Paul Krugman: On Being Partisan

Paul Krugman on partisanship and what it will take for it to end:

On Being Partisan, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: American politics is ugly these days, and many people wish things were different. ... If all goes well, we’ll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship — but that will be the end of the story, not the beginning. ...

You see, the nastiness of modern American politics isn’t the result of a random outbreak of bad manners. It’s a symptom of deeper factors — mainly the growing polarization of our economy. And history says that we’ll see a return to bipartisanship only if and when that economic polarization is reversed.

After all, American politics has been nasty in the past. Before the New Deal, America was a nation with a vast gap between the rich and everyone else, and this gap was reflected in a sharp political divide. The Republican Party, in effect, represented the interests of the economic elite, and the Democratic Party, in an often confused way, represented the populist alternative. ...

[T]he G.O.P.’s advantage in money, and the superior organization that money bought, usually allowed it to dominate national politics. ... Then came the New Deal. I urge ... everyone ... who thinks that good will alone is enough to change the tone of our politics — to read the speeches of Franklin Delano Roosevelt...

F.D.R. faced fierce opposition as he created ... Social Security, unemployment insurance, more progressive taxation and beyond ... that helped alleviate inequality. And he didn’t shy away from confrontation.

“We had to struggle,” he declared in 1936, “with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. ... Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

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

The history of the last few decades has basically been the story of the New Deal in reverse. Income inequality has returned to levels not seen since the pre-New Deal era, and so have political divisions in Congress as the Republicans have moved right, once again becoming the party of the economic elite. The signature domestic policy initiatives of the Bush administration have been attempts to undo F.D.R.’s legacy... And a bitter partisan gap has opened up between the G.O.P. and Democrats, who have tried to defend that legacy.

What about the smear campaigns, like Karl Rove’s...? Well, they’re reminiscent of the vicious anti-Catholic propaganda used to defeat Al Smith in 1928: smear tactics are what a well-organized, well-financed party with a fundamentally unpopular domestic agenda uses to change the subject.

So am I calling for partisanship for its own sake? Certainly not. By all means pass legislation, if you can, with plenty of votes from the other party: the Social Security Act of 1935 received 77 Republican votes in the House, about the same as the number of Republicans who recently voted for a minimum wage increase.

But politicians who try to push forward the elements of a new New Deal, especially universal health care, are sure to face the hatred of a large bloc on the right — and they should welcome that hatred, not fear it.

_________________________
Previous (1/22) column: Paul Krugman: Gold-Plated Indifference
Next (1/29) column: Paul Krugman: The Sum of All Ears

Update: This came up in comments. If you go to "Political Polarization and Economic Policy," and follow the link at the bottom "Immigration and Political Polarization" you'll find the following graphs [the graphs are a follow-up to "Class War Politics"]:

Click on graphs to enlarge

Comments

[Movie Guy]

Paul Krugman has no interest in bipartisanship as evidenced by his more recent writings.

The polarization is driven by a number of political forces including Democrats and Republicans. The extreme elements in both major parties tell plenty of lies, fueling the distrust and hatred of the other political ideology. Krugman plays an actove role in such campaigns.

There are political leaders and Members of Congress who are attempting to undue some of the extreme partisanship. But Paul Krugman is not part of that effort.

Paul Krugman is a supplier of extreme partisanship, adding fuel to the fires of hatred at almost every opportunity.

Krugman's closer:

"But politicians who try to push forward the elements of a new New Deal, especially universal health care, are sure to face the hatred of a large bloc on the right — and they should welcome that hatred, not fear it."

Paul Krugman has no interest in bipartisanship. NONE.

[JP of Seattle]

Paul Krugman merely tells it like it is. As a world-class economist, when he recites facts from that wide arena, they carry the weight of someone with a stirling reputation in that field.
He often opines beyond that field of expertise, and I rarely disagree with him.
The fact of the matter is that inequality is worse today than at any time since 1929. And anyone who thinks we aren't paying a price for that is too worried about tax cuts on their precious income to think it through seriously.
Linking partisanship with income inequality is a brilliant observation. It may considerable merit. I would love to see econo-historians grapple with it in a serious way.

[maria]

MG: Well of course Bush and Rove have always been staunch advocates of bi-partisanship. It is simply mind-blowing how bi-partisan the GOP has been during the last fifteen years. If only they could take complete control again, we'd be in bi-partisan heaven. LOL.

[maria]

And, somewhat off topic, the very partisan Zionist smear campaign vs. Jimmy Carter for defending the Palestinians in his recent book, appears to be in full swing:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/
article53954.html

[bullbust]

"There are political leaders and Members of Congress who are attempting to undue some of the extreme partisanship. But Paul Krugman is not part of that effort."

Yes. Like, um, reality has a liberal bias.

To paraphrase Krugman himself, when Bush/Republicans claims the earth is flat, democrats are supposed to find a compromise with them - all in spirit of bipartisanship. No?

Republicans had all the opportunity for bipartisanship till last year - how did they use it?

They wanted a majority of Republicans to support any policy before it was enacted. Yup. A majority of Republicans + Democrats supporting a policy was not enough. There were 232 Republicans & 202 Democrats in the last Congress of 435. Just 117 Republicans could stop something supported by the other 318 from even being considered.

The conference committee shenanigans are even worse.

And yesterday only, Cheney was on CNN accusing Democrats of aiding the terrorists because they criticised the President's Iraq policy.

Bipartisanship, my ass. When the Republicans become sensible, Democrats should try for compromise. Like Bush's policy of no-talks-with-terrorists, Democrats should not negotiate with thug Republicans. Democrats should negotiate with Republicans only after Republicans get rid of their thugs.

Get used to it. Republicans lost. They are losers.

[Movie Guy]

I am not a supporter of the crap that the Republicans did or do. Nor am I a supporter of what the Democrats have done in the past.

What I said in my post stands. There are efforts among political leaders and Members of Congress to undue some of the extreme partisanship. But Krugman isn't part of that circle, nor does he support such moves.

Krugman has no interest in bipartisanship. NONE.

Yet he is going to write on the subject. Bullshit. He could care less about bipartisanship. Let's stop the pretending on this one.

[Movie Guy]

maria - "And, somewhat off topic, the very partisan Zionist smear campaign vs. Jimmy Carter for defending the Palestinians in his recent book, appears to be in full swing"

Have you read President Carter's book or listened to some of President Carter's speeches in the past month?

Smear campaign? Maybe you should read the book...and compare facts to Carter's fictions.

[bullbust]

"Krugman has no interest in bipartisanship. NONE."

Now, let me explain this slowly, once more. That's what he wrote. That bipartisanship is not a virtue. That bipartisanship happens if Republicans agree to Democratic policies. If they dont agree, Democrats should just do it anyway. Some Republicans are not gonna like it, and tough luck for them.

And there is nothing they can do about it. Other than throw tantrums.

[Cyrille]

There are some extremists in the Democratic party -like Lieberman. Yes, the only extremists are extremists on the right side. There are absolutely no extremists to the left, actually there is maybe not even a genuine social-democrat, which is center-left.
The Republican party, however has become a hugely extreme body. So yes, any reasonable politician is bount to be hated by many Republicans, and should welcome that hatred and not be bullied by it.

[anne]

"But politicians who try to push forward the elements of a new New Deal, especially universal health care, are sure to face the hatred of a large bloc on the right — and they should welcome that hatred, not fear it."

Thank you, Dear Paul Krugman. John Kenneth Galbraith would be proud.

[anne]

The way in which the meanist of Republicans, as a Newt Gingrich, proceed is to slash and smash then immediately complain that those who have been slashed and smashed simply will not be non-partisan, will not be the sort of friends sweet Newt has always been, then slash and smash anew. Can we all be friends? Slash and smash. Can we? Yuch.

[pidgas]

"By all means pass legislation, if you can, with plenty of votes from the other party..."

These legislative acts passed Congress with substantial bipartisan support. Can you name them?

1. "The 670 page act was eventually passed by the House of Representatives on December 13, 2001 by a vote of 381-41. It passed in the Senate by a vote of 87-10 on December 18, 2001."

2. "It passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23."

[DJM]

I think PK is right on the money (pun intended) when he says; "It’s a symptom of deeper factors — mainly the growing polarization of our economy."
He isn't the first to see it either. Bipartisanship will only work when everyone is interested in "justice for ALL" and not just a better deal for a few.

[anne]

Yes; with deception and fear America was driven to a needless war and insane tragic occupation in Iraq. Now most of America understands the tragedy, and the tactics of fear and deception, and we will not be folled again. Now Democrats have come to understand and should be as partisan as can be to bring us from Iraq. Therein is partisanship for life for sanity for morality.

[anne]

DJM

"It’s a symptom of deeper factors — mainly the growing polarization of our economy."

He isn't the first to see it either. Bipartisanship will only work when everyone is interested in "justice for ALL" and not just a better deal for a few.

[Precisely; though it is now as much a symptom of the needless terrible tragic occupation of Iraq.]

[Mark Thoma]

I added an update with graphs showing estimates of how political polarization and inequality are related.

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

Partisanship is critical at this moment if we are of the mind that the "American Promise" belongs to everyone. It is critical that we fight it out to reverse the trends of the last 40 years. The elite must be forced (coerced) into equilibrium. They will not give up the spoils without a fight and fight they will.

Guaranteed decent Education, reliable Health Care, comfortable Housing, a clean Environment, gainful Employment, fair Immigration, did I miss any, it's late and I'm tired. These are all issues that are being eclipsed by the idiotic war in Iraq. We must be partisaan and we must fight for Draconian reforms in all these areas. These are the components that are required for the pursuit of happyness and for the "American Promise" to be fulfilled.

Krugman is absolutely right about the Republican Party and who they represent. It's time for partisanship even if nothing gets done. It's time to call those bastards out and rip off the cloaks of respectability. We must hold those who have ruled and enabled this catastrophy accoutable. Hillary Clinton is one of those, a "polished politician" representing some of the darkest special interests on our land, Wall Street. No more deferential treatment. There is no soft way out of this mess. The so called moderate Democrats wont do this. This country needs progressive radicalism and there is no time to waste.

Best regards,

Econolicious
Prince of The Ungreatful Slaves

[reason]

I wonder what bi-partisan even means. Does it mean weak intra-party discipline or does it mean not opposing everything the opposition does, just because the opposition does it.

I would like to see a return to the politics of respectful differences of opponion. That means a return to genuine debate, not just changing the subject.

I wonder what MG is looking for.

Krugmann opposes what he doesn't like. I don't think he always thinks the Democrats and right and the Republicans are always wrong, he things the Republicans are wrong now and the Democrats are sometimes right now.

[ilsm]

It is only class warfare if the exploited fight back.

[maria]

MG: your "facts" or the real facts? There are many "facts", you know.

[maria]

Viewpoints re Carter's book vary widely. Most Zionists hate it. Others think it is spendid. Take your pick.

http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Peace-Apartheid-Jimmy-Carter/dp/
customer-reviews/0743285026

But that he is the object of a smear campaign seems clear.

[bakho]

I think PK nails it. The GOP hates social programs and has tried to roll back social spending. The Democrats support social spending and would like to increase it. The GOP dislikes international institutions, such as the UN, and would like to "remove the top 10 stories". Clinton foreign policy was based on strengthening international institutions. Bush foreign policy has been based on marginalizing international institutions. Clinton favored a "peace dividend". Bush will double military spending. Clinton raised the top tax rates on the wealthy. Reagan and Bush cut the top tax rates. Clinton proposed universal health care. The Republicans and the insurance companies killed it. Bush wants an ownership society where everyone has to pay for their own safety net. The Democrats favor a broader safety net.

It is clear that both parties want to take the country in the opposite direction. This is bound to cause conflict. The 24/7 news feeds off conflict. Most of the media is owned by conservative elites. They publish the views of their fellow elites in part because they depend on advertising dollars. Personal attacks are easier to understand and sell than wonkery. Republicans have been willing to mount personal attacks to destroy any and all Democratic presidential contenders. It is amazing that they could turn the combat service of Kerry and Gore in Vietnam into negatives and the draft dodging of Bush and Cheney into positives. Democrats counterattack by tying Republicans to unpopular parts of their agenda. There is a wing of the Democratic Party that wants to take the gloves off and get personal. I have mixed feelings about this. However, Bush had major personal shortcomings that should have been political issues in the election campaigns. His personal shortcomings have directly led to his failed presidency.

Didn't Krugman start out in the Reagan Administration?

says...

Krugman should get real. Compared to the rest of the world, the Democons and Republicrats are one big party. Look at how the individual parties sanction illicit and illegal behaviour within their parties.

Americans will never get decent political opposition until each party cleans itself up.

[callahan]

Well said Mr. Krugman!

[SP]

Movie Guy says, "What I said in my post stands. There are efforts among political leaders and Members of Congress to undue some of the extreme partisanship."

So, Movie Guy, what are the three most representaive instances of this? And is all "bipartisan" (whatever that is) policy inherently superior to "partisan" policy?

[RN]

MG doin' the nutjob as usual.

Who gives a f%@k about bipartisanship?

The point is to do the RIGHT thing.

Republicans are so far off the deep end in one direction that to be bipartisan with these lunatics would be to misserve everyone.

If we get more Hagels and Collins, and purge the Brownbacks and the Delays (who are good for NOTHING but keeping Christians down and quiet so they can rig the whole country for the top .1%) then maybe we can talk about bipartisanship.

[csning]

"Thank you, Dear Paul Krugman. John Kenneth Galbraith would be proud."

Ironically, Krugman wouldn't see this as high praise, methinks. JKG was one of those he slagged off in his 94 book, 'Peddling Prosperity'.

[anne]

A fine bipartisan time was had through the years when Republicans and Southern Democrats teamed to prevent any civil rights legislation. Eventually there was enough partisan weight in Congress and a President partisan enough to enact such legislation that dramatically changed America and is shaping us still. The partisan Congress liberal and populist that was elected with Franklin Roosevelt was essential in enacting experimental New Deal programs and bringing us through the Depression.

[anne]

There is nothing wrong with partisanship, especially now when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee could vote 12 to 9 against surging in Iraq. This meant 11 Democratic votes and 1 Republican, Chuck Hagel, against 9 Republicans. This is fine partisanship. Fine indeed.

[ken melvin]

Very, very interesting. The curves do so coincide with the advent of automation and displacement of workers and the diminishing role of the unions. As usual, I think the right was looking farther down the road and striking preemptively.

[callahan]

One example of bad bipartisanship, Bush and most Democrats on weak border security and amnesty for illegals. A second is the non-partisan vote for congressional pay raises.

I am sure others can describe more.

However Mr. Krugman, I still like what you said.

[callahan]

And yet Mr. Krugman I like what RN said as well.

Guess I am more complex than I thought.

[evagrius]

Has anyone looked at what's going on in the Senate regarding the minimum wage?

Oh, yes, that's "bi-partisanship" in action.

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/01/kennedy-to-republicans-what-is-it-about.html

[DJM]

A Congress that is partisan, confrontational,liberal and populist enough to get us out of the quagmires of war and suicidal national debt that this administration has created .... and repair and improve the New Deal programs and restore the Constitution and the country's international reputation ...is something I long for. If this doesn't happen soon we will have more than a Great Depression to recover from.

[save_the_rustbelt]

I want to hear Krugman admit that his lust for more international trade has contributed to inequality. Just once, please.

And he seems to think all partisanship is caused by the GOP, what crap.

[Carter]

Movie Guy: All Krugman is saying is that sharp partisanship is the clash of underlying economic interests pushing the 2 political parties in different directions. With the Republicans in the ascendancy the past 20 years and the party becoming dominated by economic/laissez faire and religious zealots, they've created a reaction by those that oppose them. Its not largely interpersonnel as you seemed to think.

I'm curious, whom do you consider the extremists in the Democratic Party (which has become pretty miltoast the past 20 years)? Even someone like Clinton, who was a centrist, was constantly attacked by the Republicans for 8 years.

[anne]

Now, I want more partisanship, lots more, but of course the partisanship we have had has been Republican caused. Republicans have had such control in the White House and Congress these last 6 years that the President has only had to veto a single bill, and the single bill was on stem cell research and was for show to Republican activists. To add the the partisanship, the President has continually added signing statements to legislation further slanting even the will of a conservative Congress.

These last weeks alone we have the Attorney General quietly firing and hiring important Federal prosecutors. We have an Assistant Secretary of Defense attacking American law firms for representing the accused in military confinement. We have the continual cut and run intimidating attacks on those who would stand for peace, to calling Nancy Pelosi poisonous just before smiling at the Speaker in Congress.

Yes; conservative Republicans have been wildly partisan and those who oppose them must be more so.

[catlady]

Can't anyone spell "undo" correctly?

[maria]

What The Shame of Yale really means is "I am the (tin horn) dictator."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070126/D8MT22SO0.html

[realpc]

Krugman is not a historian or political scientist. He is utterly convinced of a very black-and-white view of history. The bad Republicans never cared about anyone except the rich. Then along came the enlightened New Deal Democrats to straighten everything out, only to have it destroyed by Reagan. Ever since, the bad meanies have been in charge, so of course everything is unravelling.

But every country that goes too far in the direction of socialism (powerful government, high taxes, generous welfare programs) starts to unravel in its own way. Inevitably, a non-socialist is voted in to correct the imbalance.

And when capitalism gets out of hand, the pendulum starts to swing back towards socialism. The lesson is always that captialism and socialism must be kept in balance. Krugman, like Galbraith, has never learned that lesson.

Parts of the New Deal may have been useful and necessary, but that doesn't mean we should always follow a New Deal philosophy at all times in all circumstances, or that more New Deal is always better.

Too much socialism punishes business, especially small business, and rewards people for not working. Krugman has written about the effects of too much socialism in France. He knows -- somewhere in the back of his mind -- that New Dealism is not a panacea.

[kharris]

Lessee, according to Movie Guy,

Carter – anti-semite

Krugman – bloody-fanged partisan

Movie Guy – fair and balanced (and humble, as always)

Right.

On a more elevated note, the tendency toward partisanship, and the golden age of getting along, are apparently becoming a hot topic.

Cokie Roberts offered a reminiscence, and some opinion, from her own perspective –

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7025454

[callahan]

RealPC, by reading comments like yours, and others, I think I am learning a thing or two.

I'm from the old workin man school where Republicans are bad and Democrats are good. Though in the back of my mind somewhere, I know it is more complex than that.

Somtimes I try to convey that kind of thought, but can't muster the eloquence you display.

Still here are a couple of callahan-isms, the rich have a lot of influence (these days) on both parties.

Maybe we need to develop a new CapSosh philosophy, and a strong third party.

[anne]

Yes; there we have it, just like "cut and run" and "run and cut," the always magical Republican non-partisan word "socialism" for magical Republicans. By the way is running and cutting worse or better than cutting and running, and would someone anyone explain football to me so I can finally understand why we are so against either? Remind me to be ever so much more partisan, make that capitalistically partisan for being socialistically partisan would mean smiling in remembrance when walking past John Kenneth Galbraith's house.

[callahan]

Anne, yes or SoshCap.

[billy]

Too much socialism punishes business, especially small business, and rewards people for not working. Krugman has written about the effects of too much socialism in France. He knows -- somewhere in the back of his mind -- that New Dealism is not a panacea.

Right. What we have now, after 6 years of Republican rule, is "too much socialism".

[callahan]

Can amnesty for illegals be defined as socialism?

[billy]

I wonder what bi-partisan even means. Does it mean weak intra-party discipline or does it mean not opposing everything the opposition does, just because the opposition does it.

I would like to see a return to the politics of respectful differences of opponion. That means a return to genuine debate, not just changing the subject.

I wonder what MG is looking for.

Oh the facts are not good for MG. MG wants his own facts.

Here are the favor/oppose/no opinion ratings from the public on some policies (CNN http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/01/03/rel31l.pdf)

(1)Allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies to attempt to lower the price of prescription drugs for some senior citizens: 87/12/1

(2)Raising the minimum wage: 85/14/1

(3)Cutting interest rates on federal loans to college students: 84/15/1

(4)Creating an independent panel to oversee ethics in Congress: 79/19/2

(5)Making significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq: 77/20/3

(6)Reducing the amount of influence lobbyists have in congressional decisions: 75/21/4

(7)Implementing all of the anti-terrorism recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission: 64/26/10

(8)Maintaining the current Social Security system to prevent the creation of private investment accounts: 63/32/6

(9)Funding embryonic stem cell research: 62/32/6

For MG, there still needs to bipartisanship, because 15-20% of the public still opposes these policies.

So bipartisanship has resulted in the prescription drug policy getting watered down, and minimum wage getting stuck in the Senate. Policies with 87% and 85% support do not get passed clean, because of bipartisanship.
If this is bipartisanship, I want none of it. Neither does the public.

We want more of rabid partisanship. That's what the public overwhelmingly wants. MG and his conservative ilk (15-20%) can holler (and command the media to spout their worldview) all they want, but in the end, the fact remains - they are a miniscule minority.

The more the public realize that these Republicans are are a vocal minority who is bullying them, the better things are going to get for the public.

And partisanship, scoring political points - is a way to make that contrast clear. When 85% support cannot assure a change, better to score a political point, and settle the question at the next election. There is no need to compromise on things with 85% support.

[calmo]

So you figure w's plea for bi-partisanship in the SOTU Address was what ticked PK off?
Krugman just could not stand this sudden conciliatory stance...it requiring mountains of effort to suspend this whateveritwas. [Twas this: such a model of bipartisanship this administration...as outlined by O'Neill in Loyalty.]
But it is a New Day now...with those election results.

This bi-partisanship business moves from that lofty and deceitful podium into something of an abyss here. But do I have the loftiness to straighten all you non-partisan fans out? Well how about just the deceitfulness then? This would require posting under a pseudonym and how could I betray my fan base like that?
Ok, I'm ready to talk Carter and Palestine with my friend and colleague maria, a reknown bi-partisan.

[Bruce Webb]

realpc have you ever heard of the concept of projection. You continually reduce Democratic positions to cartoons and then blame us for being cartoonists. For a guy who is blasting Krugman for living in a black and white world you seen to have a serious lack of ability to see shades of gray. This was just stupid:

"He is utterly convinced of a very black-and-white view of history. The bad Republicans never cared about anyone except the rich. Then along came the enlightened New Deal Democrats to straighten everything out, only to have it destroyed by Reagan. Ever since, the bad meanies have been in charge, so of course everything is unravelling."

If if were to say "Realpc is utterly convinced of a very black-and-white view of history. The bad Democrats never cared about anyone except the poor. Then along came the enlightened Supply Side Republicans to straighten everything out, only to have it destroyed by Clinton". I would think you would be a little insulted. Yet it is just as fair as your formulation of PKs position.

Setting up cartoon strawmen and then showing how easy it is to set them on fire may be your idea of political discourse, it isn't mine. We have plenty of people fully able of stating our position, really we don't need the help of cariacaturists.

[calmo]

K Harris picks MG out of the hay stack, Bruce Webb picks realpc, but ken has found his navelVery, very interestingother partisans being unworthy.
But does he get it right or was it all just a little hair ball in there? Surely GOP penetration into the media starts in the early 60s and that feature is more prominent than the growth/decline of unions.
I cannot stand to see ken without a partisan, you?
Of course I feel the same way about bakho, but my record hitting against him is so dismal...so beaned.

[Movie Guy]

RN - "MG doin' the nutjob as usual. Who gives a f%@k about bipartisanship? The point is to do the RIGHT thing."

While I consider this a personal attack (in violation of Mark's new poster policy; a policy that originated in the comments section under this post, but thus far not reflected elsewhere in the sidebar on the blog), I'll answer the poster's question.

Yes, I agree that doing the right thing is critically important, though there are many differences on what the "right thing" is, including so-called extremist viewpoints - the all or nothing crowd of thinkers, blog posters, and political party members, for example. But in the Congressional legislative progress, bipartisanship is essential to sustaining some vetoes if a bill is passed, and is equally important in securing sufficient support for bill passage in the first place. So, who cares about bipartisanship in the Congress - many Congressional bill sponsors and co-sponsors, depending on the type of legislation involved. That who cares. And for good reason.

Bipartisanship doesn't require a surrender of one's political beliefs or ideology to move the nation forward on legislative issues. Not at all. Members of Congress will tell you this. What bipartisanship does require is a level of civility in communications as discussed by reason above that allows for some opposing legislative positions by various Member of Congress to come to similar positions in order that general agreement is achieved in order to pass key legislation.

I agree with reason: I would also like to see a return to the politics of respectful differences of opinion. That means a return to genuine debate, not just changing the subject.

One of the problems (I use the term intentionally) for extremists in either political camp with the new Congress is that there is a growing number of Members of Congress who embrace Centrist positions. To this end, both major political parties' extreme elements within the Congress and the Parties are faced with the third voice, that of the Centrists. These are among the new leaders of bipartisanship. They are the deciders of vote tallys. So-called extremist legislation from either political party can go nowhere without the support of the growing number of Centrists. And the other elements of both political parties know it.

It appears to me that Robert Reich and Paul Krugman, among others, have not come to grips with the voting spreads that can be anticipated in the new Congress. Their problem doesn't appear to be with partisanship from the extreme opposing element of the Republican Party, but rather with the Centrist influence and voting power. The extreme element of the Republican Party doesn't have the votes to move any legislation. None. And the extreme element of the Democrat Party doesn't have the votes to move any legislation. None, again. The swing voting power rests with the Centrists. And in order to secure sufficient votes on any legislation including veto-proof sustaining power, not only is bipartisanship desirable but it is likely to be available if those engaged in securing bill support are not of the Krugman mindset - playing out the hatred card or heavyhanded ideology chestbeating at all costs or running around sticking one's fingers in the eyes of others. That's just an example of political stupidity from amateur political pundits.

For the first time in quite a while, there is a strong Centrist movement within the Congress. Speaker Pelosi understands this point very well. And she also has explained publicly and privately that she is the Speaker of the House for all Members of the House. That's the way it is supposed to be, and it's the way she is conducting herself in that office.

Bipartisanship is more viable now than it has been in many, many years. It's the key to keeping the Republican extremists from regaining power. Moreover, efforts undertaken to allow for more civil discourse will only further strip away the potential for Republican extremists to close ranks and hold Centrist Republicans captive during voting sessions. So, yes, bipartisanship efforts are critically important at this point. But Krugman doesn't embrace this point because he lacks the political emotional discipline and reasoning to grasp the significance of the transition whereby Centrists have a much larger footprint in the Congress, particularly in the House.

[Movie Guy]

kharris - "Lessee, according to Movie Guy,

Carter – anti-semite

Krugman – bloody-fanged partisan

Movie Guy – fair and balanced (and humble, as always)

Right."

I did not say that President Carter was an anti-semite. I said the following in response to maria's claim: "Have you read President Carter's book or listened to some of President Carter's speeches in the past month? Smear campaign? Maybe you should read the book...and compare facts to Carter's fictions."

Yes, President Carter is having some difficulties at the moment due to some of his statements which lack accuracy. I am not aware that he is an anti-semite based on my personal history with his family that dates back some 38 years.

On Krugman, I said that he is not an embracer of bipartisanship. And he isn't. In my opinion, Krugman lacks the political skills or emotional control to move a piece of legislation through the Congress.

[billy]

The extreme element of the Republican Party doesn't have the votes to move any legislation. None. And the extreme element of the Democrat Party doesn't have the votes to move any legislation. None, again. The swing voting power rests with the Centrists.

What Republicans represent today is so extreme, that the moderate Republican is a right wing thug. Any attempt at bipartisanship will result in an outcome of thuggery. And that would be an outcome to your hearts content.

The problem is very simple, you know it, I know it, and the public knows it. Being centrist means Republicans abandoning everything that the Republican party stood for the last decade. Period. The centre is at the left of todays Democratic party. And that is going to show up more and more in election results.

Talk facts. eg:Who is extremist for blocking the minimum wage hike - with 85% public support? What would be a centrist position? On any of those policies I listed above?

[fiskhus jim]

Krugman says: "F.D.R. faced fierce opposition as he created ... Social Security, unemployment insurance, more progressive taxation and beyond ... that helped alleviate inequality."

How true!

That Fierce opposition even included an abortive coup attempt by certain "Wall Street interests" - which rather clearly included the current President's Grandfather.

For more details seek out the testimony of Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC, before the original HUAC, which (at that time, i.e. pre-WWII) was charged with investigating not only communist activity but fascist activity in the US, as well.

[anne]

Paul Krugman is that and Paul Krugman is that and Paul Krugman adds fuel to this and fuel to that and the fires burn high and the fires burn low depending on how much or little fuel is added (to the fires that is to which Paul Krugman is adding fuel).

I know, I know. There must be emotional discipline and control and rationality. I know; but where is all the fun?

[Movie Guy]

billy,

There have been many Republican Centrists all along, including those who defected from the Democrat Party. Some Members of Congress who are now Republicans are certainly not Republican extremists of the type you are describing. And we will see more evidence of this during the next two Congresses. The Republican Members of Congress are not as united as some believe. Those who are Centrists will exert more freedom from the extremists in the forthcoming votes. The pattern should improve over time.

Which Members of Congress blocked the last attempt to pass minimum wage? Yes, an unfair question, based on why the legislation was blocked (because of what it was tied to). But, still. The answer, please.

I have every confidence that minimum wage legislation will be passed by this Congress and signed into law by the President.

If you want to deny that Congressional Centrists control the swing votes and major chucks of forthcoming legislation in the Congress, be my guest.

Let's see what you say at the end of this Congress.

[Movie Guy]

anne - "There must be emotional discipline and control and rationality. I know; but where is all the fun?"

Yes, I agree with this point. :)

But if we want to see good legislation passed, well...there must some attempt at collecting enough votes to accomplish such goals.

[fiskhus jim]

RealPC knows nothing of socialism except as the bugaboo of another, earlier administration that set great store by fearmongering.

To say that socialism is a failure is more than a bit like having the Auto industry actively sabotaging the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk and than solemnly intoning, "Man will nevber fly."

To paraphrase Michael Harrington's worthy pamphlet, "The only true definition of socialism is to define it as mankind's struggle to control their environment in a way that results in the greatest good for the greatest number." I.e., not unlike the attmpts made by the Founders in writing the US Constitution.

[realpc]

I just said that SOCIALISM is necessary to balance capitalism. I said we need SOCIALISM. So all you socialists should learn to read.

[maria]

MG: "lack accuracy" is your take on his statements. Others think them very accurate. If he is not an anti-Semite, as you admit, then why the smears about him circulated by Zionists? Do you disavow them?

[alex]

there *must* be some semi-rigorous academic work on this correlation by political scientists, economists.

anyone know it?

anyone?

[anne]

RealPC

Yes; you are right in that a balance between unchecked markets and market checks is evidently needed for a healthy society, and the balance which is a political creation will necessarily change in time as conditions newly influence political resolutions. But, the problem has long been the terms capitalism and socialism are not political equivalents here. Socialism has been a term that is used to end program discussion; quite an effective term which was why I chose to play with the term.

I agree with you on the balance needed and the changes that are over time brought politically. The same has been the case in western Europe.

[maria]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/
20070125-112710-7481r.htm

Carter leans over backwards to be conciliatory so Dershowitz smears him again as "Al Jazera Carter". Nice, isn't it?

[billy]

Which Members of Congress blocked the last attempt to pass minimum wage? Yes, an unfair question, based on why the legislation was blocked (because of what it was tied to). But, still. The answer, please.

Minimum wages, which 85% of the country want, should not have to buy itself with any compromises. It should pass on its own.

You think 85% is not enough, it must still make some concessions. And we all understand thats _your_ definition of "bipartisanship".

There have been many Republican Centrists all along, including those who defected from the Democrat Party.

That's a trick that you can play on idiots, not me- are you going to pull out "Democrats supported slavery" next?

Republicans are what they did in the last six years, when they had absolute power. That's it. Push your 'Bush is not Republican/conservative' trick elsewhere.

If you want to deny that Congressional Centrists control the swing votes and major chucks of forthcoming legislation in the Congress, be my guest.

Does not matter what happens in this Congress - in fact with pseudo-Republicans like Lieberman, Burns and Faux moderates like Snowe, the best chances are to limit thuggery, rather than get rid of it.

"Congressional centrists" has no meaning. And Congress is going to get adjusted till "Congressional centrists" matches what the public considers as centrists.

In a way, you are the describing the modus of the slithering evil that can be loosely described as conservatism or rightwing thuggery. Always making allies of convenience, always looking out for itself, 'screw you, I got mine" forces - names like Republican or Democrat does not count for it.

Today, it's natural home is the Republican party. The Democratic party has some moles, and is purging them. It's going to take a few years. This realignment is something which you want to prevent at all costs, because it will give the conservative thugs an identity - that of being Republicans.

Conservatives think that they can hide themselves, pointing to damn liberals, NY Times elite, extreme Democrats, and extreme Republicans.

You are an unbending rightwing conservative.

[realpc]

Anne,

It seems to me that Krugman is all-out in favor of New Dealism, which is roughly equivalent to socialism. But I know, having read some of Krugman's older essays, that he is well aware of the pitfalls of going overboard with socialism. Now he rants against the excesses of capitalism, never bothering to note that prosperity depends on some degree of capitalism/private enterprise.

Krugman, nowdays, constantly accuses Republicans of not caring about poverty, since they advocate private enterprise. But he knows very well that Republicans, in general, advocate private enterprise because they believe it's good for everyone, not just for the rich. I'm sure there are some rich Republicans who don't care about the poor. But it is deliberately misleading to say, or imply, that anyone who believes in free enterprise is not concerned about poverty.

Is it better to be a socialist who advocates policies that in the long run create poverty, or a capitalist who advocates policies that encourage enterprise and lead to jobs and prosperity? The socialist talks more about poverty and compassion, but the results mean more than the talk.

Krugman knows all this. He knows that too much socialism, or New Dealism, can be harmful. He knows that most Republicans hate poverty just as much as most Democrats. They just have different ideas about how to solve the problem. Since Krugman knows all this, it confuses me when he acts as if he doesn't.

[realpc]

Anne,

It seems to me that Krugman is all-out in favor of New Dealism, which is roughly equivalent to socialism. But I know, having read some of Krugman's older essays, that he is well aware of the pitfalls of going overboard with socialism. Now he rants against the excesses of capitalism, never bothering to note that prosperity depends on some degree of capitalism/private enterprise.

Krugman, nowdays, constantly accuses Republicans of not caring about poverty, since they advocate private enterprise. But he knows very well that Republicans, in general, advocate private enterprise because they believe it's good for everyone, not just for the rich. I'm sure there are some rich Republicans who don't care about the poor. But it is deliberately misleading to say, or imply, that anyone who believes in free enterprise is not concerned about poverty.

Is it better to be a socialist who advocates policies that in the long run create poverty, or a capitalist who advocates policies that encourage enterprise and lead to jobs and prosperity? The socialist talks more about poverty and compassion, but the results mean more than the talk.

Krugman knows all this. He knows that too much socialism, or New Dealism, can be harmful. He knows that most Republicans hate poverty just as much as most Democrats. They just have different ideas about how to solve the problem. Since Krugman knows all this, it confuses me when he acts as if he doesn't.

[calmo's psuedonym]

So I wonder if maria has 38 years of personal history with Carter (as calmo decides to add a few wrinkles to not only MG's persona but possibly maria's) or whether she is just believing all those "fictions" about the plight of the Palesinians that the former president is spewing...[It goes without saying that Carter is known far and wide as an incorrigible scholar...for all you slightly further and wider out there.]
You figure Carter is suspect because his sources are just so inferior to MG's?
How about Krugman's purported shortcomings here: he lacks the political emotional discipline and reasoning to grasp the significance of the [Centrist] transition in the opinion of the emotionally mature and disciplined, possibly tri-partisaned, possibly faux-partied Centrist, but clearly reasoning and grasping Movie?
And that is the trouble with you partisan simpletons who don't grasp the significance of my view: You just lack discipline and reasoning...especially mine.
Buck up or back off and wait for further directions.

says...

The meds at four? Did we forget again?

[Movie Guy]

billy,

I don't care if you disagree with my opinions, but your attack on what I have stated is weak and ill-informed.

I have studied the results of November elections, listened to and read many statements by new Members of Congress, and continue to review poll data from multiple sources. The views expressed by many new Members of Congress are clearly Centrist, regardless of your banter. And the polls appear to support the general trends observed in the elections that put so many new Centrists in the Congress.

It appears that you are opposed to the Centrist or moderate positions and thinking. Again, you are welcome to believe in whatever you may desire, but to misconstrue the Centrist positions as evil Republican thinking is demonstrating considerable ignorance of the general facts. In your own words - "In a way, you are the describing the modus of the slithering evil that can be loosely described as conservatism or rightwing thuggery."

As such, I take it that any Congressional Member's position representing anything other than a Democrat extremist position on whatever issue is representative of "the slithering evil that can be loosely described as conservatism or rightwing thuggery". I not only consider that to be a gross misrepresentation of the facts, but it serves as a typical example of extremist or "far left" thinking by those fully opposed to anything but their own narrow viewpoints.

The moderates are Centrists and, as Centrists, they most assuredly do control the swing votes of this Congress. This is a trend that I believe will continue to grow in successive Congresses and national elections.

The U.S. polls and most recent elections appear to indicate that the majority of citizens in the nation are quite sick of extreme viewpoints and control by elements of both major parties. I share those observations based on my own interactions with individuals and groups, regardless of political affiliation. The extremist Republican stranglehold is broken, but the majority of voters do not appear to be seeking a substitute replacement by extremist Democrats or other extremist political types. The moderates aka Centrists are now demonstrating the most strength at the election booth. The available information and current Congressional actions support this conclusion in my judgment.

[Movie Guy]

maria - "MG: "lack accuracy" is your take on his statements. Others think them very accurate. If he is not an anti-Semite, as you admit, then why the smears about him circulated by Zionists? Do you disavow them?"

I believe that President Carter's new book would serve as a good subject for a main post. I am not sure that Mark would be willing to take it on, though. His call, of course.

As far as I know, President Carter is not an anti-Semite, but his book has raised some concerns based on what I have seen in the press. Whether those who are opposed to the President Carter's most recent viewpoints are correct or not remains to be seen as far as my own research goes. I haven't dug into every charge.

I didn't think that President Carter's speech appearance at a university earlier this week was handled very well. What I am referring to is the closed format appearance. Some of President Carter's follow on comments since that time have not helped the growing objections being raised.

Do I disavow the "smear campaign"? I am not overly impressed with either camp at this time. I expected that President Carter's book would stir some emotions, so I did expect negative reactions. Did Carter go too far with some of remarks, meaning that he appears unable to support a few claims? Apparently so. I don't believe it was necessary or beneficial to convey anything that can not be supported. To this end, President Carter appears to be having some difficulty in defending himself from some detractors, including those who have abandoned him on one of his boards as well as staff. If he didn't expect this backlash, then I suggest that he didn't think it through. I am confident that President Carter has the ability to deal with his current difficulties should he be willing to open up his appearances with Q&As open to the general audiences and public at large.

I believe that I will let it there for now, unless Mark is willing to make a separate post on this issue.

[Movie Guy]

realpc | Jan 26, 2007 2:14:58 PM

Excellent post, realpc. I agree with your observations.

[billy]

Again, you are welcome to believe in whatever you may desire, but to misconstrue the Centrist positions as evil Republican thinking is demonstrating considerable ignorance of the general facts.

I posted the CNN poll about the publics views on many issues above.
The public is extremely one sided (80% vs 20%) on those.

Are those policies centrist? Or even with that support, these are extremist policies?

You seem to go to a lot of obfuscation to hide one simple fact - that even with that level of support, these _for you_, these are extreme policies that needs compromises to get enacted. For you, these are extreme Democratic positions.

What is your centrism?

Your centrism means that this 80% have to compromise agree to the the whims of the 20%. That somehow in the middle of these people's positions is the centre.

The U.S. polls and most recent elections appear to indicate that the majority of citizens in the nation are quite sick of extreme viewpoints and control by elements of both major parties

On the other hand, they seem to indicate that the public overwhelmingly support Democratic policies. This is not yet fully reflected in Congress(due to 1/3 elections per year in Senate) but will, eventually.

Jim Webb is Democrat. More Democrat than many faux ones. You can indulge in semantic games, claiming he is ex-Repub, but the truth is, he is so far away from even moderate Democrats. If he is a centrist, then Lieberman and Burns are rightwing thugs.

Here, read about some of the other new ones too, how centrist they are - http://nationaljournal.com/mercurio.htm.

You go on pretending.

[Movie Guy]

Posted by: billy | Jan 26, 2007 10:25:34 AM - "We want more of rabid partisanship. That's what the public overwhelmingly wants. MG and his conservative ilk (15-20%) can holler (and command the media to spout their worldview) all they want, but in the end, the fact remains - they are a miniscule minority."

"The more the public realize that these Republicans are are a vocal minority who is bullying them, the better things are going to get for the public."

Posted by: billy | Jan 26, 2007 2:11:25 PM - [to Movie Guy] "You are an unbending rightwing conservative.

billy and others,

I am a moderate. I have been a moderate my entire adult life. When my friends and family see posts like these, they crack up laughing. Most of them know the positions that I have taken with various legislative bodies, community groups, environmental groups and so forth; my general positions are certainly not rightwing conservative.

It is the case that I am a defense conservative and I believe in fiscal discipline, as do many moderates. On the matter of social issues I am supposedly more of a communist than anything else, or so say a few economist friends. One friend who has known me for years always reminds me that I am one of the biggest communists he has ever encountered because I frequently discuss, publicly and privately, the abuses of capitalism - domestic and international. I willingly do so at length, depending on the situation regardless of who is involved in such discussions.

My personal voting record has supported the Democrats during most elections. That doesn't mean that I actively support the extremist views in the party, as I certainly do not in some cases. But, generally I tolerate them. Sometimes, I publicly support them.

I enjoy mixing it up on the blogs to see how strong the positions are that some posters embrace. It is true that I find some of positions to be too radical to be worthy of supporting. That is my choice, as is the case for all blog posters.

So much for blog banter personal attacks...

[Jenna's Bush]

Cokie Roberts offered a reminiscence, and some opinion, from her own perspective

That hag is just a GOP apologist anyway.

[Cyrille]

Once again, the only extremists in the Democratic party are far right. There are no extremists on the left. It is debatable whether there is anyone who is even left wing.

[anne]

Beyond Joe Lieberman, who is fortunately no longer a Democrat, there is no Democrat who has extreme views in Congress. What has happened is that a radical Republican Party makes reasonableness seem extreme. So, a conservative Democrat such as Marine Colonel John Murtha becomes extreme because of a stance that would have saved so many lives and so much suffering in Iraq.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee could vote 12 to 9 against the tragedy of surging in Iraq, and as always the vote was 11 Democrats against surging and Republican Chuck Hagel, with the other 9 Republicans as usual for furthering the occupation.

[anne]

Republican radicalism continually needing to be countered by rational Democrats. We have an Administration making clear that opposition to the forever occupation of Iraq by Nancy Pelosi is "poisonous." We have an Administration that can scarcely wait for Democratic Congressional majority concerns about the occupation of Iraq, before making clear opposition makes not the least difference. Notice Dick Cheney and find what extremism is about; such extremism will only be countered by tough courageous Democrats.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/opinion/27dowd.html

January 27, 2007

Daffy Does Doom
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

Dick Durbin went to the floor of the Senate on Thursday night to denounce the vice president as "delusional."

It was shocking, and Senator Durbin should be ashamed of himself.

Delusional is far too mild a word to describe Dick Cheney. Delusional doesn't begin to capture the profound, transcendental one-flew-over daftness of the man.

Has anyone in the history of the United States ever been so singularly wrong and misguided about such phenomenally important events and continued to insist he's right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

It requires an exquisite kind of lunacy to spend hundreds of billions destroying America's reputation in the world, exhausting the U.S. military, failing to catch Osama, enhancing Iran's power in the Middle East and sending American kids to train and arm Iraqi forces so they can work against American interests.

Only someone with an inspired alienation from reality could, under the guise of exorcising the trauma of Vietnam, replicate the trauma of Vietnam.

You must have a real talent for derangement to stay wrong every step of the way, to remain in complete denial about Iraq's civil war, to have a total misunderstanding of Arab culture, to be completely oblivious to the American mood and to be absolutely blind to how democracy works.

In a democracy, when you run a campaign that panders to homophobia by attacking gay marriage and then your lesbian daughter writes a book about politics and decides to have a baby with her partner, you cannot tell Wolf Blitzer he's "out of line" when he gingerly raises the hypocrisy of your position.

Mr. Cheney acts more like a member of the James gang than the Jefferson gang. Asked by Wolf what would happen if the Senate passed a resolution critical of The Surge, Scary Cheney rumbled, "It won't stop us."

Such an exercise in democracy, he noted, would be "detrimental from the standpoint of the troops."

Americans learned an important lesson from Vietnam about supporting the troops even when they did not support the war. From media organizations to Hollywood celebrities and lawmakers on both sides, everyone backs our troops.

It is W. and Vice who learned no lessons from Vietnam, probably because they worked so hard to avoid going. They rush into a war halfway around the world for no reason and with no foresight about the culture or the inevitable insurgency, and then assert that any criticism of their fumbling management of Iraq and Afghanistan is tantamount to criticizing the troops. Quel demagoguery....

[anne]

Paul Krugman has been mild as a lamb, but what suits Reblican radicals is to make mildness fierceness as a form of intimidation. There is no limit to the sort of Republican radicalism that people of reason are being confronted with:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/opinion/27sat1.html

We often wonder whether there is a limit to the Bush administration's obsession with secrecy, its assault on the rule of law, its disdain for the powers of Congress, its willingness to con the public and its refusal to heed expert advice or recognize facts on the ground. Events of the past week suggest the answer is no....

[realpc]

Anne,

It is not simply a question of left or right or extreme or not. It's a question of for this war or against it. And there are many ways to be for or against it. Some are against the way it has been mismanaged, although they supported the original intentions. Others have been against the invasion from the beginning. Some are against this war in particular, others are against war in general. Some are against what they see as American imperialism, or the spread of capitalism and the American lifestyle.

Being for or against this war tends to be divided into left vs. right since it was the Republican right that started it, and Republicans want to stick with their side. And progressive ideology is usually anti-nationalist, and would refrain from supporting even a legitimate national war. And of course progressives are usually Democrats.

But it has gotten to the point where opposing this particular war and the way it's going is separating from traditional partisan issues. Everyone, of any party or ideology, hates to lose a war. We are losing this war and the Bush administration doesn't want to admit it. And if they ever do admit it, they will blame it on lack of support from Democrats. Oh if we just had ever more money and ever more lives to waste.

I hope it finally turns out well, but I doubt it. And if it does turn out well, I think America will learn the wrong lesson, that it's ok to barge in anywhere and impose our values by force. There are evil governments all over the world that starve and torture their people, and there is a great temptation to go in and straighten them all out.

If we finally give up on Iraq, I hope we will remember this shameful disaster and think hard before doing anything similar.

[anne]

RealPC:

Thank you. Quite a thoughtful comment; though when the occupation of Iraq in framed in terms of winning or losing, we trap ourselves conceptually. We trap ourselves because even though there is no rightness in winning a war that is not just, but for many even most people winning as such is essential. Notice, I do not argue we could win or lose a war but refer to the occupation. Occupation may be continued or ended, with no question of winning or losing. Frame Iraq in terms of a war against terrorism, and losing becomes unthinkable.

[anne]

Again, a fine abstract comment that helps me think through the issue more clearly for the political abstraction. A soldier from El Salvador, a country ridden by war till recently, was killed in Iraq a few days ago. Not an American, but a solider with a Salvadoran brigade. Where is the least sense?

says...

You people are complete losers and need to get out more. There is no difference between Republicrats and Demicons.

None. The facts speak. List some differences. None

[bullbust]

MG,
I am a moderate. I have been a moderate my entire adult life. When my friends and family see posts like these, they crack up laughing.

One friend who has known me for years always reminds me that I am one of the biggest communists he has ever encountered because I frequently discuss, publicly and privately, the abuses of capitalism - domestic and international.

None if these address the basic issue - moderate/communist/leftist/rightwing compared to what?

You cleverly avoid that question. It was directly asked

The public is extremely one sided (80% vs 20%) on those.

Are those policies centrist? Or even with that support, these are extremist policies?

That gives us an idea of your view of extreme and moderate. Otherwise, its all a game in which

a conservative Democrat such as Marine Colonel John Murtha becomes extreme

is par. In fact, it would be easy to conclude that you are deliberately playing this game, based on how you have gone on about centrist, moderate stances and bipartisanship, without ever really saying what it means.

Those policies which the public support in a lopsided manner, those policies which are opposed only by a extreme rightwing, is a clear marker for the public to judge who is extreme and who is moderate. And that is the only judgement that matters.

When asked that directly, you avoid answering.

The right is a master at this game, just ask a rightwinger "who is middle class?" (all those middle class taxcuts) and enjoy the squirming.

[Doctor G.]

MG: "I didn't think that President Carter's speech appearance at a university earlier this week was handled very well. What I am referring to is the closed format appearance."

So why should a President of the United States debate some hostile law professor if he doesn't want to? Show some respect, man.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/opinion/l27carter.html

Touching a Nerve: Carter at Brandeis

To the Editor:

In "At Brandeis, Carter Responds to Critics," about former President Jimmy Carter's visit to Brandeis University, you report that he said "this is the first time that I've ever been called a liar ... and an anti-Semite," referring to the reaction to his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

But this is neither the first time Mr. Carter faced the charge of anti-Semitism nor the first time that he turned to Brandeis to bail him out.

When Mr. Carter ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976, he sought help from another Georgian, the former Brandeis president Morris B. Abram. Mr. Carter asked him for help in disposing of a virulent rumor among Jews that Mr. Carter was anti-Semitic.

The rumor was strong enough to seriously threaten Mr. Carter's run for the nomination. Mr. Abram wrote an Op-Ed article in The New York Times in an attempt to squelch the rumor. It worked, and Jews openly supported Jimmy Carter for the nomination.

So Jimmy Carter has looked to Brandeis University twice to bury the charge of anti-Semitism — once on Tuesday, and once 30 years ago.

Robert Greenberg
Newton Centre, Mass., Jan. 24, 2007
The writer is a professor of philosophy at Brandeis.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/us/24carter.html?ex=1327294800&en=fe65a3b49b898702&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

January 24, 2007

At Brandeis, Carter Responds to Critics
By PAM BELLUCK

WALTHAM, Mass. — In his first major public speech about his controversial book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," former President Jimmy Carter told an audience at Brandeis University on Tuesday that he stood by the book and its title, that he apologized for what he called an "improper and stupid" sentence in the book and that he had been disturbed by accusations that he was anti-Semitic.

Although controversy had preceded his visit here, Mr. Carter was greeted with a standing ovation and treated with obvious respect by the audience, even as students asked questions that were critical of his assertions.

"This is the first time that I've ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist," Mr. Carter told the crowd of about 1,700 at Brandeis, a nonsectarian university founded by American Jews, where about half the students are Jewish. "This is hurting me." ...

[reason]

Realpc...
Your post about Krugman and socialism shows IMHO a misunderstanding of Krugman. He is not anti-capitalist, and new-dealism was designed to save capitalism not to destroy it. He is for a mixed economy, where the market does what it is good at.

And he understands that there are economists (e.g. Milton Friedman) who are against some social welfare on the grounds that it ends up hurting those it is meant to help. But he is also very clear eyed, about those parts of the Republican party, who use the well intentioned as cover for kleptocracy, undermining the market with all sorts of rent seeking behaviour. Don't mistake his attack on the GOP of today, with an attack on market capitalism in general.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/opinion/l27carter.html

Touching a Nerve: Carter at Brandeis

To the Editor:

I was disturbed by your report about the Carter speech at Brandeis on Tuesday. Jimmy Carter made clear that he had been hurt by the names he had been called since his controversial book appeared, but he did so in the context of emphasizing, in contrast, the respectful audience he found at Brandeis.

For those of us in the audience, it was inspiring to witness the openness and impressive civility of a group of upward of a thousand students, each of whom cares deeply about these issues and who, as Mr. Carter himself emphasized, represent the future.

Robin Feuer Miller
Waltham, Mass., Jan. 24, 2007
The writer is a professor of humanities, Russian and comparative literature at Brandeis.

[John Ramella]

Funny how any talk of history and the Democratic party always begins with FDR and the New Deal. Oh, how they forget their history... the history of the Democrats who called the Republican party, "The Black Republicans". Yeah... lets just forget the pre-1932 Democratic party never existed.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/opinion/07wed2.html?hp

February 7, 2007

Playing Politics With Justice

The Bush administration has pushed out at least seven United States attorneys recently for what appear to be purely political reasons. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, has opened an investigation, and not a moment too soon. The American justice system would be seriously damaged if United States attorneys were stripped of their independence.

United States attorneys, the federal prosecutors who work in the states, are supposed to be respected, independent members of the bar. They have extraordinary power: they can file criminal charges and conduct investigations that can destroy reputations. They are supposed to be confirmed by the Senate, and there is a long tradition that they are not removed during the term of the president who appointed them, except for serious cause.

The Bush administration has broken with that tradition in a way that reeks of politics. One of the dismissed United States attorneys, H. E. Cummins III of Arkansas, has been replaced by a former Republican National Committee opposition researcher who worked for Karl Rove. Another, Carol Lam of San Diego, is in the middle of a sensitive public corruption inquiry that has already brought down one Republican congressman, Randy Cunningham, and is looking at other possible wrongdoers. The White House is taking advantage of a little-noticed provision in the Patriot Act that allows the president to appoint interim United States attorneys without Senate approval....