Krugman vs. Obama Posted by Shadi Hamid

There's, as many of you know, a bit of a back story here, but Paul Krugman's latest column, I think, gets Obama wrong:

At one extreme, Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is that our politics are so “bitter and partisan,” and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a “different kind of politics.”

There is a tension in Obama's rhetoric which can sometimes be confusing. On one hand, he says that our politics are too "bitter and partisan," but, on the other hand, he wants to transform the American political scene as we know it. The latter transformation will probably, eventually, inspire fierce opposition and even hatred in some quarters (political transformations, as rare as they are, are dangerous to those with vested interests in the existing system. This is why they're rare). So, in a sense, if Obama's "transformation" actually comes to be, it will, by definition, have to be somewhat partisan, if not in intent then in effect. Perhaps this is Obama's greatest strength - the ability to propose and promote an undeniably progressive agenda without freaking people out, a trait that Ronald Reagan had on the opposite side of the aisle.

Still, though, it would be interesting to see what a "post-political" politics would look like, as Obama envisions it, because I don't think anyone's entirely sure what it entails in practice (but maybe that's the point: Obama can be something to everyone. There's a reason, after all, why Andrew Sullivan likes him so much even though they disagree on a whole host of specific policies). In contrast to Krugman's suggestion, I don't think post-politics would be similar at all to triangulation or 1990s-style centrism. There is something messianic about Obama's vision, and messianism and centrism do not usually go hand in hand. At the same time, it's pretty clear that Obama isn't the kind of guy who wants to - or has any interest - in destroying the Right. He seems more interested in developing a national consensus in favor of liberal policies, without defining them as explicitly liberal ventures. Again, this would necessitate a difficult balancing act. 

Comments

[Eye 9: a Mouse]

I think Krugman nailed it already. Obama is naive.

[Greg Sanders]

Shadi:
On Obama but off topic. Kevin Drum has a post up you might be interested in.

Key quote:

What Kerrey was getting at was simple: in the long run, the only way to defeat the hardcore jihadists is to dry up their support in the surrounding Muslim world. And on that score, a president with black skin, a Muslim father, and a middle name of Hussein, might very well be pretty helpful.

[Katie of St. Paul]

I think Krugman gets it wrong again. Sounds like he resents the idea that we can get past being mad at Republicans. I, for one, want to let go and make it right at the same time. I believe that's what Barack wants.

Check out this website for a refutation of Krugman's belief that Obama's way won't work:

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/blast-from-the-past-barack-obama-expanded-health-care-to-over-100000-in-illinois/

[Dan Kervick]

On the subject of Obama's "different kind of politics", there are three points to be made here. First, Obama is responding with this talk to a national mood whose reality is obvious if you talk to anyone who resides outside the angry and remote frontier provinces of Blogistan. While people do want a champion to stand tall and stick up for their interests, they want the really high intensity partisan nastiness to stop. The majority of Americans are totally fed up with the O'Reillys, Coulters and Becks of the world. And they're tired of hate-filled, bitter arguments among family members at their own holiday table. So Obama's message is a populist message.

Second, this call has nothing to do with being "post-political" or "centrist" or even "non-ideological". It's just a matter of restoring habits of civility and honest efforts at mutual respect and recognition so that people with even starkly disparate positions can disagree without hating on one another so much. It really is possible to stand firmly in support of your position without launching into a vituperative harangue against your opponent. And the respectful firmness is generally more effective politically than the vituperative harangue.

Third, Obama has shown no hesitancy at all about challenging corporations and lobyists. It's a large part of his general pitch. His rhetorical approach is based on building bridges between regular people from different sides of the partisan divide, between "red staters" and "blue staters". I have heard no theme in his campaign that that he thinks it is vital to build all kinds of bridges and promote happy talk between giant corporations and everyone else.

[Dan Kervick]

I think Krugman is quite confused, and this column only heightens my perception that he is out of his element when he moves away from discussions of the intrinsic merits of economic policies toward a discussion of campaign and legislative politics. Obama, who has been an actual legislator at the state and national level for several years now, understands the process better I think.

Krugman seems to think there is something off the mark about the following comment:

We want to reduce the power of drug companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic.

But does Krugman honestly think that it is realistic to believe drug companies and insurance companies will have no say-so in any legislation that is actually produced? In what political world is he living?

It's not even a question of who is invited to "sit at the table", because we know that powerful interests will participate in the national discussion whether they are invited to sit at a table or not. That's because they have the money and influence to buy their way into the discussion. Even if the President, whose role in the process is substantial but limited, were inclined to disinvite lobbyists and insurance companies from discussions on health care policies, we know those characters are going to be invited to the tables of almost every member of Congress who actually has to vote legislation up or down.

These interests are going to have to be politically out-maneuvered. The President is going to have to play poker with them and win. And the president's ability to take a progressive case to the public and challenge the intense lobbying that is sure to come will be vital. But the idea that the new president is going to be able simply to write some legislation that makes no compromises at all with the established powers in this field, and then ram it through Congress unilaterally at the head of some pure populist army is just terribly unrealistic.

Getting on TV and arguing against "Harry and Louise" commercials is in fact one of the only things the President can do in this process, as well as meet with key leaders in his own (hopefully majority) party, preserve a united front and twist the appropriate arms. To be able to lead his party in this way, he is going to have to have some ammunition, and that is going to require deal-making.

While Krugman is sarcastic, I think the lobbyists are a bit terrified of Obama, because of his unsurpassed public communication skills, and his capacity to command respect and admiration from a broad swath of people representing different parts of the spectrum. Obama has the ability like no one else to go to the public with a position that is presented respectfully and firmly, but with an uplifting vibe.

[zbird]

This column has a lot of political analysis but provides absolutely no response to Krugman's main beef with Obama--which has less to do with Obama's political strategy than with a gaping flaw in Obama's health plan.

Namely--Obama's health plan is less economically viable that Edwards' or Clinton's because it has no requirement that everyone participate. The result of such a plan is obvious--healthy people will decline to sign up, leaving the full cost of insurance to the sick. (economists call this a classic "free rider" problem)

I was really hoping this blog would have a smart rebbuttle to Krugman's argument that Obama fails to provide a viable answer to the most important domestic issue facing the country. The reason I'm looking for such an answer is because I don't like Hillary and I find Edwards' anti-trade populism scary.

Unfortunately it seems Hamid prefers to parrot the MSM's horse-race approach to election coverage rather than actually address questions of policy.

[Arua ROSE zuly]

It is the Rose zuly which make me very happy these days,
my brother says rose zulie is his favorite games gold he likes,

[cheap mabinogi]

I hope i can get mabinogi online gold in low price.
i buy mabinogi gold for you.

[fiesta online money]

the fiesta online money is really poor. You can use fiesta online gold to buy the weapons.

[2moons gold]

Because of 2moons gold, I meet a lot of friends. Besides, my friends usually give me some 2moon dil.

[Miu Miu Handbags]

Because of 2moons gold, I meet a lot of friends. Besides, my friends usually give me some 2moon dil

[replica Gucci Ring]

Because of 2moons gold, I meet a lot of friends. Besides, my friends usually give me some 2moon dil

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[Rose zuly]

Rose zuly plays an important role in the game, we all know that rose zulie and rose online zuly can make all the game players happy, so, buy Rose zuly is necessary. If you need, you can buy rose online zulie from our websites.

[Gunz money]

Do you know Gunz Bounty?if you play the online game,you will know Gunz Online Bountyis the game gold.if you had more Gunz Gold,you can had a tall level.but you want to buy Gunz Bounty.you can come here and spend a little money to boughtcheap Gunz Bounty.you know Gunz moneyis the game gold.Quickly come here.

[Louis Vuitton]

Mysterious black bezel and case, case materials for cement and steel production hasLouis Vuitton been the industry standard TEXIN belt do? 985U black rubber information, and the price and spraying mosaics, showing a high hardnessLouis Vuitton steel lesson material, with a special texture satin. Rubber surface show the appearance of fine lines beautifully, from the electro-corrosion to form the inner mold carved.

[wholesale cheap lingerie]

Everything is very open and very clear explanation of issues. was truly information. Your website is very useful. Thanks for sharing.