home

What Krugman Said

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:29:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Another Radical Centrist speaks:

Why, then, should the Democrats hold back? Because, we’re told, the country needs less divisiveness. And I, too, would like to see a return to kinder, gentler politics. But that’s not something Democrats can achieve with a group hug and a chorus of “Kumbaya.”

The reason we have so much bitter partisanship these days is that that’s the way the radicals who have taken over the Republican Party want it. . . .

As long as polarization is integral to the G.O.P.’s strategy, Democrats can’t do much.

Even if they try to act in a bipartisan fashion, their opponents will find a way to divide the nation — which is what happened to the great surge of national unity after 9/11. One thing we might learn from investigations is the extent to which the Iraq war itself was motivated by the desire to have another wedge issue.

There are those who believe that the partisan gap can be bridged if the Democrats nominate an attractive presidential candidate who speaks in uplifting generalities. But they must have been living under a rock these past 15 or so years.

Whoever the Democrats nominate will feel the full force of the Republican slime machine. And it doesn’t matter if conservatives have nice things to say about a Democrat now. Once the campaign gets serious, they’ll suddenly question his or her patriotism and discover previously unmentioned but grievous character flaws.

The truth is that we won’t get a return to bipartisanship until or unless the G.O.P. decides that polarization doesn’t work as a political strategy. . . .
< Armstrong Williams Was Overpaid For Propoganda | Diebold Source Code Out and On the Loose >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • What Krugman Said | 9 comments (9 topical)
    Re: What Krugman Said (none / 0) (#1)
    by Key on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:42:34 AM EST
    Hope Obama gets this message....  He would be great as a VP nominee in 08, and assuming the Dems win, the Pres nominee in 16.  But not with his current Clinton "middle of the road" playbook.  Hasn't worked since Bill did it.  Won't work again until.... well, read Krugman

    Re: What Krugman Said (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 08:33:03 AM EST
    Takeover of the Repubs by radical?

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Re: What Krugman Said (none / 0) (#3)
    by aw on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:06:43 PM EST
    So, PPJ, who are these radical leftists that you insinuate have taken over the Democratic party?  Who are these powerful people?  And what have they achieved?

    Parent
    Re: What Krugman Said (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    So you accept that the GOP is extremist and radical?

    Parent
    xx (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 06:50:45 AM EST
    Big Tent - I note that the Repubs have far fewer radicals than the Demos, and they certainly have less influence that the Leftie Radicals.

    But yes, they have them.

    aw - Their names are legion.

    Parent

    Radical Centrist or Reasonable Leftist? (none / 0) (#4)
    by MetaData on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:09:20 PM EST
    Working economists can seldom be accused of outright leftism. After all, their daily activities consist of studying "how the capitalist economy works... or doesn't", rather than throwing over the system. But surely, Krugman is to the left of the Democratic Party. Maybe this is easy to say because most of the press has moved to the right and most of the Dems have moved to the timid center.

    I would label Krugman a passionate and forceful liberal rather than a centrist, in the US political political spectrum. But, Krugman's positions (notably healthcare) puts him smack in the middle of the US public political spectrum.

    The following quote from today's NYT editorial does not come from a centrist position:

    Even if they try to act in a bipartisan fashion, their opponents will find a way to divide the nation -- which is what happened to the great surge of national unity after 9/11. One thing we might learn from investigations is the extent to which the Iraq war itself was motivated by the desire to have another wedge issue.
    Re: Radical Centrist or Reasonable Leftist? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:48:13 PM EST
    Of course it does. Describing the Republicans honestly is not a Leftist position.

    Next you will tell me Bruce Fein is a Leftist.

    Krugman is definitely a Centrist on economic policy.

    Parent

    What leftist economists are you thinking of? (none / 0) (#7)
    by MetaData on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 05:03:19 PM EST
    I mean, aside from Libertarian Anti-taxers and Sophomore economics classes we don't get many left-right philosophical discussions these days. Economics in the US by definition deals with the institutions and structures we have in place: banking, interest rates, monetary system, game theory, pricing strategies of Walmart, etc.

    Political discourse on economics runs all the way from right to far-right on Fair Trade, theories of anti-tax reactionaries, or Bushian & Clintonian reforms of social security, and how much to reduce Medicare. The Dems come off fairly weak as gradualist defenders on these issues; not very leftist at any rate.

    I know. Maybe in academia or think tanks there are some leftist economists still willing to talk about power inequities between economic actors, Labor Unions, structural issues of monopoly vs deregulation, International Trade, Development strategies, but they are not really visible in the public dialogue.

    These are valuable issues, but not front and center in our political parties. That is why I ask: who are these leftist economists?

    Krugman's specialty is economic bubbles and crises.

    His primary axe to grind these days is the abysmal US health care system.  From his writings, it is obvious that he favors drastic structural changes. In the US today, that is a pretty leftist even radical position. Certainly any "real" Health Care change is far to the left of the Democratic Party. Many Democrats express their support for Health Care Reform, but they don't really advocate much further than extending Health Insurance to all children. A worthy step, but I would call that creeping social-democracay, not Socialism.

    Parent

    Re: What leftist economists are you thinking of? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:19:23 PM EST
    Leftist? Well if pragmatism equals Leftist, you are right.

    Parent
    What Krugman Said | 9 comments (9 topical)