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