Did Krugman Join The Clinton Campaign?

[babylonsister]

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=obama_v_krugman

Obama v. Krugman

Obama's Cooper Union speech presages an FDR-like approach to our faltering economy. Why can't Paul Krugman see that?

Robert Kuttner | March 28, 2008 | web only



Barack Obama's speech on the financial crisis was a remarkable breakthrough.

First, he connected all the dots -- between the complete dismantling of financial regulation, the declining economic opportunity and security for ordinary people, the current financial meltdown, and the political influence of Wall Street as the driver of these changes. Astounding! I wish I had written the speech. It is this kind of leadership and truth-telling that is the predicate for the shift in public opinion required to produce legislative change. A radical, appropriately nuanced, and deeply public-minded description of what has occurred, the speech was Roosevelt quality: the president as teacher-in-chief. Those who felt that Obama was capable of real growth that will transcend the campaign's early and somewhat feeble domestic policy proposals should feel vindicated.

The speech also showed real understanding and subtlety in grasping how financial "innovation" had outrun regulation, as well as a historical sense of the abuses of the 1920s repeating themselves. Obama is one of the few mainstream leaders -- Barney Frank is another -- calling for capital requirements to be extended to every category of financial institution that creates credit. This is exactly what's needed to prevent the next meltdown, but if it were put to a vote now, it would be rejected by legislators from both parties because they are still in thrall to market fundamentalism and Wall Street. That's where presidential leadership comes in.

So the speech was courageous, in that it goes well beyond the current Democratic party consensus, and one can only wonder about the reaction of some of Obama's own financial backers. He also took on a couple of other sacred cows, such as electricity and telecom deregulation, proven failures to everyone but industry defenders and their allies in the economics profession.

snip//


A real puzzle here is the repeated assertion by columnist Paul Krugman, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, that Clinton's views on economic policy are more progressive than Obama's. Indeed, Obama's stunning speech read as if it were informed by recent Krugman columns on the meltdown. Hillary has not said anything close to what Obama (or Krugman) has suggested.

Unlike some of my friends, I have not fallen in love with Obama. I have been at this too long, and you risk getting your heart broken. I actually shared Krugman's critique of Obama's health insurance individual mandate and his proposal to tax the upper middle class to pay for a much exaggerated Social Security shortfall that is more like a rounding error. I simply conclude, based on what I've seen, that Obama is capable of real learning and real transformation, both of himself and of public opinion. Nothing I've seen suggests that's true of Hillary Clinton.

But Krugman, ordinarily an ornament of fair-minded progressive economics commentary, writes almost as if he has become part of the Clinton campaign. His latest characterization of Obama's proposals in commenting on the New York speech -- "cautious and relatively orthodox" -- was preposterous. Even if Krugman's sympathies are with Clinton, he owes it to his readers and to his own credibility to play it straight and credit Obama with a breakthrough when credit is due. This was surely one of those times.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Could it be that Clinton's plan is better than Obama's?

[babylonsister]

2. Not according to the person who wrote this article. nt

[sinkingfeeling]

6. My personal take, was that Clinton's plan is better and thought Krugman's column stated that.

[babylonsister]

7. I don't know what your background is, but here's Kuttner's:

and I'm quite sure you both know more than I do about economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kuttner


Robert Kuttner is the co-founder and current editor-in-chief of The American Prospect, which was created in 1990 as "an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas," according to its mission statement.

He is also one of five co-founders of the Economic Policy Institute, and currently serves on its board of directors. In 2007, Kuttner joined the non-partisan public policy center Demos <1> as a Distinguished Senior Fellow.


Robert Kuttner attended Oberlin College, the University of California, Berkeley, and the London School of Economics.

At different times throughout his career he has taught at Brandeis, Boston University, UMass, and Harvard's Institute of Politics. He has also been a John F. Kennedy Fellow at Harvard University, a Woodrow Wilson Fellow at UC-Berkeley, a Guggenheim Fellow, and a Radcliffe Public Policy Fellow.

He holds an honorary degree from Swarthmore College.

[daa]

9. Especially her health care plan nt

[musette_sf]

3. Krugman's been banging the Clinton drum

for quite awhile now.

he's also had a few recent pieces stating that the illegal war is NOT the drain on the economy that many of us say it is. because of all the defense spending.

i used to admire Krugman, but in recent months he's beginning to sound more like Friedman every day. (Thomas, not Milton :-))

[depakid]

4. "turning, for wise men, to Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan is appalling."

One would have suspected that would have made Krugman furious. So his recent editorial was puzzling in that regard.

[Bumblebee]

5. Did everyone else at the NYT -- and the WP -- join Obama's?

[mrbluto]

8. In a Zealot's dreams...or a Bot's.

Only in a Zealot's dreams, or a Bot's, is this the case about Obama, or Clinton - or even Edwards who was the guy who came out of the gate talking about these issues:

"First, he connected all the dots -- between the complete dismantling of financial regulation, the declining economic opportunity and security for ordinary people"

So, while Kuttner doesn't quite throw Krugman under a bus, when he decides to assert that Krugman "writes almost as if he has become part of the Clinton campaign." he really ought to work on the beam in his own eye rather than attempt to pick splinters out of Krugman's.

Neither Obama or Clinton have spoken with any conviction about what really needs to be done, or who is really to blame, regarding our current economic fiasco. If Obama is suddenly connecting the dots in some revolutionary manner now, then one has to ask what country he's been living in for the past decade.

Not that Hillary is much of a paragon - I don't hold out a lot of hope that her and her triangulate'n cabal in the DLC are any sort of revolutionaries either. The one thing they have going, which may be what Krugman is responding to, is that they actually think a tune-up on the economy is in the interests of corporatism in general and thus actually want the system to work. (in it's twisted way.) The Republicans don't it seems - they can't seem to see a point where the "creative destruction" should stop on the way to the Junta they'd like to install.

Sad to say it might be the case that an implementation of Hillary's plans might be the best we can expect in a country run more like a carnival midway than a common endevour.

All the games still rigged - but Hillary with just enough clout to ensure the roller coaster we've no choice but to ride isn't an unmitigated death trap.

Yipeee! That's the country we live in folks.

[Larkspur]

10. Typical Obama-bot knee-jerk reaction to Krugman's honest criticism

Krugman actually spent more time slamming McCain and the neoconservative position than he did criticizing Obama. And Krugman actually praised Obama for talking about regulating the businesses that created this mess we're in now.

Krugman's job is to evaluate candidates policy positions, especially their economic ones, to the best of his ability. He like Clinton's better but even she had problems with her positions. Guess Krugman must be working for Obama's campaign when he criticizes Hillary.

[Doctor_J]

11. One thing that Clinton's fans can't or won't see is that

she won't be able to get a fucking thing done, even if she gets elected. Her term will be even worse than Bill's with respect to being on the defensive from GOP attacks. Obama has a chance, as Kuttner points out, to transcend policy minutiae and actually get some progressive legislation passed. He will be afforded this chance because millions of people who don't get their "news" from the hate radio/cabal talking head junta are willing to buy into what he says and see it through. If in fact Hillary's views are a tiny bit more to Krugman's liking than Barack's so what?

As Kuttner correctly points out, rescuing our country from the disaster wrought by Limpballs' 20 years of terrorist rule is going to require more than policy details - it is going to require someone who can actually get people to buy in the way that FDR did. Obama has an infinitely better chance at that than Clinton.

[judasdisney]

12. We Won't See Obama Whine Over This Like Hillary Whines

We have seen Clinton complain gracelessly (& endlessly) about being treated unfairly, with sexism, etc.

We haven't seen Obama drone about being unfairly attacked over his pastor, or by Krugman, or for racism.

The difference in public conduct & comportment is obvious.