Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

SOTU responses by Jonathan Chait, Paul Krugman and Robert Reich

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 05:13 PM
Original message
SOTU responses by Jonathan Chait, Paul Krugman and Robert Reich
Jonathan Chait

The substance of Obama's speech was moderate liberalism -- we like business, but government has a role too, neither too much nor too little, etc. It's hard to attach that kind of case-by-case pragmatism to an overarching theme. But I do think Obama pulled it off pretty well. He took a fairly hackneyed idea -- the future -- and managed to weave it into issue after issue, from infrastructure to energy to deficits to education and even foreign policy.

I thought Obama explicated his idea about American unity better than he has in the past. The notion of unity has always sat in tension with the fierce ideological disagreement of American politics, and indeed the latter has served as a rebuke to the former. I thought Obama effectively communicated that the messiness of political debate is a part of what makes America great, to turn that into a source of pride. He simultaneouly placed himself both within and above the debate.


Krugman

<...>

He did say the right things about tax cuts for the rich; on the other hand, that domestic spending freeze amounts to endorsing Republican arguments — plus it’s both trivial in fiscal terms and likely to inflict some real harm on government effectiveness.

Considering the rumors a few weeks ago, which suggested a cave on Social Security, this wasn’t too bad. Obama said that we’re going to do something about Social Security, but unclear what. And in general he at least somewhat stood his ground against the right. In fact, the best thing about the speech was exactly what most of the commentariat is going to condemn: Obama did not surrender to the fiscal austerity now now now types.

<...>


Reich:

The President’s new emphasis on the importance of investing in education, infrastructure, and basic research in order to build the nation’s long-term competitive capacities is appropriate. For the last three decades the federal government’s spending on these three essentials has declined as a percentage of its total spending, arguably threatening America’s technological and economic leadership.

But the President’s failure to address the decoupling of American corporate profits from American jobs, and explain specifically what he’ll do to get jobs back, not only risks making his grand plans for reviving the nation’s “competitiveness” seem somewhat beside the point but also cedes to Republicans the dominant narrative.

The address he gave last night could have been given (indeed, was given) by Democrats in the 1980s when Japan seemed to threaten America’s preeminence. Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign manifesto, “Putting People First,” laid out the case. Only now the competitive threat comes from China.

A similar call for economic patriotism and public investment emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, when the competitive threat was the Soviet Union. John F. Kennedy challenged America to get to the moon ahead of the Soviets. Before him, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower committed the nation to building the interstate highways system – forty-one thousand miles of four-lane (sometimes even six-lane) freeways to replace the old two-lane federal roads that meandered through cities and towns – in order to speed troops, tanks, and munitions across the nation in the event of war. And a National Defense Education Act to educate a generation of mathematicians and scientists to catch up with the Soviets in space.

President Obama made the parallel explicit:

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we’d beat them to the moon. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets’ we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.

Reviving these ideas, and the feelings they provoke, is politically astute. A call for national unity and economic patriotism is places the President above partisan rancor, and gives him a rationale for a strong and effective government at a time when Republicans want nothing so much as to shrink it.

<...>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R - especially for Robert Reich. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. once again another post worthy of a Democratic site.
I appreciate you compiling these three snips.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Thanks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
great white snark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Casual readers can't click on links to the full article?
What is it with this place and hatred of hyperlinks? One click can be so informative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. "casual"
by definition that would be someone who doesn't click on the links.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Still a Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. Hope there's room left under the bus
Incoming!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stranger81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. Interesting choice of excerpts.
Would have been worth noting that neither Reich (whose piece was titled "The President Ignores the Elephant in the Room") nor Krugman (who accompanied his description of the speech with a lolcats "meh" gif) was impressed with the content of the speech overall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. That's why links are provided. From the OP
Reich:

But the President’s failure to address the decoupling of American corporate profits from American jobs, and explain specifically what he’ll do to get jobs back, not only risks making his grand plans for reviving the nation’s “competitiveness” seem somewhat beside the point but also cedes to Republicans the dominant narrative.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stranger81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Granted, you included one sentence of the critique that was the main point of Reich's piece,
and provided links. But the OP definitely gives the misleading impression that all three of these commentators liked the speech, when in reality, only one of them did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Please
feel free to start a thread with your desired excerpts. FYI: There is a limit on the number of paragraphs.

Krugman' "Meh" doesn't detract from the points in the OP, and adds nothing. Again, the links are provided.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #5
15. +10000000
Not sure the authors would appreciate the selective excerpting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. yes, selective exerpting is only appropriate if you want the President to look BAD
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 03:25 PM by Capn Sunshine
apparently the OP fails to understnad the new DU rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. What are you talking about?
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 04:13 PM by woo me with science
Where has anyone taken a paragraph out of context to misrepresent the main viewpoint of an article that overwhelmingly praised the speech?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. more from Reich
The Great Recession wasn’t due to America’s loss of “competitiveness” relative to the Chinese or anyone else. In fact, American corporations are now enormously competitive, racking up some of their highest profits in history. But much of their success is occurring outside the United States. GE, whose CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, was just tapped to head Mr. Obama’s new advisory council on jobs and competitiveness, has more foreign employees than American. General Motors now sells and makes more cars in China than at home.

Republicans and their supply-side economists say the nation got into trouble because government became too large, and the answer is therefore to cut spending, cut taxes, and shrink the deficit. The President, having apparently given up on Keynesian pump-priming, has no retort except to invest for the long term.

What the President should have done is talk frankly about the central structural flaw in the U.S. economy – the dwindling share of its gains going to the vast middle class, and the almost unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at top – in sharp contrast to the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.

Although the economy is more than twice as large as it was thirty years ago, the median wage has barely budged. Most of the gains from growth have gone to the richest Americans, whose portion of total income soared from around 9 percent in the late 1970s to 23.5 percent in 2007. Americans kept spending anyway by using their homes as ATMs but the bursting of the housing bubble put an end to that – leaving them without enough purchasing power to reboot the economy. So the central challenge is put more money into the pockets average Americans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Thanks.
Edited on Wed Jan-26-11 11:07 PM by ProSense
Glad you read the entire article.

This narrative would be politically risky (opening Mr. Obama to the charge of being a “class warrior”) but at least honest. And it would allow him to connect the dots – explaining why his new health-care law is critical to reducing medical costs for most working families, why tax reform requires cutting taxes on the middle class while raising them on the rich, why the Bush tax cuts shouldn’t be extended for the wealthy, why deficit reduction must not sacrifice education and infrastructure (both important to rebuilding middle-class prosperity) and why any cuts in Social Security or Medicare must be on the backs of the wealthy rather than average working families.


These are all points the President touched on, although not enough to Reich's satisfaction.

The article is a critical analysis. The OP focused on a point about nationalism, also made by Reich.

Does this make it clear why it's important to provide links?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. more from Krugman
So, I’ve read the text, and find it hard to extract any theme. We’re going to invest in the future — but we’re also going to freeze domestic spending. So mixed signals — and although there were no numbers, given the further assurance that the freeze won’t affect anything important, this has to mean that the investment plans are small change.

He did say the right things about tax cuts for the rich; on the other hand, that domestic spending freeze amounts to endorsing Republican arguments — plus it’s both trivial in fiscal terms and likely to inflict some real harm on government effectiveness.

Considering the rumors a few weeks ago, which suggested a cave on Social Security, this wasn’t too bad. Obama said that we’re going to do something about Social Security, but unclear what. And in general he at least somewhat stood his ground against the right. In fact, the best thing about the speech was exactly what most of the commentariat is going to condemn: Obama did not surrender to the fiscal austerity now now now types.

Overall, however, I have no idea what the vision here was. We care about the future! But we don’t want to spend!

Meh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. To me, the freeze on domestic spending was a preemptive move
If you've seen the various Republican plans put forth for literally slashing spending on everything (except the military, which of course Obama IS cutting significantly) ... getting the public on board for a mere freeze is a good move. It's of course, all in how the budget that comes out soon moves things around. Spending may increase in things we like and decrease in other areas, thereby creating a static spending mode as suggested. Plus, in this time of almost zero inflation, a freeze isn't that disastrous. I only wish it had been for three rather than five years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I'll refer to Reich
"But the President’s failure to address the decoupling of American corporate profits from American jobs, and explain specifically what he’ll do to get jobs back, not only risks making his grand plans for reviving the nation’s “competitiveness” seem somewhat beside the point but also cedes to Republicans the dominant narrative."


Obama reenforces the conservative narrative on the deficit with a spending freeze. He should instead be arguing why the Republicans are wrong, that in the middle of the worst economy since the 1930's, a spending freeze is a bad and potentially destructive move. The pump still needs to be primed -

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. ""But the President’s failure to address the decoupling of American corporate profits from American"
Yeah, he should have put it in Reich's terms.

The President clearly stated:

We are poised for progress. Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.

But we have never measured progress by these yardsticks alone. We measure progress by the success of our people. By the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer. By the prospects of a small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise. By the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children.

That’s the project the American people want us to work on. Together


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Reich's main point is that Obama has reinforced
the Republican narrative on the deficit

you are not responding to what I posted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. "the Republican narrative on the deficit"
What does corporate profits have to do with the deficit?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. that's what I'm asking you
follow the thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. 9 out of 10 people polled after the SOTU speech thought that Obama did a pretty good job.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 02:21 PM by Major Hogwash
So, you must be the one that didn't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
stranger81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. Yeah, and 80-odd percent of the country literally believes angels are real.
Peer pressure appeals, fwiw, are unlikely to be successful here given the self-selected demographics of this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC