Alter: Krugman & Edwards are naive

[BL611]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882

[babylonsister]

1. "Why Krugman Is Wrong-Why Obama's approach to health care isn't naive."

That's the actual title FYI.

[BL611]

2. Yes

and why Krugman and Edwards are actually the naive ones is the point of the piece. Is it not?

[babylonsister]

3. I'm not criticizing you, I was trying to clarify so it might be read.

Sorry if I stepped on your toes there.

PS, thanks for the article.

[BL611]

9. Not a problem

Thought you might be implying that I was misrepresenting the article, in which case I would have been willing to change it.

[Red Knight]

48. Alter is naive

To think compromise can be reached with the group of corporatists and Republican neocons running the halls of congress these days. It isn't 1935 anymore. Pelosi and Reid are "compromising" with this bunch and to me it feels more like rolling over and playing dead. The Democrats will "compromise" themselves out of exisitence.

And Gore DID win...so there's that too, which Alter dismisses out of hand.

I'll buy Krugman's arguement on this one.

[asdjrocky]

4. That's ok, real Progressives are used to being called 'naive' by the DLC-

The powers that be always scorn the truth.

[BL611]

6. Umm Alter is in no way

DLC. You can't just see something you don't like and say its not credible because you don't like it. If anything its Krugman who spent the better part of the '90s at war with liberals over trade, whose progressive credentials could be questioned. I'm not doing so, I happen to like Krugman, but disagree with him on this. Here is another liberal pundit who feels the same. End of story.

[MagickMuffin]

50. Alter is NOT a "liberal pundit"

I have been aware of his creds for a while now. I don't care for his opinions. He hasn't impressed me in any way when he talks about Democrats. He usually tears them down.

[maximusveritas]

53. He's better than most pundits

Here's what Wikipedia has on his politics:

In the wee hours, on set with Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert, he enraged conservatives by saying that recounts were "more art than science" and predicting that the Florida election was headed to court. They felt he placed too much weight on Gore's popular vote victory over George W. Bush.

While his column has long been moderately and unpredictably liberal, he became a sometimes fierce critic of President Bush, with a particular emphasis on his lack of accountability and his position on embryonic stem cell research.

[Clark2008]

8. Alter is NOT DLC - never was.

Edwards, however, was a charter member.

Glass houses, stones and all...

[polichick]

18. "First they ignore you...

...then they ridicule you...then they fight you...they you win."

~ Mahatma Gandhi

[mmonk]

5. I think it's naive to think the insurance industry will give

up on it's stranglehold on calling the shots.

[abelenkpe]

10. But that's what is needed

I certainly do hope that we see that day soon. F#*! Insurance companies. A good friend of ours slipped into a coma on Monday and already the doctors are saying insurance might not cover for that long and are suggesting pulling the plug. Wtf? He's only 39 and has supposedly 'great' insurance. If that's great then we are all doomed.

[asdjrocky]

12. Which is why we need to fight them. n/t

[BL611]

13. Meaning what?

Since Edwards is not offering a single payer plan, they will be player in the reform process. Denying an obvious fact will not make it go away.

[mmonk]

17. Actually, the Edwards plan has a single payer option

by putting it in as a choice to compete against the insurance companies.

[mmonk]

19. Here you go

• Choice between Public and Private Insurers: Health Care Markets will offer a choice between
private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it.
Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution
will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve
toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan.

[BL611]

22. Obama has the same thing in his plan

The point is if you're not abolishing private insurance, your going to have to deal with them and negotiate with them, regardless of what your campaign rhetoric is.

[mmonk]

27. I say you just put the alternative out there and let it be the negotiation.

Insurance companies have four lobbyists for every member of Congress. They have the money to get their way. You have to put something out there that competes directly and NOT negotiate IMO.

[asdjrocky]

30. Single payer is unrealistic right now.

Like communism is the path to true socialism. Universal is the path to Single Payer.

[BL611]

36. The public option

is the path to single payer, which is in both the Obama & Edwards plan. This is not a policy debate its a political one. Obama says you have to give them a seat at the table along with every other interest and have and transparent process where the public can sort out the facts.Edwards says you have to roll over them, which will lead to a public being bombarded with Harry & Louise ads. Again.

ON edit: BTW you seem to be insinuating that communism IS actually the path to true socialism, I'm pretty sure thats not what you wanted to say...

[asdjrocky]

42. That is what I wanted to say.

I was using it as a point of reference. How one thing, by political philosophy. should lead to the next. The fact that some countries got bogged down the the ritual process of communism, dose not take from the fact that true socialism is the true goal.

[BL611]

44. So then getting bogged down

in universal health care will not take away from the fact that single payer is the true goal? I don't follow...

[asdjrocky]

46. Not at all-

and believe me, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and in the spirit of that, I ask that you now twist my words. Obviously, the goal is not to get bogged down. Give the people a real choice, even the playing field a bit, and we'll see how quickly things shake out.

I see it as a process. And as an American tax payer of legal age, I should be able to go to the doctor without it costing me a weeks pay.

Just because you haven't gotten it right yet, it doesn't mean you stop trying and suffer the status quo.

[BeyondGeography]

7. Pretty strong piece...Some choice excerpts

"How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform? That would be zero, Paul."

==

"But last time I checked, millions of Americans still work for corporations or aspire to do so and bashing them wholesale is a loser politically. It works sometimes in Democratic primaries with a heavy labor vote (though not for Dick Gephardt). But not in general elections. The last two Democrats elected president-Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992-also campaigned during recessions. Both were smart enough to reject populism in favor of a responsive but upbeat message."


==

"When I asked Edwards how any agreement could be reached without at least talking to these players in the system, he said he would offer a seat at the table to members of Congress who represent their interests. In other words, it's OK to have the congressional stooges there, but not the interests that pull their strings?

Obama's idea is a better one: Get every special interest out in the open on television, where the new president can cross-examine them and expose their phony rationalizations for charging $100 a pill or denying coverage to sick people (and Edwards, the former trial attorney, would be especially good at this). Then, having triumphed over the drug and insurance companies in the court of public opinion, the legislative victories will follow. It is, indeed, a fantasy to think these interests will roll over entirely, but they will get a much worse deal.

The Edwards alternative-to simply overrun them-is unrealistic. Even a 1932-style mandate at the ballot box (highly unlikely) wouldn't make them capitulate. Look what happened when New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, elected in 2006 with a huge mandate, tried to "steamroll" a bunch of hacks in Albany. He got his head handed to him.

To call Obama "anti-change," as Paul Krugman does, is anti-common sense. Leadership requires a mixture of confrontation and compromise, with room for the losers to save face. "They have to feel the heat to see the light," LBJ liked to say. That heat is best applied up close. In public. Across the big table."

[Cha]

14. Not to nit pick but

Gore was elected. I don't care how many, extreme judges, corporatewhores and fascists covered up whatever..he did win and yeah, it was in the 21st century.

Sorry, just want to get some reality in here.

I'm not saying, either, Obama or Edwards/Krugman is right..cause I don't know.

[BeyondGeography]

21. That assumes people v. powerful was more of a factor

than the fear of electing an ignoramus.

[Cha]

24. I'm not "assuming" anything..it's

been documented that Gore won and it was on a populist message. But, not too many are dealing with that reality.

[BeyondGeography]

25. We'll take your word for it

:eyes:

[Cha]

32. I wouldn't think of having you take my word for it..

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

http://www.fringefolk.com/gorevictory.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/feb2001/flor-f05.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0127-01.htm

[BeyondGeography]

34. That's not where we disagree

He won alright, but I wouldn't point to "people v. powerful" as the main reason why.

[Cha]

35. Oh, I thought you

were rolling your eyes because of "taking my word for it" that Gore won.

Then we agree.

[info being]

20. Haha

"How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform? That would be zero, Paul."

Last time I checked, it isn't the 20th Century anymore. Everything changed on 9/11!

[Armstead]

31. Making "populism" a dirty word is part of the strategy of the Elite

Although I realize the negative aspects of some forms of populism, the concept in itself is far from unreasonable.

In fact, progresssive populism has been one of the mainstream forces that has protected and advanced the intrests of the majority from the preditory behavior of Big Money and Big Power.

[BeyondGeography]

33. Understood, but he differentiates between being elected as a populist

and building a mandate for populist reforms once in office.

Either way, thinking you can revamp health care without dealing directly with insurance and drug companies is absurd. Edwards best response is he'll deal with the congressman who are ostensibly on their payroll instead. That's even worse, since you don't get the opportunity to expose the health care lobby directly, as Obama would.

[Adelante]

11. Why Krugman Is Wrong

Paul Krugman is a brilliant Princeton economist and fine columnist for The New York Times who was far ahead of the pack in asserting that George W. Bush is a total disaster as president. His clarity in explaining what academics call "political economy" is without peer. But his attack on Barack Obama on December 17 was wrong on history, wrong on politics and wrong on what the future holds for Obama's "big table" idea.

Krugman calls Obama "naïve" and an "anti-change candidate" because he favors bringing all of the players in the health care debate around a "big table" and rejects the populist message of John Edwards, who is apparently Krugman's choice for president. "Anyone who thinks the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world," Krugman writes, endorsing Edwards's view that the insurance and drug industries should be excluded from any talks on health care reform because they stand to lose profits.

-snip

Krugman is an economist and I trust his forecast that things are going to get even worse for working-class Americans in the months ahead. The middle-class squeeze is real. Predatory lenders and CEO greedheads should be called out. So should insurance and drug companies. But it needs to be done in a way that produces results, not just spleen-venting. How? Just after Clinton was elected, he convened a meeting of economists, CEOs, labor leaders and many others in Little Rock. The purpose of the meeting was to argue out what should be done about the ailing economy, with many of the ideas expressed there later becoming part of Clinton's successful 1993 economic recovery package. The whole thing was on television.

Sound familiar? This is essentially what Obama is proposing for health care after he's elected. If Hillary Clinton had done this on health care in 1993—instead of convening a secret task force—she might have been able to build a stronger public case for reform.

-snip

Ideally, health insurance companies should be eliminated altogether. But a single payer plan isn't viable politically, as Edwards readily admits. The only option is to curb their power and expand coverage through more regulation.

When I asked Edwards how any agreement could be reached without at least talking to these players in the system, he said he would offer a seat at the table to members of Congress who represent their interests. In other words, it's OK to have the congressional stooges there, but not the interests that pull their strings?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882/page/1

[Redbear]

15. This is good, sincere stuff

from both sides.

Beats the heck out of the GOP discussions about how to cut more taxes for the wealthy and how to deport millions of immigrants.

[TeamJordan23]

16. great piece. thanks. nm

[frazzled]

23. This fills in all the historical detail, confirming my initial reaction of Krugman's naivete

on this subject. Roosevelt created the New Deal not through confrontation but cooperation; later when he tried the opposite tack, it was a failure. And I remember vividly that broadcast economic roundtable that Bill Clinton convened--it was absolutely incredible, and responsible for the remarkable economic plan that he achieved. (Perhaps some here don't remember how truly awful the economy was after Bush I.)

Alter knows something about how Roosevelt achieved his policies. He is the author of the critically acclaimed book The Defining Moment:
FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope.

"Bitter confrontation" simply doesn't work in policy-making.

And I might add to that, in response to certain remarks in this thread: Progressivism and Populism are not the same.

Edwards feeds us bluster and red meat for political reasons (which may work for a portion of the Democratic base in a primary, but are likely to backfire entirely for the nation in a general); Obama is feeding process and nuance for policy reasons. And since enacting policy is the goal here, I choose Obama's strategy. I would hope that Clinton would adopt this strategy, culled from her husband's experience, if she were to become the president.

[GreenArrow]

38. "Progressivism and Populism are not the same"

A distinction that seems to be ignored or missed fairly regularly.

[Strawman]

26. Interesting, but I have to wonder didn't FDR need pressure from the left?

(The kind of pressure Krugman is applying on the issue of health care) to move as far left as he did?

Seems like we need both compromisers and hard-liners. Without the left wing there is no space for politicians like LBJ or FDR to operate and deliver victories to liberals. If the left capitulates before negotiation starts in favor of "realism," we've already conceded ground with nothing to show for it.

[Armstead]

28. Kowtowing to Corporations. How's that been working for us?

Not very well. Bush is just a symptom of what happens when you put the interests of corporations and Wall St. above the interests of the majority.

It's also what happens when you put the interests of corporations and Wall St. on an even playing field with the larger population.

Populist is not a dirty word. In many ways, Bill Clinton ran a campaign with populist rhetoric in 92. "I'll fight for you until the last dog dies."

Face it. Edwards, Obama, Clinton, whomever is going to have to negotiate and compromise once in the White House. That's the system.

However, the problem is that for the last 35 years, the starting point has always been the interests of corporate America over the public interest. And -- it is important to note Mr. Alter -- THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE INTERESTS OF THE CORPORATE ELITE OVER THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THEM.

Edwards is being more rhetorical than his rivals. And I, for one, say Thank God.

The American people have ceded democracy and a brodly-based economy to the elites in power. WE ARE NEVER GOING TO MOVE TOWARDS A MORE BALANCED SYSTEM UNTIL WE ADMIT THE PROBLEM AND GAIN THE DETERMINATION TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

No more going to the corporations with hat in hand.

[mmonk]

29. If one considers the corporations our government, maybe so.

Those of us that favor separation of state and corporation disagree. You can negotiate with representatives that represent corporate interest but given that we've had a corporate coup, it's time to fight. If we win, no negotiation. We can decide whether to give consideration.

[Truth2Tell]

37. Alter may not be DLC

but he's always preached the "can't we all just get along" meme that's been the root of so much Democratic complicity.

A few of his key points are a stretch. To suggest that Roosevelt's 100 day plan "involved a lot of compromise" is to miss how revolutionary it was and how truly "confrontational" it indeed was. Yes, he ended up compromising - just as Edwards certainly would - but he came out swinging.

When Alter suggests that no populist has won the Presidency lately he fails to point out that no candidate has run as one. The Pundits and strategy gurus and "Alters" of the Party have sold all of our candidates this same line of conciliatory mush and it simply hasn't worked the last two cycles. America is ready for a "come out swinging" populist message, even if Johnny "boo hoo" Alter isn't.

[BL611]

41. As Alter reminds us

FDR ran an bland middle of the road campaign this is not controversial, find an FDR biography that suggests otherwise, so to compare his campaign to Edwards is fairly disingenuous.

[Truth2Tell]

45. True about how he ran his campaign...

But not about how he governed, almost from the start - and that's where Alter is off the mark.

The problem is still that the type of campaign FDR ran was tried by both Gore and Kerry. It doesn't work anymore. Let's try something different - let's appeal to the 50% who don't ever show up and the actual base of our own Party.

[JDPriestly]

39. Hillary lost her effort to reform health care in the '90s

because she was naive about the kind of resistance she would face on the part of the insurance companies. Edwards is not naive about that resistance. He plans to meet it head on. Edwards is right. The insurance companies have dominated the health care debate and determined health care legislation for decades. During that time, they have been invited to the table to negotiate health care reform many times. They have refused. Each time that health care reform has come up for discussion, the insurance industry has delayed, sat on its hands or made promises of incremental change and then reneged on the promises. We the people simply have to take this matter into our own hands. We need a government program similar to Medicare that imposes taxes on all of us to pay for basic health care for those of us who for any reason cannot get care through traditional insurance companies. Once the insurance companies face the fact that there is a reasonable alternative at a lower price that is accessible to all, they will come and ask to be allowed to negotiate a role in the provision of health care services. At that point, the American people will be in the stronger position, and then compromise will be possible.

Edwards is not naive about this. He knows how to push for the good and when to stop pushing for the good and start compromising for the best. That's what lawyers do. He also knows that if you start out compromising without first establishing a strong position, you will get nothing. That's basic litigation strategy.

When Edwards talks about using the bully pulpit, he knows what he is talking about. He has taken many a case to trial -- using the courtroom as his bully pulpit. Edwards is a great persuader and he has shown in his work as an attorney that he is a great negotiator.

America -- including America's health insurance future -- will be in strong, capable hands if we elect Edwards as our next president.

[BL611]

43. Edwards was also a mediocre

centrist Senator, who showed no evidence of understanding how to fight the special interests in the political arena. There is a difference between kowtowing and creating a transparent process where insurance is one of the many interests at the table. Sorry, saying that you can use the bully pulpit to magically transform the debate IS naive. Sure it is part of a strategy, but it cannot be expected to magically transform the debate.

[ellisonz]

52. *crickets*

[joeybee12]

40. Alter lost me when he slammed populism...

...the common MSM theory is that Gore lost because he was a populist...bullshit...when he started campaigning as a populist was when he was up by 10-11 points in polling. He lost that message and started going downhill.

[Think82]

47. I think Biden's Plan is the best bet to make the first step Towards universal care

You are not going ot overhaul the system all at once. It's just not going to happen.

In the first year, Biden can insure every child and insure for catastrophic illnesses, thereby taking care of the most serious health problems. That is realistic. Next, he will let people buy into the federal health insurance program that public officials have on a sliding scale based on income. Also, he will subsidize the states to experiment so STATES can give universal care. Once you get 30-35 states proviiding universal care, you then create a CRITICAL MASS which will then allow for a national universal health insurance system to be passed by congress.

Once again, Biden is not blowing smoke up your ass and telling what you want to hear, but telling you how to REALISTICALLY get this done.

[maximusveritas]

49. I agree

[DCKit]

51. Me: Newsweak has no Credibility n/t