Defending Obama against Krugman

[ProSense]

Peter Levine

Defending Obama against Krugman

Paul Krugman has been criticizing Barack Obama since early in the primary season, and their shadow-boxing is one of the most interesting debates in American politics.

Today's Krugman column provides an opportunity to sum it up. This is the key paragraph:

"In retrospect, the roots of current Democratic despond go all the way back to the way Mr. Obama ran for president. Again and again, he defined America's problem as one of process, not substance--we were in trouble not because we had been governed by people with the wrong ideas, but because partisan divisions and politics as usual had prevented men and women of good will from coming together to solve our problems. And he promised to transcend those partisan divisions."

<...>

Instead, Krugman believes, the president compromised on his liberalism, and therefore Americans did not understand their options. Communication is everything for Krugman. From today's column: "What Mr. Obama should have said ... Mr. Obama could and should be hammering Republicans ...There were no catchy slogans, no clear statements of principle ... " The president "has the bully pulpit."

I don't believe that bipartisanship was the distinctive message of the Obama campaign; in fact, the candidate paid no more than the usual and customary homage to it. But Obama did reject the diagnosis that we were simply "in trouble ... because we had been governed by people with the wrong ideas." He didn't think that he could explain or argue the American people into a different political philosophy, one in which our major troubles stemmed from conservative ideas and the solutions lay in a more activist government. Obama wanted a more activist government and has taken the largest step in that direction since 1974 with the health care bill. But he didn't believe that the way to get there was to conduct a debate on ideology. He did think, contra Krugman, that the main problem was the process and not the misguided people in office.

After all, the number of "people with the wrong ideas" (as defined by Krugman) is very large. All Republican elected officials, plus the majority of American voters who supported that party in several recent elections, have the wrong ideas, from Krugman's perspective. So do at least one third of elected Democrats and a large proportion of Democratic voters. So do all the leaders of major foreign economies, who are asking Obama to lower deficits and not spend. So do many impressive economists. I personally find Krugman's economics quite persuasive, but the task of explanation and persuasion is much harder than he realizes.

People begin with a very deep distrust of the federal government. Because of that distrust, just six percent of Americans believed that the $787 billion stimulus package had created even one job a full year after it passed Congress. I suppose Krugman would say that the stimulus was too small to be noticeable. But the kind of stimulus he wanted was certainly too big to pass Congress, so Obama could only have won the debate, not the policies he needed. In any case, if you live in a country where 94% of people believe that almost one trillion dollars of their money bought no jobs, you have a deeper problem than being "governed by people with the wrong ideas." You need to diagnose why most people are so deeply distrustful and skeptical.

more

Exactly. The thing I don't understand is why Krugman would accept winning the debate, not a policy acceptable in the case of the stimulus, but not in the case of health care reform?

[jpgray]

1. Because if we don't win the debate, the possibility for good policy shrinks to zero over time

We can't just surrender the debate and reach for consensus, because those who win the debate will keep moving the consensus in their direction.

[ProSense]

2. So you think it was more important to win the debate on stimulus

than to actually save the country from a depression?

What about health care? Can you offer a reconciliation of the difference in Krugman's thinking on that issue and on the stimulus?

[jpgray]

4. I don't think it's such an exclusive choice

Arguing for what we really need goes hand in hand with passing what we can get. We need a long term plan and a short term plan for improving the country--just one won't cut it. I'm not disappointed so much that HCR doesn't include a public option, but that a public option was not strongly sold, not constantly pushed, and not publicly debated by party leaders.

The stimulus is a classic example. By claiming it was the perfect size, and that unemployment would stick at 8% and go down from there, we lost both the debate and the policy, where we really were only forced to lose the latter.

[ProSense]

5. This is after the fact

"The stimulus is a classic example. By claiming it was the perfect size, and that unemployment"

In fact, that's simply a spin argument because there were several other requests for stimulus made: Cash for Clunkers expansion, the state aid bill and a few others, including the current request for $50 billion in infrastructure spending.

The point is that the stimulus was critical.

[jpgray]

6. Yes, but why claim it was all we ever wanted or needed? Why claim it would cap unemployment?

Aren't these rather unforced errors?

[ProSense]

9. There was no claim that it was all we ever needed

if more has been requested since.

[Beetwasher]

3. Obama Was Also Way Closer To Everyone Involved And KNEW Much Better

than anyone watching from the sidelines what exactly would be possible and what wouldn't be possible for him to get through Congress on both the stimulus and HCR. Granted, in the end portions of it were probably a judgement call on how exactly far you could push something at the margins, but he was making those decisions based on much better information than either you or I could ever have access to. And it wouldn't surprise me if he erred a bit on the safe side in his final calculus so that he could actually accomplish something instead of walking away empty handed, which would have been disastrous for the country, especially where the stimulus was concerned.

It's easy to throw barbs from the peanut gallery, but Obama is working with much better and more detailed information on all the players than anyone in the peanut gallery is privy to.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. isn't that the same thing people said about Bush and the reasons for war?

He's closer to the problem, he must know things we don't know.

Bullshit. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.

Like Bush, Obama did just what he wanted to do. If he'd wanted to do differently, we'd have seen different results.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. What he said, #8, below.

He said it better than I could.

Obama CHOSE to pursue a lesser stimulus, despite there being many voices telling him, correctly, that the lesser stimulus would be disproportionately less effective. Then, he CHOSE to present it as just what we needed.

Maybe he couldn't have gotten a better stimulus if he had publicly fought for one. Maybe Democratic senators would have been willing to go on record as publicly fighting the head of their party for a corporately acceptable stimulus.

And maybe, if he HAD publicly fought, and lost, against those Dems, the Obama voters who put him in office to fight for change would have turned out at the last election in support of their president and party and we would not be looking at a Republican House in January.

Surrender does not endear a leader to either side.

[Beetwasher]

13. No, He Pursued What He Believed Could Realistically PASS THE SENATE

Seriously, people are so fucking naive (or something) that they think that whatever Obama wants somehow just magically passess the Senate. It's naive, ridiculous bullshit from people who don't have a clue apparently how our government works. "If ONLY HE USED THE BULLY PULPIT!!!! And showed LEADERSHIP!!!" It's fucking stupid, empty soundbites that have no bearing on reality and it comes from people living in la la land where all you have to do is click your heels together three times and you get what you want. It's naive, pathetic magical thinking.

If he fought and lost, we'd be in a fucking depression right now. But I guess as far as your concerned, that would be fine, because he would have made some point that you personally agree with.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. You think these senators, these very FEW senators, would have

stood up to him if he had buttonholed them and said "You need to support this. If you don't, your career is over. I will see to it you are challenged in your next election, and every cent coming out the party for your state will go to HIM, not you."

It is not like he was needing to turn the entire senate upside down. He is the one in the catbird seat. He's the one with the mojo, not Ben Nelson. They need HIM.

The evidence of that is all the fucking blue dogs who LOST this last election - they opposed the president and the people booted them out.

And if he had fought and WON the recession would be damn near over - unemployment would be several points lower than it is, money would be flowing more freely, and the Republicans would have had nothing to run against us on.

You're the one who is delusional here - you've SEEN the effect of your delusion and still think he did the right thing.

Who is naive?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[bornskeptic]

21. Getting all Democrats to vote for a larger stimulus wouldn't be enough.

At least two Republican votes were needed for the 60 needed. The stimulus which passed got three.Do you really tink that your blackmail politics would have worked on them?

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. You really ARE that naive. If he had fought for a better stimulus, and lost,

and SETTLED for what we wound up getting, we would be no worse off than we are today - we would, in fact, be better off because nobody could blame Obama for not trying harder. We would have not lost so many seats in the last election, possibly retaining the House.

But he touted this, which we wound up getting, as being what we NEEDED. It very obviously was NOT what we needed - unemployment continued to rise well above what he said it would hold at, and he wound up pleasing NOBODY on the left or right. He set himself up for a lose/lose proposition. And lose, we did.

The debate was not if there was to be a stimulus - that was already decided. It was how big, and in what form. He wound up supporting an unsupportably weak stimulus which barely accomplished the minimum possible - staving off a depression, while at the same time NOT eliminating the possibility of a double-dip. Had he publicly fought for something better, he could have at least said "Well, I tried for better". What would it take - call a special session of Congress for a 'State of the Economy', calling upon them to back the strongest possible measures - and THEN follow that up with one-on-ones with individual members, seeing what it would take to get them behind him. Was the crisis not sufficient for such a move?

He didn't do that, at least not that I recall. I can only speculate as to why.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[flamingdem]

25. agree nt

[mazzarro]

18. Ding! Ding! Ding!!!!!

"He knows something we don't know" - again? After all is said and done, we will find out that there is nothing else to know that we do not yet know. Krugman stated from the beginning that the stimulus was too small and wrongly directed - too much of it was for tax cut while Krugman has been advocating for public works to rebuild infrastructure. I recall him warning of the difficulty of going back to Congress if the first attempt was unsuccessful in stimulating the economy - and that is what has happened.

[Beetwasher]

19. This Is A Load Of Crap Argument And Not Even Remotely The Same Thing

But you keep pretending it is.

Obama wasn't saying we didn't need a stimulus at all. He wanted a bigger one, but didn't have the votes in the Senate to get it passed. Naive people think if only he applied more pressure, somehow, he could have gotten whatever the hell he wanted passed through the Senate. It's pathetic, magical thinking. If ONLY Obama CLAPPED LOUDER!!!! It's stupid.

It's a bullshit, naive argument from people clueless about how our government works, or from people pining for a dictator, not a President.

[zipplewrath]

8. What you're missing

Coming out of the stimulus debate, regardless of how big it was, there was a discussion about how effective it would be. Obama sold it as being far more significant than it was. He could have easily stated that it would ONLY get it down to 10% unemployment, but that was a good start. Instead he over sold it and said 8%. (Well, let it be said for him). You present the package that says 8%, and then as that is reduced/negotiated away, you clearly state the over all impact of that change. When it comes true, then you can go back and ask if they want the rest.

Obama's mistake was listening to people who were "wrong" and said that tax cuts, or spreading out the expenditures over 3 years, would accomplish "enough". They were wrong and listening to them was a mistake. Krugman's point is that there were people who were right, and people who were wrong, and Obama's problem is he refuses to believe that there are people who are wrong.

Everyone is right and if we'll all just come together we can fix this thing.

No, sometimes people are wrong and compromising with them just makes everyone wrong.

[ProSense]

11. "Krugman's point is that there were people who were right"

I think Krugman has been all over the place on this. He definitely wanted to see a larger package, most people did, but he knew the political realities, writing about them here: Too Little of a Good Thing

<...>

O.K., I know I’m being impractical: major economic programs can’t pass Congress without the support of relatively conservative Democrats, and these Democrats have been telling reporters that they have lost their appetite for stimulus.

But I hope their stomachs start rumbling soon. We now know that stimulus works, but we aren’t doing nearly enough of it. For the sake of today’s unemployed, and for the sake of the nation’s future, we need to do much more.

Some points can be argued until you're blue in the face, they don't change reality.

Again, Krugman was unwilling to extend his impracticality to :

<...>

But on health care, I don’t see how he could have gotten much more. How could he have made Joe Lieberman less, um, Liebermanish? And I have to say that much as I disagree with Ben Nelson about many things, he has seemed refreshingly honest, at least in the final stages, about what he will and won’t accept. Meanwhile the fact is that Republicans have formed a solid bloc of opposition to Obama’s ability to do, well, anything.

Some of my commenters have argued that even with this bill Democrats may well lose seats next year — possibly even more than they would have without it. Definitely on the first point; on the second, I don’t think people realize just how damaging it would be if Obama didn’t get any major reforms passed. But in any case, that misses the point. The reason to pass reform, even inadequate reform, now isn’t to gain seats next year; it is to pass reform, which will do vast good, during the window that’s available. If it doesn’t pass now, it will probably be many nears before the next chance.

<...>

[zipplewrath]

27. None of which changes the fact tha they were wrong

They massively over predicted what the legislation would do. They "gave up" some of the more effective features for less effective, or delayed features. And when all was said and done, their opposition, after getting the tax cuts they wanted, were able to declare that it "didn't work" because it didn't do what was claimed.

And that is Krugman's point. You can claim that you can't get a bigger bill, but then you have to be realistic about what the smaller one will do.

[treestar]

14. Let this idiot run for President if he knows what to do

Too bad for him he is not and the President is not his puppet. He can't make any President do things the way he wants. What's different about Obama?

[ProSense]

24. On economic policy, Krugman makes a lot of sense

When it comes to politics, he wants what he wants and his arguments reflect that.

[TheKentuckian]

28. I'd love to see Krugman vs Treestar in a battle of wits

If he's an idiot that would make you fairly limited, to be kind.

You sound more like a Republican dug into Bush's taint like an Alabama tick every single day.

All of you loyalists need to stop pretending that if Obama asked for a dollar more then nothing would pass. A stimulus was going to pass and it was going to be substantive even if McShame had won. The vast majority of economists, the business community, and the international community strongly supported it.

There was going to be a stimulus of some scope passed under virtually any conditions, Obama had exactly a zero percent chance of losing the overall package by actively and openly seeking more and had he done so he'd have much more credibility to seek more rather than tying an anchor around his own neck by overselling something that sensible folk knew would be well short of filling the hole in demand.

If he had relentlessly hammered away on the infrastructure deficit and called out folks district by district and state by state on the failing status of their roads, bridges, train tracks, water mains, sewers, electrical grid, high speed internet access, dams, and levees the grass roots pressure on stubborn individual Congress critters could have been turned up to a boil.

Obama got almost exactly what he wanted out of legislation because he is a traditional conservative and a global corporatist.

[treestar]

29. McLame would have done no stimulus

The free market will take care of it, doncha know?

The trouble with not being President is that it is so easy to tell the President what to do.

yet if you were President? You'd have to deal with Congress.

[creon]

15. politically impossible

I argue that Obama was, in fact, in a politically impossible situation.
A larger stimulus could not have passed
A more radical reform of health care was impossible
A more radical reform of the financial system was not possible.

Any president would have failed under the conditions prevailing in Jan 2009. No one else would have done any better.

But, there is a penalty for failure. The Administration is paying for that failure.

The country is paying as well.

[ProSense]

23. I think too many people

are hyping the mid-terms. The President is not the first to have his party rack up losses during a mid-term. The Democrats were fortunate to retain the Senate.

[creon]

26. true

The GOP may find that great win to be a poisioned chalice.

A loss of the mid terms is normal. The party will come back in 2012.