Paul Krugman: One Letter Politics

Paul Krugman explains why party affiliation is so important in the upcoming election:

One-Letter Politics, by Paul Krugman, Party Matters, Commentary, NY Times: In a recent interview with The Hartford Courant, Senator Joseph Lieberman said something that wasn’t credible. When the newspaper asked him whether America would be better off if the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives next month, he replied, “Uh, I haven’t thought about that enough to give an answer.”

Why wasn’t this a credible answer? Because anyone with the slightest interest in American politics ... is waiting with bated breath to see how this election goes... The fact is that this is a one-letter election. D or R, that’s all that matters. It’s hard to think of an election in which the personal qualities of the people running in a given district or state have mattered less. ...

There are two reasons why party control is everything in this election. The first, lesser reason is the demonstrated ability of Republican Congressional leaders to keep their members in line... G.O.P. politicians sometimes make a show of independence, as Senator John McCain did in seeming to stand up to President Bush on torture. But in the end, they always give the White House what it wants: after getting a lot of good press for his principled stand, Mr. McCain signed on to a torture bill that in effect gave Mr. Bush a completely free hand.

And if the Republicans retain control of Congress, even if it’s by just one seat in each house, Mr. Bush will retain that free hand. If they lose control of either house, the G.O.P. juggernaut will come to a shuddering halt.

Yet that’s the less important reason this election is all about party control. The really important reason may be summed up in two words: subpoena power.

Even if the Democrats take both houses, they won’t be able to accomplish much in the way of new legislation. They won’t have the votes to stop Republican filibusters in the Senate, let alone to override presidential vetoes. ...

But while the Democrats won’t gain the ability to pass laws, if they win they will gain the ability to carry out investigations, and the legal right to compel testimony.

The current Congress has shown no inclination to investigate the Bush administration. ... The Boston Globe offered an illuminating comparison: when Bill Clinton was president, the House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Mr. Clinton had used the White House Christmas list to identify possible Democratic donors. But in 2004 and 2005, a House committee took only 12 hours of testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

If the Democrats take control, that will change... Those who think it’s a good idea to investigate, say, allegations of cronyism and corruption in Iraq contracting should be aware that any vote cast for a Republican makes Congressional investigations less likely. Those who believe that the administration should be left alone to do its job should be aware that any vote for a Democrat makes investigations more likely.

O.K., what about the Senate race in Connecticut, where Ned Lamont is the Democratic nominee, and Mr. Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary, is running as an independent but promising to caucus with the Democrats if he wins? Is this a case where the man, not the party, is what matters? Only if you believe that Mr. Lieberman’s promise not to switch parties is 100 percent credible.

_________________________
Previous (10/13) column: Paul Krugman: Will the Levee Break?
Next (10/20) column: Paul Krugman: Incentives for the Dead

Comments

[Movie Guy]

Paul Krugman - "Even if the Democrats take both houses, they won’t be able to accomplish much in the way of new legislation. They won’t have the votes to stop Republican filibusters in the Senate, let alone to override presidential vetoes. ..."

Churping up with the excuses ...already. As expected.

Paul Krugman - "But while the Democrats won’t gain the ability to pass laws, if they win they will gain the ability to carry out investigations, and the legal right to compel testimony."

Ah, vengence. Krugman's real agenda.

Krugman is an amateur when it comes to long term political considerations for his political party.

Under the Krugman drool approach, the Democrats will be right back out on their asses within two years.

Idiot. Like many others.

[Movie Guy]

Krugman should broaden his political thinking. Or stick to economics.

[nedlink]

Yeah, MG, we all know what an idiot Krugman is, especially compared to all-knowing you. Not even necessary to tell us.

[dissent]

Krugman understands that the political process demands a full and honest accounting of the facts. We must know where we are. We must know who we are. This a moral necessity. Thus we must know what crimes were committed and who committed them.

[a]

"Ah, vengence."

Well, more like accountability. If vengence is a result, then so be it.

[Bruce Webb]

(Someone could close a tag)

"Even if the Democrats take both houses, they won’t be able to accomplish much in the way of new legislation."

Don't forget the power of omission. You don't need an up or down vote to eliminate Star Wars, you just don't include funding. This is true for just about any program from tiny to huge, no Appropriation no dollars. Now certainly Republicans can filibuster an Appropriations bill, but good luck doing that to a Defence Appropriations bill that increases funding for body armor and cuts back on missile defense. Just to pick a single example. Republicans showed us how to play that game, just link your particular agenda item to a must pass bill and just dare the opposition to vote no. Ask Max Cleland how that one works.

[anne]

"There are two reasons why party control is everything in this election. The first, lesser reason is the demonstrated ability of Republican Congressional leaders to keep their members in line... G.O.P. politicians sometimes make a show of independence, as Senator John McCain did in seeming to stand up to President Bush on torture. But in the end, they always give the White House what it wants: after getting a lot of good press for his principled stand, Mr. McCain signed on to a torture bill that in effect gave Mr. Bush a completely free hand.

"And if the Republicans retain control of Congress, even if it’s by just one seat in each house, Mr. Bush will retain that free hand. If they lose control of either house, the G.O.P. juggernaut will come to a shuddering halt."

Precisely; a fine column indeed.

[anne]

A:

"Ah, vengence."

Well, more like accountability. If vengence is a result, then so be it.

[Precisely.]

[Elvis]

Asking questions is not vengence.
Oh, I guess you could argue that something like the investigations into whitewater thing was mean-spirited. But the questions a lot of americans want asked are about real policy issues that affect lives (not wives).

Asking questions about the conduct of the war... how can that be vengeful? Just common sense.

[lonesome moderate]

Please ignore.

I'm just trying to close the open tag.

[bakho]

PK misses a bigger issue, control of the national debate. The leadership decides whether the Senate will debate minimum wage and health care or whether it will debate gay marriage. So in addition to subpoena power, control, especially of the House would give Dems greater control of the budget. It can also mean have better legislation options, rather than choosing between holding the nose and accepting the stink or tossing the baby with the bath water (Pardon the mixed metaphor).

PK is not out for vengence (he did work for Reagan after all) as much as he wants a change in direction, especially a change in fiscal policy. Of course, Congress will not be able to undo the Bush tax cuts with Bush as president, but that is the agenda PK desires.

[Ken]

Elvis,

You obviously don’t understand the mentality of the right. There is no debate or discussion. There are only slogans.

As far as "broader political thinking” You have got to be kidding.

I have put a lot of thought into this and the only thing I can equate it to is cattle. I spent some time on a farm as a kid and often observed cattle in the fields. When they were grazing I would sit on the fence and begin baying like a cow. Eventually the whole herd would begin baying for no apparent reason. Cattle are pretty stupid and in times of crisis are susceptible to group think, if a barn is on fire one will break for the burning structure and, with little dissent, the others will eventually follow. But enough about Iraq policy.

When I listen to the dissent in the Democratic part I find myself heartened. I like the idea of breaking Iraq into 3 autonomous regions. I like the "Apollo Energy Act" rejected by the republicans. I like raising the minimum wage. Why? Because the Dems have nothing to gain by offering these ideas. There is no lobby for the minimum wage. There is no lobby for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq with the exception of the mother of dead soldier and her sympathizers. There are any number of lobbies that want us to stay. In fact there are very few lobbies that represent the common American.

Policy is now written on K Street, passed through the communications office where it is drained of any possible intellect and handed to the "Chief Bayer" Tony Snow.

And as I did as a child, he sits on the political fence of the White house press office and begins baying and gets the same result that I did. Eventually they will all start to do the same and Eureka! POLICY! Not to mention a whole new batch of bumper stickers!

[anne]

Thank you, Mr. Press Secretary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/us/politics/16snow.html

October 16, 2006

Bush’s Press Secretary Is Raising Money, and Some Eyebrows
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

ST. CHARLES, Ill. — Tony Snow draped his lanky frame across a wooden lectern, leaned forward and gazed out at 850 adoring Republicans who had paid $175 apiece to hear him speak. There was a conspiratorial gleam in his eye, as if he was about to reveal some deep inner secret from his new life as the White House press secretary.

“Yesterday,” Mr. Snow declared, “I was in the Oval Office with the president ——”

He cut himself off, took a perfectly calibrated three-second pause and switched into an aw-shucks voice for dramatic effect: “I just looove saying that! Yeaaah, I was in the Oval Office. Just meeee and the president. Nooooobody else.” The crowd lapped it up.

Live from the suburbs of Chicago — It’s the Tony Snow Outside-the-Beltway Hour! Memo to White House press corps: you can’t catch this show in the briefing room....

[anne]

'“I just looove saying that! Yeaaah, I was in the Oval Office. Just meeee and the president. Nooooobody else.” The crowd lapped it up.'

Such is Republicanism.

[Ken]

Moooooooooooooooooooo!

[elvis]

>You obviously don’t understand the mentality of the right.

And I'm the happier for it.
Very interesting comments, Ken.
Nothing to gain everything to lose. I like those odds. really. [not being facetious]

[anne]

Ken:

'When I listen to the dissent in the Democratic part I find myself heartened. I like the idea of breaking Iraq into 3 autonomous regions. I like the "Apollo Energy Act" rejected by the republicans. I like raising the minimum wage. Why? Because the Dems have nothing to gain by offering these ideas. There is no lobby for the minimum wage. There is no lobby for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq with the exception of the mother of a dead soldier and her sympathizers. There are any number of lobbies that want us to stay. In fact there are very few lobbies that represent the common American.'

[slink/js paine]

lets cut pk some slack here

the system has some self correcting dynamics
one is the two party comp

beer keeps wine ..."honest"

[David E..]

vengence?? how about vengeance?

[lonesome moderate]

Ah, vengence. Krugman's real agenda.

I'm quite sure that vengeance is not Krugman's real agenda. It may be Nancy Pelosi's, though, and if it is then something like MG's two-and-out scenario seems to me quite plausible.

[dissent]

I don't feel particularly tolerant of this notion that going for bi-partisanship is the high road and what the Dems should do if the House goes Dem.

Frankly, those of you arguing this point have shown your poor judgement because I seem to recall you have supported this Admin in the past. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Those moderates and 'reasonable Republicans' who dish out this conventional wisdom have the good intentions that paved our road to Hell.

Those of you who have supported this Admin in the past need to face your loss of credibility and account for your errors in judgement. You may also want to make an amends to the people of Iraq.

[bncthor]

For the most part, Pk's articles have an impact on the public discourse similar to that of turning a bright light on in a dark room. At least, that is my opinion.

[Detroit Dan]

Krugman makes a good point.

Asking the Dems what they would do in Iraq...

"It is like dropping a raw egg and asking me what my plans are for putting it back together," said Chris Murphy, the Democrat challenging Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.).

[anne]

Bncthor, agreed.

[Movie Guy]

"David E..",

It's true that I dropped the "a" when I spelled vengeance. A major crime, obviously.

Perhaps you will explain the purpose of the second period in your poster name after the letter, E, unless it was a simple error.

[Movie Guy]

No one made Krugman focus his behind the pay firewall attention on the matter of House and/or Senate hearings.

No one made Krugman say, in effect, that electing Democrats to the U.S. Congress for any other purpose than conducting a series of hearings is a waste of time. But that is what he is indicating.

If this is the real agenda of the DNC and DLC, then by all means spread the word. Quickly. Call the DNC and advise that they should spend $20 million advertising this "Krugman fact". Push it all the way.

If the Democrat leadership mentality is such that its leaders, if filling majority seats in the U.S. House and/or Senate, follow the Krugman model of leadership, then we can expect no legislation. Why bother trying? Why, indeed. Instead, we can tune in to listen to over eighteen to twenty months of hearings.

If the Krugman mentality is that widespread among those Democrats who will be elected to Congress in November or those already securely seated in Congress, then we can rest assured that many of those elected Democrats will be back on the street within two years.

If that is all that we are voting for next month, then we're no different from the spiteful and immature Republicans who hounded Clinton for eight years. For those who missed it, that was a continual, despicable Congressional performance. One for which they should have been driven from office in disgrace.

If the Democratic Party can conduct itself no better than the vile Republican Party, then the USA is ready for a third major party.

Two and out. Watch it happen.

[calmo]

'dissent' introduces a new variation on "Some".[Short for 'some meatheads', not exactly you people, but them.]
It is "Those of you" (and this means some of us, not them, people --a huge and engaging difference.)
Let's pick the last bit:

Those of you who have supported this Admin in the past need to face your loss of credibility and account for your errors in judgement. You may also want to make an amends to the people of Iraq.

and know that 'dissent' is a real Hangin Judge and not one to trifle with. Save those statements like "I take full responsibility for my actions." for somebody else. Justice is going to be done and seen to be done even if it takes The Rack.
Especially The Rack followed by The Bed of Nails.

Vengeance is so sweet...and human. A stone's throw from an eye for an eye.
And another stone's throw away from being fair and balanced.
And, of course, an ad hominem. [~he acted out of vengeance/with a vengeance/vengefully, is to say something about his character and not the action]
So 'dissent' allow us to be human, to make mistakes, and to make some apologies and adjustments to our views.
We (members of 'those of you' --even masochists like me) are trying our best.

[David E..]

Movie Guy, you are too sensitive. You might have had a case of fat fingers or a brain fart, but folks started using your spelling and I thought if I didnt say something, in a few years I would have to learn how to spell vengeance again.

about the 2 periods, so far, I am the only David E.. that I have met.

[dissent]

"We (members of 'those of you' --even masochists like me) are trying our best."

Point taken. In my defense I will note that I happened to spend a part of my childhood in Iraq and the people and country are dear to me. I do not see this country taking moral responsibility for the carnage and catastrophe we have caused. (Fundamentalist Christians are the worst in this regard.) I see far too many blow hards who felt entitled to wage war for the flimsiest of reasons who now keep bellowing their judgements, as if they still have credibility. Not so. A searching moral self-examination is required before credibility can be restored.

[calmo]

Shoot, I had a point?

dissent is way bigger than I thought and your defence is totally unnecessary. [Shoot, if I have a point, it is a small one about vengeance and justice, not a personal attack requiring a defence. Not really.]
Please stay with us and ignore those of us (can I learn the lingo or what?) whose temperment and history is not as close to the action as yours. Few of us have lived in Iraq and even fewer of us have that disposition to examine "the carnage and catastrophe".

[RN]

Movie Guy is a consummate example of how amoral idiots can spin anything into anything. Thank God not many folks here fall for it. But as Bill O'Reilly shows us, his moronic dogma certainly plays on Main (read "dumb") Street.

Apparently Movie Guy doesn't think the unprecedented crimes of this gang of Republican scum deserves investigation. Apparently he thinks the Dems if elected should sit around and pick their noses instead of doing - as Krugman points out - one of the few things they'd actually have power to do. Apparently Movie Guy can't do the 1+1 political arithmetic to understand that with the power of oversight comes at least power to influence the White House to think carefully about what it does and how quickly it drags the US into the toilet. Apparently "Lieberman Democrat" Movie Guy would rather turn the whole mess back over to the minions of Satan rather than give the Dems even a shot at making things less insane in this country.

Unreal. God save us from people like him.

[Richard]

MG tries very hard, and is sincere. I don't often agree with him, but I do give him credit for trying to make a case.

The reason for hearings is simple: there's still a lot in GWs closet, and it's all gotta come out. All of it. You get no credit for that incredible cleaning frenzy if you only clean out part of the closet and leave the ugly stuff in those heavy back boxes. Let's see the real extent to which civil liberties have been abrogated, books cooked and atrocities not reported.

Then let's take a deep breath and move forward.

Personally I think that anne is right: the only way forward is to pull out. But I don't think the bulk of U.S. is behind that, and only a fair review of everything -- supported by investigations -- is going to even come close to bringing most of it to light.

The review will begin now or two years from now, but it will happen.

The withdrawal of troops under adverse conditions will happen next year or the year after or five years from now or ten, but an unhappy withdrawal it will be. We have overstepped our bound; defending that or doubling down will get us nowhere.

[Dirk van Dijk]

Oversight and a balance of powers are a good thing. It is what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they set up 3 branches of govt rather than just one. The downside is that it makes the govt slow to act, gridlock, if you will. But that is often a good thing, it prevents craziness from happening. While personally I would love to see Bush Cheney and Rummie all shipped to the Hauge, I know it is not going to happen. I would gladly settle for a full accounting of what has happened tot he country I love over the last six years. All the thing that the GOP will try to scare people about will not happen, since Bush can always veto it. Honestly, without a veto over ride majority in both houses, how much damage could any party inflict on the country with the white house in the other party control? Just about zero. How much damage can congress cause if the same party is in the white house, and that party has appointed 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices? The last six years prove the answer is plenty.

[DJM]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/1877
Don't know much about history: Is our policymakers learnin'?
by Weldon Berger | Oct 17 2006


'Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?'

Bush apparently learned only shortly before he invaded Iraq that there were two major branches of Islam represented there, and it isn't yet clear that he actually understands the ramifications of the pre-existing relationships between Shia, Sunni and Kurd. (what I believe is clear is that he doesn't really care)

....along with the politicians, top US intelligence and counter-terrorism officials seem at sea.
....this time [asked of ] Virginia Republican Jo Ann Davis, "who heads a House intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing the C.I.A.’s performance in recruiting Islamic spies and analyzing information."
( analyzing information !)

... I asked her if she knew the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.
“Do I?” she asked me. A look of concentration came over her face. “You know, I should.” She took a stab at it: “It’s a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa. But I think it’s the Sunnis who’re more radical than the Shia.”

Did she know which branch Al Qaeda’s leaders follow?

“Al Qaeda is the one that’s most radical, so I think they’re Sunni,” she replied. “I may be wrong, but I think that’s right.”

Did she think that it was important, I asked, for members of Congress charged with oversight of the intelligence agencies, to know the answer to such questions, so they can cut through officials’ puffery when they came up to the Hill?

“Oh, I think it’s very important,” said Ms. Davis

[DJM]

Inspires confidence, doesn't it?