Dear Paul,
Dave Ramsey and Clark Howard probably have a better sense of everyday economics for families than Senator Warren. As for being a serious policy intellectual, her work is not in the same league as "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action", written by Moynihan during LBJ's admnistration.
8
I love how Nicholas Rush believes that Americans should grow-up, Democrats especially, when it comes to voting.
Silly man, 80+% of Americans never "matured" from their last year of High School (dropouts, included), but knew which side to butter their bread---Democrats. It's only by clever verbal manipulative arguments that the GOP "Sell" their "Supply-Side-Economics," for example.
Oh, I agree with you entirely. But, until you can capture the attention of an 18+ to 59-year-old with "facts" instead of "Bread & Circuses", motivating Democrats & voters-at-large to vote for a Democrat for President, color me skeptical.
3
Come on NYT, just come out of the closet already.
Stop pretending to be fair and unbiased - you want Elizabeth Warren as the candidate.
Just say it already.
16
Apparently Ryan really got under Krugman's skin. Warren is going nowhere. Candidates perceived as unlikable intellectuals don't win. Moreover, her constant mantra that all of the ills of the world and policy challenges faced by the U.S. are the product of "corruption" undermines the intellectual argument.
8
Ater the Democrats passed one of the important pieces of legislation since the civil rights act, Affordable Health Care, Biden, Obama, and all of the other Democrats in office, buried their heads and hid when the Republican/Conservative propaganda machine trashed the law with lies and then continued to run roughshod over the Democrats for years! No fight, no speaking out, no leadership from Obama, Biden or other Democrats. They failed their responsibility! They don't deserve another chance! It is now time for Elizabeth Warren, the progressives and Democratic Socialism to prevail!
4
Sen. Warren's ideas are just like Krugman's: Take from those who have it, because it's yours to take as a politician since you get to make the rules about it.
Socialism - which is what Warren and Krugman slaver over and hope America will become - is morally evil, by definition. Read "The Road To Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek who was an economist where Krugman is a pundit. Read "Socialism is Evil" by Justin Haskins. Or keep your head in the sand.
15
Trivia-based reporting is, definitely, heading the Democratic party over the cliff of a Joe Biden candidacy. I mean, look how serious he's become! I just keep thinking of that gallery view of the incoming House last week: one side in their uniform pale-complected, navy blue-suited, flag lapel-pinned grim masculinity and the other side, well, representing just about everybody else in these our United States. Instead of the babbling blue-eyed Ayn Rand acolyte with a policy book full of magic asterisks, a savvy grandma with a steel spine who wrote the book on actually legislating. That image makes me think that the Democratic party might just ignore the punditocracy machine this next election cycle and actually pick a candidate who doesn't look like the guy who just laid off his workforce and moved the factory overseas.
4
Hopefully people will listen to what Warren has to say, because she's at least taking the time to intellectually approach our problems. But I agree with Krugman -- sadly, we cannot count on national media to cover that message. They will focus on the horserace and whatever distraction Trump throws her (and any contender's) way. What a shame.
9
What I want is to see this woman look Trump in the eye and tell him where to go in no uncertain terms. Trump will roll the in-eloquent overexcited boy Biden like a mugger, he'll mock Sanders and he'll respond like Clinton (I love Bernie but he can't shoo a fly). Liz Warren is acerbic enough to The Donald at his own game of making the opposition squirm. And oh yeah she's reasonable on ideas, which hardly matters in this one party duopoly. Just break up the banks, enforce anti-trust on Microsoft and Facebook et al, Medicare for all and cut the Pentagon in half.
5
Warren is the best choice for 2020. She appeals to the progressive left with her policies, and unlike Bernie, she has a proven record of getting things done in government from within the Democratic party. She has a record of advocating for the working class and consumers at large. She may be a bit old, but she's younger than Biden and unlike him, she has no skeletons in her closet (cough cough Anita Hill, cough cough).
Sure, she blew it with the DNA test. But she's smart, and she almost certainly learned from it. Better to err and learn in 2018 than to blow it in 2020. If the best your opponent can do to tear you down is call you Pocahontas (which is pretty racist to do, it should be noted), then it means you have a good shot.
8
Warren would better serve our citizens with a long and productive career in the senate....why blow a potentially brilliant career with a four year "stint"?
1
Don't be too sure Krugman, Cruz is a wicked smart dude, at least that's what they said at Harvard Law. Speaking of Harvard, wouldn't it have been better to not say anything when a family "legend" says you're Cherokee?
Seems to me, telling everyone your Grandparents thought your mom was a little "too Cherokee" is a story I'd keep to myself.
And let's face it Kruggie, she wants to socialize Corporate profit pre-tax, does that also mean she wants to socialize the risk? Because those Government bailouts are really painful.
Remember, "you didn't build it" you say to the entrepreneur logging those 60 hour weeks, for years!
First in, first out.
7
If dems pick Warren they deserve another 4 years of Trump.
7
A responsible press also needs to stop doing the work of Republican propagandists around things like the Pocahontas issue. Cover it thoroughly and move on. Don't bring it up again daily or weekly. The Republicans have used this character assassination technique so often it has gray hair. The press just keeps taking the bait over and over until even Democrats start believing stupid lies. Hillary suffered a thousand cuts from this knife. This is how the public was told John Kerry was a coward and traitor (a particularly despicable lie).
Please don't tell me journalists can't discern the difference between an actual issue and cynical harassment/jibes.
10
Bravo bravo!
From Neal Gabler's "Life: The Movie":
"... by fixating on Reagan’s theatrical skills, the media had not only merged their preoccupations with his but merged their standards with the standards of government. Before Reagan, when one spoke of the president’s performance in office, one meant the efficaciousness of his policies. After Reagan, one was more likely to mean it literally—that is, his ... [perception] rather than his management. Or, as one young aide to President Clinton put it while complaining about negative press coverage, 'We know how to govern. We just don’t know how to give the perception of governing.'"
Sadly, that's what the Democrats like Warren need to work on: perception.
5
Primaries are a time for purity, general elections are a time to hold your nose and vote for the least harmful of choices. I like Elizabeth Warren and may support her in the primary. But come the general election, I will vote for whomever is the Democratic Nominee provided they are less harmful to America than another term for Vladimir Putin which is a given.
5
Dr. Krugman
No small irony, I'm afraid, that this column follows Vogel's opinion piece on Warren. If one is to believe Vogel, Warren represents all of the worst extremes of 'intellectual' (whatever that is) thinking on the economic left.
As a solidly left-of-center person on social issues, I am just as solidly a believer in competitive capitalist environments where ideas/products compete for utility/attention/profitability. This, for good or bad, has made the U.S. by far the best country in the world for getting what people want, as efficiently as possible, for the lowest overall price at the lifestyle level of the country at large (notable exception being health care).
As a product of the Ivy League, the first lesson I learned upon leaving college was that most of my professors were ultimately somewhat clueless about the real world, and nothing much has changed since then.
While it is OK for college intellectuals to harbor the belief they know better than the rest of 'us', there is nothing more consistently annoying than being lectured at and patronized. I concur with those critics who find Warren 'unlikable' for the same reasons I find Trump, Bush II, Reagan, Pence, Ryan, Gingrich, etc, along with Hillary and, thankfully, only a few other Democrats.
Warren isn't the least bit credible in terms of economic matters, your evaluation to the contrary.
7
I confess I was skeptical at first, though I voted twice for her here in Mass. I was probably used to the unfocused efforts of so many previous Democratic presidential candidates. EW is spot on with her messaging! She'll make this a very interesting race, and will chew up and spit out "Individual 1" in the debates. Just keep ignoring his tweets!
4
One comment on this board from AR Clayboy from AZ is really perplexing, I quote "live free or die."
Can anyone explain what "live free" means.
Who do we know that actually "lives free", aside from billionaires and millionaire, who amassed grotesque fortunes, mostly by shady deeds, and can live free in every corner of the world in a instance, flying on their private jets, sailing on their super yachts, surrounded by their security, body guards, pilots and captains of their gigantic ships and jets.
They live better than kings use to, with everything that modern technology can afford them, the most luxurious nomadic life we can only imagine.
They don't have to be tied up to any particular country, they're the wealthiest nomads in history of the world.
Anywhere they go they settled in their private compounds with entourage of highly skilled servants, who indulge their every whim, no matter how eccentric or bizarre...
Yes, who wouldn't want that life, only schmucks and dupes, right?
Well, some of us would probably prefer not to see homeless people on every other corner, starving children around the world, senseless, cruel waste of human life, blatant racism, fake populism, hostility towards each other, inability to reconcile our differences and accept our diverse human realities and aspirations.
I'm all for this kind of humanity to triumph in this crazy, upside down world.
4
Please, let us continue to be critical thinkers and voters, BUT if we continue to hold women to the highest order of the ideal, we will always have an excuse for them to fall short. This comfort with deriding the efficacy of even the most qualified individuals, because we are culturally comfortable with it due to their gender, will deny us, yet again, of the necessary resources to move forward as a country.
1
I used to love Elizabeth Warren. But she treats bankers and financial investors like crooks (most are not). And her support of a deal to forgive all Puerto Rucan debt? It’s anti-capitalist, unconstitutional, and would make the United States look like a banana republic (unless of course she wants to go the Hamilton route of having the US government assume Puerto Rico’s debt).
So is she smart, and better on principals than most? Absolutely. But her pandering to the far left she perceives as her base is particularly galling, because she should know better. Support high income taxes and real regulation and real safety nets - that’s principled (and I would support it). But stop with demonizing the 1 percent and financial base of the country.
7
In 1965 my 2nd grade teacher told us that "Any boy in this room can grow up to be President!"
About 40 years later, I said to myself, "Wait a minute...."
I really thought Hillary could do it 2016. She got the votes, but not the job. And I believe a lot of people hate her for the reason that SHE STAYED WITH BILL. Go figure.
Fact is, an aggressive man is called STRONG.
An aggressive woman is called SHRILL.
I'm afraid we will need for one more generation to die off (MINE) before a woman is elected President of the United States, no matter how qualified or capable she is.
1
Warren would be a great president because she understands economic policy and uses evidence. Therefore, she will likely use evidence to make decisions on a wide variety of subjects. She is also likely to fill in her cabinet with experts.
She made a horrible decision to address Trump's Native American bullying. She should have left it alone. I don't think a Democrat wins this next round by engaging Republicans on their level. If Democrats rise above and talk about policy, they should win easily. Trump will destroy himself.
Hundreds of comments explaining why Elizabeth Warren would be a terrible presidential candidate. Hundreds of comments from people who, I'll bet, have never run for office, never won an election since junior-high school, never managed even an acutal political campaign, never overseen a get-out-the vote drive, and would be hard-pressed to identify their own state senator or assemblyman.
But they can't want to explain how unqualified Elizabeth Warren is. Wow.
4
Her office agreed to sponsor via proclamation an innocuous ma state house event. told to show up to pick up proclamation upon the day of the event, but proceeded to wait for 30 minutes before the event only to be told no (I could have used that time, thanks). My guess is her office discovered it was a ma Republican sponsor. working across the aisle on an innocuous issue is not her practice apparently. The ma state dems didn't have any issue and i don't think Kennedy did either previously. Markeys office has been more helpful on constituent issues too.
She's useless and not a viable candidate. I'll vote for anyone than warren. Anyone.
4
@DW, I agree, she's the Hillary Clinton of Massachusetts. Please vote me into the Senate, so that I can advance my own pursuit of the Oval Office, while ignoring my constituents... Unfortunately for Liz, she will not come CLOSE to winning the Dem Primary, let along the General...
8
What potential candidate for the Democratic nomination for president is any more qualified as a peacemaker than Elizabeth Warren? And how does the current occupant of the White House qualify as a peacemaker?
She's the best thing to happen to this country in a long time. I think she'd make a great President and have signed up to help any way I can. Most of the lazy op eds (not this one) I've read don't have a clue about how many of us are hungering for an honest hardworking person who actually cares about the common person.
123
So far, I like Warren. But in the primary, I will vote my conscience and may the best Democrat win the primary. I will absolutely vote for the Democrat in the general. No one can argue me out of that stance.
It's a formula that will work to defeat Republican authoritarianism and the Russians.
4
We need more articles like this. Articles that focus on the "likability" of female candidates are just dog whistle misogyny. Warren should be judged on her merits, which are plenty.
Her research on income inequality and bankruptcy were so revelatory because she has firsthand experience with what happens when the American Dream doesn't come into fruition. She knows that an accident, serious illness, death, or divorce can entirely derail a family. She understands that that is why we need a strong social safety net. And that a market economy can only exist in an environment of effective regulation.
Let's vote on the issues and the intelligence of the candidate and stop the gossip column crap. Warren has my vote.
1
I agree Warren’s policy ideas and scholarship should be heard, and her ideas debated. I just wish that she would stop hating all the millionaires and billionaires, and stop saying that the rich have rigged the system for the purposes of screwing everyone else. Her vile filled rhetoric is way over the top, and hurts her policy message, and need her voice. Stop the hate speech, Elizabeth, it hurts the good you are trying accomplish.
2
@Shend
It’s not hate speech. Your comment is hyperbole. If they’re not rigging the system, then there’s no need for them to make large donations to political campaigns with the expectation of getting policies favorable towards them. Are you asserting that doesn’t happen?
Comments like this make the wealthy appear to be overly sensitive and whiny.
2
P.S. 3. Improve Obamacare and make it more enduring. This legislative move would probably gain the support of many voters in 2020. The 2020 Democratic Party candidates for president with the strongest qualifications to act on and effectively implement the proposals would be the ones for us to consider.
Warren's bailiwick is one with which voters sense sympathy. I hear horror stories about what some people pay for diabetes meds (I'm not diabetic) which they say is just insulin with a new delivery system. My doctor told me he could prescribe an old antibiotic but it would cost a lot because it was now being sold for a "new" use.
I wasn't in the Warren camp because the last thing we needed was one more Trump scold. If she can just keep progressing on the issues I'd be for her.
Warren is the opposite of Trump. Honest, thoughtful, intelligent, concerned about people less fortunate than her, and she has a much better sense of humor. I saw a clip where a young man asked her if she would be able to debate someone who lies and make up facts all of time. Warren paused and responded, "Did you have anyone specific in mind?" I hope the press gets behind Warren. Women like her and Pelosi are ready for Trump. I want to see what they can do.
4
Here are some proposals for the agendas of a new administration. 1. Wars and forceful military foreign
interventions are largely wasteful, draining our resources without much benefits to the country - do not fight wars unless they are absolutely necessary. 2. Raise funds probably by financial transactions fees (Financial transactions fees for Infrastructure projects), plus taxes on top income corporations and individuals if necessary. Substantial portions of the infrastructure funds and gains would go to the construction workers and technical, skilled employees. Briefly, start with projects that would result in economic growth and increased job opportunities for working and middle-class persons. Another such proposal is to expand the agricultural-and foodstuffs sector with supporting funds for small and medium-size enterprises. Reduce the defense budget for state-of-the-art weapons to transfer funds for manufacturing, food-production, and other sectors. Manufacturing -- promote product improvements and sales (quality products at reasonable prices); food-production -- produce much of what this nation needs and what other nations would buy. Build up a robust economy and work on other important goals for a stronger, more equitable country.
2
I welcome a candidate and party of ideas and the world clearly needs new approaches to tackle the extremism and nativist populism of people like Trump.
I don't know if Warren's ideas are the right ones.
While it's great to have a discussion here, I sadly agree that we can not expect much in the way of thoughtful media coverage anywhere.
4
As I sit here a work, on hold with the Bloomberg support desk - their hold 'music' is the audio feed of their TV channel - a thought occurred to me. If the average voter even spent a fraction of the time learning about policy and politicians, as the people who watch Bloomberg, CNBC, Fox Business, et. al. spent learning about how to successfully extract more wealth from the markets, we'd be in a lot better shape.
As a former short term Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell said, "An election is no time to discuss serious issues."
I wonder how many of Warren's ideas and policy proposals could be discussed sensibly during either a nomination or election campaign given that 'likability' is what American and some Canadian voters look for, who they'd prefer to share a beer with rather than who has the intellectual heft to run such a complex nation.
BTW, that quote didn't sink Kim Campbell. What did was a TV ad mocking her opponent's physical appearance.
A political class that thirsts for power needs only to inculcate followers, not leaders, believers, not thinkers. The G.O.P. has been successful in manufacturing believers, not thinkers, because thinkers ask questions that undermine the pillars of their economic and political theocracy. Woven into the so-called Gingrich Revolution is the G.O.P.'s commitment to their political and economic theocracy, amplifying their misuse and abuse of language, attacking straw persons, straw leaders, and straw public policies--to the delight of their followers. The media and their employees are not innocent bystanders when their paychecks depend on never-ending permutations of infotainment. In this G.O.P. ecosystem, personalities prevail over facts, irrationality prevails over logic, and faith prevails over science. The soul searching question is, To do their duty, what should journalist NOT report at all?
1
“can our media environment handle...”
Why is the onus on the media vs the audience? You need to understand is that Fox et al always caters to the LCD. You can’t explain detailed proposals with info graphics or in 3 minute sound bytes.
2
@Jts
Exactly. The news media universe only supplies what the bulk of news media consumers demand.
Warren is too good of a person, too smart and a woman. She has empathy, integrity and cares about the average person. The American electorate will never elect her. They would rather shoot themselves in both feet and elect a media star, some hollow or inexperienced celebrity politician, or a retreat political hack.
Warren is too good for America, her chances of becoming president are almost nil.
1
"intellectual gravitas is neither necessary nor sufficient."
Intellectual gravitas is necessary to be president. Trump is an intellectual lightweight. We don't want another like him ever again.
1
I was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, based on my belief that she was the most qualified Presidential candidate in my lifetime. She had broad experience in foreign and domestic affairs. She ran on the most progressive platform in memory. The news media didn't cover the policy issues or her experience was painted negatively, and she lost because the Democratic Party was divided, thanks to a primary candidate who isn't even a Democrat. The progressive movement has been set back for a very long time because of it, and we will have a right-wing, activist USSC for at least a generation.
I am a big fan of Elizabeth Warren, but I don't think she can be elected President. I fear the right-wing propaganda machine will eat her up, just as I thought Sanders would have been if he had gotten the nomination. Right now, I find Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris to be much more compelling candidates. I am worried Biden is too old, and Beto may be too young. I don't think Gillibrand would have a chance, and suggesting AOC for 2020 is ridiculous. Booker and Brown? Maybe. It will be a long primary season, and maybe I'll change my mind on some candidates. We'll see. Don't expect the media to cover issues much. I think it's clear that all Democrats need to unite behind the nominee. The Republicans will when they vote.
3
jas2200,
Ah yes...the excuse Dem's have been tossing out since...ever!
NADER!!!
It was the fault of "those others".
Nice of you to forget that 88% of Sandernistas voted for HRC. More than Hillary's PUMA's did for Pres. O.
Did you forget that 7 million Dino's flipped and voted for Trump?~!
Yeah, so what.
It's those others to the Left of you. Got it. Blame and shame. Then expect us all to fall in line again. Thanks for the big tent welcome.
2
It's sad when the person best able to do the job is disqualified for not being 'likable,' but maybe that's not really the problem. Al Gore won the popular vote, and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, and Elizabeth Warren is much more 'likable' than they are. Is Donald Trump 'likable'? To maybe 30% of people, not to a majority. First things first--let's get rid of the Electoral College winner-take-all system and then see who wins.
2
Unfortunately our society at large likes to read "lazy journalism" due to their collective inability to use our brains and stay disciplined on what is best for us and our country.
I think we are really lucky we have the Atlantic Ocean on one side and the Pacific Ocean on the other side so we can have discussions about is he/she "likable". I decided a long time ago that being affiliated to a political party creates automatic bias and doesn't truly allow me to judge someone on the merit that matters most in politics. The ability to get people to compromise.
Where did that characteristic go? When the Soviet Union fell our political landscape changed. If we don't have an "enemy" we fight ourselves and it becomes acrimonious and unproductive.
I love my country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else but I wish people would pay more attention to what mattered in politics versus drinking beer at a Ted Nugent concert. If you want to see the "deplorables" go people watch at a Ted Nugent concert :)
More people need to hear what Warren has to say so that they can make up their minds about her.
I agree that journalists that repeat the same tired; lazy phrases about likability and what have you are simply not doing their job.
3
What Warren lacks is personal integrity. She made a political name for herself challenging the Republicans on economic issues. Then she refused to run. So Sanders took up her mantle and ran with it to more success than anyone would have imagined. During the rigged Democratic primaries, she was silent when her voice was needed in the Sanders campaign. She hedged her bets out of political self interest and kept her mouth shut throughout. Then, when the woman she had previously characterized as part of the globalist cabal ruining the economy for poor and working class Americans was nominated she wasted no time in her enthusiastic embrace of Clinton. She was thinking cabinet post and 2020 then, and obviously was willing to jettison her economic idealism in the pursuit of her political career. She’s a fraud. This is what the “Native American” issue is really about. Can such a woman be trusted?
2
@Cold Eye
You’re angry because she didn’t endorse Sanders? I haven’t seen the reason for that reported, but it appeared to me that she was attempting to avoid further dividing the party. In terms of percentages,Clinton won 57-43 and most of her strongest supporters, older Black women and middle to upper income white women never would have switched to Sanders based on an endorsement from Warren. It would have been futile.
3
The real revelation of this column is that of "trivia-based reporting" that purportedly curses the Warren candidacy. Our so-called professional journalists really aren't so professional and aren't at all leaders in the way they should be. This statement opens up a too-large topic for this comment, so I'll abbreviate with an example.
It took 2 weeks into the shutdown for me to find a competent article about funding for "the wall" Trump has closed the government over. Why? Not so much because I neglected to look for such a piece from the NYT and WaPo emails I receive daily, but because reporters and opinion writers were preoccupied with telling me every superficial, political, voyeuristic fact and non-meaningful insight they could contrive.
Why are TV newscasts so devoid of real news content? Entertainment values trump (pun intended) knowledge values.
1
Presumably, Senator Warren, if elected president, would not have a cabinet full of Wall Street players and would 1. Re-strenghen our financial "system", now precariously weakened/consolidated by ending such policies as Glass-Steagall 2. If faced with an economic meltdown, as in 2008, take care to bail out Main Street. Not sure what she would do with Wall Street in such a happenstance - need to do more rreading.
It's refrreshing to have a candidate with actual ideas, based on truth.
4
But Dr. K, we don't have serious news from the large media outlets, we have 'infotainment'.
Drive-bys and car chases.
3
I love Elizabeth Warren, or rather I love her ideas. But here's the thing: to be President you need to be a peace maker. You need to be able to bring all parties to the table and get them to agree. You need to get people to swallow hard medicine because they respect you even if they don't like it. You need to get people who don't necessarily like each other to pull together.
I don't see any of that in Warren.
Yup, she's a fighter, but I see no sign she can get people to fight with her. I see no sign she can bend to make everyone feel included. I see no leader in her.
If I must, I'll hold my nose and vote for her. But IF she gets elected she will be a poor President. Because she will do nothing to unite a damaged and broken electorate.
29
@mj
Obama attempted to be a uniter. How did that work for him? The Republicans in Congress are not going to compromise. If you’re looking for a candidate to do that, then you’re going to get a conservative agenda implemented. If that’s what you want, choose Terry McAuliffe.
26
@BK She worked behind the scenes with Chuck Grassley to reduce prices for hearing aids. The bill got passed. She understands legislation and has the same can-do, workhorse spirit that Pelosi has and Ted Kennedy had.
25
@mj
Did you actually watch her Iowa stump speech? If you had, you would've heard her describe how she worked with Chuck Grassley and other GOP Senators to include her proposal to make hearing aids more affordable for 44 million Americans into a larger piece of legislation - that was passed and signed into law.
I assume you mean that kind of getting people to agree?
27
yes you are correct. let's see if the media can grtit right this time- not so great out of the gate.
3
My priority in 2020 is winning the election. I like Warren but she would be very difficult to elect. Nominating her would seem like the Dems are coming back with another intellectual elite. If you haven’t noticed, the American voter is no intellectual.
3
Elizabeth Warren has intriguing ideas, is a wonderfully engaging and likable speaker, and I’m delighted that she is my senator. But she has gone heavy on divisive speech over the past few years, and I have doubts about her interest in the art of compromise.
In terms of the media, ideas and policies may not get as many clicks as personality and the “horse race,” but those should be what determines elections. Time to get priorities straight in terms of coverage.
If you'll pardon the awful pun, the "elephant" in the room is misogyny. The US is rife with it compared with most western countries. I love Elizabeth Warren's ideas and passion for reducing inequality, I think she's an engaging speaker and I'd happily vote and campaign for her. But she's battling a serious American cultural barrier.
3
Warren's "intellectual gravitas is neither necessary nor sufficient".
Perhaps I'm too cynical, but "intellectual gravitas" may be viewed as a negative by most current Republicans and that part of the news media that prefers the splashy.
1
our media can recognize it, Prof. but Republicans know their only chance of winning politically is in framing American politics and government as the most Calvinist of Christian doctrine, based on belief and faith, with any interest in actual facts or intellectul debate seen as Satanic heresy. a swelling tsunami sinks all boats.
1
Paul,
"...people who think hard and look at evidence...Does all of this mean that Warren should be president?"
Actually, yes.
5
I was thrilled when Warren announced her exploratory run. I do not get why may liberals are passionately against her as a presidential candidate. It can only point to something dark: sexism in some poorly veiled form, and/or anti-intellectualism, which really is all about insecurity -- on the left. No wonder the MSM -- consistently overwhelmingly centrist in its approach -- is defaulting to its lazy theatre criticism.
1
Uneducated white men and women will feel threatened by a "serious intellectual" woman, and so for that matter educated ones south of northern NJ (except possibly SE PA). The "serious intellectual" Obama was elected by the minorities, labor unions, white women, rust belt whites who wanted to believe him and the second time by the financial downturn of 2008. Nikki Haley will be disappointed too if she runs. Population shifts in the future, millennial turnout, and another terrible economic downturn will be the only way for a woman to win.
Warren would best serve as Senate Majority Leader or Secretary of Treasury.
Warren has ZERO charisma, and even has some anti-charisma, if there is such a thing. The head bobbing, enhanced by her geraldine farraro haircut, do not help. Don't politicians also have to make you want to see them leading us, every day? I guess she is a long sight better than many in office, McConnell stands out as a symbol of repulsivenss, but she is no Barack..Or Kennedy. Or Carter, or Clinton. I was in love with all of them, although for Carter it was more like, 'in like'..
1
@grace thorsen
Interesting. I dont care how she looks. I love how focused she is on the issues key to reviving the middle class.
6
Would you be able to vote for her if all candidates were “presented” to the electorate as 1 cubic foot beige boxes? No looks involved. Only their speech and content for evaluation.
Interesting science fiction concept. Let’s take that further and make the voices neutral as well. No clues as to male or female. Ha!
And then maybe you wouldn’t be distracted by the Ferraro hairstyle.
5
Right. So if we’re gonna elect a woman president we should make sure she’s cute?
1
I read her book The Two Income Trap several years back and found it incredibly enlightening. Warren took an honest apolitical look at societal trends and dispelled a lot of myths that many of us believe. She presented a credible argument that disproved the notion that consumerism is the root of all our ills backed by facts and logic. Elizabeth Warren has my vote, she is smart and understands how to look at the big picture and find a solution. If we could stop getting bogged down by the political spin and actually evaluate policy ideas we would be much better off as a country.
6
I wonder if Senator Warren agreed with Professor Krugman's learned prediction that global equity markets would crash and NEVER recover after Trump stole the election?
2
Reaganomics is largely the cause of bigger and bigger income inequality in the USA.
And Warren voted for Reagan twice. I have yet to see her express any regrets for those votes.
Is she on record as against the repeal of Glass-Steagall in the 1990s?
2
@Yaj
Yes, she has been in record many times in the past as being against Glass-Steagall. She has not been a Republican for more than 20 years.
3
@Yaj
"Power-coupling" plays a much larger role than is being talked about. High earners are marrying each other. Moreover, more stable finances reduce the chances of divorce, and divorce rates for couples with less education/less than high school and significantly higher. And of course, all that stuff starts to snowball.
1
@BK
"Yes, she has been in record many times in the past as being against Glass-Steagall. She has not been a Republican for more than 20 years. "
Do you mean to affirm that she's against Glass-Steagall? Or did you omit the word "repeal" in there?
The fact remains that as an adult, with a law degree, she supported Reaganonics. The became a Democrat when she was a well paid law professor and the Democrats also supported Reaganonics.
her chances of winning the election are the same as mine, and I'm not running
4
Thank you for this, Dr. Krugman. I think this column is just about perfect. I enjoyed reading it. Right up to this:
"But she is what a serious policy intellectual looks and sounds like in 2019. And if our media can’t recognize that, we’re in big trouble."
That's when I knew; we're in big trouble.
4
I love Sens. Warren, Harris, Klobuchar. I would be proud to vote for any of them as President. But I see our country as still so demonstrably racist and misogynistic, not merely sexist, that I fear none could win. That is why I think the Dems have to live with the old saw that politics is the art of the possible and go with someone like Beto O’Rourke or Sherrod Brown. Strong enough on key progressive policies, but possessing that body part apparently essential to the highest office in our land, unlike so many other countries.
2
Listen up, fellow Democrats: Here are the tried-and-true three things a winning candidate needs to have (as proven by research):
-likeability
-gravitas
-ideas that are "sound" as interpreted by the independent, undecided voters who decide elections
Lacking any one of these characteristics makes a candidate very vulnerable. Look for a candidate that checks all 3 boxes. Unfortunately, any question about likeability dooms Elizabeth Warren. The smart bets are on: Amy, Kamala, Beto and Cory at this point. Get real, Democrats--- Stop looking for an "idea" candidate---She or he has got to have the other two qualities in spades.
1
@Christine
Kamala likable? She can't help herself from oozing superiority. Don't think the midwest crowd will be loving that. Picture a debate with Beto or Amy next to her and she'd have a tough time coming off as likable as those two, with bonus points going to Beto's charisma.
Also remember that Warren drew bipartisan crowds when launching her campaign against Wall Street and stumping for the CFPB and was never tagged as condescending or unlikable during these townhall meetings. Can she rise again to that challenge? Maybe. But Kamala is better as a Senate bulldog---the Democratic answer to Mitch McConnell.
1
See Warren's Anti-Corruption proposal.
https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Master%20Summary%20of%20Anti%20Corruption%20Act%20-%20FINAL.pdf
2
This is the Paul Krugman I followed and admired enormously until he temporarily lost his mind in accepting and promoting the Democratic candidate who brought us President Trump.
Welcome back Professor.
I quote whenever I can your excellent explanation of Nancy Pelosi's accomplishments and excellence as Democratic leader/Speaker . I welcome and agree with your description of the excellence of Senator Warren. I hope you give more consideration to her potential as President.
I especially admire your willingness to say "I was wrong" regarding the CPB. I hold intellectual honesty as very important to anyone in public life, and also in life generally.
5
You got it all right. What you did not mention is the reality that today almost ALL media is controlled by old, white, conservative men, like Rupert Murdock, except for one woman, Shari Redstone. They are the ones that invent, and I do mean invent, the personas of just about all political players. Therefore, as they and their Republican/Conservative/Evangelical cohort believes, so do they. The difference is that they have the ability to convince voters of whatever they want them to believe. Thank God for social media. We need to take advantage of it as fast as we can, for soon enough that media will be co-opted also. Those old white men are at it already, trying to convince the new media moguls that they have lost their souls, when the younguns are the ones that still have a soul. That is why Warren and AOC are "stylized" the way they are. The electorate has to look past those false flags constructed by the R/C/Es.
3
"she is what a serious policy intellectual looks and sounds like in 2019."
Yup, a Northeastern Limousine Liberal posting selfie videos of herself drinking a Michelob Ultra, a beer brewed by a foreign-owned corporate behemoth (AB Inbev) that is doing everything it can to crush independent craft breweries.
5
I have to recommend this piece...
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-sexist-hypocrisy-likability-media-narrative-here-ncna955021
Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton and the sexist hypocrisy of the 'likability' media narrative. Here we go again.
At this rate, the only likable female president will be one who doesn't want the job.
2
I have a “friend” on Facebook who says he rarely comments on politics, but a cartoonish picture of Elizabeth Warren dressed in full Indian Chief regalia nudged him over the line. Really? Of all the doodoo that’s happening in politics today the bridge too far for him was Elizabeth Warren claiming she had a small amount of Indian heritage. How is it possible to change a mind that is so easily influenced by trumpian propaganda?
4
I laud your insights Mr Krugman, but you seem to have been swept up in the current swelling of the never-ending fad and (mostly) fable of “discrimination”, almost conspiratorial in nature and degree, against women. Like most NYTs reporting and opinion, for some reason, probably just because you think it wise to go along with prevailing published opinion, and because you want to incur the favor of women for whatever reason, you routinely excoriate and mock males, their roles and their nature, while digging deep to rationalize and shout the praises of heretofore supposedly quashed female accomplishments made despite their brutalized, calculated, victimhood perpetrated by men. The world isn’t like that, and shame on you and the Times for your constant drumbeat to make it seem so.
5
Yes!
That's all we Dems need to say.
1
"George W. Bush ... took us to war on false pretenses."
Paul Krugman has told this lie before, and he will doubtless tell it again, but it will always be a lie.
The funny thing is that Krugman's lie is completely unnecessary. Bush bungled the war so badly that his reputation will never recover.
I can't out-shout Krugman, and his acolytes are deaf to truth. But the truth needs to be told. Bush and supporters of the war -- and almost all opponents too -- believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
Some examples: "WMD believers" included the UN Chief Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix. In his book, Disarming Iraq, he says that his gut feeling, even in early 2003, was that Iraq still concealed weapons of mass destruction.
Or hear the NYT's former public editor: "To anyone who read the paper between September 2002 and June 2003, the impression that Saddam Hussein possessed, or was acquiring, a frightening arsenal of W.M.D. seemed unmistakable."
Or consider the leaked "Downing Street memo" that minuted a discussion among senior British Labour government defense and intelligence officials. That memo gamed the potential risks of an invasion of Iraq: "For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
Why was Blair planning for Saddam Hussein's use of WMDs if he knew Saddam did not have any?
5
@Ian Maitland
The Kurds were also eagerly passing on false intelligence stating unequivocally that Iraq was both training terrorists and had WMDs. I am not sure how seriously the intelligence community took this, but at the time, many investigative journalists certainly did. There were lengthy pieces in the New Yorker and other places. I actually found them pretty convincing myself.
Has the press come clean about its role in promoting this bad information? Does it ever?
2
@Ian Maitland
The Bush Administration had decided on military action before Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered his convincing speech to the UN on Feb 5, 2003. Within a few weeks, the CIA announced that the case for WMDs was falling apart. A few weeks. Yet, it seems we still continued with the war in Iraq in March 2003. Why would that be?
Colin Powell's interview for Frontline, link below, is very interesting because it gives a good sense of the confusion and uncertainty:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/colin-powell-u-n-speech-was-a-great-intelligence-failure/
While I can understand the 'we can't afford to find out we're wrong' mentality of GWB, wreaking havoc searching for the now likely to be non-existent WMDs seems to many of us to be an 'oh, well, we already decided to get rid of Saddam anyway' agenda.
While none of us, it seems, will ever get the real story, some skepticism is not without basis. The timing is damning. Sorry.
@Ian Maitland...The New York Times was a full-throated war drums beater for the invasion of Iraq. People like Friedman want to forget their rosy predictions for the democracy hungry Iraqi suffering under Saddam Hussein's iron fist. My how history changes.
1
While this is nominally a column about Elizabeth Warren and her stunning capabilities, it is really about the ability of the MEDIA to address important issues, rather than popular fluff.
After all, the media effectively elected Donald! He was obviously such a repulsive and unusual clown with reality show appeal, that the media couldn't help itself but provide him with blanket FREE coverage. His name became such a household word and "shaking things up" so appealing, that people exposed their prurient interests and demanded Trump coverage. The media complied and created a catastrophe.
So, as Dr. Krugman says, either the media shall support a Democratic party, and perhaps Sen. Warren, as a party of intellectual policy development, or they'll deteriorate into discussion of Native American DNA test results and how that played out in contention with Trump and his [expletive] remarks about Pocahontas.
5
@dpaqcluck...There is a third option. The Media, specifically the New York Times, could attempt to fulfill its vaunted First Amendment mandate as The Free Press. A real Free Press is not the propaganda bullhorn for one ideology...Krugman has been binging on sour grapes since Trump upset his apple cart around midnight of 11/8/16. He had no problem with the media when he used it to trash Sanders' policies in the primaries.
2
Thank you! America used to be the 'nation of ideas'. Let's see if we can get back to that, too.
1
Pure insanity that her heritage is an issue at all. But who made it an issue? Trump. The media ran with it and even came to the conclusion that her video was a disaster. What’s a disaster is the media’s focus on this. We’ve got huge problems that need serious and sober discussion on the policies needed to get us pointed in the right direction. Warren is one of those public intellectuals who merits our attention.
3
I love Elizabeth Warren's courage, her ideas, her intellect. I believe she would make a particularly astute and effective president. I don't believe she will be electable.
Why not? Because people do NOT vote on the basis of logic. For the most part, they vote on the basis of emotion. On that level, Elizabeth Warren cannot corral votes from Republicans any more than the totally unelectable Hillary Clinton could. Warren may not suffer from the same kinds of stupid mistakes that caused Hillary to shoot herself in the foot, but the charisma factor, the likability factor are not there for Warren.
Republicans are weary of being treated like the dolts in the back of the classroom by Democrats looking down their noses at them while they spout logical arguments. And they will not respond well to a candidate who acts that way, no matter how well intentioned.
One cannot win the presidency without some crossover voting. The Democrats need to nominate a person who inspires more than the liberal wing of the party. They need a uniting, crossover candidate whose love for all that America stands for shines forth.
Fewer logical arguments and more reasonable emotional appeal. That will win the election. Period.
5
I think Mr. Krugman is confusing intellectual with pseudo intellectual. Warren does not have a Native American problem, she has an American problem. Middle American to be specific. Her continual attempts to portray herself as "one of us" has resulted in one inanity after the other (I'm gonna get me a beer...). And prefacing EVERY statement with "Let me be clear.." while pumping her fist does not make her appear to be one of us, it merely makes her look like a condescending know-it-all. Middle Americans do not need the level of protection from the "big guys" that Warren continually espouses, we need a leader who has solid ideas on how to feed the hungry and house the homeless. Most of all we need someone even keeled enough to reach all levels of people in a sincere way. We also need someone who can DEFEAT the current President and this pseudo intellectual is not that person!
3
Is there any mention in "her party of ideas" about the national crisis upon us? Migrants are massing at the border, the majority of them victims of failed countries. They could all be judged as a lump case. The last thing they need is an army of asylum judges to torture the process. They have as valid a claim to asylum as the Syrians who flooded Germany. If the US were Merkel's Germany, those gates would open wide, and immigrants given housing and spending money. Forget the case by case rubbish. These (like most immigrants who preceded) are hardship and not life and death cases. If only the latter need apply, the majority will be sent back. Republicans are on record in denying hardship refugees. Is there any Democrat who will rise to the level of Merkel and utter the immortal words "we can do it"? Let them in. What would Krugman do if forced to go from shadow boxing with platitudes to drafting a concrete policy to address the crisis? Merkel gave the world a vivid example of moral action. The Syrians didn't need a Party of Ideas. They were desperate for moral action. They got it, and she paid the price. The question is simple: either a Wall, or relief to all desperate enough to mass at the border. All the rest is hypocrisy. Frau Merkel, anyone? Anyone with the courage and vision to say "we can do it"? Bernie, Beto, Biden? Warren? Krugman? Anyone?
“Consider the contrast between the unearned adulation Ryan received and how long it took conventional wisdom to recognize that Nancy Pelosi was the most effective House speaker of modern times.”
Thank you for this observation. And then, thank you again.
6
Focusing on nonsense instead of Warren's very real strengths is not unlike overlooking Hillary Clinton's well developed policy ideas and focusing on her emails, etc. I agree this doesn't necessarily mean she should be president but nipping the nonsense in the bud is really important and something our society often finds difficult. Flashy and cringe worthy often gets so much more attention than solid, thoughtful and truthful stories. Hence the nut job in the White House.
3
The success of Trump's real world economic policies has exposed Krugmanomics (Krugman's economic ideas) as utter and complete failure. I don't know why any serious intellectual would listen to him.
Trump's economic success is as genuine as his coiffure, and just as ridiculous.
1
Unfortunately, both media and social media are obsessed with personality conflicts, the highlighting of character flaws, the destruction of careers and the picking of decisive winners and losers. No room or time for earnest and deep dive discussions about policy initiatives when there is blood, destruction, carange and failure to report and comment on. Donald Trump did not start this phenomenon but he did pour a considerable amount of combustible fuel on it, creating the equivalent of a gigantic tire fire that will seemingly burn forever.
3
Paul, when are you and your friends in the bourgeoisie "left" at the NYTimes going to get it? Most ordinary Americans don't need or want another "serious policy intellectual" like Obama for president, who gave great lectures but did little to change the anti-worker, pro-wealth, pro-corporate America paradigm we have been living with for the past 30-40 years.
They want someone that is serious about fighting for the working class and willing to confront the wealth hoarding corporations that are driving inequality. This doesnt require great intellect or complex policy wonk ideas that nobody understands--it requires leadership, vision and a strong sense of who we are fighting for-something seriously lacking in virtually all of the establishment Democratic contenders, including Warren.
2
Trump was and is easily the most unlikeable person to ever run for president, but here we are.
4
Hillary Clinton was also considered a policy wonk. Look where that got us.
I'm of a mind where I think Sanders and Warren should design the platform. Sanders has the ideas. Warren knows the policy. However, Democrats need someone else to campaign the platform. Preferably someone under 70.
Many Democrats, Nancy Pelosi included, were Moynihan's professional contemporaries. Democrats have an age problem. Running another septuagenarian against Trump is just as foolish as running another policy wonk.
As much as looks can be deceiving, Democrats need a young, honest, charismatic front person to represent the party. He or she doesn't need all the answers but you certainly need capable showmanship to defeat Trump.
Otherwise, Warren's great ideas are going nowhere slow.
5
The Big Lie is that Dems "don't have any ideas." The fact is that Dems are the ONLY ones with ideas to make life better for all and make America a better country. The Repubs have only ONE idea: Tax cuts. That's it. That is all they talk about. That is all they care about. Nothing else matters to them. Nothing Repubs have done in the last 40 years have helped America at all. Just the opposite. Never, ever vote for a Repub if you want to live in a civilized society. They don't and you will not either if you vote for them.
3
If Trump could hand pick his 2020 opponent, it would be Elizabeth Warren. Think about that.
2
choosing Warren would be a costly waste of money. with his experience in reality tv and beauty pageant showbiz, Trump can surely glom onto the concept of preawareness. there's already been a big investmemt made in demonizing Hillary, and as long as she draws breath, she is Trump's dream opponent, even when she isn't running, as some of his recent Neurenburg rallies have demonstrated. he has her locked up already.
Yes, Senator Warren is what a serious policy intellectual looks like in 2019. Just as Senator Sanders was in 2016, but Krugman did nothing but hold him up to ridicule. What has changed?
5
@Charles Focht
Yes, Paul, what has changed?!
Sanders and Rep Ro Khanna 2020!
2
Warren is really a test of the American media, and so far they are flunking badly. Male featherweights are being reported with more seriousness than Warren. If the media succeeds in making Trump's Fauxahontas slur the story about Warren, we can chalk up one more win for the sexist boardrooms of the major networks.
4
I hope Warren wins the nomiation. A Democrat that actually has new ideas and stands up and does something to help working people is really something unusual. I may have to rejoin the Democratic party! However I wouldn't bet the house on it happening.
1
Really? Intellectual gravitas is neither necessary nor sufficient? I'll give you that it's not sufficient--a successful president needs empathy, charm, leaderships skills to start. And she also needs intellectual gravitas. It's absolutely necessary that our next president have serious intellectual chops if we are going to recover from the current White House resident.
2
"Elizabeth Warren and Her Party of Ideas: She’s what a serious policy intellectual looks like in 2019."
I like Warren and her ideas, and am glad she's in the race. The primary is two years out. Who knows who I will vote for? Let's have a vigorous and reasonably civil debate about the candidates and their ideas. I really liked the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Fixing the Republican damage to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be one of the first things that the new Democratic president does. Like Paul, I'm sick of the trivia and the likeability reporting. Compared to the BBC, our broadcast TV and cable media just aren't sharp enough, informed enough, or tough enough.
Our broadcast media need to start getting a lot better right now. Given the threat posed by this president, our nation and the free world needs a real Constitutional free press and they need it now. My goodness. Mr. Trump's careless, ignorant, and feckless decision to withdraw from Syria put 2 million Syrian Kurds (our allies) at risk. If we leave without protecting them, Mr. Erdogan will exterminate them.
2
@Robert
Unfortunately, the next President will not be able to do anything with the CFPB soon after taking office. The current Director was confirmed by the Senate a few months ago and will be in that position for five years. The agency is screwed until 2023.
2
The way I see it is, the differences come to rest on Supply Side vs Demand Side. Everything republicans do is in the interest of Supply Side which is nothing but a transparent money laundering to their supporters with the rest of us benefitting as a by product of the generosity of employers. The job creation claims of Supply siders can be done better with a Demand Side tax code weighted towards those struggling who will spend their incomes immediately into the Economic Cycle. That's what creates jobs. Warren's ideas I'm in her corner with but last time I watched her she seemed a little loopy, like a kid in the middle of a litter of puppies. I'd like to see her hardened side more. Something that Trump assaults will bounce off of and render idiotic when juxtaposed with a no nonsense steely countenance.
"Destructively lazy..."
That describes too many of our uncaring pseudo-citizens.
Even elementary school social studies emphasizes the responsibilities of citizenship, and foremost among them is being informed.
But entertained is so much easier.... and feeding established biases is so much more comforting....
… Fox has their number.... from short-skirted blondes to cheap rationalizations for the truly horrific, it has betrayed our nation, and continues to do so.... to the loud cheers of its deplorably slavish audience...
But, for love of country, march on we must...
3
Intellectual heft is more important to the position of president than we've been willing to admit. Obama and Clinton had such heft. Bush II and Reagan did not. Bush I was probably somewhere in the middle. By my reckoning, those with heft were much more capable of handling the job.
A president doesn't have to understand everything; that's what experts are for. But a president has to understand at least enough to ask the right questions.
A couple things are different from the 1970's--Moynahan's time. One, the cold-war generation is dying out--the word 'socialism' no longer evokes the fear of nuclear holocaust. Two, we have technology that connects us instantaneously with the world. True, we have not yet developed or deployed the technology to elevate the level of discourse on the internet--that should be our next goal--but the internet itself changes things.
2
There is vision and intelligence being ignited within the Dem party and its leadership. The American people are desperate for real leadership with vision, intelligence and truth, people who can be trusted to care deeply about all people and life and work to bring a new future to life.
Trump and the Rs are strictly about their money, greed and ever-increasing corporate profits at ALL costs. This truly is a DEAD end.
Our nation and world cannot even survive - let alone thrive - with those in positions of trust and high responsibilities who simply cannot and should not be trusted with live and the future. Why nearly 40% of this nation likes trump and his boot licking minions is astonishing - but it is what it is.
Time for this new Dem party, including its current and new leaders and member, to take over the reigns of power, and then we hold them accountable. trump and the Rs are a complete disaster - sorry if you don't understand this - just open your mind.
Once again, Dr. Krugman is right on target and makes points that most people miss.
I hope the editors at the Times read this column and take it to heart!
You nailed it, Dr. Krugman! Some other examples of picayune characterizations: Rep. Tlaib "mother....."; Sen.Kamala Harris' aggressive questioning of Sessions; Sen. Klobuchar's qualification for being a candidate in 2020 because she retained her cool in the exchange with Kavanaugh - but you get the idea.
We voters want policy facts and discussion. If we want sensational trivia we can always pick up the National Inquirer or People.
1
A highly intelligent critical thinker, a fighter, an inspiring background - from a poor family, who managed to become a Harvard law professor and U.S. Senator.
Compare the above with Donald Trump.
And yet, the media talks about “pochahontas” and “electability”.
It seems character, intelligence and achievment are qualities ignored in looking for leaders. Peraps she should star in a TV reality show?
1
No, I'm afraid Warren would be poor choice to run for president. It does not matter, in this day and age, how intelligent, hard working and honest you are.
Ever since 1960 it's been how you APPEAR in the visual media to the stupid.
Look what we have now.
1
Hmmm...a little side-eye for Mr. Krugman for only NOW coming 'round to the Left side of the Dems.
But hey...big tent and all eh Paul?!
Welcome aboard.
(P.S. still waiting for your work on how to make M4A operational. Please put your big brain to work sir.)
1
Thank you.
Bravo!
"And if our media can’t recognize that, we’re in big trouble."
We're in serious trouble. And the trouble begins right here at the NY Times whose political coverage varies wildly from stellar reporting to trite, horse race bothsiderism.
Like virtually all MSM entities, the Times seems unable to rid itself of its devotion to phony balance and instead accept that its obligation is to the truth. Time is running out.
1
How about Biden for president and Warren for vice?
She could be the brains and he could be smoothie.
1
Have some of us been turned into idiots by a media that brings us "The Bachelor" or "Hannity", or by a party that brought us trickle-down or the border crisis? Nope. It's the other way around.
TY Dr K! It seems most "journalists" know very little about the topics they cover. Their reporting is shallow & baseless, for the most part, lacking depth & substance. And so misogynist!
I loved your interview with Janet Yellen - which was full of evidence on this front (as it was the opposite). Obviously when you discussed journalists' sudden interest in what the Fed Chair was wearing! Ridiculous. But moreso when you took a deep dive into interest rate adjustments, recognizing the subtleties of differing economic scenarios. The fact that we need to raise rates now (when there is little inflation), so that we have somewhere to go when the economy turns, was an educated response to the short-sighted, under-informed naysayers you hear in the mainstream.
And if you really want to see a smart woman in action, watch Julia Gillard's speech slamming the misogynist leader of the opposition in Aussieland. It's the best!
You go Elizabeth Warren!!!
Senator Bernie Sanders has for decades loudly voiced bold domestic policy AND he has a knowledge based, serious approach for a less militarized foreign policy.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has a gut level, conventional approach to foreign policy.
As the growing defense budget and the six trillion of debt created by US wars/regime change, are taking the resources needed for domestic programs, not addressing foreign policy looks stupid.
Besides a sensible approach to foreign policy, Sanders has crossover appeal with many of the same people who voted for Trump but may now be turned off by his presidency. I suggest a Sanders/Ro Khanna ticket. Progressive Democrats would do well to take a look at Ro Khanna, California’s 17th Congressional District. He has serious, good ideas.
1
Senator Bernie Sanders has for decades loudly voiced bold domestic policy AND he has a knowledge based, serious approach for a less militarized foreign policy.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has a gut level, conventional approach to foreign policy.
As the growing defense budget and the six trillion of debt created by US wars/regime change, are taking the resources needed for domestic programs, not addressing foreign policy looks stupid.
Besides a sensible approach to foreign policy, Sanders has crossover appeal with many of the same people who voted for Trump but may now be turned off by his presidency.
I suggest a Sanders/Ro Khanna ticket.
Progressive Democrats would do well to take a look at
Ro Khanna, California’s 17th Congressional District.
He has serious, good ideas.
1
Elizabeth Warren grew up middle class in Oklahoma 50-70 years ago. I grew up next door in Texas about that time and my memory is that there’s nothing at all odd about middle class people from Oklahoma in those days thinking they had some Native American ancestors based on family lore.
As to why that was the case I’m not sure, but I recall the perhaps apocryphal story of the king who decreed that Jews in the kingdom would wear an identifying piece of clothing at all times in public and his court jester, who appeared at court the next day wearing the identifying clothing and carrying two more pieces with him. “Fool,” said the king, “what are you doing with those pieces of cloth?” The fool replied, “One for me, your majesty, one for thee, and one for the Lord High Chamberlain.” The king quickly rescinded the decree.
I’m glad you brought up the 2000 election and how the mainstream media covered it. I haven’t watched a Sunday talk show since November 2000. I thought George Bush was a good Governor but voted for Gore because climate change and fiscal responsibility. I’m still grumpy the media focused on who’d you rather have a beer with and accepted at face value claims about how we just couldn’t know how much of the spike in federal revenues was due to capital gains taxes from the tech boom, how awful it would be if we ever paid off the national debt, and how going back to running large deficits wouldn’t affect the fiscal soundness of Medicare and social security.
1
What's missing here is any discussion of her command of foreign policy, which is as much the job of the President as protecting consumers from their own stupidity. And like it or not, in this time, her personality is an important factor: she has to deal effectively with heads of state as well as farmers and fishermen. I am not impressed. After 4 years (or less I hope) of Trump we need an politician experienced in all areas of government. That's Joe Beiden. If the Democrats decide to nominate the latest fad candidate, as they did with HRC, they will lose again. And so will we.
It wasn’t until women became high profile politicians that “unlikeable” started to be used by the pundit class. I never recall the adjective being applied to male politicians. At least until one of the world’s vilest human beings got elected president.
2
In terms of this "lazy" reporting, you might want to talk to David Leonhardt, whose newsletter this piece was featured in. On the Rachel Maddow Show last night, he alleged that Dubya had done "a great job handling the financial crisis and the Iraq war." Though he did allow that he wasn't talking about his performance before they "happened." They didn't "happen." He created both. I fail to see how that's a great job by any definition.
As for Elizabeth Warren, I heard a lot of people wail in 2016 that they'd vote for a woman for president if only that woman was Warren. Some of those people are the same ones cutting her down now. Always good to know who the hypocrites are.
3
I love Elizabeth Warren but I can't imagine a ticket with her on top that can bring out the vote. Two women on the ticket would lose a lot of male voters. If the VP candidate is white blacks will not turn out. I know that this is foolish, but we have to accept that human nature is a major factor in voters' decisions. If Warren picked Cory Booker there would be no geographical balance. Personally, my preferred ticket would be Beto O'Rourke and Stacy Abrams. Warren would make a great Secretary of the Treasury. I just hope that the party apparatchiks let the voters decide.
33
@Penningtonia
For a bold domestic policy addressing the huge issue of wealth/income inequality AND an ethical foreign policy I suggest Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep Ro Khanna, from CA's 17th District.
Check out Khanna, he has good ideas.
2
@Penningtonia Don't give up so soon. Public opinion is fickle. Not very long ago the Democrat's candidate for President said of single-payer health care - "It will never happen." Hardly anybody expected her not to be elected. As the brilliant Fats Waller said, "One never know, do one?"
4
@Penningtonia "Personally, my preferred ticket would be Beto O'Rourke and Stacy Abrams. "
That's a new approach - pick candidates who have lost their previous elections, albeit in purple-red states.
9
Dr. K is looking at you, Maggie and you too Peter Baker.
Right after having (for the umpteenth time) bashed Stephen Moore for slavishly reaffirming the GOP dogma and not getting his facts straight, Paul Krugman slavishly reaffirms Democratic party dogma and doesn't get his facts straight.
Krugman links to a story about "the sexist hypocrisy of the 'likability' media narrative" that hurts women candidates including Warren. You are all familiar with the narrative about this "narrative." The problem is that it is false -- and endlessly repeated.
James Taranto at https://twitter.com/jamestaranto/status/1081203300995907585?mod=article_inline shows that the issue of likability (for or against) was raised about Trump (a WaPo article said that if Hillary Clinton has a likability problem, Trump had a likability "epidemic"), Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Edwards and Michael Dukakis. Doubtless a little bit of googling would uncover more cases.
1
Best people don't become presidents. I am not so sure good people often become presidents. Once in a while, "ok" people get a clue and become slightly better, and other times, not at all.
Presidents don't need to be brilliant, b/c one person can't do the job anyways. Presidents need to be able to recognize brilliance in others - the people they end up hiring to do the job for them. Nothing in this article tells me how well Warren will be able to do the latter.
And so, to all the people already in love with her, I got 3 words. She. Will. Lose.
1
I would love to see Elizabeth Warren as the Dem nominee with Corey Booker or Julian Castro as VP on the ticket.
1
BTW, have you heard of "National Emergency".
What a fallacy... delusional commander-in chief will be disgorging all his lies tonight about "crisis" on the south border that doesn't factually exist.
I guess networks will be broadcasting these lies to american citizens, who knows why.
Apparently in 2014 Obama's immigration speech was rejected by networks, it was deemed too political for TV.
So what's stopping them now, ratings.
Seems cynical to me, considering we might be on the precipice of a dangerous constitutional crisis.
1
It appears Krugman could learn a thing or two from real economists:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lying-prices-keep-america-hooked-on-spending-11546908833
Krugman is a broken record. On the spectrum between socialism versus free market capitalism he always chooses to move to the former and labels anyone who believes in the latter evil. We need new ideas instead of the failed socialist policies of the past. Every once in a while Krugman will say he believes in market setting prices but he gives it short shrift. How about a whole article? If anyone needs a lesson in the free market capitalism it is surely the millennials in general and his readers in specific. At least he no longer touts France as a success. Warren's thesis that 60% of bankruptcies are caused by healthcare debt has been debunked not qualifying her work as scholarly. The only reason to vote for her is affirmative action and according to her she qualifies.
2
Circular reasoning, since Krugman does not credit any conservative “ideas” as being “ideas.” Warren is beating the drum for the same hackneyed progressive themes - business and corporations are “bad,” acquired wealth must have come from a rigged system, taxes should be higher, income inequality is by definition unfair. These aren’t ideas, simply slogans.
1
How about we pick from the field of candidates in a ranked-choice fashion so we can show support for all those we feel are qualified?
www.fairvote.org
1
Three thoughts, Mr. Krugman:
(1) You threw red meat to a famished dog when you spoke of Ms. Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
I will treasure till my dying day the spectacle of Ms. Warren--with pitiless precision--grilling Mr. Mulvaney.
The man, of course, was putty in the hands of the banks. And naturally--appearing as he was at a Senate hearing--he was at pains to mask or palliate this fact.
If you will forgive the crudity of my language--
--Mr. Mulvaney flew around stripping fig leaves right and left--
--in vain.
His underlying cynicism and indifference were painfully evident.
And, of course, he was confirmed.
Sigh.
(2) What you say about generic drugs--
--is true as all get out.
Talk to my wife (this is Norm, not Susan). A retired corporate scientist. Who would echo that sentiment in spades. Some things the federal government CAN do--because private industry sees no profit in it--
--and therefore DOESN'T do.
(3) Is Ms. Warren likeable?
Well, sir--the question is not WHOLLY irrelevant.
I'm thinking of President Wilson a century ago. Our only president with a PhD.
It would have helped had he been more of a "people person"--and I regret the cliche. But a President (after all) DOES have to deal with people. He can't just fix them with a baleful eye--
--and intone the words, "You're FIRED!" Like--
--someone else we know--
--someone we're longing to fire ourselves--
--and maybe we will.
1
Anti-intellectualism has been in vogue during several periods in the history of the United States. President Obama, a constitutional scholar, is likewise an intellectual. Trump and his dimwit allies continue to hammer him for being so. This, too, shall pass, until we reach the next era of anti-intellectualism.
1
Unfortunately, this trivia based reporting has also deeply penetrated NYT. One example: obsession with Trump’s tantrums vastly overshadowed coverage of new ideas from the left during last presidential elections.
1
OMG let's move on from the whole DNA thing. Krugman nailed it. I want substantive conversations about how we solve big problems with income inequality, making public education relevant to the needs of the 21st Century, and how to understand and implement the best ideas in the Green New Deal. Please, news organizations, help us understand and manage complexity as we try to get our country on the right track. Elizabeth Warren has important insights into how to strengthen the middle class and thereby strengthen our democracy. Obviously, there is no way to effectively respond to Trump...Ms. Warren has probably learned the lesson well, and will refrain in the future from falling into one of those stupid Trump traps.
The other more disturbing question is whether the American people are prepared to have a serious debate on the issues, and the answer is a resounding NO. Not only are the majority of people unable to assess and analyze facts and arguments, they don't even care about the issues shaping the world or have a clue about who or what affects them. Trump won because, basically, people can't see beyond their own situation and thought that Trump could bring back their jobs, or, worse, they care about nothing but abortion/guns/religion. And when the subject gets to the economy (and people's personal situation) voters think there's a straight line between the president and whether things are good for them. The media can cover the issues all it wants (and it SHOULD do a better job than it has), but you can lead idiots to issues but you can't make them think.
1
The Republicans are spreading the slur that Warren is "unlikeable". Unlikeable compared to who? Dick Cheney? Ted Cruz? John Bolton? Donald Trump?
1
Elizabeth Warren could be much more effective in the Senate as a advocate for working class and poorer Americans. She could become the Ted Kennedy (also from Massachusetts) of the party. The person of conscience. She is a decent, intelligent person but she is not presidential material based on our current climate.
Sherrod Brown and Stacey Abrams for the 2020 democratic ticket!
1
Her strongest aspect is the CFP. That is policy in action that helps and protects Americans. That is proof to me that she wants to hold companies accountable before we end up socializing their losses. That is extremely important to our society. We need people with ideas like hers and how to handle globalization so average Americans can go to work and participate in society instead of taking a back seat while the markets average out.
6
She's the best progressive by far. And that's a whole lot better than anything conservatives have to offer anyone.
3
"... trivia based reporting is, in practice, deeply biased - not in a conventional, partisan sense, but in its implicit assumption that a politician can't be serious unless he (and I mean he) is a conservative, or at most centrist white male". I may not have won a Nobel Prize, Mr. Krugman, but I believe Nikki Haley (a female of Asian ancestry) is considered "serious" by most thinking people and will, in my opinion, be our first female President. Probably in 2024 but if there is a God in heaven hopefully sooner than that.
Mr. Krugman, please lead with the idea that much media is failing in its role as a pillar of our democracy. Though Trump uses “Fake News” as a foil, I would say that much “news”, from sources I once respected, is not news at all rather a vehicle of entertainment and distraction. In other words not serious. Warren is not the subject you should explore here. Instead, the spread of vapidity that makes the current political climate possible.
4
Warren would be an excellent choice for the Democratic nomination; so would Sanders. I have little faith that either of them will be allowed to attain that position due to the fact that their ideas give great concern to industry, particularly to the financial industry.
Of course, that is exactly why we need both of them right now. Explosive inequality and the implosion of most of the middle class are directly due to federal tax policies, employment law, and global labor arbitrage that have been pushed forward at the behest of industry. Its time to take away their outrageous, government granted advantages
6
I think cimparisons with Hillary Clinton in the "likability" factor are misplaced. It is true that both have a kind of awkward personal style. The difference is that there is a certain authenticity that comes across from Warren that Hillary never had. She has an ability to connect with voters on a visceral level, also something Hillary had difficulty in doing.
6
A lot well said in this commentary. It strikes me that if most US voters get their news from TV and online sources and a review of that coverage by percentage would reveal that actual meaty policy coverage was on the low end of the stick, that the media has a big role to play in the popularity contest that is the US Presidential election. Trump understood this and rightfully boasted how much " free " coverage he received. My view is the reality of winning the election, as Trump has shown, is that unfortunately the current reality is that intellectual heft, integrity,
honesty, or basic leadership ability matters least. Whoever wins the nomination to confront Trump in 2020 had better have an iron grip on the rules of engagement.
4
I agree with much of what you say, but I disagree that the GOP is without ideas. Our governor of Massachusetts, Charlie Baker (R), seems to be practicing"radical centrism" based on consensus building, which is a much needed philosophy in our divided times.
4
@Zach Bohart
Yeah, but, come one...look at us. We're so progressive we need a Republican to just say 'no' once in a while. We had Romneycare way before the ACA, and we were first to allow gay marriage despite the fact that Romney fought it tooth and nail due to his personal Mormon beliefs.
Those were programs begun on a Republican's watch because of a strong progressive left. There aren't many red states with a progressive left, although some of the teacher strikes are giving me hope.
The weird thing about Massachusetts is that we seem to be one of few states that either manages to elect sane Republicans or is able to shove Republicans over to the left enough to please all of us Democrats.
I attribute this to our being one of the best-educated states in the country.
Bakers's radical centrism would horrify a red state.
1
Well done, Mr. Krugman. I am not sure if Warren and other progressives in the Democratic Party have the right answers, but they seem to be the only ones currently asking the right questions.
"Moreover, trivia-based reporting is, in practice, deeply biased ... in its implicit assumption that a politician can’t be serious unless he (and I mean he) is a conservative, or at most centrist, white male."
Okay. But let's also avoid trivializing the many women and people of color rising up in the ranks of the Democratic Party by hyperventilating over, and reducing them to, their identity rather than their policies and ability to lead. By the endless profiles of Alexandra Ocasio Cortez you'd think the only point of her campaign was to be the first "feisty young Latina from the Bronx," to enter Congress. She actually has policy proposals to consider and evaluate.
2
Doctor Krugman's support for Senator Warren uneasily straddles two paths forward for the Democratic Party.
On the one hand, Krugman endorses some of Warren's proposals - essentially New Deal ideas of the welfare state that, in the right liberal-dominated Democratic Party of today, appear more progressive than they are.
Yet on the other hand, Krugman's endorsement is selective and hedged - by valuing her for introducing ideas that are now "receiving...discussion" in the Democratic Party, Warren is pre-positioned to resume a cabinet position rather than a position of 'leadership.'
Thus, in my view, Krugman's apparent endorsement is actually deeply equivocal.
At the same time, the good doctor has his finger to the wind: though he denigrated Sanders' progressive insurrection in the Democratic Party, his support for Warren - and his recent, likewise lukewarm, shift on healthcare for all - point to a readiness to follow - if never lead - progressive shiftings within the Democratic Party.
2
@Jackson
I agree with much of what you wrote, but one correction- Warren’s proposals regarding corporate and regulatory policy discussed here are unrelated to the welfare state and have no where near those costs to taxpayers as additional spending on social welfare (healthcare, education, etc.)
1
@BK
I stand corrected, BK.
@Jackson
I don't see any endorsement here. It's more like Krugman is troubled that the media spends too much time talking about likeablity and DNA results.
So, he's presenting some of her ideas and giving her some long overdue kudos for her CFPB. Now I'd like him to analyze her suggestions one by one and explain the benefits. If the news media doesn't seem motivated to bother with real news, maybe Nobel Prize winning pundits should take on the task.
2
Without the Consumer Protection Agency, the huge Wells Fargo scam would never have been uncovered. We certainly
don't want agencies like that around.
3
I am so tired of the ‘likeability’ issue. We need intellectually strong, honest, proven minds and character.
Has anyone ever commented on Angela Merkel’s likeability?
4
@Patricia Vanderpol
Your complaint is with human nature, not politics.
'Warren's ideas' (eg, universal healthcare, reasonable environmental policy, fair tax plan, etc) aren't Warren's ideas; they aren't even democratic ones and some have been around for decades. THE PROBLEM is that the purpose of government is governance, and NO ONE has been able to determine how to pay for the policies we want... THAT IS that no one has the true grit (no, not Warren) to say that we're all going to have to live in much smaller houses/apartments (like the Europeans/Canadians/Scandinavians) if we want actually implement the things we want. Hillary at least had the guts to say that if we want universal healthcare, we must have an individual mandate wherein we're all going to pay... Bernie said we'll just get the money from 'venture capital' which the GAO reported was false. As an academic, Warren has no idea how to get this done.
BTW - This country elected a man-of-color to the most powerful post in the history of the world; we will easily elect a woman too.
2
@Giacomo
When Sanders mentioned a $15 minimum wage, which is a very quick way to shift some wealth to our pathetic 47% who pay no income taxes because they're POOR, Clinton looked at him like he was something she scraped off the bottom of her shoe.
Look, I voted for Clinton, but income inequality is REAL. Sanders did not make that up. Sticking with the status quo was not going to help with that.
No European country has the room for the sort of suburban sprawl we routinely engage in. The 'smaller apartments' argument doesn't apply to us. Scandinavian countries have higher tax rates, a VAT, and much higher wages. Yet they live better than us even though their per capita GDP is lower than ours. That should not be. You know that means too much of wealth is concentrated in the 1%.
Regarding healthcare--of course we all have to pay to cover everybody, and the ACA accomplished that until the individual mandate penalty was abolished. But, our system is still twice as expensive per capita as it is in European nations. Clinton had a few ideas to reduce costs, but she had no plans to fundamentally alter the ACA.
2
Elizabeth Warren's is a voice Democrats need to hear in the primaries. The Democratic primaries should not be unlike a bunch of salespeople giving a sales pitch. Not something produced and directed by the DNC, pollsters, and consultants but rather candidates themselves presenting their ideas. As Democratic voters we get to listen and decide. I’m not arguing that Warren should necessarily be the Democratic nominee. Elizabeth Warren says things like "we invest too much in America's wealthy" This makes many people uncomfortable especially in the media. But they are views that need to be heard if we are going to move the national conversation away from having to go along or not with policies from the political right.
3
From your lips to God's ears. But I doubt the media has the guts to do this. Certainly social media doesn't.
2
Warren's handling of her miniscule Native American heritage was cringe worthy. I still think of her (sarcastically) as Pochahontis. However of all of the possible candidates for president, I believe she would be the best choice. I really like her ideas about the economy. I supported Sanders in the last Democratic presidential primary, & wouldn't be unhappy if he was the one chosen. But I believe Warren would be better because she's extremely intelligent & imaginative about domestic politics. I would like to know more about her foreign policy ideas.
3
I do like Warren's policy ideas, we are in desperate need of reshaping capitalism to benefit all citizens, but I do fear that if Warren were to become president she could be too occupied with politics and administration that she could not push those new ideas.
2
@Duncan
I fully agree. She could do a lot more as a cabinet member, or a Senate leader.
@Duncan
Every President has to focus on politics and administration and has others implementing policy. She has the policy expertise to choose the appropriate people to implement her agenda. Consider her support of Rich Cordray at CFPB, who did not come from the financial services industry.
1
Seems to me that Krugman's column was as much a commentary on how media covers candidate as about Elizabeth Warren's candidacy for president. I have a great deal of respect for Elizabeth Warren, with the caveat that I like having her in the Senate. But a lot of Krugman's point was how the media covers people in the press -- little, miscellaneous details versus serious policy. Paul Ryan's policies were, at the least, poor arithmetic, also uncaring and in direct conflict with the values of his Catholic upbringing. Elizabeth Warren sincerely cares about what happens to people, cares enough to spend time on serious research. Can the media make that distinction when reporting? Can she, or any candidate, be reported on with reasonable levels of insight apart from bias and ratings?
10
@Elizabeth Fisher
Well said, thanks--
1
Intellect would win elections if we had an educated, well-informed electorate, but we don't. Media outlets like the Fox News try their best to move us away from that ideal state. So, likability, appearance, hairstyle, etc., are all important items, along with ideas and intellect--they all contribute to a candidate's "electability quotient," if there is such a thing.
After all, if intellect really mattered, Trump would be hustling three-card monte in the streets of NYC now.
I supported Bernie Sanders because I thought his ideas deserved airing and debate. I didn't think those ideas would necessarily become reality if he was elected, but only that they would spark discussion and might influence the outcome to some significant extent. I feel the same way about Elizabeth Warren. Her ideas ought to get full and fair coverage in the press, even if the great majority of low IQ voters won't pay attention.
However, it is naive in the extreme to reject the likability factor as irrelevant. We will be electing a leader, folks, not someone to head up a think tank. The moment that intellectual Democrats reject likability as a consideration is the moment they will have lost the next election. That's the reality. Deal with it.
3
The bigger picture here concerns the culture of corporate news media. Mr. Krugman and several of his columnist colleagues are the prime reason I even read the Times anymore. Mass media has clearly been biased against Ms. Warren, Bernie Sanders and others who are see as threats to unrestrained capitalism. The Times (and other mainstream media) loves to assume a liberal social/cultural bias but remain steadfast corporate conservatives pretending to present a "balanced" perspective. Unfortunately the "balance" more often than not comes out smelling like the stuff in the barnyard.
1
Trivia-based reporting survives because it's easy, and because most news stories (including at The Times) are written by people who aren't experts on the major issues involved, but rather "reporters"--generalists who believe (and whose editors apparently believe) that they don't have time to learn the issues in more than a superficial way, but who in practice have picked up bad learning habits in school, taking mostly introductory classes, not retaining much information from those. They "don't know much about history" or anything else (science articles, including in The Times, all too often are irritating or even agonizing to read). It's easiest and quickest just to go down the usual, trivia-based checklist when writing your article, and leave understanding for opinion/commentary pieces like Dr. Krugman's.
1
I think Warren is a brilliant person. Her work on bankruptcy was much needed. The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency which this current ignorant president instead of bolstering it sabotaged it because it didn't suit his purposes. No! Not with the record of misdeeds Trump and his family and associates have amassed. They certainly don't want anyone like Sen. Warren looking over their shoulders.
I agree that the word 'likable' is cringe worthy as a standard to vote for a president or anyone hoping for public office. But of course, we can't call her 'intellectual' because that seems to be a bad word too. At least by people who never read a book.
As Elizabeth Warren worked her way through a weekend in Iowa, she drew pretty big crowds. Then conservative "pundits" (read, gasbags, blowhards, ...) told their audiences that Warren was not likable, that she is just an angry liberal.
Now, not to put too fine a point on it, but if her message was given by a black male candidate, those conservatives would describe him as "uppity." That's how the Jim Crow south likes to describe outspoken African-Americans. If you are near my age group, MLK got an earful from white critics for his speeches on equal rights, especially voting rights.
If we hear Warren's message from a white male candidate, issued with equal measure of passion, he will be regarded as "focused" and of leadership quality.
The good news for Democrats — as voters or candidates — is this: the Republican Party is being exposed as the gaggle of frauds it has been for nearly 30 years. Dr. K is right that a party of ideas can emerge from either side of the proverbial aisle. Thirty years ago, the Republicans managed to convince Democrats that Alan Greenspan was walking on water with his libertarian economic theories of trickle-down models (authored by Chicago economist Arthur Laffer) and the notion that a deregulated American would unleash success across all business sectors and thus, revitalize success for all Americans. The Great Recession proved them all wrong.
New ideas are coming. Open minds and critical thinking skills must save us from the madness of Don.
1
Warren's message is that Big Government has oppressed the middle class. Her solution for this problem is to elect her to run Big Government. What could go wrong?
That’s not her message, no.
There are a lot of comments here to the effect that Elizabeth Warren is not electable because she's too old and lacks charisma. Shoosh! Where does that come from? Have they heard her in person? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
In fact, the exact opposite is true: she has youthful ideas, youthful vitality and is endowed with tons of personal charisma. How many of these doubters have heard her in person? How many are Republican (or Russian) trolls. How many just plain hate a strong woman, any strong woman?
4
The Democratic Party has no cogent policy regarding the control of national borders and the problem of explosive population growth in many poor third-world countries putting unrelenting pressure on immigration into first-world nations. With no cogent policy on that enormous long-term threat most of the party's policy planks look trivial.
3
Except for the policy that they’ve bargained on repeatedly, the one every Presidential candidate has explained, of ciurse.
Good heavens, where does one begin? The Democrats have signed on more than once for comprehensive reform, only to be undermined by a feckless right-wing that shouts “amnesty” over anything short of pure xenophobia. The current immigration policy seems to consist chiefly of lies, The Wall, and lies about The Wall. As for global population control, which party favors a gag rule on abortion and preaches the hopelessly discredited abstinence-only policy? Hint: it isn’t the Dems.
1
@Stefan Hagemann
"Comprehensive immigration reform" is not a policy platform, it is an empty spin-doctor slogan with zero meaningful content.
Productive ideas take longer to express and understand than can be handled in a sound bite, instagram or twitter message. Unfortunately these are the main currency of so much of our interactions and the battle these days is one of trading emotional one-two punches to sway us into one mode of thinking or another.
In the NY Times universe your voice may be heard and reflected upon, although largely preaching to the choir. Your message doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, so sadly to a large part of our country, you're talking to the wall
.
1
If tax and spend as much as you can to elect and stay elected is serious intellectual policy, Elizabeth Warren has it in spades, and every confessed Keynesian economist will laud her.
3
More than kudos, I applaud the main theme which is for the media to inform us of each candidate's policy. This is lacking from today's media coverage including the NYT unfortunately.
When was the last time a candidate stated 'we need immigration reform' and then explained what they would do.
If the democrats do not want a wall - that is fine - but what is your immigration proposal.
I had no idea that Warren authored or contributed to a study that attributed bankruptcy to people's purchase of a house in a desirable school district. What a fascinating topic to discuss. Unfortunately the media has done a better job of informing us that DT likes his steak well done and with ketchup than policy issues. Remind me again how he got elected???
1
Most of my fellow economists I read or have talked to believe she is wrong about many things, and offers forceful emotional reactions rather than nuanced, intellectual understanding. Her tenure at the CFPB is noted for its many well-intentioned negative consequences (which, while admitting his skepticism, Dr. Krugman is ignores). Rather than rethinking her stance, she has stubbornly re-asserted herself. By most people's definitions, that is the exact opposite of what a serious policy intellectual does.
The problem is that she is a lawyer. Trained as a lawyer, thinks like a lawyer. Not a political economist. Not a finance person. Not a quant in any way.
She may be *relatively* serious compared to other politicians, but we researchers find her as naive as the rest of them. What's galling to us is how much she asserts her ignorance. I'd think it's something we'd gotten sick of with the current occupant of the White House.
3
@Joe Schmoe
So what were the negative consequences caused by the CFPB and how did these economists to whom you referred make their determinations?
4
@BK
Speaking as a person with an advanced engineering degree, I roll my eyes when economists refer themselves as quants.
1
@CF Lol. I roll my eyes when economists opine on regulatory policies when they have no experience in examining regulated entities or enforcing regulations.
1
We can all wish we lived in a society in which citizens cast their votes having made reasoned decisions on policy and competence. But we don't and probably never will.
So we have to compromise over the talents of our candidates and balance electability against intellectual chops.
Ms Warren made a serious and elementary blunder by introducing her heritage. It was a well-meaning but very foolish decision to show her solidarity by making an unsustainable claim about her ethnicity. It shouldn't disqualify her from seeking the presidency under the Democrat banner, but it weighs so heavily against her electability that it does.
That doesn't mean her talents go to waste; she can serve our nation as a senior cabinet member in a Democrat administration. But before she can do that we have to elect a Democrat president. That means keeping this electability issue at the forefront of our minds.
1
If ..."a lot of things determine whether someone will succeed in that job...," that being the job of president, then how did we end up with Trump? Warren will be 50 million times more effective than Trump IF we can get the not so GOP out of our governmental Congress. If the "lot of things" you are talking about is being connected to corporate evil, then you're right, she doesn't have that.
1
Elizabeth Warren’s ideas are good. Are they original - some. But look at her direction and it is clear she has the sense to look outside of America to see what is working and what isn’t. Countries like Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and France have infrastructures that are mostly run by the governments and they are providing services for the most part in efficient and economical ways. Really. Time to let the bogeyman go and look at actual numbers.
2
I am impressed with Warren's decision to throw her hat into the ring now. She is already established in the minds of the public for her energy and her willingness to confront Wall Street. Obama did the same thing...went to Iowa and gathered their interest and good will. She has energy, personality, and a very impressive record in the Senate. But most of all she has real, workable ideas and an inventive nature. I see her as a very viable candidate for president in today's world, a woman who questions the status quo, who wants to get down to brass tacks, and has the humanity to care about people who look to their government for solutions.
4
@Stephanie Rivera Well said on all counts.
@JacquieThanks!!
I agree with your hope for the future is new ideas and getting them discussed.
As you point out, the media is critical here and I think they will have to start paying serious attention because it is now becoming a critical problem. News outside the main stream media is starting to pull many Americans off of the main stream media (MSM) systems.
The MSM have become even more corrupt with the competition for viewers due to internet competition, etc. The will have to have more "real" discussions on topics of climate change, national health care programs, etc. or they will be destroy themselves.
A major problem is the news media 24/7 Trump obsession. He takes all the coverage. For Elizabeth Warren, for example, she is an idea person. She isn't an abrasive clown who thrives on any kind of coverage as long as it keeps others from getting it. The 2016 election showed one thing the news media made media attention for legitimate policy discussion hard to come by. Clinton's worst mistake was to think that she came up with a Trump bomb: Vladimir Putin. Then the media coverage moved into a more combative inaccurate battle that Trump wins.
1
Paul is correct to keep on hammering the news media after the media's decisive Hillary email/Wikileaks/Comey obsession in October 2016 that essentially doomed her candidacy (at the exact same time that Donald Trump was illegally paying off his former mistresses!).
In addition to his now famous media neologisms of "what about-ism", "both sides-ism" and "professional centrism", Paul has introduced another delicious phrase to describe the media: "trivia-based reporting" (for example, does everyone remember Hillary's infamous "Pneumonia-gate" scandal or John Podesta's risotto recipe?).
The media is already off and running on its 2020 trivia hunt, with all the stories about Sen. Warren's DNA testing.
As the 2020 campaign progresses, we need to hold the mainstream news media accountable to focus on the important issues of our day and not let them sink back into the useless, horse race, poll driven, gossipy coverage that dominated 2016 and ultimately gave us the Trump presidency.
6
Thank you. I have been listening to Elizabeth Warren, and have come around to supporting her. You have provided more substance to my opinion. It's still early, but her long record and serious intellectual reasoning will be hard to beat.
4
The media will sabotage her like they sabotaged Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.
5
Saint Elizabeth, let go the chains. The force will be with you.
@PATRICK It really will!
Making elections into a sort of geriatric beauty contest is just one aspect of the prevailing propaganda of the last forty years, carefully curated to appeal to that segment of the population that is most vulnerable to it. Other constantly recognizable trops: this is a center right nation; the American people do not believe in class warfare; the press is too far to the left (ever too far to the left, no matter what they report or opine, it must be more conservative, which has ratcheted everything to the right-- now comes the majority common sense backlash, forty years on-- insert MLK quote about the arc of justice here); the republicans are in the majority and the only voter fraud that could possibly happen is the kind where people of color vote several times for democrats; the only cure for gun violence is more guns; if you are failing economically, or if your kids can't find a job that pays for a decent living, it's your fault, and what's wrong with you, anyway; greed is good and poor people are poor because they are bad people; the only public policy worth anything is giving ever greater tax benefits to the wealthy and draining everyone else to pay for it, telling them that something will trickle down upon them soon (Jesus take the wheel, we are all going to hell).
Who pays for, who benefits from all this pervasive and now tired propaganda? Well, those who have all the money, who have benefited financially, massively, these last forty years, of course.
6
"It's the economy of the 1%, stupid, caused by neoliberalism"
2
Paul, regrettably, America will not collectively elect an intellectual as President. The broad population just doesn't focus on issues in an intellectual manner, and the media lazily plays into that sad reality. I realize it is sacrilegious to you and your brothers and sisters on the left, but our system of electing the President would be much better off if we were to require voters to pass a civics test before voting. That would certainly foster an elevated level of discussion and debate. Unfortunately, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, Paul.
1
@AMHThe average person on the left is an intellectual. They don't watch Fox news, the are college educated, they have been at a job more than 15 years. While the average person on the right watches Fox news, despises formal education and moves from doing job to job after 2 years. A civics test? Bring it on.
1
Obama was something of an intellectual.
@RCJCHC, a good portion of both the left and the right are intellectual. But larger portions of both sides are ignorant. I'm frankly indifferent as to which side would benefit by limiting the right to vote with a knowledge test. I may even decide to switch sides myself if we can actually have rational and high-minded national debates...
It is time to return to the best resources the nation has, its intellectual elite. Yes, its intellectual elite. People with knowledge who can see the difference between noise and truth. Truth? Yes, the truth that disciplined intelligence can produce, such as science. Climate change is not a matter of opinion but a challenge to scientific inquiry. The best knowledge we have tells us what is happening to our planet. We cannot have the nation and the world left at the mercy of charlatans, loud mouths who think their noise makes them respectable. I lament that Obama did not have a Council of Economic advisors with Krugman and Stiglitz. At this point in time we need a distinguished scholar like Elizabeth Warren undertake responsibilities for which she is intellectually competent.
6
Lara,
You do know that Stiglitz campaigned/agreed with Sen. Sanders?!
It is nice to see Krugman come around, two/three years to late of course.
Plus, Pres. O. wouldn't have/didn't listen to Bernie. He was counseled by his Wall Street councilors, that HE picked.
https://www.democracynow.org/2015/11/12/stiglitz_sanders_is_right_everybody_has
3
53% of white women voted for Trump in 2016. In misogynist America, even women don't like women. Enough with these old pols...the Bernies, Bidens, Warrens and HRC. Get some young bloods to run or the Dems are going to miss out at another shot at the white house. I think Beto is a good choice. Charismatic and young.
And...will someone please ask Don why Mexico is no longer paying for the wall or fence or curtain at the border?
@Economy Biscuits Ageism much?
I turned on MSNBC last evening to hear a debate over Warren's Native American heritage. I was astounded. Here we have a likely larcenous, lying, and yes treasonous criminal in the White House enriching himself and his equally foul family while destroying the machinery of government and this is what the media discusses? Well done MSNBC, it appears you learned nothing the last go-around.
13
As a die hard Republican- PLEASE run Warren in 2020!
2
OK. So will the Times now stop the fluffy crystal-ball horse-race "journalism" about who can and can't win in 2020?
At least take it off the front page and give us more fact-based reporting on what candidates have actually accomplished to make people's lives better (as with Warren and the CFPB). Mulvaney is in the news for gossip about his job-hunting. Who cares?! Why not a series of fact-based reports on his destruction of the CFPB and what it was doing before? Why is John Oliver doing this stuff better than the Times?
Maybe the Times could poll subscribers and see how many would like more serious investigation of solutions instead of the democracy-damaging fluff predictions.
12
GOP? Intellect? You must be joking...
4
Republicans are no longer the party of ideas, because all the ideas they had failed, and now they don’t want to accept the evidence, because they really love their idea, the main idea they had, because all their ideas come down to one underlying theme: let the rich keep all the money. It boils down to that, but it means get the government out of the way and let the American economy run free and wild the way it is supposed to, aye, and then we will achieve paradise. The rich are given the mantle of job creators and we rely on them to spread their prosperity to us. It is a very American capitalistic idea, and it does not sound all that bad. After 40 years liberals had not achieved utopia so the conservatives had an in. I did not vote for Reagan, but in the vein of the neoliberal centrists like the Clintons, I said, “Well, give these ideas, give Reaganomics a chance.” There were some hokey things about it from the outset, such as the Laffer curve, that indicated some hoodwinking already, but you still wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Now we know the ideas have failed, miserably. The middle class has been put into dire straits. A very simple metric, any economic policy that degrades the middle class is going in the wrong direction. Now the Republicans are exposed as not really wanting to make American better, but only to make the rich richer. They are, always were, the aristocracy, and the public is waking up to the fact.
3
@James Smith
Too many voters only like the facts that support their ideological models. If you are a Trump Republican, you don't want to hear that brown immigrants aren't responsible for all of our economic and social problems. Facts that don't support that view are "fake news."
Truth is not important. What is important is the subjective world view of what is the case:not what actually is the case.
Yes, Mr. Krugman, you were wrong about Elizabeth Warren and President Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which she designed before going into politics.
NOW is the time to really look at new ideas that will help 99.9% of us. Too many "economists" are blinded by the profit motive and think that's all that matters.
It's not. WE THE PEOPLE - the 99.9% of human beings who do not control the "markets" are all that matters. WE must hire/elect Socially Conscious Women and men who truly believe that and will work to protect us. It will help if you and your fellow "economists" look deeper into ideas to make capitalism work with social/financial equity. That is what will save OUR United States of America.
2
I made a snarky reply to one of the comments below, but let me expand. The reaction to Elizabeth Warren, and particularly the negative reaction of her release of DNA confirmation of her Native American connections, is a sad comment, not on Warren, but on American voters. When it is unfashionable to refute lies with data, we are deep trouble. It's not just the journalists who Prof. Krugman rightfully questions, but their audience. There is research on how people vote, and the findings are not pretty. To paraphrase one study, most voters do not vote issues because they cannot understand issues. Sensible voices like Elizabeth Warren's are just noise to perhaps a majority of voters.
6
Krugman is accurate and on point; as usual. Taking the time to think and to understand policy is hugely important for the citizenry of this nation. To be an informed citizen is one of the most important aspects of citizenship, but it takes effort and time. We want everything now. We are the "now" generation. We live in a time where we drown in information, but ultimately starve for meaning. Elizabeth Warren is a serious public official. Mostly concerned about the citizenry she represents and the health of our nation. But, she won't win a presidential race if nominated. Even against the biggest bozo to inhabit the white house. The rules haven't changed. You must win electoral votes. The DNC isn't thinking clearly when it comes to running a Presidential race. It doesn't matter how many people like the candidate. Regrettably the race isn't about popularity but about electoral votes. The DNC must find a candidate who can win in the Rust Belt, Middle America, the Inter-mountain West, as well as New England and the Coastal States. Being able to compete in the South is huge, since there is a chance that Dems could capture a few states now. Regrettably, no matter how qualified Warren is and how smart and refreshing her ideas are, she won't win enough states. It will be the Hillary Clinton affect all over again, but in 2020. The Dems need a candidate who can get voters out and I'm afraid she can't. The bozo must be defeated at all costs. He is killing our nation.
4
Someone recently observed that vulture capitalism is turning the U.S. into a feudal society. Elizabeth Warren may be just the person to reverse that process.
Our corporate executives (and GOP politicians) need to learn lessons from the French Revolution, otherwise "the pitchforks" (and guillotines) may be coming.
7
I'm with her, want her to succeed.
I appreciate this column's effort to put the trivialities behind us.
That effort will have succeeded when there's no need to give even passing reference to the non-issues, and no reporters ask questions about them after a policy-driven address , even if the opposition is bouncing up and down like Eddie Murphy in Shrek hollering "Pocahontas! Pocahontas!"
2
The root of the problem with female politicians relating with male voters is incredibly simple. Mothers and most elementary school teachers are female. The female voice irritates males because they hear their mothers and teachers correcting their behaviors, homework, and reminding them of their chores! It is, in my opinion, that simple. No amount of intelligence, integrity, gravitas, or logic will change the nerves sparked in the male brain when they hear a female speak regardless of the content of their message. They hear “No cookies for you!” no matter the context.
4
Dr. Krugman:
It seems that you are a proponent of a likeable ignorant void of scholarly ideas and past performance of them.
It is true that we had them in the past, but those were times of great need, and people voted "for one of them" for the presidency. Now we have a learned population with a big percentage with university degrees. "We the people" are no longer farmers in an agrarian economy.
People like Senator Warren are probably "the normal" for our times; President Obama has a J. D. ; just as Angela Merkel of Germany as a Ph. D.
Clearly we are in the XXI century. We need scholarly people in the government.
2
@Dr. Ricardo Garres Valdez
I may be misreading your post, but are equating a law degree with Merkel's PhD in quantum chemistry?
5
The reform might begin with this very newspaper, which has for years treated anyone to the left of (say) Hillary Clinton as either a joke (early Sanders), akin to the ridiculous French (4 weeks' vacation!?) or an insufferable danger to the status quo on which journalists and their owners dine out (late Sanders).
The one effective Public Editor employed by the Times said as much. And we know what happened to that position.
Dr. Krugman, if he's serious, might begin by calling out NYT political reporters.
Truth telling, at last?
5
Measured but valuable comments about Elizabeth Warren, an intellectual that republican dogma does admire, and envies, privately...but hypocritical attacks in public, unable to match even the most basic ideas giving rise to her popular demands of social justice. This, reflected in her refusal to accept dogma, the fanaticism of intolerance in not accepting reality based on facts...but whatever conforms with their rigid loyalty to party, however stupid. Also, by her talent and concern about the public being gouged by 'deceptive financial practices' of the corporate world...thus creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Too bad that, under Trump's torpedoing the CFPB, Mulvaney is destroying it to satisfy his 'donors', a distinct conflict of interest and contrary to people's benefit.
2
When have news media ever been intelligent, except for ones with limited circulation? Go back to how newspapers treated Abraham Lincoln, dwelling on his looks, origins, high-pitched voice. Let's hope great ideas (abolish slavery was one) override the noise.
2
Somewhere between journalism school, where people start wanting to change the world, and professional life, the virus of soundbitism infects.
I am going to suggest that this is because this is what sells and editors and reporters know it. If the American people weren’t so vacuous, our journalism wouldn’t be either.
2
Ms. Warren's work on bankruptcy taken as a whole was very shallow. Bankruptcy in any form is not a good thing, even if you overextend yourself to buy a house in a good school district. It is and always has been a major contributor to economic inequality.
The circuit court of Washington DC found the CFPB's structure to be unconstitutional. Ms. Warren was using it to stack it full of her Democratic cronies, turning away many well qualified Republican job seekers.
Ms. Warren wanted the government to get in the business of manufacturing and sale of generic drugs, instead of passing legislation regulating the pharmaceutical industry. This is also constitutionally dubious.
The Senator brought the trivia based reporting down on herself. Her Pocahontas legacy was pretty well behind her when she resurrected it with weak DNA evidence. She left even the most of her ardent supporters scratching their heads over that one.
Did any Democrat honestly view her presidential candidate coming out video without cringing?
I don't purport any notion that Ms. Warren is a bad, or stupid person, but she does have a very narrow and self righteous view
of the world which has received little traction within Democratic Party and its supporters. If she, or any other Presidential candidate is to succeed, they'll have to appeal to a wide swath of the American public. Ms. Warren is incapable of doing that.
3
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Please keep hammering away at this point. I find the vacuous jibber-jabber of most political reporters both nauseating and terrifying. When we need real discussion and consideration of policies, we get garbage reporting about faux controversies that play in to the hands of those who want to distract us while they fleece the American public.
1
There is so much wrong with this always lying, proven criminal, Russian compromised, failed president, that the fresh competent voice and policies of Senator Warren are a welcome addition as the race for 2020 begins. As it did with Hillary, the now repugnant party will hound her with any flaw, including her claim to native American background which, by the way, she did prove. It should be a non-issue. Whoever it may be, the next president will be a decent, honest, intelligent, well-spoken, patriotic Democrat
1
Paul, You are the ultimate spinmeister. People who don't share your tired old ideas about more government in their lives to fix every problem, you now tell us have no ideas at all!! The only "new" ideas you recognize as such is more of the same old trust-the-federal-government refrain that have been around for over a century.
The politicians you support have sustained such wonderful structures as the US War Machine, the Surveillance State, and the American Gulag. That's what you get when you embrace government--which ALWAYS acts on a foundation of physical force--to solve every problem.
1
The media always wants a horse race on a red carpet. They chatter on about how fast the guys run, believe all of their lies while commenting on the clothes or "likeability" of the women.
1
Quite simply, America doesn't like smart women. And, they don't like smart men, either. We live in a culture of teenagers where "girls just want to have fun" and "boys will be boys".
We bemoan Trump, but laud the arrested development of all.
We have dumbed-down into a wallowing mass of reality TV voyeurs looking for how to live by watching the Jerry Springer level oddities as our role models. I may be dumb, but they are dumber. Make America Great Again? This way?
2
Over the years, Dr Krugman has repeatedly - and rightly - taken the media to task for the shallow, lazy nature of so much of their political reporting. The problem appears to be that the editors and political reporters of the NYTimes don't read his column.
1
We are in the midst of a tabloid presidency of the lowest intellectual caliber, and the debased GOP think that is a selling point to their stupid base, who revere bullying over reason.
I Love you Paul.
This is truth telling at its finest.
Thank you!
2
I always thought that Stephan Moore was a charlatan.
Paul Krugman criticizing republicans for no new ideas. Funny.
Find me an op ed that doesn’t criticize republicans. I check 1 week ago, 1 month ago, 1 year ago and 10 years ago.
Guess what? Each column written criticized Republicans for some different or same issue.
If new thinking is something he admires, he certainly has never demonstrated in this forum.
The Nobel economist!!!!
2
interesting themes running through the comments, like she didn't handle the DNA issue well (so give it up, Warren) or Dems need a younger and more attractive candidate, or she's comparable to another smart, unlikable, and therefore unelectable woman-HRC. Um, anyone notice the gender bias here? Come on people.
1
Thank you for this. Spot on. Hope the NYT writers and editors actually heed this advice.
1
Elizabeth Warren is what Paul "Policy Guy" Ryan would be.
If Paul Ryan had a brain, a heart and a spine.
3
Bobby Jindal isn't around any more, but he is remembered: He came up with "The Party Of Stupid".
I am so tired of "stupid".
I am so tired of liars.
I am so tired of explaining to people that "emouluments" isn't a hand lotion - it is another form of greasing someone's palm.
I'm tired of crooks and thugs, of ignorance and meanness.
And, then last night I was watching Elizabeth Warren clips on Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC.
He had just finished repeating questions that journalists had asked her. I believe that "soft-ball" is the term.
And then he showed her in real-life with We, The People.
They asked - she answered.
Crisply, factually, directly.
So, hear me, Journalists: I don't want to hear about her DNA unless you are finally writing the article on where trump is writing that $1,000,000 (one million) check to that he said he would give her if she proved she had Native American DNA.
I want to know the charity.
I want to see the check.
I want to see him put it into her hand.
Got it?
Otherwise, I don't want to hear about him.
He's a "moron", as everyone who knows him proclaims.
trump will not be running.
I wouldn't even bet on Pence running.
I won't even bet on Mitch surviving the next 6 months.
But what a relief to finally see an American politician who understands what is at stake and what to do.
Elizabeth: You have my vote... and my check, and my gratitude.
Thank you for running!!!
6
Funny how his paper is so much kinder to Warren 2020 than they were Bernie 2016 despite them being virtually identical in their positions and proposals......
2
How appropriate that this column should be followed by a link to Bret Stephens' editorial on Warren.
Pot calling the kettle black?
"She’s what a serious policy intellectual looks like in 2019".
Hope she'd mind George Orwell well-said adage that "Certain ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual would agree with them".
1
As long as women vote for Republicans...it will be a long hard slog, Paul.
It doesn’t have to be Elizabeth Warren, but wouldn’t it be nice to have someone like her - a kind, whip smart, self-made person - as President?
1
BIDEN WARREN
Because not every voter is like you and me.
Good, off-the-beaten-path article, Dr Krugman. I agree with "Steve SW Mich" and his comments about misogyny. I hope the #MeToo folks will jump on the media biases. "Is Warren nice?" What does that matter??? A journalist asking that question should be lambasted, his/her output searched for similar nonsense about males, and more criticism heaped when nothing is found. My wife always said it was more likely that a black man would be elected president before a woman, and she was right!
2
Hey, Paul: what do you think about Warren's "serious policy ideas" about school vouchers? She was a big proponent...until she became a (Democratic) politician and stopped talking about them.
I wonder why?
@David Rea
She became a Democrat on more issues than school vouchers.
A couple of years back she opposed the expansion of charter schools in Massachusetts, as did I, not because charter schools or vouchers or whatever are necessarily bad, but because on balance she and I and many others believed it would hurt our public schools. And, believe it or not, Massachusetts charter schools are among the few systems nationwide that actually work--so we didn't vote against it on the basis that they had failed, but on the basis that we believed it would penalize our public schools. It was a difficult and time consuming issue here.
As a reasonable Democrat, I could support charter schools and voucher programs if there truly would be no child left behind.
As Republicans became gradually and hopelessly insane, the rational among them have become Democrats.
1
Excellent and provocative column. I have to disagree with you on Moynihan being "a serious intellectual." More like a barfly apologist for Nixon.
Warren is, indeed, a serious policy analyst, in certain narrowly limited areas. She should stick to those areas, and quit dreaming about becoming POTUS.
Otherwise, she will keep reminding us of small dogs straining to urinate higher up on the hydrant, to convince themselves that they are big dogs.
1
Just think of the frontiers we will break in DNA science with her at the helm!
Perhaps the "media's" lack of intellectual laziness is due to the fact that we've had too many years of "talking heads" who look pretty but have no depth of knowledge..and are more interested in ratings. The Cronkites, MacNeil-Lehrers and David Brinkleys are long gone...and more's the pity.
@Etienne Unfortunately, most people take what those talking heads state as substantive and complete information regarding the subjects they discuss.
1
For all of the reasons listed in the article, I think Elizabeth Warren will be far more effective in the Senate, especially in Senate leadership, than in the White House. That would give her a platform to get her ideas enacted without the constant pressures of being a real president (unlike the current Klown in Chief).
And the media is already busy demonizing and minimizing her intellectual policy chops by focusing on likeability, DNA and other right wing driven framings.....kinda like focusing on emails over Russians.....
Will The New York Times take these (as usual) cogent thoughts under careful advisement? I certainly hope so. Somewhere we need to get the "fluff" out and start getting serious about what we see and what we hear.
While we are at it, the "fairness" doctrine of reporting lies and dissembling blather as if they were the equivalent of cogent thought needs to be urgently reconsidered. Is there anyone out there who can do that?
1
Today's GOP not the party of ideas? As John Stuart Mill said in the 19th Centiry: Not all consrvatives are stupid but stupid people tend to be conservatives.
Unfortunately most voters base their vote on appearnce and bumper sticker info. - not in-dept reliable infor. regarding ISSUES!!! Ask many folks the basis for their vote and the source of their info. and usually it will be something superficial like - he is going to build a wall to keep those Mexicas out or she is a woman-
Let’s see what Biden does.
Is Stephen Moore really the best "economist" CNN can get to defend the GOP??
It's pathetic.
" ... unearned adulation Ryan received and how long it took conventional wisdom to recognize that Nancy Pelosi ... "
Ooohhh! John Kenneth Galbraith would be proud.
“By homes in good school districts.” I. E. Racism.
Jed Bartlett for President in 2020 !
1
As an intellectual I would agree, but...
The last time we had a PhD as president, it was Wilson, a raving racist and a Democrat. Trumps angry white voters, male and female, are scared to death of intellectuals for good reason - they actually use their brain. GOP voters are overwhelmingly also scared to death of their own shadow and stockpile guns, but I digress. And, of course, there is no way a woman can win the Presidency, probably in my lifetime anyway. As a lifelong Democrat I would vote for her if nominated, but would have to think clearly during the primaries.
Having said all that, I do think most of her ideas deserve a hearing. On January 1, Big Pharma raised the prices on many medications, not because there was a rational need to do so, but just because they needed to continue to suck our money up to the top. Warren gets that. No one on the GOP side does. The media needs to make that very clear rather than focus on her American Indian ancestry.
Sometimes doing nothing is something, said no democrat ever.
Thank you Dr. Krugman for pointing out the effects of lazy journalism. Unfortunately, the Op-Ed above this one by Michelle Goldberg (disingenuous right wing shock about Rep. Tlaib’s swear) featured EXACTLY the same kind of lazy, unproductive journalism that even papers like the NYT engage in.
Elizabeth Warren showed what she was made out of when Trump taunted her about being native American and she took the bait.
Someone in the position of president can’t allow themselves to be pushed around by words alone, which is why Trump is bad at the job.
Any politician anywhere has to have thick skin and be able to take it when someone taunts them, without blowing a gasket or allowing themselves to be led astray.
We need true leadership in this country, which is truly lacking at this time.
50
@BTO
Not so sure she took the bait. I may have done the same thing.
It was a story in her family, actually in a lot of families, and when it came to light in the political arena, she may have decided to see once and for all, now that the science is readily available, whether it was true or not. Just so she wasn’t repeating something untrue and to satisfy her own curiosity.
Similar situation. Some years ago I was in Montana hunting. The fellow who acted as our guide lived on a reservation because he was 1/32 native. There is a lot of that out west.
24
@BTO And that's enough for you to dismiss her? I think she made a mistake for sure but it wasn't that big a deal. Let's see if she learns from the experience.
21
@BTO She took the bait and that was a mistake. But once does not indicate a tendency or a pattern. If it surfaces again, I'll agree with you, but her intellectual integrity, her proposals, and her priorities are too valuable to dismiss glibly or without closer scrutiny. Her message will resonate with voters if we can get beyond her so called "big political mistake".
12
"What I’m seeing are stories about whether she handled questions about her Native American heritage well, or whether she’s likable.” Well, that's how a great number of people will judge her (though what anyone can find likable about Trump is beyond me). Unfortunately, it would seem that a great number of Americans prefer bad actors with criminal ties and little or no political experience to competent and intellectually astute candidates with strong ethics. Add to that her age and physical stature and demeanor, which will definitely not help her.
1
Now that advertising is the media industry's only source of income, the 5 second sound bite has to be the only way to dispense information. Give every household in the US a subscription to The New Yorker and we might start to get a grip. Otherwise? Forget it, Paul.
In another article on Elizabeth Warren, Steven Vogel writes: "Financial regulation and antitrust are central to Ms. Warren’s proposals for leveling the economic playing field."
She understands the system well enough, and is smart enough, to cause Wall Street titans who have so tilted the playing field in their favor to quake in their boots. That is reason enough for me to support Warren for President, and perhaps Beto O'Rourke for VP.
1
Warren is a serious policy person who clearly gets how the middle class has been abandoned. If she continues to convey that message I think she has a chance. She would do best to stick with the issues and not let Trump bate her into defending her personality or gender. Warren is one of several strong contenders who are serious and concerned about the state of the nation; they deserve the media to report on their qualifications and policies, not their personalities or gender.
1
Our mainstream media have a lot to answer for regarding the way ideas are conveyed from the realm of serious exploration, debate and advocacy to the popular opinions which, because they are parroted slogans and not contributions or deliberations, simply inflame divisions without illuminating anything. Referring to immigration as an "issue" rather than a subject, for instance, invites knee-jerk defense of opinions made and held in ignorance. The media, having little public respect to lose, ought to collaboratively refine its standards of what is considered fit to amplify by covering. Cover informed and thoughtful speech from varied sources, and refuse to give print or air time to empty, inflammatory rhetoric from any source. Present ideas as propositions inviting exploration, together, toward useful solutions to real problems, not as unpaid advertising for a "brand" of ideological commitment.
1
I admire, respect and think Elizabeth Warren would do a wonderful job as President and would vote for her without question but I fear I am in the minority. Presidential elections have become grander versions of high school politics, a popularity contest for someone who is likable but not necessarily the right person for the job as you point out. If Warren is not the Democratic nominee, lets hope a Democrat wins in 2020 and Warren is used somewhere in the administration so we can all benefit from her intellect and ideas.
1
She is a punk rocker in librarian glasses.
As long as her policies continue to stick it to the Man, if she comes out on top, she's got my vote.
However, if she comes out weaker than her opponent on guns like Bernie did....she'll lose my vote.
60
@M No Republicans fo me now. She or any other Democrat will have my vote. It's a no-brainer. They have sat on their thumbs while the President has wreaked havoc on the world. Nope. No Republican would get my vote.
11
The Prof says that Warren could be elected by informed voters on the basis of some of her best proposals. He also says that, spite a list of excellent policy proposals, he even does not know if he would elect her. The column is a good example of why we should expect very bad results of democratic elections used to choose between two single options: opinion is usually evenly divided. Would meritocracy work better? The resources spend in the world in electoral consults as the one who "approved" Brexit, could be better used for other ends and just take those dicotomic decisison throwing a coin!
1
Moreover, trivia-based reporting is, in practice, deeply biased — not in a conventional partisan sense, but in its implicit assumption that a politician can’t be serious unless he (and I mean he) is a conservative, or at most centrist, white male.
Couldn't agree more, Mr. Krugman, what's to be done? Check out what books, movies, music are scoring with the public and you get the sense we are a nation of adolescents. Are we, as an electorate, truly interested in engaging policy ideas at any depth?
I don't know --the evidence doesn't suggest it.
As to Warren's candidacy specifically, one can be an admirer of her ideas, her commitment, her courage and still have legitimate questions about her electability, given the lay of the political land.
I would not vote for anyone in a Democratic primary that I didn't think cold win the general election. Way too much is at at stake. I'll be watching her campaign closely as I make that decision.
Policy, policy, policy. Yes, let's put the policy back in politician. It's not personalitician. And voters ought to like the Democrats' policy platform. It's not about "punishing the rich" as the right likes to claim; it's about policies and programs that protect the poor and middle class from the harsh vagaries of modern, global capitalism. Other capitalist countries have these types of programs and they have a lot less poverty and destitution. Democrats aren't anti-capitalism, but they don't see capitalism and socialism as mutually exclusive constructs, as the Republicans like to suggest they are. This is why Republicans are against any regulations or policies that protect the worker, the environment or the consumer. They seek to glorify the rich and vilify the poor, and that hinders them from advocating progressive policies that offer a social hand up or a social safety net.
1
@Citizen-of-the-World
What about a candidates foreign policy stance?
Warren's foreign policy knowledge is weak and her foreign policy stance is conventional.
The military budget keeps growing, and wars/regime changes have added six trillion to the debt while wrecking whole countries, creating more terrorists and millions of refugees destabilizing Europe, and making the US less safe and the world less stable.
Candidates should address foreign policy issues and the media should include foreign policy in their discussion of candidates.
Of course, the status quo is protected by ignoring the issue.
1
George Washington was a great President. He was not scholarly or well read. He did not have a lot of ideas. But he was a good judge of talent (Alexander Hamilton for example), he recognized good ideas when they were presented to him; and because he was widely respected and admired, he could carry those good ideas through to execution. In that vein, Elizabeth Warren would make a great Presidential adviser, but her ability to get elected or carry ideas through to fruition as President are in serious doubt. The key to success is to put players in positions where they can excel, taking care not to put them in positions that require a set of abilities they do not have.
2
Congratulations for excellent article.
It appears that some of the media has become another 'Complex', 'The Media Complex', powerful, with unlimited resources provided by their billionaire owners to preserve and protect the status quo that benefits them and their monopolistic view of the world.
Dr. Krugman, as you know and Mrs. Warren always points out, "the system is rigged" as you need millions if not billions to run for president. Who benefits from campaign spending? The media, therefore many in corporate media see Mrs. Warren's proposals hurting their bottom line, which means they have an economic incentive to discredit her. Remember what the president of ABC said about Trump, he has been great to our bottom line. This is the main reason Trump was elected, his clownshow made corporate media a lot of money.
Mrs. Warren, a lifelong champion of reducing the effect of money in politics is the only politician that can save us from ourselves. She is the Anti-Hillary DNC republican light, however not only she has to defeat the party of plutocrats, the GOP but also corporate media. It is a big job and I hope she is successful for the sake of our democracy!
6
Like Moynihan, Warren is a smart and savvy. But she has displayed no talent for management in an executive capacity. The best thing for the country and the Senate would be for her to stay there, as Moynihan did, and provide ideas for legislation and standards for separating good policies from "good politics."
1
Yes, I always pay attention when Warren speaks. The best the GOP can do is hurl personal insults at her. I hope our media attention will be more trained on policy than personality in the next election cycle.
4
Even with the serious political media Krugman envisions, a functioning deliberative government is a near thing. Our society has not thought educating for social responsibility a public function. One can hope for private media to fill the role, but can we reasonably expect it?
Thank you. God speed Elizabeth Warren. It was great to meet you this past weekend, it was as though we were in the presence of a calm serene wise powerful presence. She is a gift to mankind.
8
“Can news organizations tell the difference between genuine policy wonks and poseurs like Ryan?”
Although concern about news organizations is one matter, a more nefarious issue is the multitude of other on-line media sources (far too many to name) that are not mainstream where a growing percentage of the American public are receiving their news. Here are the very slanted and even conspiratorial shows whipping up an imaginary fervor over issues of the day.
Breaking through or down those barriers will be much more difficult than in Moynihan’s day.
2
Dr. Krugman is right about the misguided approach to reporting that emphasizes a candidate's "likability" instead of their ideas. Senator Warren has a long track record of positioning herself on the vanguard of forward thinking social researchers and policy advocates.
It isn't hard to imagine how a Warren presidency would lead to policies that lift up the middle class through affordable housing, affordable education, better environmental regulations, real checks on the financial services sector, real consumer data privacy guidelines, real maternity leave and other improved working conditions for families and real affordable health care.
This new paradigm involves a level playing field that challenges white privilege. The question is whether we're ready to vote in our own social and economic self interests.
5
Elizabeth Warren is extremely well suited to a high-level leadership position in our government.
Whether or not Ms. Warren is given the opportunity to lead this nation in the best possible direction will depend on one thing, and one thing only: A Democrat must be elected president in 2020.
Therefore, Democrats must assure that the 2020 nominee is the person who is most likely to win a presidential election and thus assure that ANY REPUBLICAN is kept far, far away from the White House.
If Ms. Warren is the most assured, most likely and most electable candidate, she should be the nominee. If she is in any way less than that, then she would be extremely well suited to a high-level cabinet position in our government, where she may potentially do more good than she would as president.
The damage done by Trump is repairable. Repair of the damage to be done by extending a Republican administration beyond 2020 may be out of reach.
Let’s set our sights and priorities accordingly. The hazards of not doing so are evident every day now.
3
The Democratic Party used to be the party of the blue collar working class. Then Bill & Hillary turned it into the party of wealthy zip codes. The working class paid the DP back by giving us Trump (The DNC helped them along by rigging the primary campaign in Hillary's favor). It's not so much a case of intellectual "heft" as it is who you represent.
3
@Paul turner, amen. The Clintons got sucked into celebrity-dom.
In contrast, traveling with Liz Warren, we saw an ordinary regular American, no secret service, no fanfare, no airs, no pomp, no show, no gushing men women children rushing for selfies or autographs. Instead we saw an authentic down to earth sweet charming hard working individual who just wants every working class human being, to reap the bounties of this country, just because they should and in her vision, we can and ought to, make it happen. With backing of people like Paul Krugman, she has the ability to bring dignity to all those who have been forgotten by the democratic party.
3
Mr. Krugman. You state that we might be in for big trouble if our media can't tell it right. Sir I respectfully state that we ARE in big trouble because our media doesn't get it right. That ship sailed a long time ago.
From this read we are to presume that there is still hope for the media to tell the heart of the story. I am sorry to report that for those views & readers at the front line, the outlook is grim.
Yes, if you want to educate yourself and read in-depth reporting or perhaps watch more than just 22 minutes of news while not straying onto a FOX channel, you will be better informed, maybe.
But if your radio is locked onto Rush or your TV is set to FOX all the time, first - you will not get fair and balanced reporting about Pocohontus, and two - you will hear only what you want to hear, regardless how your 401K is doing, if you are still taking home a paycheck, or if your debt is constantly going up.
And if you are brave enough to watch or read more mainstream media, the sad truth is that they are the ones stuck on figuring out what sells the advertising dollars they must earn. By all analysis, that dynamic has zero chance of changing.
So while Warren speaks deeply about obtuse solutions, while you are good to point out the deficiencies of how we get news, this article is only worthy if you can provide some obtuse solutions as well.
1
By all means, let's put up another sacrificial lamb for the slaughter. Ms. Warren's "intellect" will be eviscerated by the other side with the willing help of the press, always eager to keep sales up. And the Republicans will put up a Pence or some other uber-bland "Man from Glad" who will win the weak hearts and feeble minds of the great unwashed & uneducated in the hinters.
She'll run to the left in the primaries, slide to the center for the general election, and nobody will believe her. We'll get another airhead as "leader", and eventually a Supreme Court that is a solid 9-0. Well done, oh party of the not-so-loyal opposition!! Talk about Agnew's "effete" crew!
We need a third, rational, centrist party (one that recognizes and carefully, thoughtfully analyzes both sides of issues, i.e., true intellectuals) so badly now, it hurts.
3
the gop is party of closed minds? only recently, govt nominees were skewered by dem congressman about their catholic beliefs, which is not only illegal, it's despicable, and i am yet to hear any high ranking dem condemn it. dem leaders embrace farrakhan (and the media gives them a pass.)
the dems are STILL fighting for enlargement of the govt to control and settle our economy, when that idea has been discredited time again here and across the world, where the replacement of govt enterprise by private enterprise has reduced poverty on unprecedented scale worldwide.
the Left, which supports the dems, now drown out any contrary voice on college campus and enforce speech codes and safe spaces. you dont see young republicans doing that.
but the gop is the party of closed minds? gimme a break. this is world-class analysis?? this belongs on huffpost.
Because of the trivia, I have limited the news I read but omitting it all is impossible. Most of the time all you need to do is read the headline and move on. Elizabeth Warren is my favorite but it will be very difficult for her because she generally doesn't do trivia. Who needs info on someone's favorite foods or the name of their dog? I think F'book and Twit have an influence on the elevation of nonsense in discourse. I am not a fan of Beto because he votes with Repubs most of the time. Make him vice president. A truly knowledgable person would be a breath of fresh air.
1
Great article, great points.
2
I suppose to someone at Krugman's level, candidate Warren looks like a genius. Again evidence that the Nobel folks occasionally get it wrong.
1
We are in big trouble. Let me count the ways...
One: Media is self-serving. Media loves controversy and conflict. Media prefers to serve the public empty-headed nonsense rather than substance because nonsense sells. And that brings us to...
Two: Nonsense is what captures the public's attention. Too much of the public doesn't want to think, would rather veg in front of the latest TV reality tripe. Which leads to...
Three: The dumbing down of the public. When people don't think they slide into muddled minds which lack important information. Resulting in the ultimate outcome...
Fourth: The public can't differentiate between factual information and fantastical fluff, reality and fantasy, truth and lies. Which made room for...
Fifth: Fox and Fools: Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Beck, and so many more who are an industry devoted to producing mental trash. They fill the empty minds of their audiences with hatred, fear, lies and Republican stupidity.
America is in trouble and we need Professor Krugman to continue to call out the media for its failures. But more critical: America has got to want better. Choosing a Trump over an Elizabeth Warren is like choosing moldy birdseed over a filet mignon and lobster feast. Sadly we have seen many choose the moldy birdseed and insist they made the right choice.
3
After electing the most stupid and deplorable man as president, and we know how that turned out, I believe the time has come to try someone intelligent, empathetic, serious, thoughtful. And that's Elizabeth Warren. She has an uphill battle, though, with rampant misogyny in the press and the public at large. With Beto as her vice president, she'd be unbeatable. But more than that, we'd be able to breathe again.
2
Krugman forgets Joe the plumber, The Romney boys, Hope for change, Maga, and all the other nonsense. Barack Obama fist bumped Michelle during his first campaign and the media treated it like the Magna Carta. Elizabeth Warren should abandon ideas and leak a tape of her saying as a Harvard professor you can grab men by their privates. When you have deep knowledge of bankruptcy they let you do anything. Also there's that Donald Trump character who illegally paid off women to buy their silence. Donald Trump cheats. He lies and he wins. They'll be no philosopher king or queen in the next election cycle. This time however they'll be no criticism of Trump from the Republicans. Bring on the insults. Should be interesting to see how the press covers it. Will Trump sit for interviews with CNN? Will SNL let him host? Hopefully, all means of communication will fail and we'll be spared the misery. I'm not going to pay attention. I already know my vote.
Mr. Krugman is always worth reading but I feel he tries to make a point overlooking the sad realities of the US voter. Intellectual considerations don't enter into the elective process. The national vote in America is a rigged popularity contest, in my opinion.
4
The media "adults" left the room in early 2016 when they found that shiny new object sitting now in Washington.
1
Mr Krugman's ideas are fair enough, but if they were coming from a women, I doubt I'd go for them.
Paul Krugman - I always wondered why you got the Nobel Prize. reading your opinions (especially the piece from yesterday, telling the rich, work, take risks, and give 80% of your income to "the poor", knowing Sweden's mentality, I understand now.
Well, do you give 80% of all your income to "the poor"? and lets nationalize everything - including the media, there is more money there. (lots of 80% to give), and every time you drive from JFK to the city and pass the "bridge" that is being built by the unions for the last 10 years and more - just remember if a private co. would have built it, it would have been finished long time ago.
@malka abrams
Sweden is quite a success story. I advise you watch a program produced by Johan Norberg, a libertarian Cato Institute Fellow, about how well Sweden's capitalist system works and the lessons America could learn from it. I'm serious, search it out and watch it. Repeat, a libertarian Swede. Go figure.
You are just flat out wrong about Sweden's 'mentality.' Educate yourself.
2
Republicans can't debate the ideas, because their ideas are intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible.
1
I hope that the NYT can report on the primaries in a fair and balanced way, unlike the reporting in the Clinton v. Sanders campaign.
1
@John - you think the Times has folks on staff who investigate like Mueller? I do too. I also think the Times has info in certain "public" areas it cannot divulge even though it might like to.
To recap the DNA issue: Warren's family is from Oklahoma, which the state where several Native American tribes were exiled to "reservations", including many Cherokees ("Trail of Tears").
Her family story said one of her ancestors was one of these people...Warren mentioned it and of course Trump ran with it, calling her "Pocahontas" in derision.
Warren then took a DNA tests to find out if the story was true. It was. ("In October 2018, Senator Warren released a report on a DNA analysis that was said to show a pure Native American ancestor appeared in her ancestry “in the range of six to 10 generations ago.”).
NOTE: she NEVER said she was a tribal member.
See next post for the smear about the Harvard Law School hiring...
1
@RLiss
She used this information to get and hold a position at Harvard University. She was listed as a minority professor in the directory.
Also, "6-10 generations" places her genetic ancestor in the Southeast, not in Oklahoma. The Cherokees did not go to Oklahoma until later. Her DNA results fall within the range of error that shows up when Europeans are tested for Native American alleles.
3
I loved this piece. Especially the characterization of media bias as "destructively lazy." We need this renaissance of ideas to take hold of the fourth estate.
Thank you for calling out the media. I'm hopeful that you are including including the NYT. The "news" seems to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, across all of America. What happened to the integrity of Cronkite, Marrow, and Hewitt? They were not afraid to report and COMMENT on un-truth, corruption, and (most importantly) on the lies told by politicians, military leaders, and other self-serving paragons of "public service" (sic).
1
Would love to see Mr. Krugman demonstrate with evidence how wrong goofy Stephen Moore's claims are when he shows up on CNN as a Trump True Believer.
Right ... Warren'so idea is to steal from the succesful to buy votes. This isn't new. It's popular. It's Obamalicious. But, it's a disaster of Trumpian proportions.
In a 10 Nov. 2016 essay in the Harvard Business Review, Joan C. Williams
argues that if the Democrats are to win the White House they must put economics front-and-center in any appeals to the white, working class that no longer votes Democratic.
Warren is the only one who seems to get it.
What the Democrats do not need is pie-in-sky socialism or more of HRC's "deplorables".
1
Dear Paul
We’re in big trouble.
America
1
EW is definitely who you should vote for if you want Trump to be in office another 4 years.
1
I love EW but she is too passive and too nice to compete in the political arena. She comes across as hysterical rather than guttoral. She wants to fight but doesn't want to use knives when necessary, and it is a knife-fight out there.
@Agent GG - just wait until she has Trump on stage in a debate. I think you will change your tune.
We should shut off all media after the primary. Or do the responsible thing and read Bertrand Russell instead of the news. Seriously. What more do you have to learn about Trump or are you still holding out for Trump to become more presidential? And if you are for Trump is anything going to change that? Goodbye, New York Times! See you after the election!
Yes, and in 2016, a reporter asked Bernie Sanders a question critical to the future of our country: Could he serve as president with his disheveled hair?
1
Bias on gender and age?
1
Misogyny takes a terrible toll on our politics.
4
Way to go, Paul. Spot on.
1
And so it begins... Mr. Krugman, who claims to value evidence, must have forgotten the last thirty eight years. I haven't and I am only 37. Reagan is remembered for saying there you go again. Bush Sr. Is remembered for Willie Horton. Clinton is a man who did not have sexual relations with that woman. W. cited Jesus as the biggest influence in his life. Obama was hope for change and a helluva fist bump. Trump was always committing to being more presidential. I'm pretty sure we will not hear intellectual debate encouraged by the media or the candidates. Bring on the Romney boys and Joe the plumber!! Throw in the law and order candidate the media loves to hate. Welcome to the misery! Really I think Mr. Krugman is making a ploy for tempered interest in Senator Warren. There is no way anyone would predict a battle of ideas in an election involving Trump. Remember that the media gorged itself on Trump last time and Hillary looked like a mouse because of it. We are fools to hope.
Most normal men, if they have an option, don't want to be led by women. Look at the religious denominations that allow female ministers, their membership is in freefall.
2
Bravo, Professor Krugman.
Again.
2
1. Warren and Hickenlooper
2. Bloomberg and Warren
3. Biden and Beto
I’m good.
@PC - why doesn't Hickenlooper's name come up in this vein more often?
Ooops. The death knell--she's an intellectual! This is not what most Americans are dreaming of. How will this play on FOX? A liberal/socialist--take your pick, Pochohontas, Harvard, has fancy ideas she likes to call "policy", serves in a deep blue state, is a WOMAN! for God's sake (shrill, nasty, persisting or alternatively, not "tough enough") and worst of all--she's an intellectual! Intellectual=fuzzy. Intellectuals don't go by their gut. Honestly--is this someone you'd want to have a beer with? This is how we talk policy in the good old USA.
I have a very high opinion of Warren and the brilliant legislation she keeps churning out. But...please do not run. FOX, Rush, Sinclair, Hannity, operating 24/7 would rip her to shreds. It will be in your face every time you see the doctor, or to the gym, or when you have your oil changed. It'll be interesting to see how many times you hear the word "Pochohontas" in a 24 hour cycle.
What Democrat can stand up to the propaganda and it's mesmerized followers? Fair question. Unfortunately, I have no answer.
And--don't forget--whoever the Dem candidate is in 2020, he/she will have to overcome the electoral college tilt, voter disenfranchisement, and trouble at the polls (in selected districts). I'll refrain from accusations of tampering with voting machines...but on the other hand...one never knows, do one?
1
@bobg - I like your ideas and words but I think Warren will do the shredding when it comes time for the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh.
1
I can already hear the cries: "She's shrill, she's nerdy, she's too intellectual, she's not likeable", etc. etc. It makes me sick how shallow Americans can be.
2
Elizabeth Warren's got the chops. If she picks a strong running mate like Jeff Merkley or Sherrod Brown, she'll prevail.
Lots of doomsday hand wringers at this time in the Demo ranks. Show some spine.
1
Hillary Clinton was a smart, experienced, serious candidate, too. Didn’t stop Donald Trump from effectively portraying her as an elitist, man-hating harpy. He’ll use the same attacks against Warren if the Democrats are dumb enough to nominate her, with the “Pocahontas” put-downs thrown in for good measure. No, it’s not fair, or accurate. But it’s politics, a game Republicans have mastered and Democrats play as if it were a noble calling it’s not and maybe never was.
@Richard - maybe you didn't catch Clinton's shifty, cunning underside...
1
@willw
Oh yes, "crooked" Hillary. The right's favorite meme for all things Clinton. Donald Trump makes her look like a Girl Scout.
Elizabeth Warren and her party of the ideas?!
So glad that the NYT finally got the dedicated science-fiction section! Or, is it just a comic one? Or a tragic one?!
Did she warn us about the following, or at least her party:
The federal government has been shut down for three weeks because the Republicans and Democrats were unable to fund the construction of the wall on our border.
However, two mainstream political parties have displayed an extraordinary bipartisanship, speed and generosity in providing the lavish grants for constructing the concrete wall around Israel.
Here is an excerpt from Miriam Webster dictionary:
Definition of treason: the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war; the act of levying war against the United States or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance.
The question is whether the intentional paralyzing and incapacitating of the government qualifies as an attempted overthrow.
You are describing the coverage on MSNBC perfectly.
Please, tell me, how are her policies different than Hugo Chavez disastrous socialist moves that destroyed the economy of Venezuela so quickly and completely?
@Joe Yoh
Exactly! You cannot tax yourself to prosperity.
"She is what a serious policy intellectual looks and sounds like in 2019." I couldn't agree more, and it puzzles me as to why your last column was a puff piece on the Sarah Palin of the Democratic party, AOC? Maturity and experience matter. Go Elizabeth!
Appreciate her fire, but time for new blood.
@BDubs - she is "new blood".
1
Donald Trump is what an ignorant stupid immature immoral intemperate insecure corrupt President of the United States looks and sounds like.
Intellect and intelligence and smarts and ideas are vastly overrated in American partisan political representative success.
The schism at the 1896 Democratic convention in Chicago which saw William Jennings Bryan become the Democratic nominee.
I fear the populism of William Jennings Bryan is alive and well in the Republican Party thanks to the Southern Strategy.
I find it difficult to understand how William Jennings Bryan and his coalition of left wing populists and religious zealots became the coalition of right wing "conservatives" and religious zealots of today's Republicans.
All I can say is give me that old time religion where Jesus was for the little guy and Bryan and his flock knew trickle down was a crock.
The founders sure knew what they were doing when they separated church and state!!!
2
I'm reminded of Paul Ryan's "fact based" Path to Prosperity. The Heritage Foundation's budget simulation loaded his 2012 - 2021 plan with so many multipliers that they ended up posting a flim-flam promise of an unemployment rate of 2.8% in 2021… a level not seen in the prior 60 years .. and then hastily edited and removed this inanity from their site once it was discovered by the macroeconomics firms.
Ryan may be gone. However, the GOP's flim flam remains ...
I don't know much about the Sen/Rep/Gov/Oligarch,or anyone else who is thinking about running for President, but I do know a bit about Sen. Warren
Sen. Warren has expertise in the things we need most as a country. Sen. Warren knows how money works and she knows how money people work.
Senator Warren is the BEST hope of the middle/working class citizen to get a fair break.
Sen. Warren has been in a battle with the banks trying to save our economy for decades.
Sen Warren isn't coming late to this battle. Sen Warren girded her loins for this fight and she will win it for US(A)
1
Willingness to re-evaluate based on new information is an important part of mature and sober discourse. I am pleased to see you admitting to learning from experience, Dr. Krugman. I see a lot of that on the liberal side of the divide, and learn some that way myself.
If only we could get a few hundred Republicans in federal leadership positions to do that.
1
Paul Krugman’s quasi-endorsement of Elizabeth Warren overlooks a number of practical details that go into the election of a Democratic presidential candidate. Can she win the working-class vote, too many of whom crossed party lines and voted for Donald Trump in 2016? I doubt it. It’s possible as Krugman implies, that Warren is the most intellectually qualified among the current group of actual and potential candidates. But being intellectually qualified and being electable are two entirely different things. If Democrats can’t get together and choose an electable, middle-of-the-road candidate, they’ll certainly fail to pick up any of the so-called red and purple states. The result will be four more disastrous years of another Republican (probably Trump) in the White House.
1
The presidency is a management job. Good policies are essential, but then they have to be enacted and put into effective fruition. If I have my way we will have Mike Bloomberg as president, an effective governor as vice president, and Elizabeth Warren in a cabinet level post, for example, secretary of health and human services.
Why is the foreign policy stance of candidates most often not mentioned?
Since 2001 the US has added six trillion to the debt with its wars/regime changes that wrecked whole countries, created more terrorists and millions of refugees now destabilizing Europe, only to make the US less safe and the world more unstable.
Certainly a candidate's knowledge and stance on foreign policy should be considered important.
Presidents GWBush, Obama and Trump all campaigned on less military adventurism, but none had enough knowledge of history or foreign policy to stand up to the Military Industrial Complex and its Establishment supporters.
I love Senator Elizabeth Warren's bold domestic policy, but her knowledge of foreign policy is only gut level conventional.
The women presidential candidates were formed by having to be tough in a "man's world", and that meant accepting a militarized foreign policy.
For 2020, Senator Bernie Sander's has the boldest domestic agenda, and the sanest foreign policy .
2
Time for another trot out about the lack of mainstream policy attention to a key idea from the '80's with a lot of potential to reframe and bring needed creativity to try to address many of our economic, social, and environmental problems: sustainable development. This has been bi-partisan, with D's as well as R's ignoring key reports, such as the Clinton-era President's Council on Sustainable Development; federal as well as my state, NJ; not just government, as those who interact with it have also been uninterested--including journalists; and has lasted for decades. Where does one even send a policy proposal and receive a serious, considered response? Usually, you get nothing back, even an acknowledgement. If you want ideas, you need a system which encourages them, and not just as a word now and then. The recent resurfacing of Gary Hart because of the movie about him brought back a time when an idea guy had a chance. Besides the picture that ended his candidacy, possible consideration of his ideas ended with the political soundbite: "Where's the Beef?" The media jumped on it, and that was that. The underlying belief seems to be "there's nothing new under the sun," whereas I've never seen that to be true. The sustainable development field continues to develop. Perhaps one day policy players will discover it. Like anything else, it would help if the public shows it is interested and wants the idea on the agenda. It would also help if sustainability academics write more op-eds.
Ideas don't win elections, votes win elections. Until the Democrats adopt the lessons being taught by the Republicans, that boots on the ground in the state districts matter more than high-flown policy and favorable NYT editorials, the GOP will continue to own Congress and the White House.
2
Elizabeth Warren is the smartest, most principaled and most honest politician that we have seen in decades. In addition, she has two things that are completely absent from the entire GOP leadership. She has a pair of rocky mountain oysters.
It's like 'Inflate-gate'. The balls were deflated in the first half, but the Patriots scored more points after the footballs had been re-inflated. But the damage that was done during the first half, was an integral and undeniable part of the game and effectively influenced strategy during the second half. Hence the influence perpetrated during the first half of Warren's career that she was Native American should remain an integral part of the second half of her career. And an asterisk by her name should be an mutually agreeable variable.
Fox News is not the only network that broadcasts "infotainment." And it's not just the idiot box that highlights the ephemeral and overlooks substance. Krugman is right to complain. Sports are covered more seriously than politics.
But this can change. All it takes are a few dogged editors and producers who will shine the spotlight on policy rather than personality.
Sure, personality matters. SAT scores aren't everything. Voters judge the whole candidate. Trump isn't a disaster just because he's willfully ignorant; he's a disaster because he lacks the character and temperament required of a president. But to improve the nation's well-being a good leader must be more than a good person --a good leader must also have good ideas and the political smarts to bring them to fruition.
It is to be hoped that coverage of the primaries will reveal whether Elizabeth Warren and other candidates have what it takes to both win the election and lead the nation to a better place.
1
Party of Ideas vs. the Party Of Lies and Lunacy...
I’ll take the adult party, the one of ideas - and which actually wants to Govern!
In the last presidential election, Democrats nominated someone who came across as a schoolmarm trying to ram her wonky ideas down our throats. When we didn't respond enthusiastically to what she was peddling, she labeled us "deplorables". Elizabeth Warren is Hillary 2.0 and will likely fare just as poorly. It's time to pick a genuinely progressive candidate who is young, smart, and attractive. I strongly recommend fellow veteran Tulsi Gabbard. I look forward to voting for her in the primary and general elections.
1
Warren's achilles heel is not the Native-American mess, but, she is a serious intellectual---a label or a way of behaving that we Americans have a real problem with---we like the can do guys---with emphasis on the guys. You know the George Bush's and Dick Cheney's who know how to blow things up; the Trump's who know how to cage up children; or a CEO who fires half his employees---they get the job done--they are plain speaking and men of action. Of course this shoot and then aim pragmatism always ends badly---because, none of these masters of the universe took the time to study the problem first---every problem with are facing today--from health care to climate change has an intellectual track record, which if ignored, will at some point break bad. I do believe that Senator Warren's advantage, if the media can move off of soft-ball stories on DNA reports, is both her intellect, but just as important, her demonstrated ability to turn research into sound and workable policy.
You are very condescending to your colleagues in the media. There are plenty of folks in the media who, like you, can discern real from fake and serious from farcical. They are feeding their audience what sells, which is tabloidism that riles the emotions in a similar manner that sporting events do. It's a simple drama of us vs them, cheap to produce and sell. The failure in not the media; it's the people, ignorant and shallow, made that way by our transactional society.
Elizabeth Warren is a real-life action woman. She's not just the foremost creative intellectual on Capitol Hill (excepting the Supremes), she makes things happen. That unusual combination (intellectual + action woman) is not always easy for men to recognize. I think that's where a lot of the vague but shaded opinions about "like-ability," and DNA come from. The good news is Senator Elizabeth Warren is a boot-strap intellectual who rose to a Harvard professorship AND was bank-rolling mother of the CRB. I think she will wear well.
1
@Mackenzie Clark - your first sentence made me think of Warren on one side defending medicare for all and Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugfh on the other and they're wringing their hands and stammering and feverishly trying to come up with good arguments but continuously being batted down by Warren's superior intellect.
Elizabeth Warren is as extreme on the left as Trump is on the right. We don’t need extremes on either side. Please bring back the moderates. On top of all that, Elizabeth Warren is a whiner. It would be really nice to have someone positive step up to the plate. Joe Biden, where are you?
Spot on!!!!!!
GOP intellectuals? Highly unlikely!
GOP members posing as intellectuals, but spouting false "facts". Highly likely!
Democratic intellectuals? More likely!
Elizabeth Warren is the only Democrat I've seen who can take complex topics and policies affecting peoples lives and communicate them to everyone in plain understandable language. And not sound superior or like she's spouting talking points.
Unfortunately, elections in this day and age are truly reality shows. And Trump, the master manipulator, is the unquestioned expert in reality TV.
While cable news has many positive aspects, its ability to make complex topics simpler, more understandable, and more interesting is not one of them. There is a great void here waiting to be filled by the first network to figure out how to do this.
Look to Schoolhouse Rock, with "I'm just a bill" and "Conjunction Junction" as examples of making complex topics understandable.
Cable news need to take the NEWS seriously too.
Interesting that the most pointed & interesting questions apparently came from regular citizens & not journalists at Warren's appearances.
I personally think there is a lot of misogyny out there that drives voting. An attitude that "women are not capable of making tough decisions". I don't need a poll to tell me that, just conversations with red blooded white American men. And many of their spouses. This may not be the majority of people, but enough to sway an election. I will vote for any Dem in 2020, but I wonder if gender will be the deal breaker.
212
@Steve The US is coming up on the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote. Arguments against women suffrage were fierce by men and women; suffragists had to carefully monitor their dress, speech, and actions to assure people stepping outside the domestic sphere would not masculinize them. Women in politics are still fighting this centuries old fight. This country needs more people who can look beyond gender and vote for the best person for the job. kudos to you.
32
@RMartini. Yes, this country needs more people like those you describe. But what the country needs and what the country's got are two different things. If the Democrats have any chance of winning in 2020, they have to be pragmatists, and pragmatism dictates that a woman candidate smacks too clearly of identity politics, which divides the party and all but guarantees a Republican win. If you want eight full years of Donald Trump, just stay with your idealism and ignore the practical realities.
12
@Steve
The first major decision she made in the public eye was drinking Michelob Ultra, a beer brewed by a foreign-owned corporate behemoth (AB Inbev) that is doing everything it can to crush independent craft breweries.
1
Elizabeth Warren is a serious grown-up. She has great ideas and can effectively defend them. There are also other members of her party about which one can say the same thing. I would be happy to support her or one of her colleagues. Let's see how the others measure up.
1
There needs to be a change in the way that "progressive" ideas, in general, are portrayed. Too many people automatically equate the term progressive with socialism, and then take it one step further by equating socialism with communism.
Let me suggest that we begin to equate the term progressive with the term "balance," because progressive ideas are basically aimed at creating and restoring balance, economically and socially.
Conservatives tend to love golf and auto racing, and both sports have strict rules that are strictly enforced, in order to preserve the integrity of both sports. In fact, the rules of golf make it clear that golfers who violate the rules are expected to turn themselves in.
That's progressive. So, why don't conservatives support progressive rules in government?
Real change through ideas being put forward by AOC and Elizabeth Warren is frightening to the some 200 families that, through their wealth, assert control over both parties in the U.S. 2018 showed that grass roots campaigns can prevail. 2020 will show whether this ongoing battle will save democracy for the common good and whether Lincoln was right in asserting "You can't fool all of the people all of the time". In any case I'll settle for 51% not fooled.
4
The media is not about progress - it's about enabling and protecting the crony capitalists (who through their share ownership, controls the media, and has been instrumental in dismantling FCC regulations). CNN may be socially liberal, and Fox may be socially conservative (unless Trump grabs another woman) - but both are economically crony capitalists. Both will not give airtime to serious policies that undermine Elite successes at rigging the economy to profit themselves.
4
Daniel Patrick Moynihan's career in the executive branch (as a Nixon appointee!), as New York's second longest serving Senator, as ambassador, and as a Harvard professor serves as a reminder how freethinking politicians once could thrive in politics. Moynihan's research in the Labor Department (The Moynihan Report) showed that even with improving employment, people would take welfare if the government offered it. He foresaw and warned against the great incentive for fatherless households vis a vis government aid programs. He also opposed the Clintons' efforts at Hillarycare in the 1990's. And yet, he was a giant in the Democratic party for novel ideas, factual debate, and legislation throughout his career. In comparison, Elizabeth Warren proposes bills like the "Accountable Capitalism Act" which have zero chance of passage but look good in her election brochures. Voters in Massachusetts may eat that up, but she will be the intellectual Michael Dukakis candidate in 2020. Instead of the humorous tank helmet photo, she'll be shackled by 23andMe results.
1
One of the problems with democracy is that smart caring people running for office are exceptional and most of those who vote are not among the exceptional.
2
Many thanks to Paul Krugman for elevating the conversation regarding Elizabeth Warren's candidacy. Because she is a woman there has been a wave of anxiety in press coverage, suggesting that she will not be able to win over the rank and file. As an intelligent, articulate and principled public servant, she should be viewed according to her merits and views, rather than the potential resistance she may face from conscious and unconscious sexism. Despite Hilary Clinton's tragic and disappointing loss, we have to believe that we as a party, and as a country, are more noble than this. True, the continuing support for Trump by a small minority of adamant, racist, sexist, hate-filled admirers has shaken our confidence in the judgement of many of America's citizens, but we can't let the least discerning among us set the tone of debate. We have to believe that there are enough of us who are rational and open-minded, and who care about our country enough to be informed, that the democratic party can run a candidate with an inspiring vision for solving our country's considerable challenges. True, it will take a superwoman, or superman, to turn things around and get our democracy back on track. It is a daunting task, but we have to believe that progressive voters will turn out. Elizabeth Warren is a great choice, and she will benefit from her resemblance to Bernie Sanders in terms of policy stances, especially if he endorses her candidacy and campaigns for her.
1
Paul, the problem is that the media (especially the broadcast media) is now largely controlled by powerful economic interests that benefit from Republican notions including, but not limited to, deficit busting tax cuts favoring the well off and corporations, including media moguls and the corporations they control.
Trump is an inveterate liar, but look how often the media give him a forum for disseminating his deceptions. He will do that once again on national television when he scares people about the need for a wall on the southern border. Who is worse the liar, or the one who knowingly lets himself be used to spread the lies?
4
First, she is too old. Second, she has a very serious jugment problem, and third, she is extremely bad at applying damage control when she makes a mistake. Just the opposite, she just makes things worse. Look at the DNA mess, she still has not been able to issue an apology.
1
"Can news organizations tell the difference between genuine policy wonks and poseurs like Ryan?"
Dr. K, you're an economist! When are you going to accept the fact that today's media outlets have one thing in mind: profits! Al Franken was right - there is no liberal bias in major media outlets, there is a profit bias. They're going to publish and broadcast what sells, period. That's why we have this buffoon sitting in the White House - and that's why, if we sit around waiting for the media to treat serious people like Elizabeth Warren like serious people, we'll see another 4 years of this charlatan - and we'll deserve it, too.
Of course it would be marvelous if the media reported seriously and voters took the time to study issues in depth, but to offer a Rumsfeldian metaphor, we have to deal with the media and the electorate that we have, not ones we wish we had. Given that, Democrats will just have to come up with a marketable version of Warren to offer voters.
The problem with the "philosopher king" concept is that it doesn't appear to work too well in this grand experiment in democracy.
Let's not forget that it was ultimately the press that gave us an incompetent, ignorant, bigoted, pathologically lying, ego maniacal Trump as president through their incessant coverage amplifying the Trump circus act while ignoring any serious converge of issues or facts.
Likewise, the coverage of Trump's first two years in which he has proven himself an even worse president then even the spineless leaders of his own party once thought, has been just as superficially focused on utter nonsense.
Why should we expect any thing different from the press now when the fate of the nation and the future of the world may depend on Trump not getting elected to a second term.
2
I like her. I think she is smart, savvy and would leave Trump in a heap on the floor. She does fight for the middle class, which though diminished, is still standing. And after Trump, a woman president would be sheer bliss!
1
I like what she says but even she probably doesn't like the way she says it. She is in need of voice lessons or some other kind of help with her vocal cords. I know this seems like a nit picky thing but it really makes a difference with all too many voters.
Most voters are not much in to policy issues and there are many who vote based on superficial issues such as strength of voice, hair cut etc.
A woman cannot be elected to the presidency in the United States. Hillary Clinton is a classic example of that statement. Too many women don't vote for female candidates. Here in the Bay States there were thousands of women who joined the Bernie Sanders cult, and when he didn't get the nomination they stayed home in November or voted for a third-party candidate who could not win. Nearly 53% of white women voted for Donald Trump, the most sexist man on the planet. Massachusetts, a liberal blue state, has never elected a female governor and took until 2012 to elect its first female senator. Too many women have internalized the message that women are inferior and that leadership roles belong to men. If Democrats want to win in 2020 they must nominate a straight white Christian moderate male. That's the prescription for victory.
1
We've been FOXed.
Media "news" outlets like FOX, "Rush radio" and other insidious propaganda is winning.The republican cabal of billionaires that are funding the lies is now in charge.
In order to combat this onslaught of lies and paid "newspersons" who shill for them, we need to be intelligent about what we read and listen to. We need to refuse to listen to or watch FOX, "Rush radio", and the various talking heads who spread the propaganda of the cabal(R).
The cabal shows up in places that you least expect. PBS even invites some of them on their channel to show "even-handedness". Every Friday night PBS invites one of them to argue against a progressive commentator (and spread false or misleading information in doing so).
It will not be easy to ignore and filter out the schemers and grifters since our news outlets help spread the lies by allowing "both sides" to present their case - as if lies and propaganda are a legitimate argument.
Vote for a Democrat in 2020 and until conservatives have been forced to present an honest case to the American public. You'll know that this has happened when repub politicians lead the way to Medicare for All.
Thank our lucky stars that folks like Elizabeth Warren still exist. In the face of overwhelming odds, nevertheless, she has persisted.
But don't hold your breath. You can die from lack of oxygen as easily as you can die from no health care due to a pre-existing condition - the republican cabal, for example.
I especially liked the phrase "trivia based reporting". That is what got us Trump as president. I hope the media pays heed and does some work letting the whole nation know who potential candidates are, what their policies are AND their moral compasses. The headline grabber stories are not what builds a strong nation. There are many candidates who would make potentially good presidents...but they don't have the name recognition nationally, and not all have had the benefit of a second-rate nationally broadcast reality show that has reduced our leadership into a reality show instead of governance.
1
My conservative sister gave me The Gifted Generation to refute my claims that conservatives refuse to be educated. The book illustrates the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, and LBJ as administrations that approached national issues and responsibilities by initiating and passing a number of laws relating directly to the safety and well-being of Americans, including education, healthcare, education, ecological rules (discharge permits) for mining industries, and infastructure improvements.
A listing of the presidencies followed, with Reagan leading the way with claims that less govt was the answer to our national challenges, in direct conflict with the realities noted earlier in The Gifted Generation. Via Reagan our country has been assaulted by a conservative attack touting individual responsibilities instead of a helping hand; personal needs that cannot be met by individuals has lead to the never-ending arguments regarding Social Security, Medicare, etc. and their funding requirements.
Meanwhile our country falls further behind the rest of the developed world; for example, there are currently 270 developed countries that provide national healthcare, and many of those countries also offer 'free' secondary education. The USA does neither.
The Gifted Generation should be required reading for ALL Americans to better understand where our country is, and how we got here.
1
Paul! You and David Brooks need to read each others' articles this morning, and then come together for a dialogue that becomes another article. Basically, if your article is true than what he proposes is impossible. I would love to read your conversation.
Wide open partisanism is not the problem, it seems. Rather it is closed "cable-news-ism" that is the problem with reporting - on Warren or anyone. Not because certain channels adhere to certain views but because their viewers adhere to them.
Whether the Fairness Doctrine was really fair or constitutional or not it gave other political views a shot within the confines of opposing media outlets. That never happens these days. Fox viewers view Fox and CNN viewers view CNN. Each gets what they want and neither gets another, orthogonal view. Each is happy with what they see and, we all end up unhappy together.
It may suggest that without a national media leader, e.g. Walter Cronkite, there will be no unifying national political leader. That is, if we can't agree about what we watch on TV, surely won't be able to agree about what we do with our nation.
1
If you want to have a social welfare state, you have to tax the poor 30%, the middle class 50%, and the upper class 70%. That's what it would take to raise the money necessary to fund the Democrat's policy proposals.
Of course, they're going along saying you could just raise taxes on a few billionaires and pay for everything. They are not going to admit the truth, because they would never get elected if they did.
But if they do win, they'll have to face reality: their numbers don't add up, and it is impossible to do what they propose in the manner they propose it.
1
I find myself admiring the craft of this column almost more than its subtly complex message. In one neat, engaging package, Krugman has diagnosed the most essential reasons why our current political situation has become so dysfunctional. Our supposedly "liberal" media ends up forwarding conservative values out of sheer laziness, failing to distinguish genuine intellectual power from flim-flam, and failing to work consciously to overcome the general cultural bias against women and people of color (the latter genuinely implicated in Warren's case, affecting how people think about her supposed heritage issues). And so people end up believing that Ryan is a wonk, that Hillary never addressed working-class issues, that Pelosi is "divisive, that Ocasio Cortez is just a wild child, and Warren just a bleeding heart. As you can see, I find myself thinking that the bias against women might be causing us the greatest collective harm--as Krugman's last two columns tend to illustrate. But it's also important to note that this media problem precedes social media. Political reporting as infotainment has been plaguing us for decades now, meaning it must be a kind of broad, cultural problem that we need to understand better.
6
@Keith Wonderfully crafted? Is any of it true? Is Krugman the one to give us advice?
1
If the Dems take the Senate in 2020, Warren would be a great majority leader. That might be a better fit for her.
3
@Garth or chairman of the banking and finance committee. Her knowledge of financial laws and regulation, coupled with her passionate defense of the middle and working class, could go a long a way in restoring banks to their original role: servants of the people.
1
Thank you, Prof. Krugman, for going beyond the "Is she likable?" analysis of E.W. *and* for pointing out the media bias that allows lightweight conservative males to be cast as policy heavyweights but disallows progressives and women from being considered policy heavyweights. That bias is so damaging to our country.
I hope every journalist working for the big media outlets (other than Fox) reads this. The US would be a better place if they grew spines and worried less about telling people what they think they want to hear.
8
Yet neither party is doing anything about the ongoing student loan disaster.
4
@Mons, What disaster? My kids are paying back what they borrowed, (some for a Master's Degree). I wouldn't have it any other way.
1
On the op-ed pages (and especially in this particular column), we expect uncritical cheerleading for all Democrat candidates, culminating in the beatification of the eventual nominee.
I hope that on the news pages, the NYT will have the institutional courage to find more objective voices that address the serious concerns about and legitimate criticisms of Warren's positions. She certainly throws red meat to her base, but even Krugman knows that in economics--and perhaps occasionally in real life--there's no such thing as a free lunch.
"But I was wrong." The self-correcting utterance politicians fear.
2
Well written, Paul. Finally, someone hits the nail on the head re: Paul Ryan. Poseur? Perfect. There never was any there there.
4
Krugman cites Warren’s “scholarly work on bankruptcies” as evidence of her policy bonafides. The truth is that her article on bankruptcies has been found wanting in several respects and has pretty much been debunked by subsequent research. The NYT ran an article on this last summer:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/upshot/elizabeth-warren-and-a-scholarly-debate-over-medical-bankruptcy-that-wont-go-away.html
2
Every election is kind of a national intelligence test. We occasionally pass it, but we're mostly C students...but we better start cramming for 2020.
2
The key to beating Trump is not to talk about Trump. Refer to all of his flaws and failures with policy references and allow him to self destruct. If your opponent is going to drive off a cliff, don’t stop them
3
Usually liberals elect somebody President, when they do elect a President, with a great deal of personal charm. Not a paranoid.
That is likely to be a big problem for Liz.
And the DNA flap is extremely hard for a lot of people afraid of racism to swallow in a liberal candidate for President.
One if your best Paul. Thank you for making me think.
2
You ask, "The question is whether our media environment can handle a real party of ideas. Can news organizations tell the difference between genuine policy wonks and poseurs like Ryan? Are they even willing to discuss policy rather than snark about candidates’ supposed personality flaws?"
I think the question is rhetorical - you know the answer.
1
Warren recognizes big ideas.
She has seen that requiring two incomes to accomplish today what a single income accomplished when i was a child has a profound effect on families, on child rearing, on society.
She recognizes that subsidized national healthcare adds financial security to teetering families, and it reduces one major factor that drives industries to she workers and leave.
Warren's biggest problem as a national candidate is not that she is a woman, it is that she is a smart and committed woman. Right now? We have a fairly large population spread in states that can, as we have seen, take the electoral college, who are not at all impressed by smarts. Who actually count intellect and knowledge against a candidate. Combine that with female (or black) and watch the fireworks.
Why we want dumb an ignorant running things, I can't fathom. But it sure is popular.
6
I agree with some of Warren’s ideas and don’t with many, but respect that she is willing to put them out there and let others take shots at her by being the first out of the chute.
A third of the country likes the what she is saying, at least directionally; a third of the country isn’t educated enough on the issues to understand what she is saying or whether it will be good for them; and another third will just reflexively oppose her because Fox News and Trump say she is a flaming liberal socialist from Harvard.
3
While I admire some of her skills and accomplishments, I worry that she is too narrow minded, convinced of her own "rightness," to be effective in higher office. And she's very interested in the camera being on her -- not alone in this as a politician, for sure -- but again, I worry that it interferes with her ability to see multiple sides of anything. We don't need another knee-jerk President on either side of the aisle.
No doubt EW can get about 45% of the vote.
Don't confuse the people at her rallies with the people that vote on the first Tuesday of Nov.
The GOP and DJT will rip her apart.
In 2016, DJT carried the category of all women.
HRC was a centrist and lost and could not carry women.
She has to win, PA, Mi, WI, MN; she can't win OH
In the recent past, Massachusetts intellectuals have crashed and burned
I'll vote for her, but there is a lot at risk here.
Raising taxes maybe right, but it will feed the GOP monster.
2
Let us not do this again. The president does not need to be "the most serious and qualified intellectual to run for president". Since when. She should run and get the confidence of the voters. That is how a democracy works, and democracy is no guarantee that the human with the highest IQ or GPA will win, or that the most moral will win.
He or she does not need to be president to be influential. Or do you think that Paul Krugman has not been influential in the last 25 years?
1
Hear!Hear! I hope to see more Krugmans called out mainstream media (and media fakes, eg, Fox) when they write about irrelevant issues related to candidates like Warren.
1
The sad truth is that in addition to having great policy ideas, the next Dem candidate will have to go into a street fight with the vicious Trump. The candidate will have to establish that he/she can stand up to a withering assault of lies and off-the-cuff statements and come back with worse. I'm not saying that Warren does not have the ability to do this, but so far I don't think it's been established. Her speeches seem to be too rehearsed...even her "off-the-cuff" remarks have that quality. She needs some street cred. As I said, it's the "sad truth".
1
Like a boxer who knows she's too good to mix it up with her lowly opposition, who stands with her fists at her side being pummeled night after night, Elizabeth, Hillary, and the Dems risk losing election after election, stunned that "the American people don't get it".
The best ideas are critical, as is rapid and effective implementation, but none of that excuses you from making yourself and your intellect accessible, making your goals meaningful to the people you seek to serve.
I've puzzled over how a party of ugly excess and offensive snobbery, of rank acquisitiveness and ego pathology like the Republicans manages to convince the nation its Democrats who are elitists, and the enemy.
However that came about, Democrats gave the process an important push along the way. Ideas are important, yes; so are people and their feelings.
Nobody wants WWE politics or FOX faux-news, but for a party that claims concern for the nation and the common man, Democrats seem to have mastered the pose of superior law-giver to a disturbing degree.
Elections depend on the ability to 'be human', to be respectful, concerned, and aware in every way of the obstacles placed in the paths of people working or willing to work hard for themselves and their families, constantly exposing the contemptuous hypocrisy with which the party of Trump and McConnell regards their base.
Politics is a job, among other things, and Democrats dare not believe they are too good to do it.
Dr. Krugman doesn't seem to understand that the average American voter isn't interested in a candidate's intellectual capability. If that were the case Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would have won their presidential election in overwhelming landslides. Gore and Clinton came across as the annoying class nerds who always had the right answers. By comparison their opponents did just enough to get by. Come on we've all been to high school. Being cool is far more important than being smart.
@sharon5101,
Great insight. Unfortunately, that's the way people vote.
1
@sharon5101
Yes, and here are my secret thoughts: Warren actually loves this country and understands that vulture capitalism is not serving it well. Bernie started this ball rolling, and if you remember, Warren wasn't all that quick to endorse Clinton because she shares plenty of his outlook. So, I think her main intent is to shout all her policy positions as loudly as possible to get them ingrained in the American psyche as best as she can. If she wins the nomination--great--people are sick and tired of this Trump lunacy and she'll win no problem. If she doesn't, she will have shoved the other contenders slightly left, as Clinton was by Sanders. Sadly for Clinton, she had too much other baggage.
Intelligent people are capable of having layered agendas.
No matter what, she'll still be Senator Warren, our hero doing battle with our gluttonous financial sector.
The media has done a terrible job with candidates. Groupthink takes hold early ....journalist and pundit after journalist after pundit repeats the same simple and oftentimes inaccurate portrayal, debating only whether that portrayal makes said candidate good or bad.
Hilary got more votes and still the media portrays her as unliked. I liked her and always did. Warrens biggest opponent will be The media. It’s already on.
2
Wow, Mr. Krugman you covered all the bases safe one...highly flawed electoral college system. The fourth branch of government, Fox News, needs to be dismantled along with E.C. before the former spreads more hatred and venom among our citizens and curb progressive ideas from solving national and global problems before it is too late. Actually, it might sadly be too late already.
If Senator Warren's supporters want the spotlight off of the Senator's bogus claimed ancestry, they should tell Ms. Warren to stop her ridiculous efforts to put the spotlight on her bogus claimed ancestry. She - and not the media - is the one who keeps bringing that subject up again and again.
1
@mpound
Her claim of Native-American ancestry is based on oral family history plus the DNA test. The DNA test results were in agreement with the oral history. End of story.
1
"'Economist' Stephen Moore" is standard staple fare on CNN. Moore is a mindless political hack whose principle argumentation tactic is to endlessly repeat himself louder and louder until his voice drowns out everybody else on the set.
Moore's credentials should be accorded no more gravitas than those of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. If CNN continues to host Stephen Moore as a "serious" voice "on the other side," then it too should stop being taken seriously.
2
A "serious policy representative" makes a good staff member not a president.
Whenever I hear Elizabeth Warren, I am moved to tears. She is sincere, passionate, and bright. She is the complete opposite of the grotesque man in the White House. What does that say about us as a nation when she is considered unelectable by so many, yet an abomination is president? I fear for this country.
0
4
I for one welcome the thought of our first Native American President. To call the Democrats the "Party of Ideas" is perhaps the most ridiculous thing Krugman has said - in at least a week.
1
Wonderful! Krugman ends with warnings about shoddy jouranlistic takes on Warren, and in the "More from Opinion on Elizabeth Warren" menu that follows the essay is Bret Stephens' mindless drive-by. An unserious white male conservative commentator we're supposed to take seriously when he tries to torch an actual thinker.
1
Warren is a smart, dedicated woman who succeeded in a more difficult time for women by working to promote fairness and clarity in advertising to benefit working Americans. Her tools were rationality, focus and passion to make life better for those skewered by the system. She did so ethically and without seeking to increase and display the size of her button or bank account. Now she will face prejudice from Dems because of her age.
Many Dem contenders have merit and are accomplished. All will face cartoonish diminution by Repubs who embraced a foolish, lying, race-baiting sexual predator who specialized in bankruptcies rather than their prevention.
The main, the only obstacle to Dems victory in 2020, is The Green Paty.
We have a two-party system. Voting for a third party is not an act of morality, but an act of moral righteousness that should belong to the Falwells of the world and not those who believe in promoting enlightenment rationality over medieval fear and adherence to dogma. The Greens have been the sharpest tool of the Republicans.
Please, Dems, make a deal PRIOR to the election to install a Green Party choice as Sec of the Interior and/or head of the EPA in return for them not fielding a candidate in 2020 in recognition that a Repub victory in 2020 puts the entire planet in extremis.
Greens, you have given us George W. over Al Gore, Trump instead of Hillary and are now poised to give us Trump again in a display of moral righteousness. Please don't.
3
She misrepresented her heritage to gain access to college. I’m doing so she took a native Americans place that was really deserved vs a person who misrepresented her lineage for gain. Is this a leader, or a flawed politician? You can’t take back the dishonesties of that past. Try rationalizing to the Native American that she took her/his spot.
Wrong on both counts. She was not hired because of native heritage nor did she take the place of a Native American. She was already a tenured professor at Harvard when she checked a box identifying herself as having Native American heritage in a national faculty directory. She answered this question honestly, she has never asserted she is a tribal member (which she is not), and the DNA test she took confirmed Native American ancestry of the degree she indicated her family lore had informed her. This was investigated by the Boston Globe and they found she was viewed at all times as a white woman and never used her Native American heritage to her advantage in seeking admission to university or faculty positions. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
1
Absolutely! Warren earned her academic chops by conducting the largest-ever survey of personal bankruptcies and publishing the results. That's why she's a Harvard professor. The silly dust up about her genetic history is a sideshow.
Warren has taken on the wolves of Wall Street when no one else was willing. We need her.
4
The media is a real barrier to serious policy discussions. Appeals to the gut and ginned up controversy draws eyeballs. Fact-checking and discussion in depth doesn’t.
And let’s not forget the GOP has been very successful at intimidating the media into framing issues with a Center-right tilt, and going along with right wing hissy fits.
2
Mr. Krugman struggles to understand that the United States is not a series of perpetual problems to be solved by an ever more sophisticated and active centralized government - a sky crane, so to speak, lifting us all out of the rubble one smart federal program after another.
Not realizing that our society is actually built from the ground up by the day to day small actions of hardworking individuals, or that moderate inequality of outcome is the inevitable result of varying genetics and talents and therefore okay, of course Mr. Krugman neither recognizes nor appreciates intellectuals who believe that government is rarely the final solution for the unending problems permeating Mr. Krugman's imagination.
@Captain Obvious
You obviously don't understand that even the hard working dullards among us deserve a living wage, health care, and a secure retirement.
That's what government ensures for its people. A dignified life. Otherwise, we're headed back to serfdom and eventually slavery.
Governments are also the only way to address larger global problems like climate change.
Let's be honest: no one is ever qualified or prepared to take on the office of President of the United States. Anyone who says he is, is a liar or delusional or both. That goes for Trump and it goes for all the new lightweights assembling in the Democrat corral. The job itself has grown too large and too powerful for one person to handle. The best we can hope for is a president who takes his or her oath literally -- to defend the Constitution -- which means to protect the rights of American citizens. But we Americans can no longer agree on something as simple as the definition of "rights" as the endless pressure-group civil war grinds on. The best we can hope for in a president is an honest caretaker who will do the least amount of harm as the nation drifts from one avoidable catastrophe to another, never learning from past mistakes in judgement.
3
As a side issue, but an important one, I cite the following. After the election of George W Bush (Dubya), a Washington Post reporter told us that in his opinion, Dubya was the least prepared candidate he had ever seen. Of course, now, Trump exceeds Dubya in unpreparedness. But the press gave both Dubya and Trump a free apss. This is certainly NOT true in the case of Sen. Warren. She is talked down to by the entire GOP, and much of the press. This is how we got into the situation of electing an incompetent like Trump, or Dubya. The damage these 2 have done to the USA is without parallel. I hope that in 2020 the Dems come up with a candidate who can win. Maybe Biden as presidental candidate, and Warren for vice-president(?)
4
Can this be the unlikely Hercules sent to the US as a cleaner of the Augean Stables that DC has become?
It will be fun to see. The end of the Trump horror is beginning to come into focus. Hallelujah!
1
“Likability” got us GWB and Trump for president.
Americans should finally figure out that it’s not the strongest of metrics to elect a president.
1
I like how Krugman thinks Warren is a fountain of new ideas when every solution she offers is more government and more taxes. Good luck with that in 2020.
Elizabeth Warren can definitely be president of Brookline, Massachusetts, but to be President of the United States you need the Midwest, Appalachia, and the South, which might as well be foreign countries to a Yankee, even one born in the Midwest. If Warren can overcome the juvenile smear campaign, then she will face the seemingly insurmountable task of reaching out to blockheads who are completely unsympathetic to the idea of preparing for the world of the future.
2
@Jonathan She doesn't need the entire Midwest or Appalachia, just Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and she really doesn't need the South except maybe Florida. She can't appeal to the entire country and she shouldn't try.
“a lot of things determine whether someone will succeed in that job, and intellectual gravitas is neither necessary nor sufficient.” I agree that intellectual gravitas is not sufficient but it IS necessary. Mr. Krugman: I am a real fan of yours and I find myself agreeing with almost everything you write but this surprised me.
Unfortunately, intellectual discourse appeals only to intellectuals.
As Dr. Krugman points out, there are few, if any, on the conservative side. That zone is populated mostly by grifters, flatterers, and people afflicted by Dunning-Krueger Syndrome.
The masses like sexy and exciting, thrills and chills, not intellect. Rupert Murdock has exploited this fact to the corruption of politics in Britain and the United States; and it earns a nice dollar for numerous 'talk-show hosts'. Trump and people like him stir up the masses, tell them what they want to hear, and take their money before they realize what happened. Then they lay the blame on someone else.
Intellectuals don't have much chance in that environment.
1
Of course it is lost on the dullard Trump that over the long term his one gift (if you are feeling generous) might be the huge backlash against his foul administration and so-called party.
We might very well be entering a new age of enlightenment if the country (and the world) can survive the balance of this horrid man's 'administration'
3
Of course you are right Mr. Krugman but the fact is Elizabeth Warren is unelectable.
When will we see a real analysis of the US economy ? Who pays taxes ? How much ? In which partition ? What is the fiscal fraud amount ? Both internal and external in foreign economies ? How is the budget spent ? Who and what gets what ? etc... etc... this will not happen tomorrow...
1
"Warren’s continuing to throw out unorthodox policy ideas, like her proposal that the federal government be allowed to get into the business of producing some generic drugs."
Good idea. Good idea to nationalize all sorts of stuff, like Medical and Infrastructure or a Green New Deal.
Sure, let contracts for the work, but the government itself should be hiring workers. Are we aware of the fact that the Military has it's meals catered? No stewards or cooky anymore. No building your own barracks and cleaning your own toilets, either. Prisoners no longer gainfully employed by the State to pay their debt to Society.
I got the feeling that Elizabeth's Warren's good ideas are just common sense that could and should be extended far beyond what she has suggested.
291
@Nelly
" Are we aware of the fact that the Military has it's meals catered? "
I am.
Base security is also. As if our military isn't capable of securing it's own bases? Isn't that what they do to begin with?
55
@Nelly
Most government research and development agencies, if you go online, are either close to shutting down or unable to function properly because of underfunding by the present Administration and other political influences. This is a crisis. For instance the USGS provides the following but is now underfunded to pursue it's important endeavors:
The USGS serves the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. USGS is a world leader in the natural sciences through our scientific excellence and responsiveness to society's needs.
As the Nation's largest water, earth, and biological science and civilian mapping agency, USGS collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides science about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems. Our diverse expertise enables us to carry out large-scale, multidisciplinary investigations and provide impartial scientific information to resource managers, planners, and other customers.
27
@Nelly
"Are we aware of the fact that the Military has its meals catered?"
The military is a sacred cow - using up such a large chunk of our federal budget. Here's hoping Senator Warren aims her laser eye at the underpinings of our "defense" and proposes ways to put many of the funds to wiser, better, use. Universal domestic service for our young would be a great option.
16
I agree that Ms. Warren's brilliant and has important ideas to fix the broken economic system and consequent significant disparities in our country.
But I don't hear (or maybe have missed) her talk about foreign affairs, and our place in the world. These are most important to me. Just look at the way Trump is ruining our standing, how our allies can't trust the U.S. anymore, and how that contributes to the destabilization of the democratic nations of the globe.
Please, Ms. Warren, address these most important issues.
1
Do candidates of ideas win elections and then also win legislation?
Democrats need to abandon the notion that they only need win blue states. It's doubtful Warren could win in the red, which is necessary for post-election skirmishes.
Democrats would be foolish not to cultivate Klobuchar.
57
@FR - The "Bernie would have won" argument hinges on the idea that Sanders would have been able to win the purplish states in the Lakes region that Clinton narrowly lost - due to his appeal to the "working class". Warren is running on a message that should be appealing to that same group of people. I think it's premature at this point to assume that she won't play outside of solidly blue states.
16
@FR
Democrats would be foolish not to support Senator Bernie Sanders, who has for decades been promoting a bold domestic agenda, and has crossover appeal with many of the same people who voted for Trump but may now be turned off by his presidency.
2
@FR, in red states, people have no idea whatsoever who Klobuchar is.
8
Listen, I'm agreement with probably 95% of what Krugman writes, but why does he have to keep making the same point in every op-ed? For a piece on new, innovative ideas, it's essentially the same (valid) complaints against the right and their enablers in the media. Does Paul really think preaching the same message to the choir over and over again will be effective?
3
Odd that being "likeable" is not required of male leaders, especially male Republican leaders. Paul Ryan is likeable. But his likeability drew little comment. He was evaluated on the basis of his ideas, and properly adjudged to be a dope. Donald Trump? Mitch McConnell? Not likeable. Does anybody comment, or even care? No. Brett Kavanaugh, who scored a first-round knockout on likeability? No. And yet am I not noticing creeping likeability in Nancy Pelosi in her return engagement? Or is it just a shrewd masquerade? How long can she keep it up?? Can the immensely likeable Amy Klobuchar become president? Inquiring minds want to know.
112
@highway
It is required. This is why Gore lost to Bush (ok, 'lost', but he should have won easily).
The Gore example should give Democrats pause for thought before they nominate another awkward - while ambitious - intellectual. There is nothing wrong with such types per se - I sympathize on a personal basis - but they tend not to win elections. And winning the next presidential election is what matters.
9
@highway
When I was in USAF basic training, we were told we don't have to like the guy in charge — a non-com' or an officer — we just had to trust them as leaders. In combat, winning involves trusting the decisions of those in command.
All leaders are vulnerable to error. That's called a human condition. We just have to hope the error was a temporary one, perhaps based on flawed advice from flawed advisors.
Gender and race should not be part of that equation.
10
@David Ohman David-I too went through USAF basic training: June-July 1968. As we know, the entire point of basic training is that you DON'T like the guy(s) in charge. Didn't enter our minds that that was a possibility, let alone a requirement!
3
One advantage to her candidacy, as well as those of Senators Kamela Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Gillibrand, and any others who may decide to enter the race: No longer would it be a matter of a choice between several men and The Woman. Small as it may seem, it, in itself, would be a major change in the deliberation process for choosing a candidate.
The media, especially broadcast media, can't recognize serious policy discussions because 1) it's conservative, not liberal, run by giant corporations, and 2) their focus on ratings dictates how they cover the news. Policy discussions are ratings losers. Reality-show candidates and personality-driven conflict are ratings winners.
251
@Dario Bernardini
You are absolutely correct. The amount of time spent on policy as opposed to spectacle in the 2016 campaign was embarrassingly appalling.
NTL, I seem to recall that the "justification" for creating "Fair and Balanced" Fox News was to have a counter to the "liberal bias" of the mainstream media.
As Moonvess said about the carnival barker's antics, "It may be bad for the country, but it's great for CBS". Tell me what's liberal about that attitude?
6
@Dario Bernardini
I keep waiting for someone to finally point out the obvious in a public forum - that the media is, as you say, conservative not liberal, even before you get to Fox News.
The MSM sold the Iraq War, buried stories about Dubya's NSA until after his re-election, breathlessly repeated every Palinism and every lie about the ACA, spent all of 2016 talking about Emailgate while ignoring a dozen Trump scandals... and is now providing Trump with the platform to talk about his pet issue after denying Obama the same platform for the same issue and previously granting it to Dubya. If that's what our "liberal media" looks like, I'd hate to see the other one.
9
@Dario Bernardini
"The media's focus on ratings dictates how they cover the news . . . Reality-show candidates and personality-driven conflict are ratings winners."
True. And this is why we need federal laws giving equal and adequate tv airtime to all credible candidates for the final 6 months before an election. Airtime is a national asset--it shouldn't be leased off to corporations, where profit overrules patriotism.
10
Warren's tough.
The real question is whether Dem voters can hang tough against the Rep. arrows and the media's dwelling on petty issues such as "likability."
117
@SLBvt
I think you've got that backwards.
@SLBvt
I am thankful that the Pelosi bashing only intimidated a handful of mushy House Democrats into voting against her return to power. I hope they finally see that the GOP fears competent women and that is the reason they bash her.
3
Ms Warren's handling of his Pocahontas silly talk unfortunately revealed poor judgment and lack of strategic planning, among other things. Better to have simply ignored it - yes, forever and if it were ever brought upon in a debate simply state 'Mr T, my name is Elizabeth Warren. Please have the decency to address me by my name." Thus, making him look like the little person that he is. Maybe it's naive but it is a direct (and pure) approach. Apart from that, I'm enthusiastic for the reasons Paul mentions - she's bringing intellect to the game and has genuinely progressive ideas. She attacks with gusto, without seeming like a product of the machine, in contrast to Hillary.
110
@Tim
Nice and simple won't win against Trump. One needs to combat Trump the way Trump combats everyone else.
2
@Tim no matter what Warren does Trump will attack. She took him up on his dare and he in his turn lied. End of story.
7
@Tim
Trump owes a charity of Warren's choice $1 million. He won't pay. Is that okay?
21
Elizabeth Warren gets my vote for president, if only because she was the guiding force behind the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She is a fount of good policy ideas and as for her "likeability," I like her just fine, as did many Iowans on her visit there.
5
Work the confluence of national needs and her specific abilities, Warren would be the best President we've had in nearly a century. I've said it before - this immediately disqualifies her from the job. About half of America deserves what it gets.
95
Thanks, Paul Krugman. I saw Elizabeth Warren interviewed by Rachel Maddow and was very impressed. She's an intellectual with big ideas. She cares about our country and where it has been going. One of her greatest ideas, she wants big money out of politics.
4
Shouldn’t we as proud progressive democrats be worried that a white woman is running. There are plenty of women of color who could hold this position. Why don’t we find some young ethnically diverse woman who can offer her opinions?
5
@Julius Middle America's backlash to Democrats' embrace of Identity Politics is, at least in part, what gave us Trump. We need the best person, period.
23
@Julius
The presidency is not a job for amateurs. We need thoughtful, left-leaning candidates with experience in politics and already-sharpened elbows to deal with the whirling vortex that is Washington. No woman has yet broken the glass ceiling of the presidency, so whether Madame President is white or of color is less important than simply getting a successful candidate in office (even if male, although I would love to see women viewed as equally capable of holding the office, without all of this "likability" nonsense. Let us not elevate optics over both electability and effectiveness.
17
@Julius
I agree. Why don't you suggest one?
Americans who think and who bristle at the level of political content and political comment by the media at large have been wondering for a long time about whether to blame the journalists/pundits/reporters who cover politics or the conglomerates that employ them.
One thing is certain; Americans are growing increasingly angry over the level of political coverage and discourse that the media has been doling out for the last thirty years.
It's refreshing to hear Liz Warren because she has ideas. Hopefully she will somehow figure out a way to go around our empty headed and deceiving press.
3
"The question is whether our media environment can handle a real party of ideas. "
No, that's not the question, the question is can the electorate handle competing ideas? The answer to that question is yes, just not the particular ideas that are discussed here.
In the last election, the electorate were presented with various ideas from both candidates that were (have to be?) summarized as snappy slogans, repeated endlessly, which in the end became the principal "idea" of their respective campaigns.
Trump's guys came up with the now ubiquitous "Make America Great Again". Forget for a moment who it was selling, just consider the beauty of this construction. It allowed Americans to interpret it as they liked guided by a reality show personality who knew how to sell, as the poor folks who earlier bought into Trump U can, and did, testify to.
In contrast, Clinton's ideas were embodied in the slogan "Stronger Together". How do you tease out any ideas from that amorphous word group? More importantly for Clinton how could she get a crowd to cheer for that. By the way that slogan won out over competing ones such as "Progress for the rest of us" and, my favorite, "A new bargain we can count on" , both of which were equally insipid.
Too bad that Clinton could not use the slogans that PM May used in last year's UK election, "strong and stable", particularly when combined with her slogan for the opposition, "coalition of chaos". That could have been a winner.
1
@GerardM
My favorite (barely) rejected slogan was "It's Her Turn". Because the marketing geniuses of her campaign figured that they were going to be campaigning only to Democrats.
1
Trump with the help of Jerome Powell tanked the stock market. Now the government shutdown is causing economic turmoil. Economy may be headed for a slowdown or downturn. Adverse climate conditions have created hardship for so many in the west and northeast. Time for an end to identity politics and run a candidate with new ideas. Only Democrats could find a way to loose in 2020.
I'm not sure why Professor Krugman insists that he's not saying that Warren should be president. But if I had to guess I would say it's because he, like me, fears that the American electorate is easy prey for the win-at-any-cost GOP slime machine. But we should know by now that they will slime any candidate they see as a threat, to the point where if they aren't sliming the candidate isn't what we need. And he's right to call out the media, particularly broadcast media from which most Americans still get their "news". But as I said to a friend last week, himself a consumer of mainly broadcast media and who is therefore not supportive of Warren because she's "too shrill", if we have reached the point where we cannot recognize intellect and passionate commitment to something greater than themselves in a candidate, well, the future looks grim. I'm with her because, as Karen Garcia said earlier, she's clearly with us.
4
Warren is undoubtedly an intellectual. I wouldn't put her in the same class as Daniel Patrick who was a repository of huge wisdom in many fields (that often put him at odds with both parties) but she certainly deserves respect based on her academic history. She probably won't get the nomination simply because there are other stronger candidates and she will probably be drawing water from the same electoral well as others we can think of but as the standard bearer of the left of the Democratic party she is a huge improvement on Sanders and her ideas are going to get a thorough airing as the campaign unfolds and some of them (if not all) make good sense given that increasing inequality in this country is becoming economically self defeating.
1
@John I would also add that intellectual thought is maligned on the far right. They would rather toss her out based on one bad move with the DNA thing than to consider all the ideas and solutions she offers based on intelligent thought. They would rather try trickle down for the umpteenth time to see if it would work, than to consider something else. All these social programs are so terrible for the country, we can't possibly expand on them. I would suggest those in opposition look at the stock market, corporate profits, and the wealth of people like Buffett, Bezos, Cook, and Gates that has all been accumulated with those programs in place. The real question is: can increases in the middle class occur at the same time as the wealth is accumulated at the top? So far the answer is no. Maybe trying something new would be in the middle class' best interest.
@walking man
But the far right are not the determinants of her fate are they? They would vote against Jesus if he was running as a Democrat. And of course if the very wealthy are taking an increasing share of income (the 1% are now taking around 22% which is back at 1920's levels) there is less for the 90 percentile. So yes things have reached a point where income inequality has become counter productive to capitalism in a largely service economy where consumer spending represents about 70% of GDP. This is recognized certainly by Buffett and probably the other three you mention.
1
It may well be that George W. won because more people would have preferred having a beer with him than with Al Gore. Such is the sophistication of the American voter. In that case one must to some degree factor in the "likability" factor. I, however, find Elizabeth Warren extremely likable.
Because I don't hold her to a different standard of behavior just because she is a woman, I have never found her to be "strident" or any of the other negative words that have been used to describe her. She is smart and self-assured but when it shows on a woman it presents a problem for some people. But those are the qualities I want in my president. They are very likable qualities.
4
She might be smart, have common sense, and do well as president if the media covers her like she's a serious candidate. But the media won't. They'll do to Warren what they did to Ferraro, Clinton, and yes, even Palin; focus on her clothes, her make up, how likable she is, what kind of mother she was, and if she really is just a tiny bit Native American. But they won't pay attention to her ideas or what she might be able to do for America. The serious commentary will go to the men in the room.
In fact, in Iowa there are women who like Warren but have said that they don't think that men take her seriously because she's a woman. These women continued that thought and stated that men won't vote for women because they don't like the idea of a female head of state. Having watched both of Clinton's campaigns and other women's campaigns I'm forced to agree. It's a societal prejudice against women no matter what they do.
What I want for this election cycle is a serious discussion of ideas, policies, and where the country is headed or wants to go. I don't want to hear about Pocahontas, or the Donald, or any other cute nicknames or clever (but essentially meaningless) one liners. We're entitled to a serious discussion about the future of America, the working classes, and what we can expect from our government. It's long past time for us to hold ourselves and our politicians accountable for where America stands.
6
Why such backpedaling on her candidacy, Mr. Krugman? She's clearly a talented politician with great ideas and, quite frankly, has a lot more gravitas than a lot of the other candidates expected to throw their hats into the ring. She is approachable and warm, and still doesn't suffer her Senate fools gladly. She's done more to call the GOP, the banksters, and Donald Trump out on the carpet than any other person in Congress. She does not equivocate. She does not have a lot of patience for bi-partisanship when the other side is dishonest and unethical. Good. She has put them on notice. She already has my vote and my campaign contribution. The name-calling by the GOP pretty much demonstrates how little they've got on her. Carry on, Liz.
248
@Sabrina Agreed on all points. But the name-calling by the GOP will not be the problem. The problem, as always, will be the craven corporate Democratic party that will subvert her candidacy.
10
@Andrzej Warminski It is forever thus. Corporate centrism has decimated the Democratic Party. But I'm heartened by candidates like Warren, and our freshman Congressional class. Perhaps I'm eternally naive, but something feels different this time around. I hope I'm right. But let me just say, if the Democratic Party anoints Biden, they will have learned nothing from the mid-terms.
19
Uh...what backpedaling?
8
I agree with Mr. Krugman that Ms. Warren is a serious policy intellectual. She is the real deal and has the added feature of being consistently passionate about her positions. However, we have to deal with the reality of our media culture. While I believe the country is more than ready to elect a woman, the woman that gets elected needs to project strength. Ms. Warren is smart and tenacious and passionate but when she speaks I get the impression that she is about to burst into tears. To Mr. Krugman's point that impression may be unfair, but impressions matter and if enough people have the same impression it won't bode well for Ms. Warren's chances.
2
Mr. Krugman, let's be clear: Elizabeth Warren is NOT the intellectual heir of Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Her mentors seem to be Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin (whether consciously chosen or not), and their ideas have been well-tried for 100 years. Is the Soviet experience one that you wish for the US?
2
@Joel Sanders - Nonsense, Mr. Sanders -- and this GOP go-to tactic has gotten a bit shopworn since the heyday of the Cold War. Senator Warren does not advocate nationalizing the "commanding heights of the economy." We aren't talking about the difference between America and Cuba, we're talking about the difference between America and, say, Sweden (or even Canada). Both have a mixed economy, the difference is one of degree not of kind. So stop name-calling and engage on the actual policy proposals.
4
I believe Warren will resonate more as the economy trickles up not down and the deficit increases and healthcare cost soar in prohibitive ways as the nut bar president takes his compliant party down. The party of Mitch Mcc. had only low hanging tax abatements, male white privilege racism and obstruction in its pocket to rally its base. that is not changing as you point out. A woman president will happen and at time when prom kings and queens won't carry water when the smart, tough and just on policy and principle are demanded to right the ship of our democracy.
53
@greg Metz
Well said. Two enthusiastic thumbs up!
2
So that's how it's going to be is it? Interesting. Pelosi and her bunch ('effective politicians') with the 'intellectual' Warren whispering basically good, but not very practical or 'effective' ideas, in their ears. And who else, pray tell, will be whispering in their ears?
No professor, we've had enough of that in the last 30 years or more. We want no more graduates and post graduates up to their ears in debt, medicare for all - and, yes, the Consumer Protection Bureau back in business. And let's take a closer look at the tax structure, the SEC and Dodge- Frank. And since a good half or more of my retirement income relies on the condition of the 'free market' let's not be business unfriendly but I've enough, thank you, of the 'business friendly'. And above all, above all, an end to Citizens United.
1
@James F Traynor The intellectual heft of this argument is demonstrated by the fact the author refers to Dodd-Frank at DODGE-Frank.
There is a serious difference between being "business friendly," and allowing rapacious corporations to rape consumers at will. Liberal support the former and the GOP the latter.
Warren, in many ways is Hillary Clinton without the baggage (forgetting for a minute the DNA stuff). She is very intelligent, presents her argument well, and , of given the chance, offers solutions to the problems the middle class faces. She doesn't just say "You will become so rich, you won't know what to do with your money". Her problem is getting the American people to see beyond the DNA stuff and Trump's demeaning treatment of women. The more she opens her mouth and tells people the way it is and what can be done to fix it unlike Trump's telling people what they want to hear, the better off she will be. And more and more Americans will like what she has to say, the more she speaks. Hopefully Trump won't be handed on a silver platter any more reasons not to vote for her by the candidate herself. Because the reality is, she is at a disadvantage. When people make a list of reasons to not vote for a particular candidate, they start with the side of the paper with Warren's name on it. And many in America refuse to turn over the paper to the Trump side. Because deep down inside they know they will be there a long time.
7
@walking man It's very unfair to compare Warren to Hillary Clinton. Warren is intelligent, competent, caring, and progressive. Hillary is none of those.
@walking man
I have always appreciated WARREN and like her but she has little CHARISMA. From the ROSS PEROT days we cannot allow ourselves to chose someone who cannot win. OBAMA had charisma and tRump has it. The difference there is OBAMA uses his brain while tRump uses his stomach to act not to mention lies and deceives.
KAMALA HARRIS is my pick and I hope she runs.
A major component in appreciating a true, intellectual policy maker is education. This also apply to story ideas pitched to newsroom gatekeepers. If the decision maker only appreciates clicks then s/he is only interested in click bait. It doesn't require a lot of depth and experience to cover an alleged sex scandal or what a (woman) politician is wearing, and in newsrooms that are required to do more with less every newsroom budget cycle, being able to pump out four or five stories a day fills column space and/or air time.
As long as basic secondary education is starved and downgraded, a country can't and won't produce educated politicians or voters who can assess party platforms. I do believe that is a key factor in understanding why people so often seem to vote against their own best interests.
Improving education levels takes decades and most politicians have learned that advocating short-term pain for long-term gain doesn't get you elected. Improving education, even though it is a state jurisdiction, should be high on the Democrats' policy list. The down-grading of schools has served the Republicans well. For the sake of a continued democracy, improving the substance of education must be a priority in building a better tomorrow. This applies to news organizations as well as politicians.
4
When ideas are supported by facts that downplay suffering of the many, they become tools of greed. When Moynihan opposed Clinton on healthcare, he lacked compassion and ultimately subverted the needs of the many. Don't compare Warren to Moynihan; they are very different. Comparisons to FDR are more appropriate. Both have long track records of advocating for the many and consistently resisting the wealth interests of the few.
1
I love Elizabeth Warren's smarts and commitment and doggedness.
And that is why I hope she doesn't win the Democratic nomination, and stays in the Senate, where she can be laser focused on economic/inequality issues and do the most good.
It's not that I don't think she wouldn't be a good President--but I don't think she'd be elected. And the reasons she wouldn't be elected are sad but real--the prejudices and judgments of large segments of the American public, to whom she's going to look like a rebuking schoolmarm. It's much the same bro-culture reaction many had to Hillary--too many people just viscerally dislike the goody two shoes smartest girl in the class (this even without the derision she's sure to experience for the whole Native American kerfuffle, which could have been handled better).
There are still too many people--male and female alike--that can't stomach an older smart woman. (Heterosexual males often because they don't want to do her, heterosexual females often because they don't want to be her. Yes, I'm being crude here, but I see these attitudes in far too many I interact with. We are simply not a mature culture overall.)
Is it unfair and misogynist? Absolutely. But it exists. And I worry it pulls enough votes away from her to re-elect Orange 45, which absolutely must not happen.
6
@Glenn Ribotsky
I love Elizabeth Warren and hope that she does not run for president. Her book on bankruptcy - very readable - should be read widely. We need her to stay in the Senate to formulate good policies and advocate for them. The legislative branch needs to retake its powers from the presidency. I don't understand the rush to the run for president - long term senators who build support in their party and across the isles are more important in the long term than a president. We will need a strong legislature to reverse all the harm that has Trump has done.
@Glenn Ribotsky Thanks for your honesty. It is unfair. But its also stupid. I'm sick of stupid. I want want a smart, capable, honest human being in the highest office. Whether she's a woman or not. Stupid is so old.
Economic narratives carry a moral/spiritual component to describe its morality and values. As policy reemerges, the push for moral limits to political acts (starving Yemeni children, putting immigrant children in cages, legal rights for unviable fetus) is being pushed farther away.
For those serious about the moral discussion within our political economy, its impact on tolerance/community/opportunity, I suggest evangelicals and Trump faithful begin here; with St. Augustine, the church's teaching evangelical.
He believed truth was found in all directions. And that it demands an open heart and a joyful spirit.
St. Augustine expressed three joyful means of truth that inform moral logic. These means are his three marvelous prayers of wonder, found in his Confessions, Book One (401 AD).
1. "There would man rise, the participle of Thy creation, man that bears about him his morality, the witness of his sin, the witness that you would resist the proud, but man would praise thee."
(The wonder of worth and merit by faith.)
How should I call upon my God, my Lord, since when I call, I call him upon myself? What room is in me that God can come into me, God who made heaven and earth.
(The wonder in being made in the image of God.)
“Most hidden, most present . . . our hearts are restless until they are in repose with thee.”
(The wonder of the knowledge and love of God.)
Too often misused, nevertheless these issues of character, conduct, and faith increase peace and freedom.
1
". . . she is what a serious policy intellectual looks and sounds like in 2019, and if our media can’t recognize that, we’re in big trouble."
Geez, I don't think the average American can understand this issue.
The American public whom elected Woodrow Wilson was certainly more intelligent than the current lot of citizens and that does not bode well for the future.
Elizabeth Warren is an intellectual. She is also earnest, competent and hardworking. Now, more than ever, we need these qualities. Yet the moment she entered the race, there were a flurry of articles in the media questioning whether she is 'likable' enough. I'm not talking about Fox News, but the serious newspapers, including The New York Times and even The Boston Globe.
They did the same to Hilary Clinton, always harping on about her emails. I consider Warren a better candidate than Clinton, so let's hope the media give her an honest chance and refrain from going off on tangents such as her heritage, otherwise they will surely put Donald Trump back in the White house.
Finally, let's recognize that there will be other candidates, some of them perhaps equally qualified, who should all be given the same fair assessment.
23
Warren is certainly one politician who could stand up to Trump, and toughness is a factor, since a presidential election has more in common with a sixth grade popularity contest than a policy debate.
It comes down to what Ohio congressman Tim Ryan has said repeatedly: "The Democrats need the right message and the right messenger." But what a refreshing possibility to have one of the Democrats' top candidates as an articulate and knoweldgeable policy advocate over everything else.
The press really blew it in the last election in their inability to make Trump answer to policy, albeit he is the greatest obfuscator ever in American political history. If Warren got the nod for the Dems - win or lose the election - she would at least allow policy to be placed at the front and center of the debate. And she might force him to specifically answer policy questions and level him for the policy ignoramus he is.
10
The Democrat Party has ideas. They just aren't new ones. The American progressive movement has always opposed capitalism, individual liberty and private property. That is why progressives have always viewed the Constitution as an instrument to protect the wealthy, and why they favor programs of confiscation and redistribution.
Mr. Krugman's last column argued that income tax rates of 70 percent or higher would be preferred because a thousand dollars in the hands of a government-chosen beneficiary would be more beneficial than keeping that money in the hands of the person who earned it. In other words you are expected to work, invest, innovate, but the rewards of your efforts will be determined by what government decides you need relative to the needs of others.
Ms. Warren's big economic idea is to turn private corporations into social service agencies, REQUIRING them to serve community interests rather than those of their owners and to give employees 40 percent of the power to run the enterprise.
Yes, you are right Mr. Krugman. Conservatives do not spend their time thinking of ways to seize other people's property and we respond to such proposals with the principles of freedom and individual liberty upon which our country was founded Sadly, with so many American failing to keep pace in a globally competitive economy, an increasing number of us seem willing to trade their liberty for promises of government handouts. Sad for a people that once said "live free or die."
3
@AR Clayboy
You say: "The American progressive movement has always opposed capitalism, individual liberty and private property."
Funny. Even those "socialist" countries over in Europe consider themselves quite capitalist and they think that our most liberal ideas here are fairly conservative there.
So no, I don't think you'd find nearly any progressive who is opposed to capitalism, liberty and private property. Progressives recognize the need for a mixed economy because a purely capitalist economy doesn't exist and even if it did, wouldn't protect all those who need to protect.
As for liberties, might I remind you of Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Titles VII and IX of said Act. I could go on, but I think you get the point that you're wrong (or at least, no one will mistake you for being correct).
While I do not have time address every single one of the false statements you made, suffice to say, not a single progressive is suggesting taking private property.
No one is suggesting a 70% flat tax. It'd be a progressive tax and AOC suggested it on income over $10 million. Are you truly concerned about the people pulling down over $10 million per year? Are you one of them? Even if you were and we'll assume it was a flat tax (you're not, it isn't), that's $3 million per year. Are you saying you couldn't possibly live on $3 million per year; that you wouldn't even bother working for that amount?
4
@AR Clayboy. I disagree. Ms Warren and most Americans are not wanting to trade our liberty for government handouts. That is a lazy, trite response to the legitimate request for a level playing field. When ALL have to play by the rules and when the county’s citizens’ wellbeing and sustainable functioning are put ahead of the monopoly, winner-take-all, gop-version of capitalism, we will be a stronger nation. All Of Us.
3
If I recall, the clarion call of the Boston Tea Party was not "No taxation!" but "No taxation without representation!" What progressives stand for is not confiscation, but consensus in basing tax policy aimed at favoring those who provide socially useful enterprise over those who accumulate wealth for its own sake. No one who has accumulated great wealth has done it in a vacuum without the assistance of government and society and so those who choose to take their money off the table owe and should pay a heftier price for the privilege than those who have reinvested a goodly portion of that wealth in further enterprise providing the means for society, through employment and mutually beneficial commercial enterprise opportunities. Like it or not, inasmuch as one's liberty ends where the next fellow's nose begins, the more of us there are, the less liberty we have and the more mutually dependent we become. Progressive policy is designed to reign in the worst predatory impulses of humankind and so to give more people the opportunity to exercise their fair share of what liberty remains as America continues its march to a population of half a billion and the wide-open spaces of our forebears disappear.
1
Thank you to the Good Professor for a thoughtful column.
At the moment, I have two thoughts about the 2020 campaign.
1) The Democrats have many good people who have the intelligence to be President. Where they have to be careful is to be sure to pick someone who can endure a cruel campaign of lies, jabs, and taunts, which The Con Don and the republicans are expert at dishing out. Professor Krugman is correct that the republicans have no ideas (other than to cut taxes for the wealthy) but they are expert at using racial/cultural/religious antagonism to distract and divide. And they have Fox, Rush, Coulter, Hannity, and co. doing propaganda work 24.7.
2) We all assume that The Con Don will be the republican nominee in 2020 and at this point that appears likely and, depending on the economy, etc., he might be a fairly strong contender. About 40% of the electorate seems to think he is doing wonderful job.
But recently I saw where some poll reported that many CEO's think that the biggest danger for the economy going forward is the President himself: His tariffs, his erratic behavior, his bashing the Fed, there is much here to make businesspeople uneasy. He is trampling on the toes and profits of some well-to-do and powerful people. There must be some high-powered, Wall Street types who are trying to think of some way to get The Con Don out. Maybe replace him in 2020. Who is stronger, the trump base or Wall Street?
4
I don't think it's so much the fault of publishers, editors, or journalists so much as that of the audience they serve. Consumers of media today just aren't compelled by policy debates; they either don't have the time or don't try to understand them.
Sadly, what most people find interesting are appeals to emotion, soundbites, personal attacks, bravado, and which team wins and which team loses.
1
We don't necessarily need Warren as president, but we do need to pay attention to, understand, analyze, and support or intelligently criticize her policies. And we might look for sound policies in choosing a candidate for president,
Except for Krugman and occasional others, the NYT glosses over policy, preferring to portray personality and spread gossip fodder. Where did journalism go? Most of what's printed now is superficial, conjecture or innuendo, as if that's what appeals to readers? And, sadly, that may be so.
Perceived market-drivers dictate what passes for information and analysis. We need hard news coverage that leads us into serious inquiry. But where can we find that? I do fear that our attention spans are eroded and that the media responds to that perception.
5
Until I read this article, I hadn't realized how much my thinking about Elizabeth Warren had been mediated by the media's shallow assessments of her. Thanks Paul Krugman, for opening my eyes in this reminder that more is at stake in politics than popularity.
24
Anybody who really thinks media is shallow needs to talk to, well, voters.
Let’s stop looking for excuses, okay?
1
A lot of comments I get about whether or not Warren could be elected President run like this: "Well, we tried a female once. She lost. Time to return to the tried-and-true--males." (And of course these folks ignore the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by ~3 million and lost the EC vote by fewer than 100,000 votes.)
Thank you, Paul Krugman, for a well thought-out essay about what Elizabeth Warren has to offer.
23
@MLChadwick Well sorry to inform you and the others who cling to this popular vote argument for consolation, the EC is the path for winning. "we tried a female once..."? Ah nope, we tried the wrong female and lost. The hold my nose and vote for Trump voters could have found themselves more willing to back Warren than HRC in 2016.
1
"And if our media can’t recognize that, we’re in big trouble."
Yup, correct. The media unfortunately is so worried about keeping people interested on reading/listening to what they say that they have forgotten what their job is. I wonder if the media acts this way because they might be afraid for their own jobs. As the old say goes: "good news don't sell papers!".
15
There’s this thing they have now. It’s called, wossname, oh yes, “the Internet.”
With that and some basic smarts, plus maybe two simple rules, we can find out what we need to know.
Wild, huh?
How do we as a society choose our leaders? That question has perplexed political scientists from the beginning of time. Speaking of beginning of time, that one was the easiest. Might was Right! Today, it’s much more difficult to predict a true leader. One might think that “The Internet” would be an excellent way to determine truth and character and expose deception. Well, Donald Trump became President of The United States. Throw that concept out the window.
So–How are we going to elect the savior to not only our political system, but to the survival of our planet? The Free Press would be an excellent place to start with articles like this one. You go Paul!!!
14
One might say that Elizabeth Warren is the woman of the hour. But that would be just off the mark. She is the Democrat of the hour. Her ideas reflect the soul of the Democratic Party. She has begun her campaign and I hope she has the support needed to stay in the race and win.
November 3, 2020
24
As a liberal Democrat, no potential candidate other than Booker presents a better policy posture than Warren. But, there can be only one goal for 2020. Trump must be defeated. Democrats need to nominate the candidate most likely to defeat Trump. In a recent NJ Senatorial election, the largest NJ newspaper pleaded with voters to "hold their nose and vote for Menendez." While the Presidential choice will not be as difficult, some voters are going to have to sacrifice their personal choice for the good of the nation. We cannot have a repeat of the 2016 frustrated Sander's voters rejection of Clinton.
7
@Disillusioned Or is it that we cannot afford a repeat of the fantasy that anyone to the left of whoever has been appointed by the pundits is unelectable?
1
@Disillusioned
"[S]ome voters are going to have to sacrifice their personal choice for the good of the nation. We cannot have a repeat of the 2016 frustrated Sander's voters rejection of Clinton."
Oh, please: a very high percent of self-identified progressive independents and left-leaning Democrats voted for the 'lesser evil' of Clinton (with far fewer Trump defections than the high %'s of 2008 Clinton supporters that voted for McCain rather than Obama).
In an election in which both Clinton and Trump had extremely low favorability ratings, more significant reasons for Clinton's 2016 loss include, a) a somewhat higher turnout for Trump among some voters that supported Obama in 2012; and b) a higher % of stay-at-home Democratic voters, particularly among minorities.
Want progressives aboard the Democratic machine? Maybe don't tee off by scapegoating them for a flawed candidate and a flawed campaign
2
We're in big trouble. Hillary Clinton is a serious policy wonk and look what the media did to her when she discussed real issues in a serious way. "But her emails". With Warren it will be her heritage.
18
One word describes the media treatment of Elizabeth Warren. MISOGYNY. Sadly, the press is an accurate predictor of how the American electorate will respond to her candidacy.
28
Well done Mr Krugman! If the media can't examine itself and admit it's biases and faults then the last protectors of our democracy have indeed fallen! It is going to take credible and respected insiders such as yourself to call them to task. They do treat female candidates as a novelty even after all these years.
Warren appeals to me as the only democratic candidate whose mention can inflict a significant pucker factor upon Wall St. Precisely because their lame theoretical excuses and fear mongering will no longer be effective against her policies! She knows they're lying! There will be no widespread exodus of companies from America or any hiring freeze or a recession inflicted upon the working classes. But there will be a more egalitarian capitalism where we will all benefit.
I'm not sure yet if she's the all -around presidential candidate the Democrats need- but for serious economic reform and the growth of the middle class she is the candidate we all need! If she picks a running mate with the international policy experience and the strengths she is lacking I can support a "team" for the presidency. It just needs to be a strong team!
18
What Bills has she authored that have PASSED? A savings plan for Federal workers, (who need it now that their salaries are stopped). I'll look elsewhere, thanks.
2
How could any of her ideas passed the House or Senate in the last six years?The House & Senate were run by reactionaries who only believed in tax cuts for the wealthy not any serious programs for the middle or working classes.
26
@Ryan
Oh, for heaven's sake--bills have to make it to the floor to be considered. The party in power determines that.
Besides, her emphasis is consumer protection. The CFPB is her baby. That agency has helped everyday people people being scammed by banks enormously--so much so that it was high on Trump's list to destroy.
17
@Mary Sampson “What bills has she authored and passed?”
Better read the column again. Prof. Krugman gives Warren due credit for conceiving and then working against odds to make the CFPB a reality. Want proof beyond the $ billions in fines and claw backs from financial fradsters like Wells Fargo ? Then open your eyes and see that Trump and his GOP thugs have effectively destroyed that agency in less than two years since the election.
Thank you, Mr. Krugman. I can only hope that your broader opinion on refocusing media coverage on the ideas, policies, and (dare I say) smarts of politicians and candidates gains the traction it merits.
I don't care about a candidate's name, looks, shoes... I want to vote for dedicated, driven, people who have tenable ideas about some of the great challenges facing us - climate, health care, infrastructure, inequality.
While I'm no policy wonk, I believe leaders need a good amount of that wonkiness to serve our nation.
29
Elizabeth Warren is no Daniel Patrick Moynihan when it comes to how he applied his intellect with the finesse and keen sense of humor needed to build consensus and effect a wide variety of policies.
To me, she's more like Senators Kerry, Gore and Clinton, all of whom were policy wonks but seemed to lack the intellectual understanding of human behavior and interaction, and then adjust accordingly.
6
@R1NA In my experience, intellectual understanding is a barrier to interpreting human behavior and interaction.
2
Trump’s a touchy-feely kind of guy, you know. And since I’m not four, and don’t need to be tucked in along with Mr. Bear any more, gimme a smart gal or guy who knows stuff any old day.
2
@Robert
I agree with you and December, however, people who "know stuff" are not that rare, but having intellectual smarts and turning that into "influential politician" is, and why I think Warren is no Moynihan but more a run-of-mill academic with limited potential on the political front.
1
We have school systems dedicated to teaching kids the correct ideas, to be obedient and sit quiet for hours, jump through grade enforced hoops, and at all costs avoid failure. Research has shown kids are many times more creative and curious entering than leaving these systems. Why are you surprised that Senator/professor Warren’s ideas are not what we pay attention to. Where have we learned to do that. Too many of us including Republicans reflect our limited educational system.
11
As a former journalist, I agree with Mr. Krugman's plea for reporting of facts and ideas. Not personalities and sound bites.
22
Whichever candidate the Democrats choose, she must be able to win the votes of moderate independents in the general election and the Democratic base, especially African Americans. She's been a great senator for Massachusetts, and she certainly would make a worthy candidate for president, provided that she is able to win those votes.
5
@trillo
She is a do nothing - except promote herself - senator. Can you name one thing she has done for her constituents?
She is unelectable outside liberal enclaves such as MA, SF, CHI etc.
It's just too much to hope that the American people will be smart enough to elect Eliz. Warren president. But who knows, maybe we'll get lucky this time around.
10
Nicely done, Doc. I wonder if your admiration extends to her views on global trade. In a speech last November at American University, Warren stated that “beginning in the 1980s, Washington’s focus shifted from policies that benefit everyone to policies that benefit a handful of elites, both here at home and around the world”. In other words, the only problem with Trump's rejection of the liberal trading order is it hasn't gone far enough.
She's right there too, you know.
10
@Rich888 It's a statement of fact only and Warren was correct in making it. I have no idea how you drew the conclusion you did from it.
1
Unfortunately for Senator Warren, the race was lost for her before it began. Thanks to the Smearer in Chief, she's already unelectable.
Warren was tattooed with the infamous Trump term, "Pocahontas." Much like "Lock her up!", Warren won't be able to escape the derogatory term as it's screamed from the mountaintops at Trump rallies and splattered all over the media with regularity.
The nation's backlash against Trump's swamp guarantees that the country won't choose a progressive or far right candidate in the next election. It will take a miracle for Trump to even make it out of his own primary. (Mitt Romney and others are poised to take him down).
Senator Warren has much to give to the Democratic party and the country. The role of President is not where she can do the most good. She's better suited for a Cabinet position, serving as the Attorney General or even Secretary of State.
Here's hoping someone lets her know that she doesn't stand a chance, no matter how wildly unfair it is.
8
@Sarah
The fact that Trump gave her a nickname means she is the frontrunner and he is worried about her.
Pocohantas saved us once back in the day, EW should own it and be proud. The bumper sticker will read: "I'm with Pocohantas"
@Sarah We all know Trump likes to tag his opposition with belittling names. In Warren's case he intentionally chose a racist slur to tag her with. Now the name "Pocahontas" isn't racist in itself but with Trump, he turned it into one as a nod and a wink to his racist, low-brow base. What should be noted is that he did it before she even became a candidate and that tells me just how much Trump fears her.
@Sarah
Actually she was named Pocahontas by Scott Brown and the Massachusetts Republicans when she ran for the Senate the first time. It didn’t hurt her then and it shouldn’t hurt her now that Trump who is even more childish than Scott Brown uses it.
It is a bad sign that infantile name calling seems to work. Let’s hope it doesn’t. Also let’s remember that Gen Flynn also was part of another infantile chant ...”lock her up....”about Hillary.
1
The title of the column easily explains the attraction of Warren. She has IDEAS. Far more than any other presumptive candidate so far. Sure, they may not get enacted—— even if she were to win. But it’s the ideas and the discussion of solutions that make her attractive.
Try finding that in DJT or other GOP folk.
17
The Republicans fought hard to keep her from heading the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because they are afraid of her. They know she is smart, capable and able to explain to the average person what is behind many policies that hurt so many average Americans. They will fight with all they can to stop her from getting her ideas into the mainstream. You don't have to like her to listen to her ideas.
29
Never liked Moynihan, he really was an intellectual snob and we don’t need one of those right now. And there is something to be said about the weakness of an academic background in politics. I hate to say it but Trump has a skill that our next candidate needs. It comes out of business, sales and marketing. Most Dems are not skilled in this area just by definition....they’re not in business. Trump is doing something Obama should have done but in a much more civil way and that is communicate directly to the people. He should of called out the Republicans over and over on how they wanted to sabotage his Presidency. He should have called them the rich guys who want to have it all. In simple repeatable words.....marketing. Over and over.....that’s how it gets heard in this world of competing for attention spans. He should have never accepted Obamacare as the name for our health care solution. It made him appear vain and that this healthcare bill was all about him. We need a great communicator.
7
@Roscoe Good comments. I agree that The Con Don knows nothing of economic or governmental policy and doesn't understand anything about business management or actually running a business. His only policy is to curry favor with his base and supporters. Where he excels is in PR, entertainment television, lying, profiting through bankruptcy, stiffing contractors, etc. Oh, I forgot, where The Con Don really excels is in shamelessness and brazenness. If something goes wrong or he is caught in a frequent lie, he doesn't miss a beat. He just tells a bigger whopper and keeps going. In a profession composed of professional liars (politicians) no one else can match him.
I agree also that President Obama, Ms. Clinton, and the Democrats in general are not the type of people to deal with a professional con man and grifter. We spent the 2016 campaign talking about emails, if Ms. Warren is the Democratic nominee in 2020 we will spend it talking about "Pochantas."
Where I disagree is where you call The Con Don a businessman. Do you think of the Godfather as a businessman? There are lots of honest competent people in business and we should not sully them by including a known con man and a grifter.
1
@Roscoe well maybe, however we have as a president that is using all his “marketing” skills to fleece Americans. Business execs are tied to one thing, shareholder wealth. There is no social cost on any balance sheet I have ever seen. That is why we need thinkers in government not short term focused cheerleaders. The Bankruptcies he produced only be benefitted him, his family,and their den of thieves. There is not one bone in his body that accepts the fact that all of us are exceptional, in their own way. And that many of us need help to rIse their families. And they just don’t care, do you?
@Roscoe "I hate to say it but Trump has a skill that our next candidate needs. It comes out of business, sales and marketing. " Oh, right. Too bad Trump only uses this skill to peddle hatred and lies. Let's try something different this time around.
Excellent analysis. I doubt the media can present policy ideas linked to candidates. Just look at 2016. This is especially true for determined yet lazy Fox viewers, but present throughout the media industry. For people who get “news” through Facebook, forget about it.
Of course, popular media has largely failed at political policy discussions forever. Being informed requires effort from citizens. Negative threats to our democracy should make us all work harder to stay informed.
5
I suspect that many others are encouraged by the energy and ideas shining so brightly in the new congress. There is a vision of new possibility in the new young representatives in the Democratic party. Like Mr Krugman, I am delighted to see the not so young Elizabeth Warren stirring in her own ideas, with serious intellect to back them. May the best ideas, and candidate win! Now we just need a similar new batch of journalists that can resist the cynicism and laziness that have been so destructive in the current era.
11
Mr. Krugman, once again you demonstrate your biases and the consistent failure of recent Democrats. Domestic issues revolving around socio-economic policies are only part of the battle. Neglected is foreign policy, an area ceded almost entirely to the MIC and CIA. Yet it's foreign policy that has ruined America for 30 years of war and military runaway spending.
We need to bring some balance to our political thinking, not just sloganism sliding over the realities.
5
The Republican Party has become essentially a religious cult, all doctrine all the time facts and reality hold no place in the discussion. The Republicans embrace of right wing religion makes sense when you think about it, the devoutly religious are not exactly known for their critical thinking skills now are they.
It’s a marriage made in heaven for guys like McConnell he can count on them voting for any person with an R after their name because their religious leader told them too. Meanwhile he cuts taxes for the 1 percent and cuts Medicare and social security that these people and their families really need. My question is how long can they play this game? I’m not so sure this strategy plays as well with a tech savvy generation coming of age now and the decade.
9
I am a Republican. I like her. I think she appears to be a good person who is aware of many of the issues of our day. I could care less about her heritage, only her ideas and ability to lead. However, to say her ideas are new, or ground breaking intellectual policy thinking. Not so much.
5
@Charles
I think the Prof. Krugman's point is more that she has bona fide ideas and is able to communicate them to a wide range of voters. She is also able to discuss them thoughtfully and on the basis of facts and analysis to those who will (or should) turn ideas (her's and others) into policy, action and results for America and Americans.
18
@Charles
At least among the political class, Warren is pushing some fresh, new policy ideas for the first time. While we've discussed some of the changes to corporate governance rules like those in Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act in the pages of law reviews, and there have been calls for predistribution instead of just redistribution from the think tanks, the Senator is unquestionably the leading elected official bringing these ideas to the legislature and the electorate.
4
@Charles
They're only groundbreaking in the sense that America hasn't been a fertile ground for new ideas since 1980.
Everything she brings up has already been adopted in some form in European countries. I never hear her say they're her unique ideas. But, heaven forbid if she were to say 'I want to do things the way Sweden does." That would terminate her presidency bid in five minutes. So, they're her ideas.
Google the term 'Responsible Capitalism' and look at attitudes and policies toward the environment and workers already being discussed and implemented in Europe, even by large business entities like Unilever. Responsible Capitalism is not a term you hear in this country. She'd like to change that.
Her CFPB is reactive--help the consumers who have already been ripped off. Better than nothing--but now is her big chance to push proactive policies that would tamp down our odious brand of Excessive Capitalism before the damage is done.
Even if she doesn't win the nomination, I'm thrilled that she is injecting these concepts into our national psyche. I'm hoping these are ideas people who say they are Republicans can get behind. I'm so tired of this "every man for himself get the government out of my way" attitude we have here.
2
Of course the media recognize that Warren is "a serious policy intellectual" - and that's why they only want to talk about her DNA test. If Warren's ideas take hold media people and companies will pay higher taxes.
18
@Marilyn Burbank: So what's wrong with higher taxes on those of privilege who reap most of societies gains, eh? ;-) I don't see the likes of a Warren Buffet crying over having to pay more.
1
Two things about Warren. The first is about the Native American matter. The press acted ridiculously about this. In most white families at least, there are endless discussions of how much of this and that ones family has. Warren never said she was a member of a tribe, nor did she say she suffered. But the press allowed right wing chatter to get serious attention as if most of us don't discuss what our families are made of. Then there is the matter of Warren's desire to stop abuses of banks and wall street. This too would have been normal in the 1960s when interest rates were controlled - preventing credit card rates that would have been considered usury. But just talking about abuses has been transformed into being far left. It is hardly that.
75
Sorry, but being likeable is more important in a president than being intellectually capable. Elizabeth Warren could be as intellectually great as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but she is not a viable candidate for president.
Great presidents are great communicators, so the media is right to pick up on Warren's inept discussion of her family genealogy.
Let's move on and not trot out old has-beens like Joe Biden, either. We do need someone with ideas in the White House, but this as yet unidentified individual will need not only intellectual ability, but also the ability to touch people's emotions.
7
@Scott Turner. This isn't a Miss America Pageant. I want potential candidates talking about actual ideas and policies. We should take the time to listen to what candidates are saying, not if the press thinks they are likable.Then an informed public can make decisions based on facts. Keep in mind big business, which includes media companies, don't like policies that might have them pay more of their fair share. Media companies have a perverse reason to like people like Trump who increase their viewers/readers while reaping the tax breaks.
14
@Scott Turner Reluctantly agreeing with you here. Great leaders have people like Warren behind them; feeding their strategy which they then charismatically communicate/ pitch....
@Scott Turner
I don't think you have been paying attention. Warren IS a great communicator. She is perhaps too smart for many people to follow, and that may be a handicap.
3
Well said. Yes! This is what it is all about. Are we going to get drivel or detail, name calling or ideas? The media survives by exploiting and/or creating victims.
I want to see a party platform of ideas and policies, and then to see who is the best candidate to articulate the platform. I listened to an interview the other day with Ms. Warren. Wow! Is this lady sharp and spot on with her thinking, thinking that no doubt will be the main parts of the Democrat platform. The fact that she is an educator will make a huge difference in her ability to articulate the message.
In some ways, I find her very likable. She is filled with passion and seems totally honest. Her life story seems real and not polished up for the media. The fact that she has some Indian blood, I see as a positive, making her more American than many Americans and somewhat multi ethnic, more a refection of the melting pot, than the bias and denial we see in "white" America. Above all, she does not impress me as an elitist, so what is there not to like?
I remember Daniel Moynihan and I think there are many similarities, both believing that economic conditions determine social conditions, being a key one. In an age of "income inequality" this could not be more obvious. Now is the time to do something about it. We cannot continue to live in a dream world made up by Republicans where the economics is totally rigged in favor of the wealthy.
33
Our media haven't been in the business of "recognizing what a serious policy intellectual looks like" for a very long time. They're in the business of competing with the likes of the National Enquirer and USA Today - i.e., intellectual lightweights - for readership and advertising dollars. "Intellectual" is still a dirty word, these days - even worse than "scientist" or "expert". I'm old enough to remember when Adlai Stevenson lost to Dwight Eisenhower because he was an "egghead". We've regressed to a time even before that - the era of Joe McCarthy.
17
@MikeG
The media, indeed, could do a much better job of paying attention to factual, thoughtful discussion of the ideas that should drive policy, action and results for our citizens. It does seem that the progressive media are somewhat more capable and credible in that pursuit, at least in the realm of cable news and commentary. Make a comparison between MSNBC and Fox News using the qualifications, experience and intellectual capability of the hosts and frequent commentators to see the difference.
3
Thank you Professor Krugman for a bold, stimulating and honest column. The comments your piece has generated inspire me that there are many thoughtful people out there.This gives me hope for 2020 and beyond as has the exciting start by the new Democratic house.
Trump's national TV appeal on the wall and shut down tonight will be the beginning of the end of his reign of obscene leadership.
I am quite sure that the plutocrats that run the Republican party and want to run our country are lining up a Romney/Halley ticket for 2020. Bring it on and I hope it is vs. Warren and possibly Beto to appeal to those among us who do value style over substance. Personally I would love to see Klobuchar as candidate for VP on a Warren ticket.
6
It will be interesting to see if Elizabeth Warren and others can come up with both intellectual ideas AND media savvy slogans that appeal to voters. Sadly, many turn off to anything "too intellectual" and to women. It is easier for many to vote for a flawed man than a flawed woman.
There are a number of ways to change the current slogans such as pro-choice or abortion that would appeal to Independents and moderate Republicans. Too bad Trump has cornered the market on using psychology to foster hope and get support.
@Judith Logue
It's easier for men to vote for a flawed man than a competent woman. Remember 2016, when scads of underperforming male voters chose the walking disaster Trump over Hillary Clinton.
This term "likable" keeps coming up lately, seemingly more frequently with women candidates. What the heck does this really mean? People don't like her policies or philosophies? Does she show some critical moral lapse, or do her interviews reveal some serious logically flawed arguments? We're talking about saving the country and possibly the planet in 2020. We shouldn't have to be entertained to pick the best person. You get to “like” a candidate by evaluating their positions and assessing their character. “Likability” should be preceded by listening and evaluating their ideas, not by how pretty they look or on a 10 second sound bite.
I can hear the criticisms saying, “but that’s not how much of the country votes”, and there is truth to that. But how a person is portrayed is largely a function of propaganda and campaign tactics. If the message is right and the candidate has obvious integrity (as Warren does) they can become “likable”. The campaign can teach evaluation to the nation provided the message reaches the right demographics.
And why do we seem to have one set of rules to evaluate a Democrat and another to evaluate a Republican? Trump can say literally hundreds, if not thousands of ridiculous things, yet if a Democrat has one issue – say “not liable” (or she wrote emails on a private server) they are disqualified! Democrats have to fight against this dumbing down of our Presidential selection process.
25
@RRA
It strikes me as a profound irony that people talk about "likable" as an important qualification ... how many of our fellow citizens would seriously describe President Trump as "likeable"?
9
Wasn’t Obama a serious constitutional scholar before he became a politician. Not that anything is wrong with it; however, Obama’s presidency, unlike other “career” politicians, lacked bold agendas (look what happened to ACA) and catered too much to the republicans that he lost a chance to become a truly transformative president.
Warren, unlike Obama, is willing to fight and unwilling to make compromises first. I’m not a big fan of her right now but she puts out practical policy proposals that liberals like me can agree on and fight for. Obama’s sweet talks may have made people feel good about themselves(but the what?) but it’s Warren’s pugilistic, unapologetic political nature combined with her practical and thought provoking policies that make a liberal like me root for her.
20
Lacked bold agendas?
Good grief.
By the way, would you guys stop pretending you’re anything other than Trumpists?
What the Dem establishment is missing is that Americans didn't vote for Trump's policies, they voted for radical change -- any radical change. Americans are fed up with business as usual, but don't have any idea how to fix it, so throwing everything up in the air and hoping it lands well is what they did. Bernie would have won, because he also promised radical change. Hillary offered more of the same. (yes, she won the popular vote, but it wasn't enough to get her elected. The people who want the radical change are the ones who used to be doing well and aren't now. That's exactly the states she didn't win.) The only way Warren could win is if the vast majority of Americans actually hear her speak. Her ideas on the economy, the way she expresses them. would win over the swing votes -- if they hear her say them, not a report about her. (Generally, I think a woman has no chance in the US. We are too old-fashioned and insecure.)
4
@Kimc
Let's see. Bernie could have won but could not even win among Democrats. But among the right wind deplorable fundamentalist Christians in name only he could have won being Jewish with a heavy NY accent.
You have apparently never been to the midwest.
1
Could there have been a weaker Speaker than Paul Ryan in my lifetime - I was born in 1953, so obviously the answer in no. Could you imagine if Mr. Ryan had not retired and was now the Minority Leader of the House? I look at Sen. Warren like a great appointment to our Supreme Court - doesn't happen anymore. I don't care if they are liberal or conservative, I want a person who has a history of intellectual thought and experience, not a 'stay the course' politician. We as a country of wide diversity have always been able to reach higher, but our politicians and Supreme Court Justices have fallen behind. Despite what many said at the time, President Obama's ACA was progress, and now thanks to Republicans it is being rolled back with people paying a price more than just money. Funny, it was President Truman that first talked about the need for a national healthcare system and yet to this very day we cannot achieve that anymore than we have achieve equality...
As I'm rambling on, just one more thing. I hear Republicans labeling Democrats as "Radicals". Well during one time period in our history they actually called themselves "Radical Republicans" and were proud of it. They lead the way to end slavery in our country starting in the 1850's. Funny how time changes things, and sad.
10
Since I like a lot of what Elizabeth Warren says I welcome Paul Krugman's column. It's unfortunate that he likens her to Daniel Patrick Moynihan for the latter made some rather unsavory comments about the black family. E. Warren took a sensible stand on US troops in Syria and Afghanistan and she's, as Krugman says, superb when it comes to social justice.
8
@Pierre
DPM spoke a truth that people did not want to acknowledge about the black (or any family) unit.
Reading his words on keeping a family unit intact are a roadmap to navigating past the troubles we have today in America.
Most people (at least those outside the NYT/coastal city bubbles) don't want to be hectored about social justice/grievance politics, so good luck with that.
I went to law school with Elizabeth Warren, Rutgers-Newark Class of 1976. She is the only person I ever went to school with whose potential seemed unlimited. We could do a lot worse. And probably will.
65
@RM
Yet, no one else from the class became an Ivy league law professor. I guess the rest of you missed the 'check the box course' that propelled her to reach her potential much to the detriment of the citizens of MA
Warren is all Dr. Krugman said, and more.
It won't be time to coalesce around a candidate for months
We'll see how the "newbies" field test
Right now, Joe Biden seems the best able to beat Trump
Likable
Straight shooter with integrity
Has common sense
Tough - can deliver a punch
Knowledgeable of both domestic and foreign policy
Experienced politician with lot's of connections
Was VP to the most admired man in US - Obama
Let's see how other stack up
3
@B
Biden comes with a trainload of baggage. Since he failed so miserably in his other presidential bids, and was out of the race before it even started, people are generally unaware unless they have been paying attention.
1
I'm sorry to be a downer, but there are only 12 years left to turn climate change around.
Gather the best policies, but package them with the MOST ELECTABLE candidate. Forget the glass ceilings, there's too much at stake.
9
@jzu
I disagree with that strategy that you put forward, jzu. We're not going to do enough until it's upon on us, and then, the success will be dependent on resourceful and insightful leadership, and that will be the only thing that will get us through climate change. AND, we must BREAK THE GLASS CEILING in order that all resourceful and insightful leadership be on deck, ready for the fight of our lives. We must act as human beings and help the Earth transition.
Choosing a leader using electability as a yard stick is simply foolish at this stage (I thought Trump was not electable.) We risk time and more mistakes if we use that yard stick, best to select and elect competent leadership.
1
Good analysis. I didn't think Sen Warren had the personality to be an effective leader.
But did Jimmy Carter have that personality? He has been immature, couldn't communicate well. But he was indefatigable & determined. Not only did he achieve presidency, he managed to have an excellent peace treaty between Egypt & Israel, which stood the test of time!
That's what I thought of Warren after her Iowa events. She maybe short on charisma. Her hand-gestures aren't very impressive. But Speaker Pelosi is very much like that.
Warren is determined, extremely sincere, passionate & indefatigable. So far so good. Do not dismiss her. She must be seen as a strong candidate who has the potential to beat Trump.
My favorite candidate was Mitch Landrieu. I was thoroughly disappointed when his picture didn't come in the 32 faces shown on 11th Hour with Brian Wms today.
If I were to advise, I would ask both Warren & Landrieu to form a pact & run. If either wins the Primary pick the other as her/his running mate, which will be a formidable combination. It may well be a dream.
My advise, if worth anything is, Democrats insist on fixing ACA, before Medicare for all.
Campaign on having another top personal income tax rate of between 45-50%. Cut the payroll tax on first $20K as much as possible; lift the cap but cut again to 1% beyond say, $150K.
A financial transaction tax, however small that maybe should be introduced. Something must be done to reduce SUVs & light trucks, a menace.
13
Serious policy intellectualism in the national government faces a long uphill road.
It is hard to imagine Warren saying something like "We are not going to do a wall. A wall is an immorality. It is not who we are as a nation."
This not a well-informed, astute or pragmatic statement, let alone any kind of example of serious intellectual and practical policy-making. Moreover Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful person in the House of Representatives. Elizabeth Warren is but one first term senator.
1
@Sage
She's a second term senator.
I hate to be the one to have to tell ya this, but moral claims and intellectual analyses are different.
This also just in: Warren was elected in 2012, and in 2018, which rather suggests that she is not a “first term senator.”
@Robert and Jeoffrey
Yes, as of this week, her second term has started.
Thanks for the correction.
Hurrah for 2019. Year of impeachment (I hope).
To be followed, perhaps, by 2020, year of first female elected US president.
Sorry I am a little slow with adjusting my calendar.
1
Unfortunately the media needs to grow up and get a grip. Women are likely just over 50% of the population. We are smart and we can get things done. We don't need to be demeaned. I wonder how it would sound if Elizabeth or Hillary said demeaning things about any of the gop or t-Rump? It would be headlines forever. Men seem to forget that life is a two way street.
I think Ms. Warren is awesome at calling others on their shortcomings and making policy but I would hate to see her wasted as president. We need her where she is. There are lots of brains in the folks thinking of running. Give them a whirl.
10
I respectfully disagree; we need her as president. She has a big program and needs the power to see it through.
17
@heysus
"I would hate to see her wasted as president." How could that be a waste? Are you serious?
I am with JM.
Let's face it. No matter how smart EW is, she is a woman and that means she can't win! Let's find someone who is electable. That means an honest male. Sorry, just reality in our current political climate. Keep her in government though. I hope her time will come!
1
@LM
Elizabeth Warren is electable and may be exactly what we need. Actually, we should be happy she's continued the fight, it doesn't matter if she's not a male. If you're sorry stop demeaning females, she is an honest human being. We'd be lucky to get her to run the country.
(Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college and thus the presidential election; she won the popular vote by some 3,000,000 votes.)
2
@LM
What do you mean "women can't win"? Hillary Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump. Let's not forget that.
4
@Edward
the point is to win the EC, not the popular vote. hers was a specious 'victory" or in plain English a loss, which happened since she was the genius who decided not to visit the upper Midwest prior to the election
My hope is the NYT provides fair coverage to all candidates in the next presidential election. Bernie was someone who many outlets, including this one, failed to cover in a just manner. Unfortunately, it was almost as if the media and superdelegates already knew who they wanted before the primary began. We cannot let another candidate hijack the Democratic Party.
23
@Max Ain't gonna happen. Every post-race reflection is a prelude to the same mistakes.
1
@Max
Really? The most demeaned candidate in the entire country was by far Hillary, and somehow, we are supposed to cry for Bernie. Bernie said a lot of good things. Bernie said a lot that didn't add up. There was no hijacking of the Democratic party even though some upper echelon did and said some incredibly stupid things. Hillary won, and won fairly, although there are some conspiracy theories floating out there. Move on.
1
@Max
You mean like letting another non-Democrat run as a Democrat and hijack the election? Like Bernie?
2
Mr Krugman is in the right place to do his share to teach the media how to handle Senator (Prof.) Warren's ideas. He would better start to do that instead of being complacent to the system with rewards non thinker entertainers - isn't it this he would like to avoid? Or are we just trying to change the style of the entertainment?
I don't know what is stopping professor from supporting Elizabeth Warren? This is in contrast to unabashed praise to Hillary who was supposed to be more 'winnable' as presidential candidate. She could not even beat Trump, (Ok. My bad. Russian influence, male chuvanism electoral college etc. definitely played a part. But she definitely did not do herself any good by using words like 'deplorables')
Politics and Economics are not hard science and there is nothing wrong is sticking our neck out and support candidates we think should be the sort of people who should be becoming presidents.
People will vote the way they want, but at least we need not start supporting or criticizing candidates based on whom we assume to be more 'electable' or 'winnable'
6
@Babi Kiran K
The point isn't to support anyone right now. The point is to say that she is an incredibly bright woman and that her ideas deserve consideration, and debate, and that is exactly what he did. We have a long road and a number of twists and turns in front of us. Why not wait a while and see what everyone has to say before telling the Professor that he should declare his support right now.
10
@Babi Kiran K And gosh darn, they did turn out to be deplorable. I guess it's okay for a crude male (Trump) to use words previously unuttered by a political candidate in public, but if a female says something remotely viewed as a put-down, the fickle public is all over her. I'm glad you support EW, but let's leave Hillary alone already. She's not running for anything.
1
@Babi Kiran K
"I don't know what is stopping professor from supporting Elizabeth Warren?"
uhmm, perhaps like the election is 2 years away and it's way to early?
The only policies, or candidates, that matter are those that will effect the election of a Democratic president in 2020. A high bar for Warren to clear, and I’m not sure she can.
Be happy to be proved wrong!
4
I wish Krugman had taken this approach, in favor of Bernie, in the last election.
Still, better late than never.
13
@Mark Thomason
Maybe you remember, maybe not, the problem with Bernie is that many of the things that he said, did not add up. I don't know if you are science guy or not, but when things don't add up, they are suspicious. Trump never added up. He still doesn't.
10
@Mark Thomason
Bernie was not and is not a serious intellectual -- Clinton and Warren are.
1
Lawrence O'Donnell tonight pointed out the inferior and shallow questions the news media asked Sen. Warren in Iowa compared to serious questions from citizens that reinforces Prof. Krugman's point.
Even if the party of ideas, especially good ideas from Sen. Warren are discussed, the Republicans will sabotage the message and the idea, simplifying it to absurd levels that even a trump and his base might understand. The news media is partially responsible for reinforcing the sabotage, if unwittingly. There's no balance or compromise between facts, truth and common sense with falsehoods, lies and plain old crazy. It only feeds the biases and extremism.
Journalists should be defending the truth and the facts behind good ideas from adversaries looking to distort and misrepresent, like trump and FOX do.
Good ideas should be debated with good ideas since the best ones will win.
Democrats need to care and protect their ideas from being mis-characterized. Imperfect as they are "socialism" and the ACA are favorite ones for trumplicans to demonize and caricature. Journalists should not aid their cause merely repeating talking points - constructive criticism is fair.
The press seems to have a liberal bias, but that's because liberals espouse truth and facts more - something journalists seek. Maintaining power and control through any means is more of a conservative value.
Sen. Warren would make an excellent POTUS or at the very least a perfect advisor to the next Democratic POTUS.
22
Paul asks: “The question is whether our media environment can handle a real party of ideas. Can news organizations tell the difference between genuine policy wonks and poseurs like Ryan?”
Sad to say the answer does not require much reflection if past examples are any guide.
5
Good that Mr. Krugman is giving serious consideration to Elizabeth Warren. How about now writing about her novel policy ideas before all the other candidates announce and all the news and commentary becomes, "Who's ahead in the polls? Who's raised the most money? What has Donald Trump tweeted about them?" Be the first at the Times to be the grown-up journalist who explains and analyzes the "new thought" policies Warren and perhaps other Democrats will bring to the campaign. We really, really need some new ideas for some old problems.
23
Don't lazily think anyone can win against Trump. Knowledge of Trump's behavior tells me we may not even have an election in 2020.
3
Warren is an old dog whose best days are far behind her. She is gamely garnering media attention but fails to realize that her appeal is short lived.
Both coasts clearly show their distaste for the old dogs as evidenced by the recent elections. The country no longer looks to the old guard for leadership and Hillary's loss was due in good part for that reason.
An obvious but divisive point that noone I eager to admit to.
Warren, Sanders and their cronies days are numbered. Trump's election serves as the principal signal of the political sea change that will alter the good old boy network that has run this country for decades.
The old dogs will serve as mouthpieces to keep middle America believing that the old system can still prevail. After all, their votes still matter.
It is about time to have serious policy debates. And that is what she is offering.
Nobody in the 2016 GOP's parade of clowns (roster of presidential candidates) came even close in thoughtfulness to Elizabeth Warren. Her IQ and grasp of facts by far exceed Trump's abilities, and she would be a much better president than anyone from the Republican leadership.
17
We *are* in Big Trouble.
But thanks for saying it.
1
Oh but she should be President. Moynihan was a thinker, but came up short as a doer, most memorably when he was in Bill Clinton's cabinet. Elizabeth Warren is a doer. She gets things done. She's a first class politician and a leader. She has been single minded in attempting to address the economic insecurity being faced by working class Americans and has been building a track record of initiatives designed to help those people. Elizabeth Warren understands that while things such as student loans might not figure large in the big economic picture, they do in the lives of many middle class Americans.
And she won't be intimidated by Wall Street and corporate executives. She alone among Democrats has been giving adequate voice to the outrage so many of us feel at the unapologetic entitlement emanating from today's plutocrats.
She is much, much more potent than Moynihan ever was in connecting with ordinary Americans. She can win.
50
@DebbieR
I don't think Moynihan was ever in Clinton's cabinet.
But, like Warren, he was born in Oklahoma.
2
For at least the past 10 to 15 years, major media outlets have been increasingly reliant on the "infotainment" model of mixing news with entertainment. Unfortunately, the effect has been to minimize serious policy debate, and leave the average person uneducated on major issues impacting the functioning of a democratic society.
We can't count on the media to cover a "party of ideas" when it's much more sexy -- and profitable -- to cover a "party of personalities", and focus on issues that are colorful and entertaining, but lack the substance to sustain a well-informed electorate.
16
I really don't understand this whole native American issue with Senator Warren. Just about every person in the country talks about their ancestry down to the 1/8 or less of ethnicity. So what's the deal with Elizabeth Warren claiming native American ancestry? I have a friend who also has a like amount of native ancestry and if you questioned the amount or authenticity of that ancestry he'd probably bash your face in. Maybe she should take him along on the road.
23
Agree with this article. The press can do a lot to help educate the public and they should. The average American reads at an 8th grade level. This is what gave us Trump. We have to change this. The next election should be all about policy and it's up to the press to make it so. Stop falling for the rw bait. The press should focus on getting out the facts, explaining candidates' policies so clearly that an 8th grader can understand it. The people running need to find a way to communicate to these people, because they are not getting it. We wouldn't have had Trump nor a republican congress in the first place if they did. It was as if the financial meltdown and Iraq War and lessons about trickle down were all forgotten. Amnesia? We need a New Deal and we need someone to communicate that on a bumper sticker, sadly.
13
Great article. Unfortunately, I fear too many Americans are only interested in how a candidate makes them feel rather than the ideas and policies he or she proposes. I think this has obviously been true of Republicans, but I think it was to a lesser degree also true of Dems with Obama. Too few Americans vote with their intellects. Maybe the disaster of Trump will cause some to re-evaluate this, but I have my doubts. So unfortunately, whether Warren is likeable or not is important when considering her candidacy. I'd vote for her in a second if I thought ideas would win the day. But my first priority in voting is to beat Trump. And I'm not sure Warren can do that, despite her vast superiority to Trump intellectually and as a human being.
7
Thanks, Mr. Krugman.
It’s great to read an article that discussed Warren’s abilities and ideas — instead of perpetuating Trump’s and other Republicans’ race-baiting derision.
I think that you’re spot on about the direct relationship between positive press and conservative/centrist male politicians. Even Bernie Sanders can’t catch a break, most likely due to the perceived threat that the investor class (advertisers?) feels from Sanders. One does wonder if there’s something more than the biases of individual writers affecting the reporting and commentary we read.
11
I thought that Ms. Clinton would realize that America didn’t want or need another dynastic President and hand the ball off to Ms. Warren.
( the old Statue of Liberty play)
How naive was that? It’s getting a bit late in the arc of the story but Warren is still an impressive candidate.
8
Dr. K,
Since you are comparing Senator Warren to the late Senator Moynihan I thought your readers may be interested in Moynihan's fabled intellect and prescient capabilities.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/heres-how-fix-senate/579172/
I am not suggesting that Senator Warren should be an advocate of the article's suggestion but it would seem after the last election, where the President was determined by the Electoral College, even though he lost the popular vote by a significant number that we heed Senator Moynihan's counsel.
We need to continue to perfect our democracy and the current disproportionate value of a vote in our Federal system. It seems to be a deterrent to the objectives of democracy.
Which leads me to the need for the Senate to hold its Democratic Senate seats and increase their numbers because the Senate's responsibilities in foreign relations and confirmation of senior officials of government including judges are critical to achieving a government created by the governed that serves the interests of the governed.
I think a lot about the global nature of the climate change challenge and believe we must think in terms of giving climate change the same high international priority as we did in planning for the post-WWII World Order at Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks.
Moynihan was an exceptional intellect with more than a normal share of courage.
Both Warren and Moynihan were born in Oklahoma.
Maybe there is something in the water.
11
James. Mickey Mantle was born In Oklahoma too.
I gravitate to and anticipate your columns every week because you speak truth to the lies of many who tell them. You care about all Americans like the great political leaders of our past. I regret you don't have a direct part in American governance and wish you would accept the responsibility of giving voice to Americans in our government, but alas, you remain in this noble lofty perch that has the effect of seeding public policy, safely removed from the lunacy of the public sphere the political leaders inhabit. I suppose the next best thing to having your righteousness a part of government is to support a similar standard bearer; Elizabeth Warren, for President. Thank you for writing this column. Write On! Sorry, you know, I'm an older guy.
13
The greatest danger our nation faces today is from extreme accumulation of wealth and political power in the hands of a few. They are not interested in making America a prosperous, well educated, healthy, and competitive nation. They are not interested in “making America great." They are not bothered by our mediocre infrastructure, very high tuition fee in our universities, the poor quality of k-12 education in poorer communities, lack of healthcare for millions of Americans, global warming resulting in destructive hurricanes and snowstorms, deteriorating water and air quality, and continued use of coal and natural gas when non-carbon based technologies are rapidly emerging to replace carbon as fuel. These politicians and their rich supporters have the same mentality as the feudal lords of the middle ages. The rich want to have the most wealth and the least taxes. They insulate themselves within walled havens and on large estates. Taxes, not increasing national debt, are needed to run a modern nation.
How long will the American public endure the plutocratic Raj? The politicians should work for creating maximum well being of the general public, not for enriching a small minority of the already rich. Why has this very basic function of governance eluded the vision of our politicians for the last four decades? Why are so many “leaders” asleep at the wheel? Why are they unable or unwilling to see their nation burning?
28
Senator Elizabeth Warren has the potential to be an excellent President for the people...specifically the voices of ordinary citizens whose voices have been silenced by money for far too long.
Should Senator Warren become the nominee, her pick of Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon as her VP would be an excellent selection.
12
@Abbey Road
Two much coast there. If she picks someone from the Midwest she would have a better chance.
1
I'd gladly vote for Warren, but will the DNC let me? The US has distinguished itself over recent decades by electing anti-intellectual candidates across both parties. Obama was the exception but nobody in Congress could really understand (or support) him. I think Warren would be more successful and also take corporate Democrats to task as well (long overdue).
15
Elizabeth Warren is the personification of why it is I'm so proud to be a Democrat. We're passionate about things that we don't have to demand be reflected back at us when we look in the mirror. We care about our families, futures and livelihoods, but not at the expense of the health of our country and the many others who share it with us. The one trick pony Republican Party has been stuck on the same soapbox since tax codes were first enacted, how they can break the nations piggybank over the backs of the middle-class and shovel every penny of what falls out to the poor little rich folks.
29
She is awesome. She is also Hillary #2. Sadly, she’d be great at the job but she can’t get elected.
6
I was an early admirer of Warren's. But in this age of social media dominance and polished messaging, one thing about her has always stood out to me: she appears to be a nervous speaker. Her voice always has a slightly strained, shaky undertone. I'm not the greatest public speaker myself, so it may be that I notice this more than others, but I do know it undermines your presence, and distracts from the strength of your content. Especially for women, who already have to work harder for a place on the stage and to be heard. I asked the CEO of my company, who is the most relaxed public speaker I've ever seen, how he does it, and he said to this day he still practices. So while my comment may seem superficial, if I could wish one thing for Warren, it would be that she get the best public speaking coach possible, and practice. Because there are far less qualified people than her who have no problem confidently stating dangerous lies in front of millions. She needs her voice to be strong and compelling.
26
@Francois
Very much agree. She is not saying anything very different from any other Democrat, including Clinton, But her tremulous tones and overly dramatic gestures make her, however passionate, an unappealing speaker. Regardless of whom the DNC nominates, supporters of all the other contenders will be dissatisfied. This is the Democrats great liability.
7
@Francois That can be overcome. Margaret Thatcher hired a speech coach to help her sound more authoritative.
5
@Francois
I disagree. The only time I heard her speak she was direct plain spoken and fiery, not tremulous or shaky in the least.
3
ok, but it is also up to Warren to start acting like a powerful intellectual. She relied on aggressive bickering to establish strong public recognition. Being against Trump, and being against inequality is not a leadership quality. If Warren wants to be a leader, she has to change her approach, and focus on presenting strong ideas that have value - being for something is a leadership quality.
9
@RAB
Respectfully disagree. Being against inequality is a terrific leadership quality.