Krugman: Blame The Whiny Center

November 3, 2010, 8:14 am
Blame The Whiny Center
Paul Krugman

So, we’re already getting the expected punditry: Obama needs to end his leftist policies, which consist of … well, there weren’t any, but he should stop them anyway.

What actually happened, of course, was that Obama failed to do enough to boost the economy, plus totally failing to tap into populist outrage at Wall Street. And now we’re in the trap I worried about from the beginning: by failing to do enough when he had political capital, he lost that capital, and now we’re stuck.

But he did have help in getting it wrong: at every stage there was a faction of Democrats standing in the way of strong action, demanding that Obama do less, avoid spending money, and so on. In so doing, they shot themselves in the face: half of the Blue Dogs lost their seats.

And what are those who are left demanding? Why, that Obama move to the center.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/blame-the-whiny-center/

.

Riiiight...
:rofl:
As long as you work in the financial industry he's great.

Summers is the Kim Kardasian of economics.

We're not really sure why he's famous, but it sure as hell isn't his economics.

He also reliably comes to the conclusions he's supposed to.

. .. between macroeconomics and finance. That makes him like 99.9% of the American people, but that 99.9% isn't charged with oversight of the economy.

I like your Kardasian analogy. I would have used Paris Hilton, but she' so 2009.
GAC

Because I missed the sarcasm. :P

I really have no idea how the administration picks its favorites - it's certainly not based on anything like actual results.

that the public wants him to move to the LEFT?

How could he have possibly missed that -- after all 76% and more of the public

wanted single-payer/government run health care!!

You may think that Obama just "does not listen" -- but I think you have to try

to understand that you can't wake up a man pretending to be asleep!

like real Democrats and voted like them too in Congress (Barbara Boxer).

Obama is neither-nor and who trusts that?

what I thing happened is this:

In the first 6 months of his presidency, Obama was still new and had a clue as to what the country and the people wanted.

As time wore on, the cloak of protected silence and washington beltway mentality took over via his cabinet and assistants to "educate Obama about the new reality" aka washington reality.

The walls went up around him, he lost touch with the people and what we wanted and only heard from those with special interests and corporate influence.

Once he stood outside and saw the nation, now he stands inside and sees nothing.

Howard Dean, we need you!

You may remember Krugman warning very early on that whatever the Dems passed as the stimulus wouldn't be just the initial stimulus but THE stimulus, because the sense of emergency would pass, the ideological climate would swing back to deficit-hysteria, and they wouldn't get a second chance? Well, that went for everything as far as I was concerned. Economic policy like stimulus and jobs bills, foreign policy and the war on terror slide to a police state, and social policy too. Failure to act boldly by Obama and the Dems would quickly reestablish the old consensus on the proper size of government, the supremacy of Free Market fundamentalism would be reasserted by all the same old interests in the media and the parties, the necessity for permawar and police statism would solidify and become a bipartisan consensus, and the fortunes for a distinctively Democratic agenda would fizzle out permanently. They had to act like a runaway train and drive like hell from the Age of Reagan to a New New Deal. Instead, they were timid and now they don't have the power to set the agenda anymore. The centrist Dems wouldn't have it. They grandstanded and boasted about delaying and shrinking the stimulus bill, making sure most of it was useless taxcuts. They revealed themselves to be Reagan Kool-Aid drinkers and not Democrats at all. They insisted that they were "moderates" who would moderate radical Democratic measures back to the Reaganite standards prevailing up 'til the Great Meltdown of 2008. They were not Democrats but auxiliaries of the Republican Party in donkey drag, helping to stop and blunt Democratic legislation. They grandstanded and boasted over delaying and gutting the Health Care Reform, making sure the dysfunctional system we can't afford stayed as dysfunctional and capitalist as ever. None of them, neither Obama nor the rest, had the guts to take on the banksters even though the people know they're crooks - leading many to wonder who else is a crook. All it took was 6 months of dithering, and only 2 years from the start it was completely over. Republicans were implacable antagonists, just like you'd expect, but the real villains of this play were Democrats - sweet faced, respectable, "centrist" Democrats. So having made a slaughter of the best chance for liberal reforms in 70 years, they now want to retreat further back into the old Reagan Era ways of doing things? Naturally! It's who they are and what they do.

And now, with the blue dog caucus diminished by half as a result of their own efforts, they blame the LEFT for their debacle.

are the rich not getting richer?

do you not see that is the role of the democrats as well as the republicans?

can anyone actually still think any of this was an accident?

give up the goddamned democratic party.

they are worse than useless to the majority of us. they are the biggest impediment to progress we face.

Dems has been based on their pro-corporate/right wing moves is simply trying NOT

to know!

Same is true of the liberal press -- what did the WH DLC team call it?

Liberal hosts and liberal commentators --

And THAT's why we had DLC-corporate-wing attacks coming from the White House directed

at liberal/progressives .... !!

DLC is still in charge of WH evidently --- and they need new excuses to move to the right!

As usual!


:eyes:

nt

:loveya:

Rec'd.

Republicans. Republicans are not on the left.

They took it away from the blue dogs. Who else were they going to give it to?

Isn't that the lesser of two evils theme? Couldn't they have given it to the greens? Or more progressive Dems?

Why didn't Sestak win? I remember this board celebrating that Sestak beat Spector and being mad that Obama supported Spector originally. Maybe now we can admit Obama may have been right. If Toomey won, it makes sense that Spector had a better chance than Sestak.

Why didn't Feingold win? He was the one with the guts to vote against a bill Obama wanted, because it did not go far enough. Wouldn't his win have proven the message much better than his losing?

The more progressive dems weren't there. It is a choice made based upon party. It is why so many very old democrats lost. It is why so many INCUMBENTS lost. People were left with leaving the party of Blue Dog Accomplishments in power, or giving a chance to someone else.

The people that caused these changes were the "independents" that switch parties all the time.

and voted for the Democrats. What will the Republicans do for the progressives?

weren't there. The DLC, and the DNC worked to keep them out of primaries.

districts, a progressive candidate would not win?

The DLC did not succeed with Spector. Why didn't Sestak win? If progressives are better than centrists, Sestak should have won. At least, his winning would support the theory more than his losing did.

He was just better than Spector.

The democrats lost because they governed like republicans.
The blue dogs lost more than the progressives, but they all suffered from the "accomplishments" of the last 2 years, that none of them could run upon.

At least for that state. He was more to the left than Spector. So he should have won.

But with Toomey winning, it makes me think Spector had a better chance of winning than Sestak.

Spector was left to run against his own party. That's how you marginalize your own candidates.

WAY more blue dogs lost than progressives. Figure that one out and get back to me.

There was a vast, vast anti-Democratic sentiment among
the voters and many, many Democrats were simply swept
away with the tide; it was certainly true of our state Democrats
here in New Hampshire; Democrats from all across the spectrum
lost their jobs Tuesday when our General Court and Senate
switched from majority-Democratic to more than 75% Republican.
THAT wasn't about the individual ideologies of individual Democrats.

Tesha

Including DeFazio, whom the President spent two years chiding for not being a Blue Dog. Peter held his seat against a Tea Bag nut with sacks of cash. Ron Wyden, back in the Senate.
They govern and run like Democrats, not like Republicans or Obama type anti-equality 'faith based' bipartisans. So they won, while many, many conservadems lost, lost, lost.
In short, MY Democrats all won.

Blue dogs lost half their coalition and Progressives 5.2%

But it is the fault of progressives.

The dissonance hurts.

Republicans are not to the left of Blue Dogs.

That's why this theory does not work. Anywhere that a more progressive candidate won the primary, they would have to beat the Republican for this theory to be true.

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

Like the last 16 years blame the left, go to the right.

When will moving to the right will be enough? When we have a full fascist state? We are well on our way.

I know fall of empires are painful. We are in the midst of that.

And thanks for accusing me of doing something I DON'T DO? is that projection on your part?

When democrats act like republicans, the republican gets elected. Truman is still right.

Truer words were never spoken.


+100

conservative dem who hands power to the republicans and the republican who opposes the conservative dem will NOT vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. They (like the 12 million Obama kids who did not show up this time around) will stay home and watch TCM because they feel there is no point in voting for someone who will work against their interests - regardless of party.

"If Sestak did not win, what proves that the Republican would have lost to someone further left that he?" Think about it - if the left did not, obviously, turn out for him OR his opponent, where are they?

The way to get them out of the house is put up good, liberal, progressive candidates who will fight - maybe lose, but fight nonetheless.

As for why Grayson and Feingold lost, despite being good liberal democrats, you ever hear of Citizens United? Do you have ANY idea how much untraceable cash was poured into their opponents' coffers?

As I said, repeatedly, over the past six months +, we need to have somebody to vote FOR, not merely someone to vote against. You don't engender voter enthusiasm by saying "I'm not as bad as the other guy."

their ignorance and intransigence made the left's intransigence more palpable.

And so, here we are. Again. Sigh.

Actually we need a stronger left in this country. A REAL center requires it. If the centrists get the power and shut out the left then the debate becomes a discussion of what point between the center and the right wing will be the new center. And if the whole thing gets stalled by a bunch of center-right blue dogs, then the argument will be what point between the center right and the right will be acceptable enough.

In other words we vested entirely too much energy and time and effort trying to find a healthcare policy that would be palatable to Olympia Snowe.

;)

plenty of threads on that...

So is Krugman. This was a repudiation of the center. Not just our Center. The entire political center. The take-away for Democrats is not about factional sniping though like he thinks it is, it's about the lack of any sort of party identity. How the hell are we supposed to appeal to anybody when the President won't lead and we can't agree what we stand for?

Where you're correct is that liberals are not viable in every district. Where you're wrong is that you assume that should be a trend indicator for the direction of the larger party. That's the thinking of the sort of people who run towards gunfire. If the centrists are getting gunned down and killed, why would we rush in the same direction? It's not just our centrists getting gunned down either, it was all centrists this electoral cycle. The political landscape is hardening, in the center lies only death.

No, the take away is that we need a core for this party to coalesce around and we need the President to find some fire in his belly. Go centrist where you have to go centrist to win, go strongly Democratic (and that means left of where we are and right of the extremist loons.) where we can, in order to build a core to coalesce around and a party identity again.

Until there is a one sentence answer to the question "What do Democrats stand for?" we're never not going to be long-term fucked. Incrementalism isn't evil if we're all going in the same direction, but right now we're not and that makes pragmatism counterproductive.

Guess what? The R won anyway and we lost with the blue dog party supported candidate.

You really are blaming the progressives??? Holy shit! Man, this must set some kinda record for absolute blindness.

It will ALWAYS be the fault of anyone and everyone to the left of "treestar"... wherever that is! :eyes:

liked him. Sestak at least came close.

Feingold was outspent and got no help from the party.

why didn't all of Rahm's 23 Blue Dogs win? They leaned so far right most of the time, it was hard to remember they were Democrats?

I think if you think really hard you will figure it all out.

Most of the progressives across the country, WON! Rangel, Kucinich, Marcy Kaptur eg. Two progressives lost because they were targeted with big money and the party wasn't concerned with keeping them around. But 23 rightwing Democrats lost. The numbers tell the story.

I will say that it wasn't ideology that was Specter's problem, it was the accurate perception that he would do just about anything to keep his Senate seat. But the fact is Sestak was by far polling better than Specter and likely is why we came as close as we did.

but that's apparently not an option for over half this country, much to the left's surprise.

In a two-party system, the only way to express dissatisfaction with the people currently in power is to vote for the other guys.

Look what's on the agenda for the GOP -- reversing health care -- YET ....

76% of the nation wants single-payer/government run health care --

MEDICARE FOR ALL -- does that sound rightwing to you?

And 73% of Catholics want the same -- actually 83% when Latinos/Latinas are

included. In fact, Catholics also want reproductive care included. And they

by large majorities want things like condoms, HIV treatment, and every kind

of abortion -- with simply CHOICE have 51% backing!!

So much for pressuring by US Catholic Bishops!

Does any of that sound rightwing to you?


The public knows what Obama did in making secret/back room deals with Big Pharma

and the private health care industry -- and they don't like it.

Does that sound like right wing views to you?

where did your polling #s come from?

enlighten me because I would not think that of catholics (every kind of abortion/ gvrmnt HC )

My friend works at a catholic hospital and her insurance will not pay/deduct for birth control of any kind

and what the institution demands - kind of like the Democratic party.

In my youth I dated a number of Catholic girls - and every single one was on some kind of BC.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

Is that how they planned it?

especially the last one...

reality might clue some in, but denial is a most powerful force. I often feel it's press in the areas in life where I am less mentally adept. Denial is comforting and provdes some sort of pleasureable hormone rush, I have almost no doubt. I will have to check the scientific literature to see if any actual peer-reviewed research has been performed.

I feel for Grayson and Feingold - they are like the two stand-up guys who, being held at gunpoint by a couple robbers, tries to rally the terrified crowd into making a rush at them. Cue crickets chriping. BLAM! BLAM!

Then to make matters worse, while the only two stand-up guys are bleeding out in front of them, the rest of the hostages grumble about how those two sucked, were grandstanding cowboys, and are the reason for everything bad that happens thereafter.

Sigh. We humans are funny monkeys, aren't we?

I fear the empire is just getting started.

What we have now is the 1st century BC, with the rise of the monarchists and the beginning of the Caesars. Like Rome, we became the greatest power on earth on the strength of our Republic - and like Rome, we will lose the Republic by focusing on the power gained, not on the way it was gained.

:kick:

I was thinking about how America's constitution is riddled deep, philosophical concepts that most people aren't intellectually concerned with to try to understand. I think the same applies with current politics.

Obama needed to go populist. He still needs to. Reappointing Bernancke was his perhaps his biggest mistake beyond not having a larger stimulus and targeting it more toward stimulating small business.

:cry:

price.

In fact, they still make a lot of money long after they're out of their 'profitable' political positions.

Nothing really bother them that much. It's obvious.

are vilified as well.

I had hoped that the Age Of Aquarius would bring about a more mature citizenry.

It has done the opposite. We were a 0s more caring people back in the 50s and 60s than we are now. :cry:

Well, he's going to have to move to the LEFT to do that!!

A disaster caused by going to the right too far, for too long, will not be solved by going to the right some more. It's a no-brainer, really. Whether it's Rethugs or Blue Dogs or "moderates" or "independents" wanting to go the right, be it a little or a lot... it WON'T WORK. Only going leftward will fix this.

It isn't just ideaology, it's reality. Right-wing policies resulted in a mass transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top. It's so over-balanced now, that it's like an inverted pyramid of assets - a too-big top drawn from a too-small and ever-shrinking base. It WON'T WORK. "Blood", i.e. money or capital, has to be pumped like mad to the bottom. Pumping more to the top won't do the same thing. DUH!

Until the know-it-alls get this through their thick heads, the disaster continues. How far do we need it to go? Until it takes out not only the bottom and the middle but all of the upper middle class too?

Krugman is right. Of course. Until progressives become populists as well, and get their "turn" for a while, this whole system is screwed. Reality will have its vote, because that's just how reality is - you can't talk it away, you can't hide it (forever), you can't buy it off. It's just about as stupid as trying to be "against" gravity and buy that off. Lobbying with fictional money can get its way a lot, but it still won't change reality.

Reality is the limit to just how far the privileged can go, and they just won't face that there is any limit at all. That's the delusion. This isn't a matter of opinion, and it isn't subject to vote. It just "is".

That's where we are right now.

Obama failed to do one thing...

he hired the Wall St criminals and placed them at Treasury, when he should have thrown them all in jail.

he's the establishment. (and so is Obama and 99% of Congress.)

because they do not have good ideas.

if they want to be republican-lite, they should switch parties.

house no matter what anyone did.

History, it is a terrible thing to waste.

Obama may be in the middle of the right and the radical right --

but it sure isn't CENTER!!

The entire landscape of politics has been altered over the decades and

few understand that --


IMAGINE FDR SAYING THE DAY AFTER AN ELECTION ..... "I've been willing to compromise

in the past, and I'll be willing to compromise going forward".*


:rofl:






*Quote from today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101103/el_yblog_...

Obama is not getting it. For all the intelligence this man has, it is not clear why?

+ lazy couch potots.

"faction of Democrats standing in the way of strong action, demanding that Obama do less, avoid spending money, and so on." Don't forget the cry to "Wait". It's only been xxx months. Just wait. Don't be pushy. Take your time. Do everything in tiny increments. We've got 8 years.

How'd that work out?

his appointments of Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke. And yet, he is doubling down with another $ 600 billion going to the Banksters who speculate on Wall Street and invest the money in China. Much of the US economy is a shell game of moving pensions around.

Half of America's work force work for Walmart wages. All of America's cities manufacturing plants have been gutted and are windowless buildings. Becoming homes to pigeons, wild life and the homeless, unemployed, and the typical American.

Obama who promised hope and change, like Bush spends more money on weapons than the entire rest of the world combined.

believe what they hear on fox "news." We don't have a chance. IMO, if President Obama were Progressive and used his "bully pulpit" to inform Americans, how and why Progressivism could make a better nation, we would've won.
The corporate money pouring in, a faux Progressive as President...America is in for more feudalism and Fascism.
If this is to be our fate, I hope it goes quickly...

Obama had the blueprint to deal with the Republicans and the Financial crisis, he just chose to ignore it. FDR dealt with all the crap the Repugs threw at him and came out on top!!! If the Obama administration cracked open a history book this election would have turned out much differently.

who went out of his way to turn off Progressives every step of the way.