn't have time to wade through all the comments.

I have read Krugman's new book. I also read his columns. As an earlier comment mentioned, Krugman took him on because of Social Security. Later on he continued to challenge Obama because he was challenging the other Democratic candidates using right wing talking points. His concern is that Obama either won't be able to swing back left if he is the nominee or his words will be used to attack a different nominee.

Also in the book, based the focus on the issue of race, the other position that has come out is that liberal/progressives must ramp up the partisanship and fight the right wing think tanks. In one column he took on Obama and praised Edwards on the issue of a big table that Obama wants while Edwards says that insurers (health care) won't give up their power.

I would have to say that the columns I have read lead me to believe that Krugman would support Edwards. And I think that is one reason you don't see the focus on foreign policy.

Posted by Josh | January 21, 2008 10:26 PM

Much as I agree with Krugman, in terms of personality it's pretty clear that the guy is a bit of a dick. Remember when he was passed over by CLinto for Chairman of the CEA? Krugman reffered to the choice, Laura Tyson, as "not in the top 30" of US economists. His rather public derision of Robert Reich as a "pop internationalist." While there's truth to both assessments, the disdain and seeming glee with which Krugman made them indicated that he's the type of guy who likes to piss very publicly on people who fundamentaly are on the same side as he is and with whom he mostly agrees.

Likewise here on Obama. Yeah Krugman has a point, and somewhere way back he probably was right, but he takes it to the level where you ask yourself, "do I really want to be on this asshole's side?" Frankly, for all his disdain of Bush, Krugman seems to have about the same inability to tolerate divergence of opionion and chaqllenges to his views.

Posted by Gene | January 21, 2008 10:38 PM

Too funny, but tonight my mother and I were talking on the phone and the subject of Obama's remarks about Reagan came up, and unsurprisingly neither of us liked them much because we're old enough to remember just how great greed wasn't in the 80s. So it's not just Krugman who has a problem with Obama's rhetoric, and that isn't something that Obama supporters can just point fingers at others about in chastisement and say we're somehow not giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.

On another subject, my poor mother has no idea who to support in the Florida primary since she failed to change her registration from Republican to Democrat last November. (She's a resident of Sarasota, a very GOP district, the very one that elected Kathleen Harris, so the only way she has a voice is to vote for less crazy Republicans in the primary.) So, which Republican should she support? I'm leaning for Mitt at the moment, but maybe she ought to go for McCain as the less crazy Republican. Any other suggestions?

Posted by David W. | January 22, 2008 12:49 AM

Krugman's blog has had comments disabled since the 19th. Hmph. Sort of thing you'd expect from a right wing blog.

Posted by Trent | January 22, 2008 3:00 AM

I have a little different take. Krugman clearly belongs to the politics-as-blood-sport school and thinks that every political difference is a zero sum conflict. If Obama stand for anything, it is precisely the opposite. It may well be that Krugman is deathly afraid of a political Munich, and that he'd rather cast his lot with Clinton (or perhaps Edwards - it's never quite clear to me which) than risk supporting someone who will negotiate out any element of the platform.

While I disagree, that's OK - if he'd be intellectually honest about it. Which unfortunately he isn't. He never shows his hand, and recently he's fallen in line with the sewer rats from the Clinton campaign with intellectually dishonest arguments about the Reagan comments in Reno.

He's been a reputable and highly regarded academician and commentator, but he's befouled his own reputation with his recent behavior.

Posted by zoot | January 22, 2008 6:38 AM

Krugman clearly belongs to the politics-as-blood-sport school

No, Krugman is firmly in the reality-based camp and earned his reputation the hard way by telling necessary, if unpleasant truths. It would be nice if Obama would heed them.

Posted by David W. | January 22, 2008 8:00 AM

Krugman wrote a book in the 1990s about how politicians were full of shit about how to fix the economy because they couldn't do that much about it anyway, but people need easy answers. It's called Peddling Prosperity. (It's also about the relationship between academic economists and policy entrepreneurs.)

Posted by Barbar | January 22, 2008 10:28 AM

Oh, and I'm completely with Christmas on this: as we head towards nominee Clinton, it is absolutely bizarre (and disheartening) to see self-proclaimed progessive champions loudly voice their concerns that Obama might be a closet Clintonite as they mutter something about supporting Edwards. WTF?

Posted by Barbar | January 22, 2008 10:33 AM

Am I being too cynical, but I can't help but wonder if Prof. Krugman is hoping for an appointment in the Hillary Clinton administration. Maybe he can be the house liberal economist for Hillary, as Robert Reich was for Bill during his first term. Not that Reich actually accomplished much in advancing a liberal agenda in the militantly centrist DLC Clinton administration which was commited to moving the Democratic party away from its liberal heritage.

Posted by Miles | January 22, 2008 10:02 PM