Paul Krugman: Debunking the Reagan Myth

Paul Krugman explains why people should be upset with Barack Obama's praise of Ronald Reagan:

Debunking the Reagan Myth, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, New York Times: Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras ... affects politics today.

And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement ... that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” ...[W]here in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail... Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, ...[b]y the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.

Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about?... For example, I’m not sure what “dynamism” means, but if it means productivity growth, there wasn’t any resurgence in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off — but [not until]... 1995.

Similarly, if a sense of entrepreneurship means having confidence in the talents of American business leaders,... American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.

I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office... But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?

Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.

And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging... Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic... [T]he optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.

This is, in short, a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right’s ideas don’t work, and never have.

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

Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration ... was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.

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

Comments

[Gegner]

Speaking of political revisionism, many self-professed conservatives seem to forget that it was Reagan who launched NAFTA, a bill that wasn't signed into law until the Republicans gained a bullet-proof majority in Congress.

[James Killus]

A fair number of people credit Reagan with winning the Cold War, and that produces a halo effect so great that it's largely futile to argue against it. Not that this will stop me from trying.

Also, and this is very, very important, Bush has made every former President look good by comparison. I sometimes find myself missing Nixon. I can find some good things that happened under Nixon.

says...

PaulK - "And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992."

Do the key national polls reflect Paul's statement?

Isn't it the case people get worried any time there is a recession or much hoped for (er...discussed) future recession?

I see no major difference in "Bushonomics" and "Clintononomics" on general matters of international trade. Yet, "Bushonomics" is solely blamed for this? And if you're discounting this consideration from Paul's discussion, this his argument is exceedingly hollow and political as opposed to being economically correct or near correct as determined by economic analysis.

International trade is driving a share of what is happening right now. Not all, of course, but one helluva chunk. Bush II and Clinton pursued almost identical courses of action on the international trade front in terms of national direction and general outcomes.

[Movie Guy]

My post above...

[Petter]

Where's the "debunk"?

As always Krugman et al clinge to the words "the rich" and "trickle down" as if that's exactly what Reagan et al have in mind. I respect that many disagree, but what's at stake is the very process that can make people rich, which, if done by entrepeneurs, mostly is good for soceity overall as it brings opportunies and better products and services.

Now, I don't think Obama is exactly like Reagan in his view on this, but my take was that he was referring to a sense of optimism and non-partisanship. Somehow PK seems to read in things he dislikes in the words of his opponents.

Krugman is a fine economist, other than his undebunked way of political arguing.

[Mary]

There's a huge difference between Clintonomics and Bushonomics, Movie Guy.

You tried to counter Krugman's statement that Bushonomics ended in grief like Reaganomics, only more quickly, by saying you see no difference between Clinton and Bush's international trade policies.

Movie Guy, there's much more to economic policy than positions on international trade.

Bush's foreign policy adventure in Iraq (and then supported by Congress) has quite the hefty price tag attached. This aspect of Bushonomics was different from Clintonomics. The war in Iraq could ultimately cost us taxpayers well over a trillion dollars -- at least double what has already been spent - according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The Bush administration's advocacy of tax cuts after tax cuts, primarily benefiting the rich, is also a key difference from Clintonomics.

As for the "much hoped for (er...discussed) future recession" you alluded to, I would say face reality, movie guy.

Clearly no one in their right mind hopes for a slowdown, but when the writing's on the wall, ignoring it and living in la-la-land doesn't make it go away.

We may not see a recession (fingers crossed we don't), but the US economy is clearly in slowdown mode.

Here are some data points to consider:
1. Housing starts in Dec 07 at lowest point since 1992
2. Since 1949 the unemployment rate has never risen by this magnitude without the economy being in recession
3. The Philadelphia Fed's index has proven to be a helpful bellwether of broader, national indicators of manufacturing activity, this sharp drop is an specially worrisome sign that the economy may be sliding into contraction (Nomura)

[Euroman]

U(Reaganonomics) > U(Carternomics) anyone?

As for war, one should look at it as the equivalent of the environment cause: emmissions must be cut otherwise we die; costs are not important.

[anne]

Understanding what deception is about is important.

America averaged job creation of 225,000 a month through the 8 years of Bill Clinton's Administration. Through the finest 52 months of George Bush's economically hurtful Adminstration we have averaged 160,000 jobs created each month.

Taking the finest 52 months of the Bush Presidency, from August 2003 through December 2007, 8.3 million jobs have been created. That is almost 3.4 million fewer jobs created during these 52 most favored months of the Bush Presidency than would have been created had the average of the Clinton Presidency been sustained.

Whether in more abstract terms of trading a Clinton budget surplus for a Bush deficit to the more tangible gradual loss of security in middle and lower income households to the terribly concrete denial of health insurance protection to millions of needy children, this compassionless conservative Administration has been neglectful of American needs.

[2slugbaits]

What has happened to Paul Krugman lately? A few weeks ago we witnessed the pathetic site of a Princeton professor who couldn't count to 60 and today we have that same professor incapable of understanding the English language. Nowhere did Obama say that he agreed with Reagan or that he thought Reagan's ideas were good. What he said was that Reagan changed the trajectory of the country in a way that Clinton did not....and at the end of column PK even agrees with that statement. PK's complaint seems to be some insinuation that Obama thought Reagan's ideas were great. This is baseless. What Obama said was that for "a good chunk of time" the GOP was the party of ideas. Well, it's kind of hard to argue with that. Throughout the late 70s and 80s the GOP won elections by advancing arguments...wrongheaded arguments, but arguments nevertheless. And what did the Democrats offer voters? Well, we got Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis. The Democrats offered the usual cacaphony of interest group coalition politics. Hey, it was preceisely because a lot of Democrats (e.g., Bill Clinton) saw this kind of interest group politics as braindead that some of them went off and created the DLC. The DLC was a reaction against interest group politics and an attempt to inject some intellectual vitality into the Democratic party. And 16 years ago both Bill and Hillary Clinton agreed that the GOP had been the party of ideas.

Krugman should take some time off from writing his column and read Ronald Brownstein's new book.

[anne]

What has happened to Paul Krugman is listening and understanding as usual. Listening to a false wish for a time in which the civil rights of Americans which had been so hard fought for and so hard won by so many with such self-secrificing dedication through the 1960s and 1970s, came to be attacked still again in the 1980s.

Thank you, Dear Paul Krugman, for having the understanding and courage to write so wonderfully on behalf of Americans who so need such advocacy.

[anne]

"What Obama said was that for 'a good chunk of time' the GOP was the Party of ideas."

What utter deceitful rubbish.

The Party whose ideas amounted to a coming President, who had opposed civil rights legislation from the 1960s on, choosing to begin campaigning champion state rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi to show America what the ideas of backwardness amounted to. Such was a reflection of the Party of ideas.

[anne]

We have come to a Republican Administration and we came to a Republican Congress that by deceving and fear-driving brought us a needless and morally and strategically disastrous war and occupation, a squandering of $2 trillion on a destruction that would even still find us loosing 40,000 pounds of bombs on a town in Iraq in mere minutes. I am not about to be impressed.

Thank you, Dear Paul Krugman.

[2slugbaits]

Anne,

Did you actually listen to what Obama said, or are you relying upon Krugman's warped interpretation? Obama was not talking about the Republican party of the 1960s and its views on civil rights. Do you really think that he endorses Jim Crow? Give me a break. Obama was talking about the way Reagan and Gingrich excited the GOP and some independents with their ideas. I don't know if you were around then or not, but people were disgusted with the Democrats and eager to listen to new ideas. Obama never said that he agreed with Reagan's ideas. He just didn't. His point was that in the 80s the GOP gave voters a vision while the Democrats gave voters 10 point plans directed at teachers unions, trial lawyers, pro-choice activists, (fill in your favorite interest group), etc. Do you think Democrats felt inspired voting for Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis? No. Democrats like me held their noses and pulled the lever (back then voting machines had levers).

Obama's point is that Hillary Clinton's campaign is a reversion back to the interest group politics that the Democrats practiced throughout the 80s. Now given the special circumstances of this year (i.e., Bush fatigue), this strategy might just work well enough to give Hillary a 51/49 victory and just barely 270 electoral college votes; but she won't carry many Senate and House seats, which guarantees four years of gridlock and disappointment...and another GOP president in 2012.

You can thank Paul Krugman. As for me and a lot of other Democrats, with friends like Krugman, who needs enemies.

[Bob]

anne

>> Taking the finest 52 months of the Bush Presidency, from August 2003 through December 2007, 8.3 million jobs have been created.

This is wrong.

Bush created far less jobs.

Love your posts anne but just felt it was important to point out how Bush is cooking the number.

******************************************

Rethinking the 'Strong Jobs Recovery' Scenario

http://www.thestreet.com/_tscana/markets/economics/10258387.html

From the article -

The answer is simple math: Measured trough to peak, there were actually almost 4.5 million new jobs created. In May 2003, there were 129,827,000 people employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As of November 2005, there were 134,289,000. That reflects 4,462,000 new jobs. So the "over 4.4 million jobs created" statement is numerically accurate.

# So if that number is mathematically accurate, what's the problem?

As those of us who work on Wall Street know, you typically don't get to pick your time periods when measuring performance. You especially don't get to base it on trough-to-peak numbers. In most any series, there are more natural time periods, e.g., year to date, one, three and five years.

As opposed to cherry-picking the most favorable-looking time periods, job creation historically has been measured from the end of the recession, which the National Bureau of Economic Research puts at March 2001. Another commonly used period is from the start of the president's term (Jan. 20, 2001).

When we plug those time frames into the BLS data, we derive a significantly less rosy picture: From the beginning of the recession to last month, about 1.8 million jobs were created. Measured from the end of the recession, we see 3.4 million new jobs. None of these measures take into account the 2.6 million jobs lost from 2001 to 2003.

Over the course of four years, those numbers fail to keep up with population growth.

*******************************************

Further confirmation

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Jobs created by Bush as of Oct. 2007 = 5.8 million

[Bob]

Obamas praise of raygun told me what i needed to know.

I probably won't be voting for him.

[Cyrille]

Well, indeed, bad ideas are ideas.

But even that, the novelty of those awful ideas, well, you're talking 70s at the latest. I don't see a single new idea from Republicans since the 70s, apart maybe from occupying after invading a country, rather than leaving soon after (not a new idea, but a change from the previous event at least).

Besides, when I read things like "Obama didn't praise Reagan for having good ideas, he praised him for having new ideas, even though he believes they were bad ideas", I must agree with Krugman's view:

"In my next life I want to have legions of devoted followers who will fiercely declare that I didn’t really mean what I seem to have said."

[demisod]

"well, you're talking 70s at the latest. I don't see a single new idea from Republicans since the 70s"

1870s or 1970s? Kind of hard to tell sometimes.

[demisod]

"well, you're talking 70s at the latest. I don't see a single new idea from Republicans since the 70s"

1870s or 1970s? Kind of hard to tell sometimes.

[Bob]

>> "Obama didn't praise Reagan for having good ideas, he praised him for having new ideas"

There was clear IMPLICIT praise of raygun by Obama. This shows him to be out of touch and not too bright.

[2slugbaits]

Cyrille,

Ever hear of the "Contract with America"? Those were GOP ideas that overthrew Democratic control of Congress and put severe constraints on Clinton after 1994. Those were bad ideas, but the GOP won with them because they were ideas while the Democrats offered Jim Wright & Dan Rostenkowski.

In any event, Obama simply said the same thing that both Hillary and Bill Clinton said many years ago.

[2slugbaits]

Bob,

Sounds to me like you didn't actually hear what Obama said. It was very clear that he was talking about the contrast between ideas based politics and interest group politics. He was in no way IMPLICITLY endorsing Reagan's ideas. That's ridiculous. Obama's voting record is more liberal than Hillary's!

[Cyrille]

"Ever hear of the "Contract with America"? Those were GOP ideas that overthrew Democratic control of Congress and put severe constraints on Clinton after 1994."

They were Movement Conservative ideas, dating from the 70s for the most recent, 60s for most of them.

[Bob]

>> Bob,

Sounds to me like you didn't actually hear what Obama said.

***********************************

Maybe you ought to get your hearing checked then.

I heard what he said and there is clearly a strong implicit message that raygun did good. Hell i would even say that the message was close to explicit.

I don't vote for people that talk like this about a president that started (or greatly escalated) the class war against the middle-class and the poor.

*************************************

Obama said -

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

[david]

Nobody, but nobody, has done more to reinforce the idea that Reagan was on to something than Bill Clinton. The DLC 92 campaign was based on trashing the democratic party as backwards, and the right winged corporate lackeys as forward looking political entrepeneurs.

When he took office, he chucked aside his friends to the left as soon as he thought he could gain an advantage, he used Dick Morris to triangulate away to the right, we end up defending marriage and reforming welfare as major domestic policies. That's thanks to Clinton, marvelously skilled at reinforcing the right wing talking points about his own party.

We'll get the same from the profoundly anti-flag burning Hillary Clinton -- she'll ride the unions she bullied into supporting her as far as the White House, but don't expect any help once she gets there. One shudders to think of the massive interest group cluster f*** we'll see when she tackles climate change. So depressing.

[Bob]

>> Obama said - with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970

Yeah all those bad excesses.

Like when high school dropouts (like my father) were able to get jobs that paid a living wage and supported a family.

Ya think he meant excess income ? (sarcasm off)

That line is right out of the "Republican Guide to Smearing the Left".

[2slugbaits]

Bob,

Now check your reading skills. Where in that quote did Obama say or even imply that he agreed with Reagan's policies. I never supported Reagan, but I have never doubted that the GOP in the 1980s had more intellectual energy than did the Democrats. And it showed on election day. Reagan won reelection by a landslide. I didn't vote for him, but that doesn't mean I didn't recognize that he had tapped into a zeitgeist in a way that Carter, Mondale and Dukakis never did.

And again, Obama simply restated the same view that Bill and Hillary expressed 20 years ago.

[2slugbaits]

Bob,

Reread what he said. What he said was that many voters felt like there had been a lot of excesses during the 60s and 70s. And that's just factually true. A lot of voters did feel that way. I wasn't one of them, but pretty clearly a majority felt that way and Reagan was able to speak to those voters. And yet again, Bill Clinton said exactly the same things back in the late 80s and early 90s.

[Bob]

>> Nobody, but nobody, has done more to reinforce the idea that Reagan was on to something than Bill Clinton.

I think you need to reread. Yes Clinton and the DLC are way too right wing for me but Clinton was far from doing the most to back up raygun as you can see here

From the lead article -

The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

[Alex Tolley]

Here is a short clip that seems to be the relevant piece that PK is talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP1esS0AEzk

It is only 1:11 long, and I would dearly like to hear the full interview. If anyone has a link I would appreciate it being posted.

Anyone who is arguing about Obama, including PK, should be able to show the relevant data, in this case a video, speech or position, so that true members of "the reality club" can look at the evidence and try to determine the veracity of teh arguments.

[anne]

According to monthly labor department statistics from August 2003 through December 2007, there were 8.3 million jobs created. August 2003 marked the last month in which job creation was negative. The 52 month period is actually a record in length for positive job creation *

The Administration chooses to highlight this period, so I have used this period.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080104-2.html

January 4, 2008

December 2007 Marks Record 52nd Consecutive Month of Job Growth

More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record

Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures – 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months – the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record....

* Clumsy phrasing.

[Bob]

>> Where in that quote did Obama say or even imply that he agreed with Reagan's policies.

When he implied rayguns ideas were good.

Right here

***************************************

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

[anne]

Being fair to the Administration, I have not understood why job creation has not been more robust through this growth period. I have not understood why domestic investment is less robust than a sustained period of growth might have indicated. I also do not understand why the employment-population ratio has not grown more, to use another employment indicator. Lastly, unemployment has been moderate in statistical terms through this period of expansion.

Why we are not growing faster I do not know, but I know policy is not directly fostering growth to nearly the extent I would have expected in a low tax-deficit spending period and I am convinced in looking to Europe the problem is in specific domestic policy.

[skeptonomist]

Paul Krugman could and should have mentioned GDP growth, which was not good in the Reagan-Bush I era, in comparison to any Democratic administration.

2slugbaits, Obama said "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path...". There is no way that this could be construed as an unfavorable reference, and it is obviously an attempt to curry favor with independents and Democrats who buy into the Reagan myth - the previous similar statements by the Clintons were of the same nature. Obama's statement happens to be partly true (Bill Clinton actually did reverse Reagan's path temporarily - at least it happened during his administration), but in any economic sense the path or trajectory has been unfavorable to almost all Americans except the very highest income fraction.

Krugman is calling BS on the Reagan myth, and there is more evidence on this than given even on this blog. If Obama has any idea whatsoever of following the Reagan path this is a reason for progressives to oppose his candidacy.

[2slugbaits]

Bob,

Again, you seem to have problems understanding the English language. Let me help you out. Obama referred to the third person plural, not the first person singular. The referent to the pronoun "they" was clearly voters in the 1980s. Understand the difference? And unless you were comatosed during the 1980s it's hard to disagree with that statement. I held my nose and voted for some really Democratic losers in the 1980s. Obama is reminding Democrats of the bad old days when the Democratic party was run by interest groups and not ideas.

Both Clinton and Obama are in complete agreement that Reagan and Bush championed the rich over the poor. Obama understands this better than Hillary just based on personal history alone. The issue that Obama was addressing was whether or not Sen. Clinton's campaign represents a return to 1988. He was comparing campaigns that are based on assembling coalitions of interest groups versus campaigns that are based on ideas...even bad ideas.

[Bob]

Anne

The reason that number is wrong is because it starts at the bottom of the curve instead of the break even point (the point at which Bush created enough jobs to make up for all the jobs he had lost between 2001 and 2003)

******************************************

In the reality based community's math
-1 + 1 = 0

The way the Bush cooked it was
-1 + 1 = 2

I hope you don't think that i am dumping on you since i like you from what i have read here.

[Bob]

>> Again, you seem to have problems understanding the English language.

Is that a fact

[Cyrille]

2slugbaits
"In my next life I want to have legions of devoted followers who will fiercely declare that I didn’t really mean what I seem to have said."

[robertdfeinman]

Given that today is Martin Luther King day, I think we should examine the meaning of historical personalities. Each of the key players in history gets transformed into an icon for a point of view. What this icon represents may change over time as well.

So we have Jefferson and "Jefferson", Marx and "Marx", Reagan and "Reagan" and King and "King".

Those who are interested in accurately (whatever that means) portraying the historical personage address the unquoted figure and look at his statements and actions. Those who are interested in promoting a point of view adopt the quoted personage and attribute to this icon whatever characteristics best suit their purposes.

Can one combat "Reagan" by revealing the true Reagan? It would seem not. "Reagan" is a code word for a set of beliefs or feelings that the writer or politician is trying to invoke in the listener. It's of no concern to the speaker whether the actual person had these qualities or not.

For those who want to keep trying to set the historical record straight, more power to you, but for those who want to change current policies then focus on the iconic meaning instead.

[Michael Blackburn]

I think people need to understand the difference between Politics and Government. Politics is the art of winning elections. Government is the business of running the country. I think it's perfectly clear that Obama was talking about the POLITICS of Reagan and the Republican party, not their style of Government.

Speaking of Governement, Hillary's misadventure in health care was developed behind closed doors with her insiders. Remind you of anyone? Barack Obama has said he wants C-SPAN (and thus the American people) in the room when he debates health care/energy policy, etc. You can see everyone who's in the room, and you can see what they're saying. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[anne]

Barack Obama has proven a splendid strategist, and may well become the Democratic Party's candidate and the elected President. What has bothered me, however, is a repeated reliance on generality when I wished for specificity and in specificity a turn away from policies that I consider essential. The strategy may even be necessary for gaining the nomination and beyond, but I am not pleased with Social Security, health care, military spending and Middle East policy specifications. Also, I decidedly do not wish a sanctioning of Administration policies of the 1980s which will encourage turning to such policies.

There is then, from my perspective, as much reason to push Obama as to push Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, as well as to push any of the Republican candidates to specify directional changes that will not turn to what seems to me regrettable about the 1980s.

[Howard]

Once again, Krugman uses his inability to separate politics and economics to take a cheap shot at Obama. He constantly uses whichever tool is handier to do this.

When he talked about the competing healthcare plans, he complained that Obama's wasn't "progressive" enough, and didn't bother to analyze the plans on their economic merits. He did the same thing when it came to economic stimulus packages. Obama's wasn't "progressive" enough, but he offered no economic analysis.

Now Obama compliments Reagan on his political *skills* -- not his political ideology -- and Krugman takes it as a tacit endorsement of Reagan's economic policy, and uses it as a springboard to tell us why they failed.

Krugman obviously has some sort of bias against Obama, and it would be nice if he would explain his reasons for it. All he's done is use the most convenient tool to hit Obama with, without giving a comprehensive analysis of any kind.

[anne]

Bob is properly and generously pointing a problem that I do not understand.

Why has this recovery been less robust than a low tax, significant tax incentive, increasing government spending policy would suggest, is the problem? I do not to color the question by focusing on the near term recovery from the recession from November 2001.

[Bob]

>> Can one combat "Reagan" by revealing the true Reagan?

Absolutely.

And it's as simple as reading "The Massacre at El Mozote" by Mark Danner.

What raygun did to those poor people in central america could only be done by somebody with the blackest soul immaginable.

[hari]

I listened to his interview on Regan...and I don't understand the problem of understanding the way the man thinks and speaks (his multi-cultural perspective!) which I feel is making Paul uncomfortable.

O'Bama is a self-confident multi-cultural product - a rarity in American politics today!

It's however not predictable how this man will lead the country should he make it to WH. Because there're invariably factors unknown to the voter which might rule the rooster under O'Bama!

Yet, his self-confidence is something which makes HRC uncomfortable, as I can see it from here. What he said about Regan is a personification of his humanity - not to belittle personalities who've gone before him in US politics - irrespective of their ideological and party affiliation.

The guy is simply a new breed of cosmopolite who's not afraid of his conviction - and speaks his mind! Paul is a Slavophile, and may've difficulty admitting his prejudice that this youngman, from no where, is suddenly occuping such a lot of print and electronic media attention!

[Bob]

>> Why has this recovery been less robust

In terms of employment i have some insight.

Before i got my (worthless) computer science degree i had worked in construction for 20 years. I'm pretty in touch with what is going on in both of those fields since i know people in both.

**************************

Construction

Where i live (near NYC) it is very difficult to get hired in construction if you answer a want ad without a latino accent. Thats when you can find a want ad. There has never been a construction boom like this past one. Hardly any ads cause once the cheap labor latinos get into a company they bring more latinos up from mexico. Their bosses love this arrangement.

*****************************

Software development

When i started working right out of school it was at a large software house a couple blocks from Wall Street.
This was in 1999 and at that time the company was alrady 60% Indian. Most of them on H-1b visas. It's even worse now.

*****************************

And last but not least

Law Firm Teaches How Not To Hire Americans

http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/?p=4026

[Bruce Webb]

Lets excerpt the excerpt. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. Well sorry 2slug Bob is right and the answer to your question is right there. What part of the 60's and 70's was excessive? The Civil Rights Act of 1964? Creation of Medicare? Creation of the EPA? Yeah certainly the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act had costs. Those of us who had to deal with choking smog and rivers that caught on fire understood that in the face of clear market failures that government had a positive role to play. Obama very explicitly here spits in the face of those who fought for these kind of changes and instead supports the Reagan revolution and its 'Big Government is the Problem' message.

There is no way to parse those two sentences and not see an endorsement of Reagan's process and policy. Per Obama this country was 'ready' for Reagan to put us on a 'fundamentally different path' against the 'excesses of the 1960's and 1970's'. It doesn't get a lot clearer than that. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. You can't just wave your hands in the air and make Goolsbee vanish, Obama's hiring decisions and his deliberate choice of Reaganesque language have implications and blaming people who hear the dog-whistles quite well is kind of a non-starter.

When people start talking the Reagan talk and taking advice from people who have openly advocated walking the Reagan walk, it is pretty fair to warn others that this is a very dangerous path.

[Cyrille]

Or, quite simply, as has been demonstrated time and time again, Obama is campaigning to the right of all the other Democratic candidates, even though the most leftist of them is still some way to the right of what would be needed in the US.

You guys elected Bush because the conventional wisdom was that you should not read too much in the policies that were proposed. Krugman disagreed then, and voiced his concerns that it may happen again this time before the campaign even started.

You may say that Obama is saying all that just to get elected but, hey, Krugman is merely applying the same standard as in 2000, and he was right then. Besides, Krugman even wrote in the Times that yes, Obama probably was more liberal than he seemed in this campaign, but that by attacking the other candidates from the right he was making the implementation of a liberal agenda less likely.

Krugman has no anti-Obama bias. He was even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when his health care proposals had glaring omissions -saying that would probably be corrected later if he got elected. Then Obama started claiming that those omissions were strong features of his plans, that universal health care should not be enforced. And started slamming Krugman, of all people.

Don't try to revise history by claiming an anti-Obama bias which Krugman should explain.

[im1dc]

2slugsbaits, I agree with the point you make that Obama did not endorse Reagan's politics or policies.

He only pointed out that Reagan was able to shift politics onto a path of his making, unlike Clinton.

I have one minor correction to your posts however and that is that you include Carter in your list of those unable to tap into the Zeitgeist and that is patently untrue.

Carter won the presidency precisely b/c he tapped into the mood of the electorate for change, i.e., from the then prevalent Nixonian and Right Wing politics that gave us Watergate.

It is true that Carter was unable once in office to use what he gained in the general election to put America on a different path as Reagan did, but that was due 100% to the Iranian Revolution which gave us 400+ days of American hostage captivity and a failed rescue attempt, i.e., he looked like a weak and failed president, i.e. of the i.e., a wimp.

IMO, had Carter used the military to respond to IRAN immediately or ASAP after our Embassy was taken over by the Revolutionary Guard geopolitics in the world including the ME would look and be far different today and Reagan would not have been elected.

Its a minor quibble and correction and does not distract from your quality fact based argument that Obama is being smeared by campaign apparatchiks working for the Clintons.

Do admit however that this hubbub is simply retail politics brought about b/c Obama choose to raise Reagan's legacy instead of FDR's or Johnson's.

Something you should become aware of in this context is that Obama does not praise Lincoln as The Great Emancipator when speaking to the Black community, not at all. He views Lincoln
as the President who was forced into freeing slaves, not as a person in that office who wanted to free slaves.

That he is right and wrong as we both know. But pandering to Black voters and keeping that hidden from white voters is devisive in and of itself.

For that Obama must answer.

According to what I have read Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union above all else which meant he would and did allow slavery to continue in the pursuit of saving the Union.

And indeed the freeing of slaves was initially only applied to the South not the slaves in the North. Kentucky and perhaps Maryland would have bolted from the Union had he done so at the time.

Retail politics is disgusting, always has been and always will be, imho.

But then it perfectly reflects the Electorate so how else can it be?

PS Good to see you active, vital and with something to chew on in your teeth.

I hope you and your family are all well, happy, safe and flourishing including those in the State Dept. working for SoS Rice. What a chore it must be!

[Cyrille]

im1dc had this to say:
"Its a minor quibble and correction and does not distract from your quality fact based argument that Obama is being smeared by campaign apparatchiks working for the Clintons."

Ah, but I see I should have trotted the my whole quote:
"In my next life I want to have legions of devoted followers who will fiercely declare that I didn’t really mean what I seem to have said, and that anyone who thinks I did must be a paid shill."

[Alex Tolley]

Bruce Webb: "What part of the 60's and 70's was excessive?"

Referring to the charts in "The Wall Street Waltz", the 1960's and 70's were periods of above average federal spending/GNP (and yes it didn't get any better under Reagan, arguably much worse with the tax cuts). This was reflected also in increasing state and local taxation. You may wish to argue that all this spending was good, but many people disagreed. We had the taxpayer revolt in California specifically because governments appeared to be unaccountable and raising taxes. Today my local tax spending is dutifully recorded in nice pie charts so that I can see how the money is being spent. The high government expenditure during the 1960s, including the Vietnam "War" led directly to the dropping of the gold standard in 1973 and contributed to the stagflation of the 1970's.

Whatever the demerits of Reagan's actual federal policies in the 1980s, he was voted in as president for 2 terms because a lot of Democrats were prepared to vote for a Republican president. He was clearly a good communicator and had the "vision thing". Carter's presidency was a failure and arguably was a reaction to the disgust at Nixon. The US was tired of failing and Reagan represented a desire to make the US stand tall again.

If I use only the video clip I posted, then it is not self-evident that Obama endorses Reaganite policies. What he does convey quite clearly is the need to embrace all parties, rather than the divisions we see today. Bush may have tried to pretend he was a "uniter, not a divider", but clearly he was mistaken at best, lying at worst. Whether Obama is mistaken or not, he is trying to capture middle of the road Republicans and Independents much as Reagan did with Democrats.

[david]

Bruce Webb,

Goolsbee is indeed a very great liability. Who again are the progressives writing Clinton's economic policy? On foreign policy?

The point should be, over and over, that the era of big gov't is over became conventional wisdom thanks to Bill Clinton. He played Blair to Reagan's Thatcher in too many ways to count. I have many problems with Obama, but one of them cannot be hearing about how awful Reagan was from the Clintonite enablers.

Clinton also, with his triangulating schtick, didn't take Iran-Contra and ram a few neocons out of public life, a profound mistake. Would Hillary not do the same? I don't know, but I'm not getting any signals that she wants to clean house. Nor from Obama, but Krugman's trying to tell me that Hillary's different, and I see no reason to believe him.

[Belfast Jack]

So Professor Krugman is in the tank for Hillary. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. He may be a liberal, but he also seems to me to be kind of a hater. And that fits the Hillary crowd better.

Obama was making a point that is hard to argue against - Reagan changed the direction of the country. From my conservative perspective that change was a good thing; from a liberal perspective it may not have been, but it is a logically bankrupt argument to say Reagan didn't fundamentally alter the trajectory of American history.

Obama was simply saying his presidentcy could be transformative, as Reagan's was, or as many liberals believe (mistakenly in my opinion) that Robert Kennedy's might have been. Hillary Clinton is certainly no Reagan or any other transcendent leader; she's much more like Richard Nixon - probably the single candidate of either party most like Nixon personality-wise. She appears to be someone who will say or do anything to win. I think the nation can do better. In my party, that better person (amongst several who would be better) is John McCain. In your party, it's Barack Obama. (And I say this fully believing, as I think most Republicans do, that Barack Obama is a much tougher opponent in the general election.)

Obama may prove a transcendent figure like Reagan. He may prove to be not quite up to the job like Jimmy Carter. But at least he's not another Richard Nixon -- and let's face it, Mrs. Clinton is. And the sooner the Democrats see that, the better it will be for our country. It's sadly ironic that just as the Republicans are desperately searching for, and possibly finding and restoring the soul of their party, the Democrats are at risk of losing theirs. My Democratic friends - my fellow Americans - be better than that.

[Bruce Wilder]

I have to say I think 2slugbaits interpretation is closest to Obama's meaning.

And, I don't think you have to be a "devoted follower" to say so.

Obama is making two points, which go directly to why he is a better candidate than Clinton.

Number 1: he is demonstrating that he can talk to people, who may have admired Reagan, without alienating them. This is, after all, Obama's remarkable talent. The implication is that Clinton, by contrast, cannot (which I am not sure is really true, but Clinton has gotten the "polarizing figure" label from the Media and Rush Limbaugh and that's what it is.)

Number 2: he is saying Bill Clinton, for all his vaunted communication skills did not lead as effectively as Reagan, even if he did lead in a better direction. Obama is trying to argue that he, Obama, has some of those Reaganite skills. And, that Hillary, like her husband, does not.

It is interesting to me that Krugman concentrates his fire on argument Number 1. Krugman is just fine with polarization. Krugman leads the Order of the Shrill (of which, I, myself, am a proud acolyte) and he really wants to fight with the Right. Krugman sees the Right as beyond redemption.

I think Krugman is wrong about that. I think the driving force behind the Republican Right is beyond redemption. But, I think the great mass of Republicans are just weak-minded fools. I think Obama is right: someone like him, who doesn't push their buttons in the wrong way (as Hillary's Imago, if not Hillary herself, does) could turn them on a dime. And, that's how to get legislation through Congress.

The weakness of Obama's argument is that, although Reagan's personality may have been decisive to an extent, the Republican Right has been a movement with considerable Media infrastructure behind it. Before a remarkable personality -- the second-coming of FDR, even -- could work its magic, someone ruthless is going to have to do a quick and dirty dismantle of the barrier, which is the Mainstream Media.

I am surprised, really, that Krugman does not after argument number 2, because that's where the disconnect comes.

Reagan was a decisive personality, a human face on the fascist agenda of the Republican Right that made it acceptable and even attractive to a generation tired of the exhausted Democratic Party and its President wearing a sweater. But, Reagan was also the figurehead of a well-funded, well-organized movement.

Krugman's real problem with Obama is that Obama has chosen to tack to Clinton's right, rather than embrace and lead the Progressive Movement.

The truth is that Progressives do not have a candidate. Edwards, a populist, comes close enough to remind us all what a progressive candidate would look like.

Both Obama and Clinton are tacking right, because they are realistic and cautious politicians, who recognize that progressives do not have the votes.

Clinton, the other day, had some nice words for Joe Lieberman, whom she referred to as an "Independent Democrat". Yeah, the independent Democrat who is campaigning with and for John McCain, Republican!

I am going to vote for Obama. Maybe, I am fooling myself. But, I know Clinton is Republcan-lite, and I hope Obama is only pretending to be. It is the audacity of hope, I guess, and hope is my only plan.

[RW]

"Obama may prove a transcendent figure like Reagan. He may prove to be not quite up to the job like Jimmy Carter. But at least he's not another Richard Nixon -- and let's face it, Mrs. Clinton is."

Trotting out statements like this in the absence of supporting facts provides another QED for Cyrille.

Stated bluntly it is highly unlikely you know ANY of the personages above personally and fairly obvious you lack sufficient detail concerning their lives to assert anything of substance about them. Your description of Reagan as transcendent and worthy of emulation in that regard as well as your apparent affection for scurrilous and prejudicial commentary are duly noted however; now quit wasting people's time.

[Lafayette]

Petter: but what's at stake is the very process that can make people rich, which, if done by entrepeneurs, mostly is good for soceity overall as it brings opportunies and better products and services.

Societal Failure

Oh, it's at stake, is it? How so? Who/what is menacing it? Has it begun to crumble? Should we panic?

If there weren't a Bill Gates do you think we'd still be using calculators in the house and a telephone to communicate?

C'mon, progress has been natural process to most economies with or without the rich. (Yes, it is culturally dependent. Not all world's peoples have benefited uniformly.)

What growth makes is the rich first and middle-class grunts trying-to-make-ends-meet next. From 1970 to 2005, the poor (as a percentage of the American population) have remained at a fairly constant percentage of about 12/13%. (See here.)

That significant percentage, in a modern economy, is as good a metric for generalized Societal Failure as you can get. This dismal performance has been across both Republican and Democrat administrations!

The issue is NOT growth, we've got enough of that -- and it's not entrepreneurial Creative Destruction, because we've got that as well. We just need to do a bit of tinkering. [Like getting the dorks who run finance into several well publicized trials for the sub-prime mess and institute some Real Controls in a largely uncontrolled finance sector.]

What this election should be all about is fairness, sharing the economic pie or, if you like (which I doubt greatly), taxing the piss out of the rich and start paying for Public Services that the Middle- and Lower-classes really, truly need for a decent existence.

And for which the rich would not give a fly's fart of consideration. This country has done VERY WELL for its entrepreneurial/business class. But, enough is enough.

The trickle in profits was never down. It was a tsunami upwards in capital gains for a select few of Ronny's friends and their friends. It grossly distorted Income Distribution to the point where the only words for it can be ... Income Iniquity.

And that in the "Greatest Nation on Earth" ...

[calmo]

I can tell Bruce Wilder (but not Bruce Webb) is committed to Obama...in all senses of the word...which is why I'm here, you? [I'm a lurking member of this institution when I'm not bein as offensive as I can...taking lessons from as many as I can, to make up for obvious deficiencies, you? Totally committed...by neighbors who drive me to this asylum over their's any day, you?]
Bruce, do you figure Obama chose Goolsbee or was there a more distributed decision procedure?
I can't get this "#1 talent" crammed down:Number 1: he is demonstrating that he can talk to people, who may have admired Reagan, without alienating them. This is, after all, Obama's remarkable talent. This is an incredible liability: the demonstration of "communicator" is in the hands of the media...no friend to the Dems...as so many anti-Hillary pieces illustrate.
I am looking for more than a deep voice and a pleasant view of the laughing gear...so it is Edwards by a country mile...because I know what hope is too.

[hari]

There's a transformative period in Regan's life - I recall watching him in the BayArea on GE Theatre, as the host! - when he changed party. Coming from Illinois (I think so!) he was a devoted Democrat - yes(!) he was until he saw the mess in Calif.

I didn't like him as Governor of Calif because the first thing he did was cut the Calif Uni Regents Board and budget! By that time, he was a rightist Republican. Way beyond Nixon, in his worst political strive.

Bruce is rambling but quite close to the reality, I think, about what's the ticking point right now with Demos.

[2slugbaits]

Bruce Webb,

"Well sorry 2slug Bob is right and the answer to your question is right there. What part of the 60's and 70's was excessive?"

Why didn't you highlight the part where he explained which excesses he was talking about? He was talking about a lack of accountability, which was true. He was talking about what, at the time, seemed like huge deficits and excessive money supply growth. What people in the 80s identified about the 60s and 70s were drugs (e.g., White House staffers snorting cocaine), aggressive affirmative action programs, inflation, gun control, mandatory handicapped access and just about everything that offended a large chunk of the electorate. Now I'm a leftie so I don't have a lot of problems with most of those things, but I recognize that quite a few folks in the middle did have a lot of problems. Just think back and remember what the GOP ran on in 1978 and 1980. Remember Carter's "malaise" speech? Remember the fear that many Americans had about the Soviet Union? Seems like ancient history today, but those were important and felt issues 30 years ago. Reagan spoke to those issues in a way that Carter, Mondale and Dukakis never did and never could. Hillary Clinton is the 2008 version of Walter Mondale. That's Obama's point.

[2slugbaits]

calmo,

"Bruce, do you figure Obama chose Goolsbee or was there a more distributed decision procedure?"

Did you reread Goolsbee's piece? If you did, then I think you would have seen that he was arguing exactly the opposite of the way you interpreted it. Goolsbee was really arguing against supply side economics. The argument was subtle and much of it was done in the hypothetical, so you had to pay attention.

[2slugbaits]

im1dc,

"I have one minor correction to your posts however and that is that you include Carter in your list of those unable to tap into the Zeitgeist and that is patently untrue."

Point well taken. I was referring to Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Let me recommend Ron Brownstein's new book if you haven't read it already. Obama is really picking up on a lot of Brownstein's points. If the Democrats don't get it right this time (and I don't think they will), we're probably looking at "one term Hillary" with a 53/47 Senate, a 30 seat majority in the House and virtually no accomplishments after 4 years. Then another 20 years of oblivion for the Democrats. By then Chelsea and the Bush twins ought to be running for the family turn in the White House.

[Lafayette]

2s: Hillary Clinton is the 2008 version of Walter Mondale

??????????

It's amazing how an election campaign can bring the politically illiterate out of the woodwork.

Oh well, nine more months of nonsense and we can all go back to sleep.

[anne]

"IMO, had Carter used the military to respond to IRAN immediately or ASAP after our Embassy was taken over by the Revolutionary Guard geopolitics in the world including the ME would look and be far different today and Reagan would not have been elected."

There is a certain sort of person who always understands, understands perfectly, that the destruction of war can solve all problems forever and ever. There we have the forever war wagers, who always know all that can be known.

[anne]

"But pandering to Black voters and keeping that hidden from White voters is devisive in and of itself."

Please do show where all the pandering is found, please do document all the hidden pandering can be found because I am always interested in pandas. Waiting anxiously, for a precise show of pandering.

[Sandman]

There was no boom in the 1980's. The last boom came from the 45-79 cycle in the late 70's. What confuses people is the financial side was booming, but that doesn't represent the real economy.

From Q1 1980-Q2 1996 the US was having a mild depression. Q3 1996 represented the recovery from the depression.

[2slugbaits]

Lafayette,

If you don't believe Hillary Clinton is the 2008 version of Walter Mondale, then let me suggest that you look at her campaign staff. It's the usual suspects from the Democratic party establishment. Who was standing behind her after the New Hampshire win? Ann Lewis and Terry McAuliffe are good examples. Are those two your idea of agents of change? And in true Walter Mondale interest group fashion, the Clinton campaign even asks potential supporters to identify their relevant interest group so that the Clinton team can mail you some targeted 10 point proposals specifically designed to pander to your own special concerns.

[Belfast Jack]

RW, I can't really say that I care whether you think what I write is worth people's time. Read it if you want. Don't read it if you don't want. But you needn't try to shut off other points of view. It's an oddly fascist position for a supposed liberal to take.

You did make a legitimate point about supporting facts, owever; I was inartful and conclusory in expressing my view that Mrs. Clinton was similar to Mr. Nixon. (I was not "scurrilous", however, as you assert. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll understand.) And you would be right that I do not have personal dealings with Mrs. Clinton. Given that her campaign up until Iowa - like Nixon's in 1968 - avoided any form of spontaneity and rallies that aren't stuffed with loyalists - that would be difficult to do. I suspect the vast majority of people on this site who trash Messrs. Bush and Cheney haven't met them either.

Some basis for my view:

Nixon - reputed to have made the comment 'you win the primary in the right, the general election in the center, and you govern from the left' or words to that effect.
Mrs. Clinton - brought Dick Morris and triangulation into the Clinton orbit after his 1980 gubernatorial loss, and then again in 1995 after the loss of Congress.

Nixon - reputed to become more isolated and paranoid as he went through office and to view political opponents as enemies, e.g. the 'enemies list'.
Mrs. Clinton - tried to institute a healthcare plan without significant input from across the aisle - and then failed, even with her own party in power. Made wild charges of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" in 1998.

Nixon - moved to New York in 1963 to jump start his political career.
Mrs. Clinton - moved to New York in 2000 to jump start her political career.

Nixon - Couldn't tell a joke to save his life.
Mrs. Clinton - Ditto.

Lastly, personality-wise, for those familiar with Myers-Briggs personality test, it's quite likely she's either an ENTJ or more likely an INTJ, as likely was Nixon (and intersting enough, several other presidents). The "NTJ" parts of both are pretty obvious. You needn't believe me; just "google" this subject and you'll find I'm certainly not alone in this assessment.

So there it is RW, supporting information. You needn't agree with it, or even read it. But there it is.

[kthomas]

"IMO, had Carter used the military to respond to IRAN immediately or ASAP after our Embassy was taken over by the Revolutionary Guard geopolitics in the world including the ME would look and be far different today and Reagan would not have been elected."

Maybe, coulda, shoulda, woulda. Useless speculation.

And BTW, when Carter finally did decide to send in the military, the idiot in charge, one Gen. Boykin, completely bungled the mission, for which Carter was blamed. This same General was later promoted by GW II. A little thank you.

anne is right, Carter simply did not want to kill, and that's the end of that. Reagan, on the other hand, chose to double-deal and lie to the American public about his knowledge of arms sales to Iran, both before and after his election as President. tsk tsk.

Reagan was a patriotic sycophant. The perfect tool. I met him as a child, and I can tell you unequivically that he was exceedingly charming and charismatic. Charm and charisma alone does not make a man or woman great. He was a flawed as anyone, but we are never even asked to believe this.

His cult of personality needs to be persecuted! Stoke the fires!!!

[Belfast Jack]

You folks criticizing the Obama/Reagan connection might want to know that Bill Clinton based his 1996 re-election themes on Reagan's successful 1984 campaign. Nobody in the Clinton camp seemed to mind using Reagan as a model back then.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Wow, Obama is making Krugman crazy. Why doesn't Paul just endorse Hillary and get it over with?

But then liberals seem to prefer wonks to leaders.

Bill Clinton had enough charisma to be a little of both.

And apparently liberals pine for the Carter days of 20.5% prime rates and 12.5% inflation. Ah, the good old days. But then liberals pine for the Sandinistas and a strong USSR, to balance off the horrible American imperialists.

[big chuckle]

[RW]

Taking off from Bruce Wilder's point it seems very unlikely that Obama is complementing Reagan on his policies; what he seems to be impressed by was Reagan's ability to move people. But who Reagan moved and how he moved them matters and those of us, and I assume this includes Krugman, who are not true believers in Obama's awesomeness are left with little guidance: Was this merely a political maneuver, a way to gain favor with conservatives, a complement given by one people-mover to another, or is Obama actually comfortable with Reagan on some other level?

Those of us who 'lived through' the trajectory of Reagan's reign from California to POTUS are rightly troubled by the latter possibility because the evidence that Reagan was neither transcendent nor transformative but instead essentially revanchist is quite clear; e.g., it was a rare civil rights initiative or progressive policy that he did not attempt to oppose or reverse. But that smiling, avuncular face made revanchism look okay, a return to traditions rightly repudiated but a return none-the-less, and the confident voice spoke in careful code to so many who hated in their own ways what they believed the country had become. And so that smiling, confident man assisted in weaving a strange kind of cloth out of disparate American threads that led millions of people to vote against their own self-interest even when it was obvious they would be ill-served.

And so we live in a time of growing income inequality, invasion of privacy, economic trouble and ultimately the perfect icon and manifestation of it all, Dubya as POTUS: Privileged, aggressive, careless, intolerant and so comfortable with prejudice that, in the rare instances where explanation might actually be elicited or required, utter bullsh*t is necessary and sufficient response.

The point of entering elections is to win them and whining or complaints of unfairness just another set of tactics. I'll vote for Obama if he is nominated but I am immune to personality -- only policies interest me and Obama's policies, where they are sufficiently specific, appeal less than Hillary's but then her policies appeal less than Edwards so there it is -- but this year I'd vote for any of the Democrats against any of the current Republican candidates so perhaps the point is moot.

*Frankfurt, Harry G. (2005) "On Bullsh*t." Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. "[The bullsh*tter] does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullsh*t is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."
Note: The asterisks do not appear in the actual book title or elsewhere in the text but I didn't know what kind of filtering was implemented on this blog so ...

Belfast Jack: I suppose Godwin's Law technically precludes me from responding to your latter comments but I will say that they were improved: Anecdotal and insufficient to support your thesis but at least possessing some of the necessary elements of argument and appreciated as such. Good luck to you and your candidate, may he not disappoint you.

[Belfast Jack]

RW, okay the Godwin's Law line was pretty funny. Regarding your last comment, "may he not disappoint you ..." Oh, I'm sure he will eventually, as will your candidate, and everyone else's candidate too.

I can't remember who said it, but you may recall a quote that goes something like, "Don't fall too hard for a political candidate; they all eventually break your heart." I've found that to be true about 99% of the time. People are basically left with the challenge of finding the one who's likely to do it less than most. Which leads us to Churchill: "Democracy's the worst form of government, except for all the others."
All the best.

[Icarus]

We do have to keep in mind that many in the 80s were convincingly swept up in the ascendancy of neo-liberal rule, which Reagan basically represented (minus the ridiculous military budget).

Curbing private union power, lowering taxes for skilled workers, encouraging capital investment, and generally preferring pro-growth policies over dirigiste regimes...that was a vision set in by the Reagans/Thatchers.

You may not all like it...but, many did. The 80s were a boom, and although some did lose in this socio-economic transformation, he is generally remembered as a visionary.

Obama was only connecting with that fact.

[Bob]

Highly Skilled and Out of Work

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22764445/

[Bruce Wilder]

Icarus: "The 80s were a boom, and although some did lose in this socio-economic transformation, [Reagan] is generally remembered as a visionary

"Obama was only connecting with that fact."

And, Obama was connecting with a lot of voters, who remember Reagan in a positive, admiring way, rightly or wrongly.

Where I think Obama may be right, and Krugman, wrong, is not on policy, but on electoral politics.

Most voters vote, based on impressions and associations, and not on much actual information. The campaigns will spend more on 30-second spots than on policy papers, and the policy papers, if anything, are as much kabuki theatre, as Stirling Newberry wrote, as the 30-second spots.

A lot of young in the late 1970's and 1980's became life-long Republicans on the strength of the relief they felt, when Reagan replaced Carter, the worst Democratic President since Grover Cleveland and the most unpopular since Truman.

I don't think it is good electoral politics to try to persuade those people to give up the political identification that they have held for over 25 years, on the basis that Krugman thinks that they have been complete fools for 25 years.

Obama's more gentle message is far more likely to bring a significant number of Reagan Democrats back.

As for whether Clinton or Obama is less progressive, . . . well, Mark Penn.

2slugbaits, imo, has had the better of the argument in this thread.

All along, I have felt that the plutocrats had a strategy, which did not include a Republican President in 2009. The Democrat elected in 2008 will face a lot of problems not of his/her own making, but will be blamed for the state of the country's economy, for "losing" Iraq and a lot of other crap.

The Republican Media Wurlitzer will be hard at work building another version of the narrative Krugman hates about Reagan. I think the Clintons are ready-made victims for that kind of thing. Obama, maybe, has a fighting chance.

[2slugbaits]

Bruce Wilder,

Thanks for the endorsement.

I agree with your point about the GOP not being all that upset about losing the White House in 2008. Losing to Hillary in 2008 would position them in a strong position to retake Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. It's wildly improbable to imagine President Hillary Clinton winning re-election in 2012. Even with the wind at her back this year most forecasts have her getting no more than 53% of the vote, and that's at the top end of her trading range. And there's still a decent chance that McCain could beat her. Obama or Edwards could probably come close to 60% and bring in 7-8 Senate seats. That seems to be the betting over in the European political markets as well.

[2slugbaits]

Bruce Wilder,

Thanks for the endorsement.

I agree with your point about the GOP not being all that upset about losing the White House in 2008. Losing to Hillary in 2008 would position them in a strong position to retake Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. It's wildly improbable to imagine President Hillary Clinton winning re-election in 2012. Even with the wind at her back this year most forecasts have her getting no more than 53% of the vote, and that's at the top end of her trading range. And there's still a decent chance that McCain could beat her. Obama or Edwards could probably come close to 60% and bring in 7-8 Senate seats. That seems to be the betting over in the European political markets as well.

[RW]

Just out of curiosity have the political futures markets ever predicted anything correctly? I've never bothered to track them since they appear spurious on their face, an attempt to pool ignorance and distill greater wisdom out of it to paraphrase Howard Simons, but assuming they have some kind of track record does it appear to be better than a coin flip? How much better? How did they do in Iowa, New Hampshire or Nevada for instance?

[ken melvin]

How very bipartisan for repubs to vote for Obama in Iowa and rereg as dems in Nevada so they could vote for him there.

[Patricia Shannon - continued]

Charm and charisma alone does not make a man or woman great.

Quite true, since psychopaths are often "exceedingly charming and charismatic." I have seen it said that the charismatic are always at least somewhat narcissistic. I don't know whether it's true, but I have certainly found many charismatic people to be narcississtic. It astonishes me how capable people are of totally ignoring their own experiences with people when judging those they don't know.

[Jeff Hoffman]

Thanks to this ridiculously long campaign season we are able to engender contempt for all of the candidates before any one of them takes office. This is because we are looking for leaders and their calculations only allow for politicians. They would all do well to sit down in front of some old newsreels of FDR, Truman, or even JFK to get a feel for what it is that they have meticulously dissected out of their personas and how sad that makes them look. After awhile, it's hard to watch.

[realist]

imo the media and the money that owns it by aluding that
many repubs will go for obama are pushing him.
when push comes to shove the south will go for the
old white guy.
when will u all face it.

[Lafayette]

2slug: If you don't believe Hillary Clinton is the 2008 version of Walter Mondale, then let me suggest that you look at her campaign staff. It's the usual suspects from the Democratic party establishment.

It's "freedom of speech" gone berserk

Oh, so it is right and proper to characterize her by the company she keeps?

C'mon, you can do better than stooping to mean electioneering Character Assassination. There's enough of it going around and its deployment is a sure sign that some people are desperate to spatter a candidate by mudslinging.

Now, of course, shall we insinuate the Lafayette supports Hillary? After all, that's the way your logic works, doesn't it, by labeling people. The label explains everything we need to know ... right? Wrong.

Every damn election, because people don't want to look at the candidate's platforms and discuss the details, we have this sort of mindless electioneering all over the TV. And, now in the blogs.

People love to gossip, me too. I'm thrilled with paid advertising employed to sling mud. I just can't wait for the Republican machine to start with the commercials: "Do you really want to trust a Black Man whose middle name is Hussein?"

The sadness of it all is that it works. It's "freedom of speech" gone berserk.

(NB: No offense intended, 2slug. Associating Hillary with Walter Mondale is benign compared to what WILL be happening in the campaign commercials. You just gave me the handle on which to rant a bit over a pet peeve.)

[Cyrille]

Here you find me in total agreement with Lafayette:

"Every damn election, because people don't want to look at the candidate's platforms and discuss the details, we have this sort of mindless electioneering all over the TV. And, now in the blogs."

That's how you elected Bush. Why on earth would you want to keep doing the same?

[anne]

When George Bush was developing policy positions in initially running for the Presidency, Paul Krugman was continually pointing out the emtiness and self-contradictions in the positions only to be as continually critized for daring to pay attention to policy. Similarly, when Bush ran for election again.

Now, when I have been bothered from the time Barack Obama decided to run for President first about a lack of policy specificity and second about the specifics added to policy, when Krugman points out problematic policy specifics and approaches there is criticism as though Bush were the candidate in question.

Nonetheless, I am bothered about Obama's positions on Social Security and health care insurance and approach to Middle East policy, from maintaining troop levels through the region to suggesting preventive military strikes in Pakistan, to planning to add 100,000 soldiers to American forces.

The need then for voters who pay attention to policy proposals, as many voters evidently do, is to push Obama or any candidate to further clarify or re-think problematic policy rather than criticize the rare analyst who bothers to pay attention to policy.

[anne]

Another comical idiocy is paying attention to London betting markets to decide how we are to vote, because London bettors really know how we should vote, of course, though I wish they had long been giveing more attention to how Londoners should vote.

[anne]

There is then the idea of running for the sake of carrying through the traditions of Ronald Reagan, which is evidently the only reason for being a significant Republican candidate. The last thing I want in a Democratic candidate is a wish to be Reagan, when the conservatism of Reagan has been carried forward faithfully by Republicans to set us precisely where we now are, with the only possible regret of the Reaganites being that we have extended Medicare.

So, if bashing and smashing Social Security and Medicare, if denying needy children health care insurance, if denying universal health care insurance, if a militarrism that is busily preparing anti-anti-missile-missile systems for the naked and shivery Poles who are at the mercy of dread Iranian missile-missile-missile systems, then vote for Reaganism.

Me, I will vote against Reaganism.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/hearing-and-believing/

January 21, 2008

Hearing and Believing
By Paul Krugman

So, Candidate A says things like this:

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

And Candidate B says things like this: *

"If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective, vigorous government and a dynamic, appropriately regulated market. And we have systematically diminished the role and the responsibility of our government, and we have watched our market become imbalanced. I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market … Inequality is growing. The middle class is stalled. The American dream is premised on a growing economy where people are in a meritocracy and, if they're willing to work hard, they will realize the fruits of their labor."

And somehow many people believe that Candidate A is the true progressive — he wasn't really saying that Reagan was right — and that Candidate B, despite the progressive talk, is just Bush the third.

These people could be right; politicians have been known to say things they don't believe. But where does their certainty come from?

* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html

[ken melvin]

Without mentioning, some should read/reread Joel Chandler Harris. The repubs think that the only way they can possibly win is if the dems nominate Obama. And by the bye, for the dems, SC doesn't mean squat; it's worse than a complete waste of time. In the general, SC will vote repub, so the rest of the south with or without Obama being the dems' candidate, but especially if Obama is the dems' candidate. He would have to be a superman candidate to win, not someone whose experience would get him laughed off the stage if he were a woman or a white male.

[hari]

Nixon created the Republican southern strategy...and I've a feeling it ain't yet a lost teritory for them.

If black voters rep some 20% nationally, and may be a bit more in the southern states, still I've total confidence O'Bama will NOT take that 20% alone! The blacks are not simple when making political choice - given their knowledge and dependency on HRC and her man!

So, yes, polarizing the voter will invariably facilitate the emergence of the reluctant Republican to show up at the polls. HRC is capable of exactly that - O'Bama may be even 'Left' of HRC - but he ain't showing it anytime soon...

[2slugbaits]

Ken and anne,

I'm sorry, but the only chance the GOP has of winning in November is if the Dems nominate Hillary. The GOP is hopelessly demoralized and disorganized right now. The only thing that will invigorate and unify the GOP is the prospect of Hillary Clinton winning the White House. She has a narrow trading range and a lot of polls show her losing to McCain.

As to overseas political markets, there have been quite a few papers written on their predictive abiities. Suggest you read a few. The underlying idea is that people who bet with real money are more likely to pay closer attention than people who bet with their hearts.

[anne]

Beyond having a sense of who is currently relatively strong in polling in either political Party, I have no sense of who is more readily electable and trust others in that analysis. A cursory demographic reading, suggests Democrats will have a decided advantage save for the Southern and other "traditionally" Republican states. So, I try to be aware of policy and think of this as a time to push on policy development to have as much of a clear choice as possible through election.

[ken melvin]

Troll or dupe?

[Robert Levy]

The only person revising history here is Krugman, and not about Reagan, who we all here, including Barack, can agree on. Since we all agree Reaganomics was a failure and that it got us where we are today, this is not an economic beef I have with Krugman, it is his deliberate falsification of statements made by Obama. Krugman is towing the Clinton line here, and not enough people are calling him on it.

This piece (of ... work?) just goes to show how expertise in one area, economics in this case, does not necessarily extend to other areas, in this case... reading comprehension! But I actually believe he willfully misunderstood. Krugman needs to get his facts straight, and listen to what Obama actually said. Obama fought Reagan's policies and never said they were good ideas, he (and quite rightfully so) praised Reagan's ability to bring together the voter base and shift the political paradigm. Reagan is the most striking example of this (he won 48 states!), and progressives should read the book Regime Change Begins at Home, and also Thinking Points, to understand why Obama's strategy is the best one, and why Reagan was a good example to use.

So I can only conclude that Krugman is disingenuous and has an axe to grind (he supports Hillary if I remember from his praise of her economic policies, which I am not qualified to evaluate). As a non-economist, I normally would look to someone like Krugman for distilled wisdom, but now I wonder how unbiased he is, and would hesitate to bother reading his analyses in the future, considering I am not qualified enough in that area to critically take apart what he says. As far as his economic analyses in this piece, he's saying what we all know, that Reagan sucked! Obama agrees with this.

When I saw his original "Reagan" quote on YouTube I totally agreed with him, and it made perfect sense. In fact I had been positively comparing Obama's approach to Reagan's in blog comments and forums like this one, before he made the comment, and for exactly the same reasons. All of his subsequent clarifications have been entirely consistent with this understanding of what he meant. Everyone understands this except for illiterate knee-jerk commentators, Hillary supporters and Ph.D. economist Hillary supporters.

Rob

[anne]

A decided problem with Barack Obama's comments was a seeming lack of understanding of the emphasis that began with Ronald Reagan of turning away from civil rights development. The civil rights disdain of Reagan characterized conservatives and has been marked through George Bush's Presidency, especially with an unfortunate Republican Congress.

Paul Krugman was absolutely right to criticize Obama, and the defensive reaction shows me just how right Krugman was.

[anne]

"Everyone understands this except for illiterate knee-jerk commentators, Hillary supporters and Ph.D. economist Hillary supporters."

Simply notice the language, and understand the quality or rather absence of quality of the comical protest.

[david]

Anne, do you really think an African-American community organizer doesn't know Reagan's history on civil rights? What are you smoking? Only if you try very hard and uncharitably could you interpret his comments this way. It's nice you like Krugman, but he's gone overboard obviously.

And if you're going to keep trotting out Obama on Social Security, make note of Clinton supporter and hatchetman Robert Johnson's record on that issue, and check out who else she has advising her. Note too that war supporters fill her foreign policy advisory. And don't forget how helplessly she performed on health care, and for what reasons. Finally, think defending marriage, and protecting the flag from burning, and not asking and not telling, and reforming welfare to keep all those lazy people from taking advantage of the good-hearted upper middle class, and remind yourself that the era of big gov't is over. Of course there's reason not to believe Hillary Clinton is to the left of Obama; to say otherwise is foolish. Maybe she isn't, but Krugman has to do lots lots more to make anything resembling a case.

[James Killus]

I sometimes feel like I'm caught in some sort of Bizarro universe. How else to explain the fact that people are trying to figure out the best way of "appealing to" people who are supporting organized crime? And that, ultimately, is the difficulty. A gang of organized criminals have siezed control of the Republican Party and the country, and the populace generally is trying to pretend that this hasn't happened. When you blow that big a hole in your reality perception, there's not many ways of recovering, and I don't think that Obama has squared that circle. "Independents" are simply people who are deeper in denial than most others. At least the right wing authoritarians know that they want a military police state.

So Obama will try to deal with the Republicans in good faith, just like Carter tried to deal with the Soviet Union in good faith. It took the invasion of Afghanistan to snap Carter out of it, but the Republicans have already invaded Afghanistan, and Iraq as well (both crimes against peace, which is to say, war crimes) so what will it take to give Obama the reality check? And what will he use as payment to cover that reality check? The cupboard is pretty bare.

Oh, and guys? Krugman is quite happy with the Edwards candidacy; it's you folks who are hypnotized by Clinton, for reasons I can only suspect.

[Lafayette]

JK: Krugman is quite happy with the Edwards candidacy; it's you folks who are hypnotized by Clinton, for reasons I can only suspect.

It's differences of opinion that make horses race. As well as presidential candidates.

[vorpal]

We'll see how the Reagan 'vision' goes down in history. I have a feeling that the meltdown in America we are experiencing right now can be traced back to the 'hopeful optimistic' policies adopted by Reagan.

As hopeful and optimistic as they may be, I also think they are in distinct opposition to reality. You can't build a great society by overconsuming a finite resource like oil. Nor by borrowing vast sums of money to finance a massive military, nor by having huge trade imbalances. It would be nice if you could, but we will find that we van.t

[david]

I'm happy with Edwards too, and Kucinich too. The problem is when Krugman says that Clinton is to Obama's left. That's a case that hasn't been made.