Krugman: On Being Partisan

[gristy]

Very interesting article.

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 26, 2007

American politics is ugly these days, and many people wish things were different. For example, Barack Obama recently lamented the fact that “politics has become so bitter and partisan” — which it certainly has.

But he then went on to say that partisanship is why “we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that’s what we have to change first.” Um, no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. If all goes well, we’ll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship — but that will be the end of the story, not the beginning.

Or to put it another way: what we need now is another F.D.R., not another Dwight Eisenhower. You see, the nastiness of modern American politics isn’t the result of a random outbreak of bad manners. It’s a symptom of deeper factors — mainly the growing polarization of our economy. And history says that we’ll see a return to bipartisanship only if and when that economic polarization is reversed.
<snip>

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

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html

[jen4clark]

1. Link

with no firewall:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/01/paul_krugman_on.html

[n2doc]

2. k n r nt

[zulchzulu]

3. Great commentary, especially FDR's forthright stance

A must-read for all the 08 Democratic candidates...

[many a good man]

4. K&R

you gotta FIGHT the right, or be left behind. They control the message and the institutions. The left needs LEADERS who can rally the people to overcome this dominance.

[Hawkowl]

5. Well said

You can't overcome the opposition by caving in to them. Especially when the rethuglicans are nothing but a bunch of bullies and criminals that respect nothing but in your face attacks. They won't become cooperative until they've been beaten into submission and have no other choice. I guess that is my main difference with Obama. He's not tough enough and I fear too pandering to the right. We don't need a reprise of Bill Clinton. Times are different now.

[sellitman]

6. You and I are on the same page with Obama.

We don't need to pander to the righties we need to overwhelm them with facts. Obama seems to want to cater to everyone and that cannot be done. I'd like to see him toughen up and lead the charge.

[Morgana LaFey]

7. Me too. Throw in his DLC credentials, and he's over AFAIC.

And frankly, the thought of him potentially being PRESIDENT with nonsense notions like that scares the bejeezus out of me.

[Bjorn Against]

8. I agree, he seems to want to be the candidate for everyone and that is not possible

To be a leader you have to be willing to stand up for what is right, you can not compromise with those who are totally and completely wrong. Obama is a great speaker and a beautiful writer, but there are a lot of great speakers out there and most of them are not qualified to be President. I like the man as a person, but as a political leader not so much.

[sellitman]

9. It's still early but.....

I'd like to see a nominee with spine. One willing to take on the lunatic fringe on the right. Not one who wants to heal some imagined "rift". Rift? Here is your rift....right here!!!!

So who will step forth?