Last week, we debated Paul Krugman’s take on Barack Obama’s take on President Ronald Reagan. On Monday, Krugman offered further explanation:
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.”
Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?
For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before – and the poverty rate had actually risen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
delegator says
It’s kind of sad to see Krugman going over so completely to being a shill for the Clinton campaign. His criticisms of Obama could previously have been seen as legitimate (if misguided) policy disagreements, but now he has become completely transparent in his Obama bashing.
<
p>Any observer of politics has to agree that Reagan was a very effective President. That means that he accomplished the goals he set out to achieve, and was able to get his policies and direction put in place. That is true whether or not you like what Reagan did. I personally give him credit for some things but dislike many of his programs and platform.
<
p>All Krugman is doign is serving as a mouthpiece for Hillary and her distortions of Obama’s quotes. He even admits that the quote itself does not carry the meaning imputed by Hillary unless you decide to read more into it than is really there. This is politics as usual of the kind that turns off the casual voter and debases the process in general. Krugman should be ashamed of his conduct in this primary. If I were attributing motives to him the way that he attributes motives to Barack Obama, there are thoughts I would commit to this medium.
<
p>But I’m above that — I just wish that Krugman was above such conduct as well.
mr-lynne says
… that the “effective president” mantra is debatable, if for no other reason than his approval ratings at the time.
<
p>For Krugman to be classified as a schil he’d have to be immune to evidence and argument. I don’t see that from him. His positions are reasoned. Has he been wrong? Sure, but not for lack of reasoning and honest attempt at analysis.
<
p>Personally, I remember Reagan as a person that spent more money than any single person in the history of the world. I remember Tip O’Neil telling him to “cut the crap”. I remember Iran Contra and being flabbergasted at the ‘pass’ he got for breaking the law.
delegator says
I’d only note that having high approval ratings doesn’t necessarily mean you are effective. My definition of effective, at least, is that you are able to move policy in a significant way. Sometimes that makes a politician popular, sometimes not. Contemporary polls are a poor judge of Presidents. Heck, they’re even a lousy judge of primaries, as we have seen this cycle.
mr-lynne says
… on how likable he was. They were polls on his performance.
leonidas says
Krugman has won his progressive credentials long ago. He is a brilliant economist to boot. He is not shilling for any candidate. It is clear, though, that he has deep reservations/suspicions of Obama.
<
p>If you can construct a substantive argument against Krugman, please do so. Otherwise shut it.
delegator says
That’s funny, your criticism seemed completely devoid of the substantive arguments you want me to make.
<
p>I don’t see how anybody can debate the “effectiveness” of Reagan’s presidency. He actually got people to buy into the tripe of trickle-down economics, and overhauled the tax code to favor his preferenced classes (capital gains, higher incomes). He actively busted unions and set them back decades (PATCO). His foreign policy was exactly what he wanted, starting with a massive military build-up that brought both jobs and deficits, and ending with a central American strategy that mangled the constitution but also helped destabilize the Sandinistas.
<
p>So, the substantive argument against Krugman is that he intentionally twists what Obama said about Reagan and ignores the realities of those 8 years in a continuation of his multi-part diatribe against Obama. Yes, it is clear that he has deep reservations and suspicions about Obama — maybe it’s time to question Krugman’s motives for having those reservations and suspicions.
<
p>Krugman may have earned his progressive stripes long ago, but that doesn’t excuse unreasoning blather masquerading as op-ed. Others such as Robert Reich have also earned their progressive stripes — in the Clinton administration — and support Obama because they see through the smoke screens about mandates and misquotes.
leonidas says
But you miss the point of the article…
<
p>Krugman is questioning why Obama chose to endorse the historical narrative that RR ended the ‘excesses of government’ and offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
<
p>Krugman pointed out in his blog that dynamism and entrepreneurship was NOT characteristic of the ’80s but infact in the ’90s.
<
p>There are other problems with this narrative- most pol scientists would argue, for instance, that the conservative movement (‘the trajectory’) in fact began with Nixon’s election in ’68.
<
p>So the point is not whether Obama likes Reagan’s record, but whether he intentionally endorsed a dubious historical narrative that is often espoused by contemporary conservatives.
forkblue says
Krugman’s has good intentions. He wants to tell the truth about the past and he wants to advance a progressive agenda. However, he has failed to do his homework. Barack Obama blasts Reagan in his book, The Audacity of Hope. He decries his assault on the poor and blames Reagan for the beginning a movement that helped Rove and Bush Jr. rise to poor. However, he recognizes that Reagan created a consensus, be it foolhardy, and won an overwhelming victory in 1984.
<
p>Krugman needs to fight. It is his mission. But, if Obama gets the nomination, he can build a new majority, this time around unity and hope (and helping the poor) rather than greed and fear.
mr-lynne says
… but Krugman is addressing the narrative that is being formed (intentionally or not) right now, not what was written in a book. All your notes are encouraging, but I don’t see any of what you are saying anywhere else in the media.
yellow-dog says
Is it just me, or is everyone who criticizes Obama a shill for Clinton?
<
p>Reagan was effective in achieving some of his goals. The goals Obama claimed for him, however, were not successes, according to Krugman. Krugman has also said before that now is the time for partisanship, a message Obama (not to mention Pelosi and Reid) don’t really seem to accept.
<
p>I can’t claim to know who Krugman will vote for, but he’s praised John Edwards more than he’s praised Hillary.
<
p>Mark