Krugman: Same As He Ever Was

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Paul Krugman
January 27, 2010, 6:27 am
Same As He Ever Was

These days quite a few people are frustrated with President Obama’s failure to challenge conservative ideology. The spending freeze — about which the best thing you can say in its favor is that it’s a transparently cynical PR stunt — has, for many, been the final straw: rhetorically, it’s a complete concession to Reaganism.

But why should we be surprised? Here’s one from the vault. ("Debunking the Reagan Myth" below) Two years ago, I was deeply frustrated with Obama’s apparent endorsement of the Reagan myth.

There was a lot of delusion among progressives who convinced themselves, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, that Obama was a strong champion of their values. He wasn’t and isn’t.

That doesn’t mean that there’s no difference between the parties, that everything would have been the same if McCain had won. But progressives are in the process of losing a big chance to change the narrative, and that’s largely because they have a leader who never had any inclination to do so.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/same-as-he-ever-was/

This is the old op-ed referenced above:

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 21, 2008
Debunking the Reagan Myth

Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.

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

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

Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

...more at link...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html

[uponit7771]

1. THERE'S NO ACROSS THE BOARD SPENDING FREEZE!!!! I love Krugman but for him to get sucked into

...the M$M sloppiness is unbecoming.

[Jennicut]

2. Yes, I like Krugman quite a lot too, but he messed up on that one.

[QC]

3. Nowhere in that piece does Krugman say that the freeze is across the board. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Forget it. Truth isn't even an issue at this point.

There are no arguments in favor so the method of discussion (sic) has transcended arguments and facts.

All that is left is ad hominem... Krugman is stupid, sloppy, inconsistent, etc.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Did you even read the piece before launching accusations?

I don't see the phrase "across the board" in the OP. Do you?

And if you are complaining about the phrase "spending freeze" take it up with the White House. It is how THEY chose to characterize THEIR policy.

Perhaps Krugman isn't the sloppy one.

[Jennicut]

9. Yes, but he compares it to a concession to Reaganism.

Obama is seeking to get rid of redundant wasteful programs and even some sacred cows like farm subsidies. It reminds me more of Gore's ReGo then of Reagan and I think that is what Krugman is getting wrong here.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. No.

You are confusing good-government (avoiding waste) with deficit reduction.

Krugman understands just fine. This policy is being offered as a demonstration of seriousness about the deficit.

Any aid-and-comfort to deficit "seriousness" today is an embrace of the totally insane Republican view of the world and of the economic crisis.

If the deficit were actually reduced, even by cutting wasteful programs, it would be a net stimulus reduction.

Since the whole thing is a cynical scam it will not substantively affect the deficit or affect the economy one way or another but the argument being publicly embraced by the WH is political suicide and economic insanity.

And promoting a freeze--the WH's characterization--is poisoning any possible chance of doing much needed government actions.

[Jennicut]

13. Perhaps.

If it has no effect on the economy that how is it political suicide? Because someone decides it is?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Because everyone knows its a scam and it buys into the

political arguments against anything like a second stimulus.

No upside and huge down-side.

If we play into the idea that government waste or the deficit are a cause of the current economic situation (which they are not, factually) then we are saying, "Hey, some of these Republican ideas have merit."

When we promote public acceptance of the Republican world-view why should voters respond by voting for Democrats? I'll bet the pugs can offer a much bigger freeze.

Meanwhile, we don't get new programs that would actually help people and thus make them inclined to vote for more of what we're selling.

[Jennicut]

16. Clinton reduced the deficit, it is neither a Repub or Dem idea.

Really, Dems ought to have sold that to the public a long time ago. We all know Reagan and W increased the deficit more then Dem President did.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Clinton reduced the deficit in the context of the biggest economic boom since WWII

When we are in an economic boom I will be happy to not only pay lip-service to deficit reduction but even to actually reduce the deficit.

But that is not our reality.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. He reduced the deficit in a boom economy.

He did NOT reduce the deficit in a recession.

There's a big difference.

Done properly, spending in a recession is investment. Accepting an increase in the deficit to keep the economy moving. The counter to that is, of course, reducing the deficit in prosperous times. Clinton screwed up a lot, with NAFTA and all, but he was right about that. Just like your household bills - when you've got the money coming in, you pay down your credit cards. That gives you the flexibility to turn to the credit cards, if you absolutely must, when your income slows. If you keep your cards maxed out in good times, you're screwed if your income drops.

Reagan & the Bushes kept the cards maxed out, good times and bad. That's why we are where we are right now.

[xchrom]

4. Recommend nt

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Krugman is absolutely right

The amount of projection concerning Obama by progressives is an awesome thing to behold. I too fell victim to a bit of projecting on Obama progressive values that he clearly never had. I also agree with Krugs on the point that there is STILL a difference between the parties. I will offer however that progressives must be willing to punish Democrats for not representing the voices of millions of us in America that want real change. Without the willingness to follow one's convictions at least some of the time, one becomes powerless. All things must have a yin and a yang. It is the same thing with Democrats in Congress not beinig willing to make the GOP to pay a political price for their obstructionist ways. All carrot and no stick is a losing strategy.

[Fresh_Start]

7. we are all guilty of seeing what we want to see

instead of what is in front of us

We see through our own perspective
And its virtually impossible to be an impartial observer in your own life.

[JamesA1102]

12. Krugman is right.

Many did project their views on to Obama. This is not something new with political candidates.

[daa]

14. Krugman is right eom