Paul Krugman: Bigger Than Bush

It's the end of the line for the GOP's Southern strategy:

Bigger Than Bush, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners. ...

[M]ost of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply ... bad luck... The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years ... is a consequence of that decision.

If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it ... rested on contempt for government in general. ... So why worry about governing well?

Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater ... explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.

Oh, and the racial element isn’t all that abstract, even now: Chip Saltsman,... a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, sent committee members a CD including a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — and according to some reports, the controversy over his action has actually helped his chances.

So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process. And despite the claims of some ... that Mr. Bush betrayed conservatism, the truth is that he faithfully carried out both his party’s divisive tactics — long before Sarah Palin, Mr. Bush declared that he visited his ranch to “stay in touch with real Americans” — and its governing philosophy.

That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated ... for more than a generation.

The reality of this strategy’s collapse has not ... fully sunk in with some observers. Thus, some commentators warning President-elect Barack Obama against bold action have held up Bill Clinton’s political failures ... as a cautionary tale.

But America in 1993 was a very different country — not just a country that had yet to see what happens when conservatives control all three branches of government, but also a country in which Democratic control of Congress depended on the votes of Southern conservatives. Today, Republicans have taken away almost all those Southern votes — and lost the rest of the country. It was a grand ride for a while, but in the end the Southern strategy led the G.O.P. into a cul-de-sac.

Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.

Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy.

Comments

[elvis]

Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold.
Well, so far, not so bold.... Perhaps after Jan 20th? He might wake up on the 21st, look at his wife and say, as he bounds out of bed, "Honey! I've decided to be bold!"

dum spiro spero.

[mmckinl]

Krugman ... "Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold."

Mr Obama had better be bold. With $50 trillion in aggregate debt, $60 trillions in CDS, $500 trillions in derivatives, an insolvent banking system and a crashing economy if Barack is not bold he will be inundated with an tsunami of economic failure.

So far even the vaunted Krugman has been behind the curve with articles like " It's Magneto Trouble" ... We are way beyond a timing problem. To date only a few well publicized economists have even dared to call for what is really needed. Nationalizing the banks to sort out not only the bad debts but all those trillions in toxic derivatives. In fact I have only heard one economist or financial writer call for FDRs Bank Holiday ... that would be William Greider. Krugman is for "single payer" but seems to think we can morph into single payer from a privately run Universal Plan.

Obama had better be bold ... but the MSM and the Progressive Media have been pitifully meek and unimpressive with their ideas.

Maybe Mr Thoma can explain his positions on FDRs Bank Holiday and single payer or "Medicare for All" positions to help mitigate our current crisis.

[Chris]

The idea that Obama is going to bring much change is, I think, false. He has already caved into the Israel Lobby re the Middle East, he isn't saying much about getting out of Iraq, and he's for getting deeper into Afghanistan. I didn't vote for him to continue America's misguided, to be nice about it, imperialism. I wanted it to be discontinued as rapidly as possible. Fat chance of that. We'll be in Iraq in 2012 and also Afghanistan and Israel will still be abusing the Palestinians as always.

[BJ Feng]

Yes it's imperialism to defend yourself, to take out those who struck first. Only for America. Somehow, Bin Laden's stated goal of creating a worldwide Caliphate is not imperialist, nor is Hamas' stated goal of destroying Israel and taking over its land. No, that's not imperialism, only when America or Israel defends itself is it imperialist. Sickening.

[BJ Feng]

Once again Krugman shows his hate and ignorance of history. We must not forget the party of slavery, those who fought and killed to preserve slavery, the Democrats, and those who spilled their own blood to eliminate it forever, the Republicans. I'm reading a WWII book right now, and it reminded me of the second most horrible policy this nation ever instituted, the placement of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps. This policy was again, instituted by Democrats, the party of racism, Jim Crow, and racial hatred.

Krugman should stop throwing stones in his glass house. His assertions are ridiculous, my statements are historical fact. Never again, we must not forget lest we repeat those heinous policies. And for those who have already forgotten like Krugman, which party revered a KKK leader so much that they elevated him to powerful Senate posts? No it didn't happen in the 1800, it happened in the 2000's. If you believe it was the Republicans, you are sorely misinformed. Robert Byrd, a clansman who called Blacks niggers several times in national interviews, was a Democratic leader in the Senate. Democrats still speak highly of him, after all, tradition is important in the Senate and the Democrats have a great legacy of racism to uphold.

[Chris]

Mr. Feng:

9/11 was a pin prick and probably thoroughly deserved as Susan Sontag argued. It was the result of decades of US imperialism in the Middle East. I marvel that you know so little about that topic.
The "world wide Calpihate" idea is a red herring used to stir up anti-Muslim hatred. Bin Laden's objections to US imperialism are quite specific and don't involve any such thing.
Your comment about Hamas is very funny since
Hamas would tell you that it is Israel that has stolen all the land it occupies. And Hamas is probably right about that.
I find it sickening how Americans can't see themselves in their imperial garb. America wears it all the time, spends billions and billions on it, and yet many pretend it doesn't exist.
Such blindness will have to end but we shall have to wait for our economic decline to eventually open our eyes to this profligate and stupid waste.

[Noni Mausa]

Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course.

Why?

Not to be reflexively contemptuous, but a serious question. One assumes that two parties (or more) exist to put forward distinct, though overlapping, agendas. One hopes these agendas are rooted in reality, and one hopes that those agendas all share a sincere desire to see the nation do well.

The choice for the voter should be among different varieties of a functional family, not the choice between a functional family and a dysfunctional one, or parents who see their children only as servants or who don't believe in the idea of family at all.

At present, the two American parties seem to be the Democratic Party of Cleaning Up After the Republicans, and the Republican Party of Hating the Democrats -- the Longsuffering Mommy and Resentful Daddy Parties respectively. But assuming the Republicans want to regenerate their party as a legitimate steward, and the Democrats are doing all the cleanup and stewarding, where is the Novo-Republican political territory going to be?

Noni

[ken melvin]

Bon dit Prof. Krugman.

[Beezer]

Being a northern Yankee and a republican for almost 40 years, I'm out of touch with Mr. Krugman's southern strategy/racial explanation for this most recent Democrat rout of Republicans.

I've been a registered Democrat for only 2 years, but my leaving the Republican Party had nothing to do with any "southern strategy" collapse. I left because, as I got older, I simply realized that free markets weren't going to provide basic services for America in general.

Too many people don't have basic health care. After 200 plus years of having the opportunity to do so, it's about time everyone realized free markets weren't going to supply this basic need.

Too many people were falling behind in income. The widening of income disparity was becoming oppressive and obvious.

Very little, if anything, has been accomplished in reforming our energy system, in preparing for a sustainable future. Free markets don't operate that way. They are short term oriented and when confronted by crisis (based on what we've all witnessed recently)they simply pick up whatever assets they've accumulated and leave everyone else to pay the tab and solve the problem. Pollution comes to mind here. Free markets didn't clean up our polluted rivers, for example.

With government basically neutered, we've witnessed the savage destruction of our banking system by the so-called free market. And once again, everyone else is expected to pick up the tab and solve the problem.

In short, totally free markets have proven to be irresponsible. Self interest is self interest, after all. The ever increasing accumulation of wealth by an ever decreasing minority is where we've arrived. And we are decidedly not the better for it.

It's time to restore some responsibility--to restore some balance between self interest and community interest. I think that's what caused the rout of Republicans. The Republican train left the station and only a few folks were on board. They left too many people behind.

[almost done]

Yes the GOP is like the marching band in Animal House milling around in the blind alley. Soon they'll be marching back out as unabashed totalitarians. So now's the time to start a real party of the left, get an alternative to the Dem's torturers and warriors and Stasi-wannabes, get the Constitution back, or better still, execute the ICCPR.

[Rusty]

All Republicans are racists.

All Democrats are saints.

Blah, blah, blah.

The GOP will eventually be reinvigorated when Democrats make whopping mistakes.

The pendulum always swings back.

PK should stick to economics.

[ken melvin]

Moderate, Rockefeller, republicans are long since extinct.

[bakho]

What Beezer said.

Democrats have been making gains in urban areas that require more government services, revenue and spending to solve community problems. Low tax- no service, hands off planning cause urban areas to decline. It is no wonder that as areas become more urban, they become more Democratic. Republicans still have strong holds on rural areas, because their policies are not as easily identified with the problems. Small government only really works well where population density is low enough.

Local Republican Parties still have some good government conservatives. That is probably where the regeneration will come from.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/opinion/01thu2.html?ref=opinion

January 1, 2009

Talk About Out of Touch

The Republican Party paid a steep price for race-baiting in the presidential campaign. Remember the ferocious backlash against the California Republican group that produced a racist newsletter depicting Barack Obama on a food stamp, surrounded by images of fried chicken and watermelon?

Then there were those two congressmen who were rightly excoriated for condemning Mr. Obama's candidacy in the language of the Jim Crow South — one describing him as a "boy" and the other as "uppity."

We thought after all that — and, oh yes, losing the election — everyone in the Republican Party leadership would have figured out that race-baiting alienates young, minority and all reasonable voters.

Clearly, not everyone has.

Chip Saltsman, a veteran political operative, is pushing his candidacy for chairman of the Republican National Committee. He distributed a compact disc containing a parody questioning President-elect Barack Obama's racial authenticity.

The song — entitled "Barack the Magic Negro" — by a writer often heard on the Rush Limbaugh radio show, has split the Republican leadership. One faction thinks the parody is just fine and seems prepared to defend it to the death. The other is condemning it and shuddering at its political consequences.

Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, warned his party against using "racist descriptions" and said that the parody should "disqualify any Republican National Committee candidate who would use it."

Mr. Saltsman, who was Mike Huckabee's campaign manager during the primaries, could still be vaulted into the chairman's seat by hard-core committee members who resent the explosion of criticism and have learned nothing from the last election.

Maybe they like the hole their party is standing in and want to dig it even deeper. That's their right, but it does the country no good.

[anne]

"Once again ------- shows his hate and ignorance of history."

Therein begins among the most deceiving and hateful comments imaginable.

[anne]

"All Republicans are racists.

"All Democrats are saints."

Notice the crazy logic to the response.

[elvis]

BFeng wrote:
Once again Krugman shows his hate and ignorance of history. We must not forget the party of slavery, those who fought and killed to preserve slavery, the Democrats, and those who spilled their own blood to eliminate it forever, the Republicans.
Did slavery really end with the Civil War?
Here's an eye-opener:
http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/

An interesting point made by the book was that when FDR's administration sat down to discuss what were America's moral weak points that the Japanese could exploit, the continuance of slavery by another name came up... and was quietly dealt with.

Bfeng, the Republican Party started out great, I mean who can top Lincoln? Then they got power and it corrupts as we well know.

"Tempora mutantur et nos in illis" King Lothar I

[Ninja Zombie]

Noni Mausa: "The choice for the voter should be among different varieties of a functional family, not the choice between a functional family and a dysfunctional one, or parents who see their children only as servants or who don't believe in the idea of family at all."

Lots of people believe the government should not be their mommy.

Right now we have the choice between a hippy new age mommy (the dems) or a strict religious mommy (Bush wing of the reps). Once the republicans abandon the Bush wing, they could return to viability by not trying to be anyone's mommy.

[Lee A. Arnold]

The Republicans may have finally boxed themselves in electorally by Nixon's Southern strategy, but don't forget that their ascendancy was aided by decades of freemarket fundamentalist rhetoric, and with nary a peep of effective protest from the practicing economics profession. Eventually the Republicans will return, but I agree with Noni Mausa, here above, that it's going to be a long haul -- and would add this reason, that their long-standing economic (and environmental) policies are now revealed to be scientifically incoherent. This is going to be difficult to overcome in the new information age. Democrats could of course HELP those poor Republicans, by NOT developing THIS statement of principles: that markets have only ever worked in a web of protective and regulative institutions, that institutional transparency is the main problem to be solved, and that the design of good, accountable institutions is the contemporary task. Perhaps that is as good a formulation as any? However, we may almost rely upon the Democrats' inability to enunciate this principle, since their own intellectual atomism and incoherence is a long-standing trait that has been countered only by the Republicans' gibbering fundamentalisms.

On the foreign policy front, anyone who didn't notice that Obama is a member of the foreign policy establishment, wasn't watching. I for one applaud this. I am well aware of the U.S.'s history of foreign policy stupidity and malfeasance, but I also note that the U.S. has been, on the whole, a force for good and peace in the world, and there's a lot of other people in the world who believe it, too. The U.S. won't have predominance much longer, so the question is what to do about it. Nation-building requires a populace schooled in the Enlightenment -- its main principle being, as Kant put it, having the capacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another. But merely presuming the Enlightenment does not make it so. That brings us to George W. Bush. Another of the astounding contradictions of his Administration is that he thought he could bring democracy to another country, without being able to practice it in his own. Once again, note that the failures in both cases are variations on freemarket fundamentalism -- you just give people freedom and a low tax rate, and it'll all come together spontaneously, dude! Meanwhile the Middle East has a 50% chance of blowing up, and we should do what we can to stop it, while we can.

[anne]

"Lots of people believe the government should not be their mommy."

Notice the metaphor, and wonder why the choice of metaphor. This is the of conservatism and what conservatism amounts to.

[robertdfeinman]

The party names will continue, rebranding is just to costly in these days of mass media so no Whig party in the future.

On the other hand the Republicans have completely flipped their ideology since they were founded and it seems that the Dems are far along the way of doing the same.

The Dems used to be the party of immigrants and workers, but it is now run by a group of big business and aggressive foreign policy promoters. They still attract the poor and the weak because they have no other place to go, but represent their interests marginally. What's the difference between a Rubin Democrat and a free market Republican? Beats me.

So we have a center right party devoted to big business and anti-labor and a center left party devoted to big business and neutral towards labor.

I assume both parties will fine tune their message over the next decade to reposition themselves as the WASP's cease to be a majority.

The dominant philosophical position in the US is still that we are an exceptional country and deserve to consume to excess. This implies support for a strong military structure which can ensure that we get the needed raw materials and finished goods that we desire. I don't see the public changing on this essential belief anytime soon.

How this will tie in to the ongoing discussions about the future of China and India is an interesting question.

[Ninja Zombie]

Noni Mausa: "The choice for the voter should be among different varieties of a functional family, not the choice between a functional family and a dysfunctional one, or parents who see their children only as servants or who don't believe in the idea of family at all." <-This text was ignored by Anne.

Me: "Lots of people believe the government should not be their mommy."

Anne: "Notice the metaphor, and wonder why the choice of metaphor. This is the of conservatism and what conservatism amounts to."

Notice Anne failing to realize that it was not a conservative who chose to equate the government with parents.

[Chris]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/02/israelandthepalestinians-barackobama#start-of-comments

Enough said.

[lonesome moderate]

Noni Mausa: But assuming the Republicans want to regenerate their party as a legitimate steward, and the Democrats are doing all the cleanup and stewarding, where is the Novo-Republican political territory going to be?

I am reminded of the famous Adlai Stevenson quote (in response to "you have the vote of every thinking person"): "that's not enough, madam, I need a majority!". For better or worse, being legitimate in this country means winning elections.

[Michael Cain]

Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course.

But will they be recognizable as the Republicans we know today? I would modify Dr. Krugman's characterization to say that today's Republicans have a "rural" strategy. Even states that are considered blue, like California, have small but heavily populated blue urban areas surrounded by large expanses of lightly populated red areas. That leaves Republicans facing difficult demographic trends: decreasing rural population, and suburban areas who are increasingly identifying with urban problems rather than rural ones.

That said, a rural party, with the right set of policy positions, should be able to lock up the US Senate, and pick up an occasional President, by exploiting the fact that Alabama and Nebraska have as many seats in the Senate as California and New York. Among those policies:
Demand that Medicaid be a federal-only program, as its costs are killing state budgets
Restrain the federal Dept of Education, reducing its reporting requirements, and exempting states with student test programs from any federal testing requirements
Accept a national medical insurance program, so long as its financing clearly has richer urban states subsidizing poorer rural ones
Push a program to transfer ownership of federal lands in the West, excluding national parks, monuments, and military bases, to the states

[bakho]

The point that some seem to be missing is that the GOP was once the party that housed the majority of black Americans. In the last election, that percentage dropped below 10%.

Democrats do not deny racism in the party past and the divisive effect it had on the party and still has in some places. The key is to admit the problem and try to fix it. Blacks started switching to the Democratic party with FDR, but the Democrats became the party that supported the protection of minority rights in the 1960s. This caused a lot of white flight to the Republicans who were eager to get political support in the south at any cost.

Republicans have been bent on exploiting differences and being the party of divide and conquer. Currently they have alienated more than a majority of Americans who realize that in these financial times, we are in this together.

Racism is only one part of the GOP problem. The GOP promotes a country of haves and have nots. The GOP can make small gains in wealth inequality, but powerful forces move against them when wealthy elites become too great of a burden on the rest of us.

[evagrius]

"Notice Anne failing to realize that it was not a conservative who chose to equate the government with parents."

But I notice thst you reduce the parents to just one; mommy. That's quite telling. Where's poppa? Absent?

The notion of a nation as a family goes very far back, further than the Greek philosophers, further than the Hebrew prophets. It has a certain amount of validity.

After all, the term "economy" is originally Greek, oikonomíā,(oeconomia in Latin), which means household management.

It's always useful to pay attention to etymologies. For instance, society originally meant fellowship, comradeship, partnership. To deny that there is such a thing as society, ( a la Thatcher and others of her ilk), is to deny that human beings have anything in common.

[don]

I am embarassed for Paul. Some of his generalizations are poorly founded and blatantly unfair (as well as outdated). To me, the guiding philosophy of the Republican Party is the belief (held by Lincoln) in equality of opportunity, rather than equality of result, and I favor this view because I don't think human nature has evolved to the point where the latter is practicable as an overriding principle.

[evagrius]

"To me, the guiding philosophy of the Republican Party is the belief (held by Lincoln) in equality of opportunity, rather than equality of result,...."

Yes. The child of a top 1% income family should have the same equality of opportunity as a child of a bottom 1% income family.

"...I favor this view because I don't think human nature has evolved to the point where the latter is practicable as an overriding principle."

Well, it's obvious that the human nature of top 1 percenters hasn't evolved to make sure that there is equality of opportunity, let alone of result.

[Bruce Wilder]

Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course.

Of course. At the moment, they are positioning themselves as angry populists in the white Southern tradition.

The Democrats are a two mode Party: one group of Progressives and liberals, who don't seem to be able to get a grip on power, and a second group of pro-business centrists, who became ascendant in the recent election, as a small, but significant slice of suburban Republicans fled their increasingly deranged and theocratic Party.

My sense is that leadership in the Democratic Party is in the hands of the centrists, which seems truly unfortunate, because they do not seem to "get it". This is a group that got rolled over and over, in opposition to the most incompetent and stupid Administration in 70 years! I don't think most of them have a clue about how to play the game, in policy or politics.

The right-wing Republicans may seem like their own worst enemies after losing power decisively, but I suspect that, for a handful of big-money Republicans, this was deliberate -- they did not want to win, because they want the Democrats saddled with cleanup. Too many voters have only about six months of political memory, and care more about the price of gas than anything else in politics. Obama will soon be to blame for the poor economic performance of the country, in their pea brains, just as Obama will be blamed as Iraq falls apart upon American withdrawal, and so on.

The Republicans pretty much succeeded in turning the Judiciary into a partisan and right-wing bastion, and their life-time appointments to the Federal bench are young. The corporate Right-wing controls the Media, which is run quite cleverly to favor their interests. The Blago affair is just a demo of their power to create non-scandals to dog a Democratic Administration.

I'd like to think that the brand of home-grown Fascism that the Republican Party is preparing to offer the country, after they obstruct and undermine the "progressive" Obama Administration to death, will prove too repulsive to a majority, that the Rush Limbaughs and Lou Dobbs will not find a new and growing audience during the struggles ahead.

Democrats may muddle through, aided by a continuing generational shift within the Congress, the Party and its electorate. Obama shows every evidence of the political mastery that Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton lack. That's certainly where my hopes lie.

I am not gleeful about the corner the Republicans have retreated to, because I'm not all that confident that the country won't choose fascism, if pressed by continued economic stress and failure, or terrorism, riots or assassination. The Bush Administration has prepared the political precedents and legal ground, the Media propaganda machine is in place and well-oiled, the Judiciary is stocked with the Right people.

The Republicans, as they are today, are the alternative. And, it's a scary alternative.

[RW]

Actually it is rather embarrassing to read a post by anyone who thinks the Republicans believe in equality of opportunity rather than equality of result much less consider it a guiding philosophy of the party: Advancement as a reward for loyalty rather than merit, cronyism, is just equality of result by different name and that is what the Republicans practiced; they were the party of Lincoln once, a long, long time ago, but that is certainly the case no longer.

[anne]

"To me, the guiding philosophy of the Republican Party is the belief (held by Lincoln) in equality of opportunity...."

Which I suppose explains the decades long and continuing opposition by leading Republicans to civil or human rights legislation, all sorts of civil or human rights legislation. When last heard from Republicans were busily preventing legislation allowing for women who find they have long been discriminated against by employers to sue for equal and compensating pay and benefits.

[kthomas]

I haven't met a Republican yet that wasn't racist.

Lincoln would be ashamed of them, were he still alive. Hell, the racists would shoot him in the back of the head, again, were he around to comment on the bullshit going around these days.

[Noni Mausa]

Ninja apparently is thinking of June Cleaver when he thinks of a mommy and daddy.

The two I am thinking of are the daddy who drinks and fights and gambles away all the savings, "needs" a new car at the expense of groceries, takes offense at the tiniest slight and sneers at or threatens anyone who suggests he might be at fault.

The mommy I am thinking of is the one who, in the face of this violent craziness, stubbornly gets the kids fed and to school, takes a job or two to make up the difference, socks away money secretly because she knows she will need it, and keeps the home this side of disaster.*

And the Republican noise machine? It's Daddy's way to convince the kids that mommy is stupid and lazy, a servant, a scold and a spoilsport.

There are plentiful families just like this, and America is one of them.

Noni

* Of course, the "mommies" and "daddies" in these families could be either sex -- I have seen both.

[nyet]

Michael Lind write a terrific book on this subject:
Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics.

He is a 5th generation Texan and a former Republican.

Krugman's editorial is based on a reading of history and to get the real substance behind it you should read this book.

[Ninja Zombie]

Evagrius: "But I notice thst you reduce the parents to just one; mommy. That's quite telling. Where's poppa? Absent?"

I guess it's cause I'm an evil sexist. Damn, you caught me.

"The notion of a nation as a family goes very far back, further than the Greek philosophers, further than the Hebrew prophets. It has a certain amount of validity."

Quite right, tribalism is ancient. Immediate family > all relatives > your tribe > those subhumans from other tribes.

I thought we got beyond that, but I guess not.

[Dave Levy]

I like it when Paul sticks to economics. He's much smarter there.

[mmckinl]

Krugman ... "Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold."

For those of you who haven't seen it a very important and sobering article at Naked Capitalist ...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/01/past-financial-crises-suggest-pain-far.html

Their latest piece looks at how crises generally progress and resolve themselves. The usual outcomes are worse than most commentators forecast for the US (save the fall in average real estate prices):
1. Real housing price declines average over 35% over a six year period. Note in other crises, residential real estate was not necessarily a focus of the bubble. Even excluding Japan (which has suffered a 17 year housing price decline) the average is over 5 years.

2. Equity prices fall 55% over three and a half years.

3. GDP fall an average of 9% (read that twice)

4. Unemployment increases 7% over previous norms.

5. Government debt "explodes", increasing an average of 86%, but the cause is typically not a banking industry recapitalization, but maintaining services in the face of collapsing tax revenues and countercyclical measure ex financial system measures.

I suggest you take a look ...

[Ninja Zombie]

Noni: "Ninja apparently is thinking of June Cleaver when he thinks of a mommy and daddy. The two I am thinking of are the [bad republican daddy] and the [good democrat mommy]."

Actually no, I'm just mocking this idea that you still need mommy or daddy to take care of you.

At some point, most people transition from being taken care of by parents to taking care of themselves. We call the latter stage "adulthood". I guess not everyone has reached it.

[ken melvin]

The present day republican party is the p[arty of the south; the south reviles Lincoln, so I can't see show anyone can say that republicans are the party of Lincoln.

[Rusty]

Apparently if Roland Burris, appointed to the Senate by the duly elected Governor of Illinois, shows up to claim his seat, Harry Reid will have the Sergeant at Arms toss him out.

I think the photos of a black guy being muscled out of the Senate Chamber would look really good on the evening news.

At least no fire hoses and dogs.

Please don't tell me about the racial purity of the Democrats, they use race in a most cynical way.

[Ken]

evagrius wrote: "Yes. The child of a top 1% income family should have the same equality of opportunity as a child of a bottom 1% income family."

And the law, in its majesty, forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges.

[Fred]

Southern thinking boils down to seeing life as a fixed size pie that has to divided up, and there isn't going to ever be enough for everyone to eat their fill, so the only way to get a big piece for yourself is for someone else to get a small piece. If the strapping buck eats a t-bone steak, then the lower class white man is going to have to eat tuna fish, and if the black welfare queen goes riding around town in a Cadillac, then the lower class white woman is going to have to take the bus, because there is a limited number of t-bones and Cadillacs to go around. The poor white man would like to take the place of the rich white man, but he knows that isn't going to happen, and so he resigns himself to cutting the best deal he can. Namely, keep the whites in general on top of the blacks and browns, and keep the men on top of the women. There is a certain hard-nosed reality to this worldview, though I disagree with it. It's the same worldview of the peak oil people, I might add. The racism and sexism strategy of the Republicans is failing, so their natural move forwards is towards xenophobia. We're already seeing a lot of immigrant bashing and I expect to see a lot more in the 2010 election. (I also wouldn't be surprised to see some nasty jew-baiting in the near future. Jews dominate Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the New York financial media, in case it isn't obvious. Right now the evangelicals are fanatically pro-Israel, but it wouldn't take much to change this. Lower class christians have quite a history of anti-Jew attitudes after all. The neo-cons came to dominate the Republican party, but they certainly don't represent it's soul. The first sign of waning support for Israel and they'll jump ship, and after that's it Katy bar the door for the real anti-Semites to come out of the woodwork.)

What will really undermine the Republicans is for the white middle class to stop believing in a fixed size pie, and that change in belief will only occur when we begin to see real progress in the standard of living of the white middle class. If your idea of a high standard of living means bigger McMansions and more automobiles in the garage, then yes, the pie probably is limited. But if progress means things like a shorter working week, free daycare, free basic medical care, support for college students to work their way through college, guaranteed government jobs after age 60 to eliminate retirement worries, etc, etc, then I think progress is quite possible.

[kharris]

Noni,

As Maxwell Smart was wont to say you were "this close" to getting a big old lecture. I my family, it was the pater who made sure things hung together, the mater who insisted that restaurant lunches with the ladies, jewelry and high-end clothing were "necessities". I'll let you slide this time, but you do realize it's a sexual stereotype?

[kharris]

Fred,

Um, if you speak as someone who grew up in the South, then you may claim to speak from experience. If, on the other hand, you did not grow up inside a petroleum geology curiculum, blithely claiming to know that peak oil people think just like poor southern whites seems, oh let's call it a stretch.

[kthomas]

@ ken melvin "The present day republican party is the p[arty of the south; the south reviles Lincoln, so I can't see show anyone can say that republicans are the party of Lincoln."

Bravo, Ken, as per your usual. It is odd, this strange relationship the GOP has with Lincoln. I guess after the 60's, they had to go somewhere, since they got kicked out of the Democratic party. Like I said earlier, were he alive, they'd shoot him in the back the head again.

[calmo]

I just know it's football season with this:Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Prolly the most quoted phrase in all the half-time slots, I bet.
So, in the end a vote for the game itself: the Dems vs the Republicans...and didn't this show get a real turnout this last time? (the key failure of the GOP: unable to dismantle the public interest generated by the Dems, by Obama.)
The win of course such a relief, but troubling...the 46% who still voted for the wrong side barely losing to the 52% that thought Obama was a new start...hope, balance, dignity and courage. [I cannot stay here without gettin thoroughly depressed.]
The 46% blockheaded US electorate, whose numbers would have increased without Obama (the recent Chambliss senate win) and may well have continued that GOP occupancy in the WH had it not been for such a charismatic opponent in Obama, is a vote for Chomsky....speaking of depressing.
So easy to fall into the football path here...praising the talents of one QB over the other hazbeenyourfriendnotmine...ignoring other elements like that financial organization that can be said, with some force, to have bought this election...like most of the rest...but I B too depressed to lookitup.
It is amazing to me (have I declared my non-blockheadedness to you yet?) that there can be such an astonishing difference in candidates (Quality, for you blockheads) in such sensitive, politically activating circumstances (8 months into a serious recession that included unprecedented tax rebates to hurting consumers about to vote...for you blockheads) and yet, such a thin margin of victory (because...blockheads are heavier, denser than any NYT writer could possibly imagine. When it was claimed that the universe is expanding, these little residuals of matter were actually condensing...still condensing it appears...).

So much for my half-time comment aboutitall...which is all I can stand. You'll just have to wing it by yerselves for the endgame wrap-up.

[Fred]

My comment comparing the peak oilers to the poor southern whites refers to scarcity mentality. The idea that natural resources are the only real source of wealth and thus a growing population and a fixed or declining amount of natural resources dooms society as a whole to a declining standard of living. The peak oilers seem to me the less intelligent of the two gropus, because they don't draw the natural conclusion. Namely, enslaving and/or exterminating certain classes of people is a great way to increase the per capita natural resources available to those who remain.

Like I said, I don't subscribe to the limited natural resources worldview. It was a true worldview once, but science and technology changes things. When we run out of oil, we can use something else to produce energy and/or we can use less energy. This assumes we have the right incentives in place, which in turn assumes we have a competent government. If we get a government dominated by people with a scarcity mentality, then instead of providing incentives for technological breakthroughs and redesigns of society to use less of the resources that are scarce, we might instead embark on foreign wars so as to secure more of the scarce natural resources. War has been the downfall of many a society before ours.

And yes, I did grow up in the south. A white son of the aristocracy.

[John V]

PK should stick to economics.

Indeed and amen.

The problem for me is not so much that Krugman prefers partisan politics to his professional career choice as an economist. I say: To each his own. No, the problem is when he infuses a great deal of partisan politics into shallow economic polemics or infuses shallow economics into his partisan political columns.

I think that if Krugman were true to his inner professional economist, he could never bring himself to write what he writes in the political world...in the name of economics.

If fact, I find that it is when Krugman is at his best as an dispassionate economist that he is most thoroughly uninteresting politically speaking and lacking that partisan passion. And that's a good thing.

Lately, it seems as though Krugman works backwards from his politically preferred conclusions and weaves economic analysis to fit it. That's dishonest.

Good economics defies and transcends tasty partisan political rants. One cannot do the former while engaging in the latter or vice-versa. IOW, blind political advocacy and good economics don't mix. It's like mixing church and state.

And Krugman does the world a great service when he sticks to economics...plain and simple economics. But when he uses economics as a veil for forwarding his politics, he does us all a disservice and clouds the landscape.

[John V]

After having read The Conscience of Liberal, his latest book, it's very, very clear where Krugman is coming from.

The majority of his book is about two things:

The New Deal and a history of the GOP in the second half of the 20th century...and both stories are told from the perspective of a hard-line New Deal Democrat who fancies himself as a Democratic Strategist.

There was a time when I found Krugman's political analysis more convincing but as I moved into a more independent position, I began to find his analysis overly sensationalized...if not a touch conspiratorial and yes...very, very partisan.

It's the same historical account of the GOP that I've seen in other polemics like Broder's "The Republican Noise Machine" and Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them".

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/opinion/02krugman.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

January 2, 2009

Bigger Than Bush
By PAUL KRUGMAN

As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners.

Some of the whining almost defies belief. Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, "I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror?" Did Rush Limbaugh really suggest that the financial crisis was the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by that evil genius Chuck Schumer?

But most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration's failure was simply a matter of bad luck — either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House.

The fault, however, lies not in Republicans' stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party's champion, to the Bush administration's pervasive incompetence, to the party's shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.

If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to "make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second."

Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. "Government is not the solution to our problem," declared Ronald Reagan. "Government is the problem." So why worry about governing well?

Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.'s "Southern strategy," which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: "You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites." In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.

Oh, and the racial element isn't all that abstract, even now....

[The point happens to be that this is carefully written and precisely true, and critically related to economics. What is important for conservatives however, at least the wild conservatives who have been so dominant these 8 years is to deny truth at all costs.]

[evagrius]

"Quite right, tribalism is ancient. Immediate family > all relatives > your tribe > those subhumans from other tribes.
I thought we got beyond that, but I guess not."

"At some point, most people transition from being taken care of by parents to taking care of themselves. We call the latter stage "adulthood". I guess not everyone has reached it."

I juxtaposed the two quotes to show how inconsistent some people are in their thinking.

Taking care of oneself, in this society, is rather difficult unless one is a hermit living off the land in the wilderness, ( and even that is not completely possible).

We need each other, in many ways, in order to take care of ourselves and others. That's the meaning of society.

If the quoted person wishes, he can try to actually be a wilderness hermit. Then we would be spared such comments.

Otherwise, I suggest a bit of relection in order not to make such comments.

[anne]

We have a wild conservative leadership that in both an election period and in a period of gathering recession would several times deny 3.8 million poorer children the right to medical insurance for a mere $7 billion dollars. This is the Republican, the conservatism that has brought us to where we are.

[anne]

I am reminded how in recent weeks there has been ceaseless insisting by wild conservatives, that legislation designed to prevent discrimination on housing was importantly responsible for the housing crisis. That the insisting is false is no matter. The need now is a combination of denying that George Bush was ever a conservative, even though Bush is a definitive conservative of the times, and denying that a wildly conservative Congress set the stage for where we find ourselves.

[John V]

Anne,

I would say that what brought us to where we are is bad foreign policy, arrogant and misguided monetary policy, well-meaning but misguided laws and institutions from Congress/signed by different presidents and, with respect to this last factor, an inability by the establishment economic brain trust on both sides of the aisle to understand the ripple effects they were creating and how those ripples would effect existing regulatory schemes and incentives. And might I add: a continuing inability to understand all this.

[anne]

No; this has been a unique Administration, uniquely poor in economic policy to an extent not found since the Depression. Not the Administration before or before or before or before, but this Administration as the data are showing and will astonishingly show.

[John V]

BTW, Anne:

I would say that there is a subtle yet very stark difference between saying that there is "discrimination in housing" and saying that "minorities have more difficulty in getting mortgages".

The former is a subjective charge that has shaky evidence behind, the latter may be true but if it is, it seem to be more a symptom or correlation from other factors that have nothing to do with deliberate discrimination in housing and the selling of mortgages. It could be a reflection of credit or home prices with respect to income where the home in question is being purchased. Sure, discrimination may have a role indirectly in the causal chain in terms of employment and other social factors which simply helps reinforce further discrimination...but "housing discrimination" per se? That's a tough call, IMO.

[John V]

Sorry, Anne...

But I truly and honestly don't see anything "uniquely poor" in this Administration's economic policy....nothing on the magnitude or scale that you are implying.

Pointing to "before and after" or annual data doesn't tell the tale either.

Like'em or hate'em (and I don't really care for them at all), the Bush people didn't do anything extraordinary in a good or bad way (on economic policy) to have a monumental impact on the scale that you would like to believe.

Bush could have done everything the same while having more sensible Fed policy and much of the horror we now see simply doesn't happen.

That's not to say that there wouldn't be things to gripe about or that the President and Congress can't do anything to send huge noticeable waves through the economy (good or bad) but there was simply nothing to bring about the events we have seen without Greenspan & Co. doing what they did.

Our current condition is primarily the result of monetary policy. Without it, there's simply no there there on any huge scale.

[don]

Rereading the above, I still find it hard to believe that PK wrote this rant. I usually enjoy seeing how cleverly he disguises implicit assumptions to arrive at seemingly incontestable conclusions. But this post is chock full of rather silly sweeping generalizations. (The Republicans have become a party of whiners. The Republican strategy was to offer economic policies that hurt blacks worse than whites. ...) I think his purpose is to bend Obama's policies. I hope he fails.
The GOP has lost its way, 'tis true. Hijacked by 'W,' Rove and some outrageous fringes. But I don't think Obama needs to make any serious missteps for them to stage a comeback. I'm afraid that will be all to easy owing to the severe economic straits ahead. Although I think Obama's policies (such as they appear to be now) are better for the long run national interest, they might not be the best solution from the viewpoint of his party's short-term prospects - sort of like when Rubin talked Clinton into backing a tax increase. If so, I think its too bad the Republicans won't be forced to undergo more stringent reforms.

[Bruce Wilder]

The Bushies managed to double the national debt and destroy much of the financial system. Oil prices were driven to record highs. The auto industry is bankrupt. Wages have stagnated. Job growth was anemic. Regulation of environmental pollution and product safety has been undermined. A major and historic city was lost in a pathetic response to natural disaster.

Was the last 8 years just a good-bye for you, John V?

From the fake "energy crisis" foisted on California rate-payers by Bush friends at Enron and Bush appointees at the Energy Regulatory Commission thru the botched and thoroughly corrupt Iraqi Reconstruction effort down to Hank Paulson's money-for-nothing bailouts-r-us turn at Treasury, it has been corruption and incompetence harnessed together in a two-horse team, racing thru 8 years.

[John V]

Bruce,

pointing to what happened while Bush was President is not the same as Bush doing something to link him directly to those events. I'm sure someone who can appreciate a little nuance and complexity can see the sense in that.

But, all that said, I really don't like being in a position to have to defend Bush. That is not my my intent. What I am doing is lowering the President as an institution of direct impact and importance vis-a-vis many current conditions. That's not the same thing.

May as well blame the weather on him too. It carries almost the same weight in my eyes.

Besides, I was very clear with an alternate explanation: Federal Reserve monetary policies.

But the Oil issue is partly on him, IMO. I'll say that. Middle Eastern instability and disruption of supply figure partly into those high prices we had. But there was also a sharp increase in demand without supply keeping up over the same period and a very weak dollar (see Fed) that helped make oil imports even more costly. As a result of that last factor, Euro-based countries did not see as big of an increase (although it did rise sharply for them too) but they also have not seen as big of decrease as the dollar strengthened a bit recently to make the gas price drop even sharper than would have been otherwise.

[John V]

Furthermore, Bruce,

The context of what I said to Anne clearly indicated we were talking about recessionary conditions and the financial crisis.

While it is certainly a big stain on the Bush presidency, the doubling of the national debt is more an issue of fiscal policy and not "economic policy". But we each look at the things differently.

But while we're on it, when I see comments about stagnant wages and poor job growth, I struggle to see what Bush or any president has to do with that. It doesn't strike me as an economically informed comment...but rather a partisan-driven comment with little of anything solid to back it up.

Job growth and wage movement seems more a demographic a technological indicator than anything a president would. And yes, business cycles and how they are addressed in terms of what is unique to each one also matter.

[realpc]

If the Republicans stand for racism, I would like to see Krugman explain how Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell got to the front of their bus. Krugman's ability to filter reality in order to mindlessly and reflexively trash Republicans is quite impressive.

[mrrunangun]

Lincoln's administration won the civil war and the US subsequently had c. 30 years of business conservatism and social conservatism. In the late 19th century recurring financial problems resulted in progressives getting a chance. T.Roosevelt's progressive era was successfula and almost 30 years of progressive government followed, ended by the upopular Wilson administration embroiling us in Europe's war and flubbing the peace. 20 years of conservative govt resulted in the stock bubble and debt crisis of the depression and progressives got another chance. Roosevelt's administration was a spectacular success thanks to WWII and his successful prosecution of it. Eisenhower and Nixon generally followed progressive policies during this era. The incompetence of the Carter administration resulted in finally discrediting progressive government after 48 years. Reagan's administration performed well in comparison and conservative policies persisted thru the Clinton administration. Now the incompetence of the Bush administration recalls that of Carter's and Hoover's and so Progressives are going to get their chance. If Obama is successful,another longer progressive era will probably result. If Obama is unsuccessful, a chaotic period is likely because the public will have entirely lost confidence in government.

The country will only become progressive if progressive policies succeed. It hasn't happened yet. McCain got 46% of the vote despite the spectacular incompetence of the Bush administration and his own campaign, to say nothing of his appearing to be a confused old man.

[BJ Feng]

John V, you covered most of the points. Does it seem disquieting to anyone that Obama seems to be "staying the course" with respect to overall foreign and domestic policy? I commend Obama for using his brain and continuing the policies that make sense and are best for America.

Look at Obama's choices on the economic front. Romer, Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke to continue in his current role. These are incredibly sensible and wise choices that have to make any liberal angry. If Republicans had to choose among Democrats, they would not be able to come up with a better slate. Volker is also well liked among Republicans and he will continue to advise Obama. This is the sort of change that will make Obama into a good president, changing the Democrats into a party that focuses on efficiency and regulations that work without imposing massive burdens.

On the foreign policy front, Clinton is a hawk within the Democratic party and Obama even more hawkish. I can't distinguish Obama's foreign policy from that of McCain, other than Obama seems willing to invade and bomb Pakistan while McCain is more dovish.

Again, it seems that the image Democrats have of Obama is different than the one I'm seeing. There hasn't been any indication that Obama would be the radical that destroys America as we know it. He seems smart enough to pursue wise policies and has done a great job in recruiting smart, experienced Cabinet members that will continue the good policies of the past.

Bush was an incompetent manager. It wasn't that all his policies were bad, especially on the foreign policy frong, it was that they were all badly executed. With a competent person behind it all, we could see great gains. We needed a change in quarterbacks, not gameplans. The gameplan remains solid as ever, but the right quarterback can make the difference between a pitiful looking team and a Superbowl winning team.

So when Krugman looks out and sees a radical change, he's imaging things again. Yes the outcome can be very different when incompetence is replaced; a football play can look ugly if executed badly, yet be a thing of beauty when executed as planned. Obama could be the perfect quarterback for our Run N' Shoot offense.

[calmo]

Greetings John V, my mission today is to apologize for letting humor get the best of me and do you the disservice of treating your post(s) with less than common decency...tis "off" humor...worse than dark, if it does not spark and light anything lightable...so if not "common decency" then I must increase the effort with uncommon decency...more than uncommon decency.

Ok, time to strap that rascal Humor down again...

So, you, and others, object to Krugman exercising his political views...which you, and others feel has no proper place in the education of our somewhat neglected economic learning...which needs to be nurtured without the political innuendo thank you very much for not contesting this good bye.
I would ask you, and others, to consider just how politically tainted this one NYT columnist is in that broader spectrum of NYT writers (Brooks et al). And how many more papers there are to the "right" of NYT (WSJ et al). And how many more media outlets there are than these declining newspapers (seriously: look at those puny readership numbers vs the TV audience and just cry).
Reading is on the way out it appears...so the real danger is if our favorite little gargoyle gets a TV spot.

Ok, time to strap that rascal Humor down again...

Such is the little crevice in which I put Krugman's political views: however brilliant or beknighted, he is surrounded by a quagmire of brain-deadening infommercial-opinion ...and just because Obama pulls it off politically, doesn't mean that Krugman can repeat the performance sitting at a keyboard...like this...restoring a little pool of confidence, hope...that might flourish and become something more...a movement, enlightenment...Joy, cascading from all the orifices of Misty...
Ok, time to strap that rascal Humor down again...

It is astonishing, now, at this point, (ie. mid-to-early Collapse) that human beings, Americans, still capable of typing, can insist on the decency of keeping politics out of economics.
Well, in my defence, I need all the humor I can get.

[Guinnevere]

Ninja Zombie, your comment that:

"Lots of people believe the government should not be their mommy."

is technically correct. I don't believe the government should be our mommy. I also don't believe the government should be our MASTER. It is SUPPOSED to be our SERVANT, not dictate to us and exploit us as it has for the past thirty to forty years... About the same period of time the fascists (in all but name) have been in control, aided and abetted chiefly by the Republicans, although the Democrats have done their share of selling us out to big corporations.

Wise up, you're being swindled and assaulted by the very people who owe you their allegiance and service. So are we all.

[bakho]

John V-
Maybe Krugman is partisan because Republicans since Reagan have had abysmal economic policy that have ignored most of the environmental, societal and structural problems with the US economy that has finally sent the US into a period of economic decline.

Katrina, Iraq, Billions to Wall Street, $4 gas, auto collapse, increase in the poverty rate, lower employment, lower median wage, unprecedented mortgage foreclosure, rolling blackouts in California, Enron.....

What has Republican economic policy accomplished that should make economists happy?

[calmo]

If it is not too late to wish you a Happy New Year, bakho, this B that
and for tons and tons many more thoughtful engaging posts from you in 2009.

[John V]

bahko,

Economic Policy and environmental policy are not necessarily the same thing. Yes they are somewhat inter-connected but for the purposes of what caused the bust and economic crises in its wake...which is what I was referring to in my discussion with Anne (go back and look)...these issues and other issues mentioned on fiscal policy and the like are not related to what I'm talking about.

societal and structural problems with the US economy that has finally sent the US into a period of economic decline.

What exactly are you referring to? What far reaching policies do you have in mind to bring all this about...according to you?

Katrina, Iraq, Billions to Wall Street, $4 gas, auto collapse, increase in the poverty rate, lower employment, lower median wage, unprecedented mortgage foreclosure, rolling blackouts in California, Enron.....

Like I have said repeatedly in my last few posts, most these have nothing directly to do with what a President does. Some of it is more circumstance related to demographics or economic trends or conditions that have nothing to do with Bush...or Clinton...or Bush...or Reagan...or Carter and so on.

Did Katrina mishandle Katrina? Yes. He did. Some of that is simply on him. Some of it is simply a systemic problem with FEMA that has never had anything like Katrina before. If it had happened with Democrat in office, you'd all be much more forgiving and much more lenient. But hey, that's politics...which is part of my point.

I already covered gas prices in another post.

On all those other data points (talking points) from auto collapse to foreclosures, what exactly puts any blood directly on any Presidents' hands? Seriously. See market forces, demographics, cyclical issues, bad monetary policy which aggravated or exposed poorly aligned regulations or effects of bad policies lying dormant until conditions forced them into the open.

It all becomes quite impersonal (and consequently, not as much fun) from a partisan standpoint.

What this all means in the end is that it undermines the passion and deeper meaning invested into electoral politics. Things become murky and convoluted and don't fit into simplistic D vs. R paradigms.

[ken melvin]

To say naught about this sorry arsed administration would be the far greater sin. All the yapping we b hearing is because Krugman stepped on some lapdogs' toes. The sorting out is going to keep circling the 'how in the hell did the man get in office?'. The answer lies, as noted by others, after all the lies and incompetence, 46% voted for a dottering shambles of an alpha male who, if the economy hadn't crashed, would be president to be. Speaking of house niggers, if Colon and Connie hadn't allowed themselves to used by Bush and Cheney, both theirs and the nation would have far better off (w/o Powell, Bush doesn't get elected, w/o Powell, Bush doesn't get his desired war). John V, you don't get to say he's not blame w/o admitting the incompetence. Handling these things, that was his job and he blew it. Bush is undoubtedly the most incompetent president since Coolidge. Cheney, the most corrupt VP since Agnew, and no other has ever done the nation greater damage.

says...

Wow. What a bunch of apologetic nonsense. You are so blined by your love of your own "fairness" that you dismiss anything that is conginitively uncomfortable.

If you throw out this and that, attribute the rest to bad luck, and just for good measure aser that presidents don't matter (and assert you speak for econmists even though you aren't one - demonstrably), then gee, Bush isn't so bad.

Just the worst ever.

Like I said, it's just apologetic nonsense. It's amazing how you can cling to the same old theoretical rubbish even though its foundation has been ripped out from under you. But there's that can't hear anything cognitively disagreeable thing.

Yeah, deny away - but it's all clear looking in. I'm actually surprised you and your kind (yes, admit it or not, you are part of an ideological group and blinded by it) aren't flailing more given what's happened to your world lately. Good luck selling that snake oil from here on out - if I thought you actually mattered I'd accuse you of harm, but you are harmless in that regard. Ha. Quite, actually.

[Bruce Wilder]

mrrunagun: If Obama is successful,another longer progressive era will probably result. If Obama is unsuccessful, a chaotic period is likely because the public will have entirely lost confidence in government.

The country will only become progressive if progressive policies succeed. It hasn't happened yet. McCain got 46% of the vote despite the spectacular incompetence of the Bush administration and his own campaign, to say nothing of his appearing to be a confused old man.

That and BJ Feng's praise of Obama make me think Republican fascism may be just around the corner. Heil Huckabee!

[Bruce Wilder]

John V, politics is about policy and policy is about money and power. Until you get that, much of what you "think" and write about politics will be just empty.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Bush's terrible economic policies began with the biggest tax cuts in history, structured to give no more economic growth than we would have had in almost any other case, and increasing the federal debt. And he tried to privatize Social Security -- what a disaster that would have been!

[calmo]

And Happy New Year to Lee and ken and John V and even anony's just warming up...to meet other stunning views that you would never dream of...but nonetheless need erring airing just to see who's hanging what out there...and whether you could possibly wear that of phone the cops before it's too late...

[john c. halasz]

"Did Katrina mishandle Katrina?"

Oh, Katrina, Katrina, where have you been so long?

[julio]

"Does it seem disquieting to anyone that Obama seems to be "staying the course" with respect to overall foreign and domestic policy? I commend Obama for using his brain and continuing the policies that make sense and are best for America."

[Well, dang it all, this really beats everything. Somebody actually WANTS more of the same.]

[julio]

John v,

"I would say that there is a subtle yet very stark difference between saying that there is "discrimination in housing" and saying that "minorities have more difficulty in getting mortgages".

Which is why, after looking at the facts (try e.g. this), you should stick with the former.

[calmo]

And to you esp john c . halasz (so important for me now to anchor your tag around that ".") Happy New Year.
..I feel like someone has cast a Welcome Wagon Spell on me...it duz look like it...
I, too, saw "Katrina mishandled Katrina" and wondered whether the gods were speaking (had moved up a notch from the single character to character strings) and what were the chances of that sneaking past a "Preview"...and whether now, John V will not post until he previews every post twice!...I decided to lay low and wait...for a correction or maybe an explication that I am only one more beer away from realizing! [I begged Spencer who rarely posts here now, not to use Spellchick for more reasons than the entertainment it sometimes provided --misjudging sensitivities by a mile.]
So, I think this is a gem, (not merely cute like "I'd hate to lawn that mow.") and not about John V, for whom this might be a once in a lifetime "misspoke", but somehow (I say 'gods" but you people are so sensitive with your one God in the CPI basket of gods...and I love to sin.) delivering to us mortals, some exquisite poetry.

[Noni Mausa]

Ninja obtusely said: Actually no, I'm just mocking this idea that you still need mommy or daddy to take care of you.

Please try to be a bit smarter here. You're purposely mixing the domain of individual households, where children grow up to be parents, or at least adults, with the domain of governments, where individuals never grow up to be governments. (Perhaps it would help you to think of the nation as a school, in which teachers and students come and go, but Grade 3, with its students in their desks and its teachers at the blackboard, goes on forever.)

Our governments have custodial duties which bear a resemblance to the caretaker roles of parents over a family needing care and discipline. But individual citizens en masse will never "grow up" to do the jobs governments do -- wage war, make and enforce laws, exact taxes, punish criminals, etc. When individuals or non-government entities try to do these things, they get called things like "insurgents", "posses" and "organized crime."

But if individuals cannot be governments, neither can governments behave like individuals. They are ceremonial persons, whose actions and interactions are long-term, pragmatic, historical, and of severe importance. A man might get into a drunken street fight and later leave that episode behind him. When a government tries that, it makes waves that persist for generations.

The pattern of malfeasance which I have seen over the past few years matches very precisely the pattern of a drunken, abusive husband. The household budget has been squandered on vanities of combat and ostentation and on the husband's drunken friends. The "children" have been underfed and poorly cared for. The chief difference is that there really hasn't been a struggling mommy on the same level as the daddy, caring for the kids. Instead, a patchwork of distant relations (states, cities, charities, and the "children" themselves) have tried with mixed success to keep things together.

And kharris, yes, I know I was using a stereotype here, but of all the dysfunctional families of this pattern which I have seen, only two had the male in the "mommy" role, all the others were as described. My warmest regards to the heroic daddy who kept things together in your family. They are out there, and deserve to be recognized for their hard work.

[evagrius]

It seems to me that some people wish to absolve Bush from any responsibility for anything that happened during his administration.

This implies, in my opinion, that these people consider Bush, ( and the presidency), to be merely a figurehead, a symbol of government with no actual authority.

The actual authority and responsibility would then seem to elsewhere. Perhaps it's the federal bureaucracy, or Congress, ( ahem...lobbyists), the media, financial figures or perhaps the chattering class in D.C.

If this is true, then the U.S. really does seem to resemble the Byzantine empire whose emperors were, with some interesting exceptions, basically ritual figureheads.

[bakho]

The bad results of the Bush administration have everything to do with the most corrupt administration in the history of the US. Their goal was not to solve the problems of the US. Their goal was to turn the US Treasury into one giant slush fund for their political patrons. The wealthy always resented paying taxes and Bush was bound and determined to give their money back to them and redistribute money from the middle class to the wealthy.

Bush used the US military to funnel billions of dollars in no bid contracts to his cronies and did the same thing with Katrina. Bush invaded Iraq to allow the oil companies to go there and make money by taking their oil, but Bush was unable to install his corrupt puppet government in Baghdad and his plan backfired. His oil buddies couldn't cash in but his defense buddies got billions in easy money contracts.

The way most people look at it, Bush has had bad results. However Bush succeeded in his goals because oil companies have been making record profits. So what if the rest of the economy is in the tank. Bush will raid the treasury to bail out his Wall Street buddies the same may Bush Daddy's friends bailed out Junior's many failed business misadventures. Bush is a crook who acts like an idiot, spouting his feel good ideological free lunch nonsense in order to get away with spending all our money on his rich buddies. Bush knows what he is doing and he is making his buddies rich even if it screws the rest of us. The media are afraid to call out Bush on his corruption because he spreads the wealth to them, too, but it is in plain sight and easy to see.

[John V]

Ken Melvin,

All the yapping we b hearing is because Krugman stepped on some lapdogs' toes.

Hardly. No need to project. I'm not your counterpart. Too bad there's no way for you to appreciate the background context of seeing me talk to Republicans....and yes even DEFEND Obama from silly charges and...well...a lot of the mirror images of stuff I see here...only from a partisan republican standpoint.

But alas, projection makes that seem impossible...if not a lie...to you.

John V, you don't get to say he's not blame w/o admitting the incompetence.

I never said he wasn't directly responsible for anything was directly responsible for. It's all there to read. You're simply dwelling on what I said isn't responsible for.

And nobody really has anything substantive to say to the contrary on those points. They just keep repeating the same things.

evagrius,

It seems to me that some people wish to absolve Bush from any responsibility for anything that happened during his administration.

If you are referring to me (as I assume you are), there's nothing in what I said to back up that statement. You're simply doing the same thing Melvin did.

This implies, in my opinion, that these people consider Bush, ( and the presidency), to be merely a figurehead, a symbol of government with no actual authority.

Not at all. You want this implication to be there to buttress the point you want to make. He is responsible for some things and not responsible for others. The problem I find is that much of what people want blame on any president involve vague and gray economic issues that simply defies logic to place at their feet. They are Presidents...not omnipotent dictators. And like I have said often that people keep avoiding. The economic ups and downs have infinitely more to do with monetary policy and demographics than anything presidents.

Partisans, in particular, want to believe there's more to it. They want to believe that far more hangs in the balance of politicians they invest so much energy in than actually does.

[John V]

Bruce,

John V, politics is about policy and policy is about money and power. Until you get that, much of what you "think" and write about politics will be just empty.

I get that. But that is beside the point at hand. For what it's worth, that connection of money, power and politics is one of the reasons many libertarian-minded people get disgusted with how much we allow to be put into the hands of politicians. It's an exploding cigar in the face good intentions "for the common man".

There's nothing empty in what I am saying. Ironically that answer you gave is kinda empty considering how much that post of yours is supposed to be responding to.

[ken melvin]

Ah so. The economy comes down from the gods and Leadbelly singing Corina Corina caused Katrina. So much to learn.

[anne]

"And for those who have already forgotten like Krugman, which party revered a KKK leader so much that they elevated him to powerful Senate posts? No it didn't happen in the 1800, it happened in the 2000's. If you believe it was the Republicans, you are sorely misinformed. Robert Byrd, a clansman who called Blacks ------- several times in national interviews, was a Democratic leader in the Senate. Democrats still speak highly of him, after all, tradition is important in the Senate and the Democrats have a great legacy of racism to uphold."

Where, where, where, where, where, where, where? Where?

[anne]

"Does it seem disquieting to anyone that Obama seems to be 'staying the course' with respect to overall foreign and domestic policy?"

Vile, vile, vile lying does seem disquieting.

[bakho]

Anne, Bush loves his hard power and likes nothing better than to see client states bomb peoples he doesn't like. Nothing Obama can do or say will stop Bush cheerleading for hard power. If Obama wants to elevate soft power, that will take more time and requires that he control the government foreign policy apparatus (which he does not). Even if Obama is starting to use soft power, who would know? Anyway Obama does not yet have the power to stop Bush from doing counterproductive things. Even in power, there are limits to walking back from military conflict. It is much hard to stop violence once it has started than to prevent it from erupting in the first place.

[anne]

What is completely clear, but another wild conservative trick will be to mask as long as possible is that a Democratic Presidency and firm Congressional majority will mean important domestic and foreign policy changes, the changes have been clear for months as it was obvious there would be an increased Democratic vote and the Administration has had to at least superficially compromise long held positions.

The nature of Democratic leadership change, which will be meaningful from policy to policy, will only gradually become evident, but what is critical is noticing where wild conservative leadership has brought us in 8 years. Bush economic policy beyond undoing Clinton policy has been disastrous. Foreign policy, likewise.

[bakho]

What Bush could have done differently to affect the economy today.
1. Provide a real stimulus in 2001 rather than relying on the Fed to drop interest rates to near zero. Bush could have cut back on the tax cuts for the wealthy and instead used some of the revenue to support the states from cutting back on infrastructure projects.

2. Steel tariffs damaged the auto industry by making domestic parts uncompetitive with foreign imported parts made from cheap steel. A big part of the auto problem is in parts and yes it is affecting GM because of the Delphi agreement.

3. Raise the minimum wage. Bush and Republicans refused to raise the minimum wage which further contributed to declining real median wages. This made people even more dependent on credit and encouraged by super low interest rates, encouraged people to take on more debt than they could possibly repay once the rates inevitably went back up.

4. Pay for health insurance for kids and do anything at all to fix the health care cost problem in the US. Health care costs in the US are a drag on our economy and Bush made it worse with Medicare D implemented as a huge slush fund for BigInsurance and BigPharma. The simple step would have been to extend Medicare and group bargain for drug prices. That would have cut out a lot of waste and skimming profits off the backs of sick people.

5. Refusal to enforce environmental laws. This allowed old polluting technology to remain on the market and put American companies that had worked to bring new technology forward to meet the new standards at a competitive disadvantage. There are whole industries that packed up and moved to Europe because Bush reneged or compliance with Montreal.

6. Allowing crooked energy companies to gouge consumers and damage the California economy. Bush refusal to stop the criminal activity of Enron cost California consumers and the California economy billions of dollars with criminal electric bills and rolling blackouts.

7. Giving tax cuts to the wealthy investor class when there was already an excess of capital. Of course it created bubbles. There was no where else for that money to go.

8. Invading Iraq. There are the huge direct costs that are a drag on our economy. There are the indirect costs of abusing the National Guard and Reserve and the adverse effects on the businesses of soldiers. Failure to adequately compensate soldiers for their sacrifice and failure to provide adequate treatment for PTSD is a huge drag on the productivity of those returning. The costs of not treating them will leave us with legacy costs that extend far into the future.

9. Failure to improve energy efficiency. By disdaining all energy conservation and promoting overuse of energy, Bush administration promoted policies the ensured record gas and home heating prices. High gas prices ALWAYS damage the auto industry. Failure to do anything to break oil speculators (like unexpected releases from the oil reserves to make speculation much more risky) helped keep prices high. Failure to support energy efficiency means that more of our dollars were exported out of our economy to pay for oil rather than being invested in jobs in the US.

10. Failure to adequately regulate the financial industry. This has increased the risk of investing in the US and has allowed parasites to walk away with capital that should have been invested in new technologies and other wealth creation efforts. Instead that money was lost to the financial casino and criminals who squandered the money on personal extravagance.

11. Allowing special interests to write their own legislation that provides perverse economic incentives.

12. Failure to extend broadband and internet access. The US has slipped compared to the rest of the world. By supporting a model that allows companies to make money as monopoly gate keepers to the information superhighway, Bush has stifled internet commerce and use of the internet.

13. Failure to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina and squandering the money for rehabilitation on cronies.

The list is much much longer than this. There are very many things that Bush could have done differently that would have had a serious impact on economic conditions today. He chose instead to dole out favors to the special interest instead of using the government to help people. It just is not true that Bush had no power to affect the economy.

[anne]

Since 1999, there have been a slew of studies completed and written about in the New York Times showing a persisting discrimination against African Americans in the housing-mortgage market. What is puzzling and saddening is that although the effects of the discrimination are being felt severely by African Americans little has been or is being made of this. Nonetheless, the problem has been and is public.

As for economic policy, what should be of concern is understanding precisely just how undermining Bush-Republican-conservative policy has been since 2001.

[anne]

Bakho:

Steel tariffs damaged the auto industry by making domestic parts uncompetitive with foreign imported parts made from cheap steel. A big part of the auto problem is in parts and yes it is affecting GM because of the Delphi agreement.

[Interestingly enough, even with protective tariffs through the Bush years, the steel industry is crippled enough now to be asking for a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending over the coming 2 years to survive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/business/02steel.html

January 2, 2008

Steel Industry, in Slump, Looks to Federal Stimulus
By LOUIS UCHITELLE

The steel industry, a bellwether for the state of the nation's economy, is looking to the government for a $1 trillion investment program over two years.]

[evagrius]

bakho- You still won't persuade John V.

John V.- you haven't persuaded me that you think of Bush, ( and politicians), as mere figureheads while the "real" events are shaped by forces beyond control, ( i.e; "monetary policy" ( who/what shapes this?), and demographics, ( who/what shapes this?). What exactly can the president, and other politicians, do then?

[bakho]

Steel production
Of course steel production is slumping. Car sales are in the tank and cars are big users of steel. They will justify a steel bailout on the basis that specialty steel is needed for defense. However, we would be better off investing in alternative production of specialty steels that doesn't require big dinosaur plants.

[John V]

Bahko,

1. Bush cut taxes in 2001. Yes. He dropped them back to pre-Clinton levels. If you recall, this was not to counter any recession. The recession was not truly known yet. But either way, you'll be hard-pressed to show how that tax cut adversely affected economic performance, slowed recovery or anything negative to that effect. And I wouldn't say Bush relied on Greenspan to cut interest rates. That was not part of Bush's agenda. And Greenspan didn't go on his rate-cutting spree until sometime after.

2. All tariffs suck. I agree. But I'm not the one putting the "free market ideology" label on Bush, am I? Chalk that one against Bush. But is it the stuff of recession-provoking action? No.

3. Failure to raise the minimum wage contributed to declining real wages? Not a chance. You're really reaching there. Wage movement, like I said earler, has more to do with demographics and economic trends....not the minimum wage.

4. I never agreed with Medicare Part D. It was terrible. But then again, I don't find your ideas any better. Health care in this country is a mish mash politicized mess.

5. I really don't have any comments pro or con. I don't follow environmental law-making very closely. I'm agnostic here. Nonetheless, the ramifications you suggest are little sensationalized.

6. You're really stretching. He "allowed it"?? First, you need to prove that "gouging was occurring and then you need to demonstrate his hand in the matter.

7. Monetary policy created bubbles. for the millionth time.

8. Yes. I agree. I was one of the biggest opponents of the Iraq affair.

9. Nothing there. Presidents don't improve energy efficiency. Technology and demand do.

10. Already covered. There's already a ton of regulation...good and bad...the bubble-related problems merely exposed the short-coming and poor design of many regulatory measures. Again, look to the Fed.

11. explain. And then explain...assuming you find anything...how it's any different from Dems in power. If the shoe fits...

12. Oh brother. No wonder you put so much on Bush. The Czar...err, I mean: President...is truly of charge of EVERYTHING in your mind.

13. Yes. Failure of FEMA. Out-matched, out-classed and in well over its collective head. The devastation was beyond anyone's wildest dreams. But New Orleans is recovering thanks to private initiative...no thanks to DC.

I must say, you went quite a bit further (and a bit off the reservation) with some of your points. I though we were talking about the economy in general. Not much there. The Fed, like I've said, has much, much to answer for than anyone or anything else.

But then it all makes sense:

It just is not true that Bush had no power to affect the economy.

That's a bit of a strawman.

[John V]

evagrius,

I simply keep the power of the President in perspective. He is not a cure-all nor a poison pill touching everything.

He has his duties. And then there are things that much bigger than him.

WHen you throw the partisan paradigm out the window and look at what is really happening, the diagnoses simply become more impersonal and boil down to the different forces colliding and reshaping the landscape. Yes, Demographics explains a lot. The Fed explains a lot (once you realize how pervasive interest rate manipulation is).

Sorry. Don't be convinced. I don't care. You just keep pretending one man can do so much.

[anne]

"Presidents don't improve energy efficiency. Technology and demand do."

Actually, Presidents can and should improve energy efficiency directly through regulation, which should have been the lesson from the artificial California energy crisis when energy transmission was being regularly cut when demand increased to drive price increases but the lesson wasn't learned as far as I can tell. The lesson is how easily and obviously market manipulation can occur in limited supplier markets, so regulation is necessary, but though Krugman tried to explain the lesson was lost in countering noise.

[anne]

The President is surely only a guide, not even an administrator when thinking even of executive policy development and implementation let alone legislative policy formation. But, what has long struck me is how effective a guide President Bush has been as executive and legislative shaper. The executive was strikingly united, while beyond signing statements the President vetoed only a lone showcase stem cell research bill passed by Congress over an initial 6 years.

President Bush was strikingly effective, whether the results may be pleasing or displeasing.

[bakho]

John you are absolutely right. Bush could not do any of those things because he is an impotent incompetent nincompoop.

Too bad we didn't have a competent president in the WH that could have accomplished something.