There seems to be a lot of concern in the comment thread about being called a racist or calling people racist. Let's look at some objective indicators that increase the probability that someone is a racist, so they can either own it or fix it:
1. You voted for or support Trump, who has said and done many racist things (see the NYT: "Trump's racism, the definitive list").
2. Immigration reduction is one of your top five priorities, more important than say expanding healthcare or college affordability or a sustainable deficit path. Bear in mind the evidence is that immigration is a net win for the economy.
3. Building the wall is a top priority for you, as opposed to the many other challenges the U.S. faces (see today's NYT: "What President Trump should talk about"). This tells us a symbolic waste of money on a non-issue is more important than solving more important problems.
4. You're an immigrant who looks down on other immigrants and tries to prevent them from coming here, the "I've got mine, get lost" sort of thinking.
5. You would be upset if your son or daughter was dating someone of another race.
6. You have written in social media about how upset you were about Obama adding $10 trillion to the debt during his tenure, while ignoring the $13 trillion or so likely to be added by Trump.
7. You opposed the Medicaid expansion under the ACA.
The more of these that accurately reflect your views, the more likely you are a racist. Own it or fix it.
22
Mitt Romney was an economic conservative and a social liberal. He supported government sponsored health care, climate change spending, the minimum wage, and campaign finance reform, among other moderate positions. John McCain was moderate--or eclectic -- both economically and socially. As for W., his tagline was compassionate conservatism, even though his compassion was not always evident.
Bottom line, 3 of the 4 most recent Republican candidates for President presented themselves, more or less as moderates. There has never been a candidate like Trump and I think he's an anomaly. I could be wrong, but I am quite certain that it is much too early to proclaim the death of the moderate Republican.
5
Krugman mischaracterizes the socially liberal/economically conservation position (at least in my case). True economic conservatism involves fiscal responsibility: spending (and investing) wisely on programs that actually accomplish their goals (such as improving the conditions of the economically disadvantaged), AND increasing revenue (taxes!) to pay for those programs. And those tax increases should fall more heavily on those of us who are relatively well off.
Wha we don't need is increased social spending without corresponding revenue increases or static or declining social spending with drastic cuts in revenue through reduced taxes on the rich.
2
I was recently lambasted and called names on Facebook for my radical position that Jim Crow era monuments should be removed from public grounds and stored in museums or Confederate cemeteries. I have no sense of "heritage" said one such person, using much stronger language amid a torrent of racist speech against blacks. I was also told that I don't know history; that the Civil War was not fought over slavery.
I, a white woman, was raised in the South when racism was overt and brutal. Now it is covert and still somewhat brutal.
I'd be very happy not to see any more racist populists run for president. I don't want to see libertarians either, who, at least in my area, seem to be deluded and think that people will take care of neighbors with complex needs if they just weren't taxed. No word on what would pay for roads, firefighters, police, hospitals, etc.
15
After the 1980 election, there was a group known as Reagan Democrats, often also labeled Yuppies. The template of these voters was socially liberal and economically conservative. What has changed since then? My first guess is to say that the definition of "socially liberal" has evolved, to include recognition of white privilege and a system based in history to exclude minorities and women from wealth and power, along with inclusion of LGBTQ rights. Easier-to-solve obvious problems of the past have been shouldered aside and have given way to more divisive issues in the present.
2
Paul Krugman seems to be calling anyone to the right of him on social issues a "racist". Is that really a good way to proceed? Not exactly a nuanced take. NYT readers should expect better.
7
The color caste system in this country was deliberately created in the late 1600s by the white southern planters in response to Bacon's Rebellion (1676), with the clear intent to ensure that white and black workers would not unite against them to secure higher wages. Under this system, the blacks were slaves with the legal status of chattel property (e.g. livestock) and whites were assigned the role of enforcers of this system (to capture and return runaway slaves), without pay, in return for having the same legal status as the plantation owners and thus superiority over the blacks. This system had three elements: 1. the economic need of the planters for cheap labor, 2. the laws (e.g. the Black Codes), and 3. The racial hierarchy in peoples minds. The element 1 disappeared after WWII with the mechaniztion of southern agriculture and post-war restructuring of the US economy; element 2 was eliminated by the Civil Rights laws of the 1950's and 60's; and element 3 was repurposed and by the Republican party to gain votes from working class whites, and has been sustained by dog whistles, Trump's bullhorn and right wing media.
2
"The other is the absence of economically liberal, socially conservative politicians — let’s be blunt and just say “racist populists.”
Krugman's leap to "racist populists" is Democratic logic that could elect a Republican President.
In January 2017 a local group, Mobilize, formed to resist Trump. It has a very classy banner incorporating symbolism for every identity, leaving out Christianity and male.
Their exclusive approach seems unnecessarily small minded, and only widens the gap.
I really think Democrats would be wise to learn to be respectful and comfortable with people whose backgrounds and upbringing make them uncomfortable with different races and "new" varieties of gender.
While working together on issues of income/wealth inequality, medicare for all... what we have in common will
become more important than our differences.
Senator Bernie Sanders is the one candidate for President [as yet, undeclared] who, with total authenticity has always spoken to the needs and concerns of all poor and working people.
I think Paul Krugman has great disdain for Sanders. If he was more open, he would see that Sanders is the Democratic populist candidate who could get support from Trump voters.
A good read and on point. On issue haunts more than others and it concerns the GOP. Trumpism took over the party anti everything good, the environment, consumer rights, tax equity, immigration reform, free trade, the rule of law, international alliances and so on. The tinge of racism elevated to overt applies to race and religion.
No leader on the near or far horizon with the vision and courage to say we lost our way, repudiate the false prophet and recapture our guiding principles. First,being booed is deflating and rotten tomatoes might turn into stones. Second, the Trumpeteers found a home in the party a trashing Trump not plausible.
3
"One is the absence of socially liberal, economically conservative voters. These were the people Schultz thought he could appeal to; but basically they don’t exist, accounting for only around, yes, 4 percent of the electorate."
Garbage. Is this guy really considered a scientist?
4
Honestly, I do not know who are more tiresome Hilary supporters blaming it all on the Russians or Bernie Supporters still moaning about the primaries.
We need to look forward.
2
I just feel bad for fact checkers, ahead of his "glorious" SOTU performance, sleepless night guaranteed.
So many lies to check, isn't fun:)
1
Racism runs deep in this country like fat in a well-marbled steak. All of us who live in the protective white bubble harbor some racism, unconscious though it may be. The difference politically is that one party is willing to grapple with racism in all its complexity, while the other party largely avoids policy solutions or exploits race for political gain. Democrats are often accused of identity politics for their unwavering commitment to civil rights. This is an accusation they should wear like a badge of honor.
3
Dr Krugman - your consistently thoughtful and thought provoking columns are the best reason for maintaining a NYT subscription.
3
wow - an interesting article - nobody serving the voters with left-leaning 'tax the rich' economics but racist-populist beliefs ?
so we can expect to see the rise of someone like George Wallace now ... ?
interesting indeed ...
2
Funny reference from one of the talk show: SOTU speech reminds him of string quartet scene that plays on the Titanic while it's going down.
If we can just laugh at this surreal upside down life.
2
Krugman argues that the GOP has moved "far to the right" by starting from the premise that the "center" is a position equally from each side. That's a ridiculous premise, which leads to the wrong answer. The GOP hasn't moved an inch. That's the whole philosophical underpinning of conservatism (that the status quo and existing institutions and ways of life are essentially functioning properly, and we don't need a bunch of disruptive change proposed by progressives who think all existing institutions are corrupt and need to be overwritten). What's happened is that the left has become increasingly extreme. Now the center between the two sides is further to the left, so PK argues that the right has "moved" right. It's kind of like if you and I are standing next to each other, and I run away from you, while you remain still. True you are now farther from me, but it would be a strange construction if I were to claim that you just moved away from me...that's essentially the argument Krugman makes here. Returning to the issue of democrats moving further to the left, consider that BOTH Obama and Hillary were against gay marriage until they changed their position just 6-7 years ago. Not more than a year later, it became a given according to most on the left that society not only should be compassionate and tolerant of transgender people (which I agree with 100%), but that we have an obligation to agree that a transgender person is in fact whatever sex they say they are (which is nuts).
2
seems exactly backwards from my POV: for decades, the GOP has moved further and further to the right, sometimes seeming as though candidates are tripping and clamoring over each other to stake out the most reactionary possible positons... and in the process, the Democats are dragged along behind them, also moving to the right, but not as fast and not as far. today's Democrats are about on a par with the Republicans of the late Ike era, while the present Republicans have out Goldwatered Goldwater, and make the John Birch Society seem like a sewing circle of church ladies. imagine the GOP including characters like John Lindsey or Ed Brooke today!
3
@Bill: I suggest you read [email protected]'s post, which precedes yours.
He/she saved me the trouble of a rebuttal.
@Bill I would like to think that perhaps more citizens are beginning to adopt a 'live and let live' aka 'mind one's own business' attitude when it comes to others' private lives and freedoms - maybe the tendency to move from small communities to diverse urban areas is helping this trend along.
1
one of the best columns ever. Nice ,subtle satire, creating different coordinates on a graph representing the different orthogonal parameters, you know: economically conservative, socially liberal, economically liberal, baby-eating cannibals...
--
"There’s a substantial bloc of racist-populist voters, and you might think that someone would try to serve them. "
--
Well done sir!
2
This analysis is bullseye concise. I think of Oscar Wilde's apothegm, “It is personalities, not principles, that move the age.", and this scene from "Hud": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWEIlITWI2s : "Lonnie, little by little the look of the country changes because of the men we admire." I also second Riverwoman observation (below) and add that abortion is a stumbling block for the Right to the degree that it is comprehended less for what it is than for its expediency as political firewater, and for the Left to the degree that it is irrationally construed as a form of liberty.
1
It appears Krugman is afraid of Howard Schultz. Why is that?
12
@jaco
I'd say one reason could be that putting "billionaires" like Krupp and Ford in charge in their countries has a way of turning into war after arms treaties are scrapped and their chosen demagogues go to town on gullible populations.
7
@jaco Most likely, Krugman fears that Schultz will cause his precious democrats to lose the next election. Or at least expose the weakness of their field.
4
Krugman lost all credibility when he unflinchingly supported the most corrupt candidate the DNC has ever put forward. He turned his back on Bernie who was legitimately the only chance that Dems had for rivaling a populist on the right. And now he has the temerity to kick the dirt and cry fowl when another centrist unifying candidate throws his hat in the ring. You have lost good sir, take it with some dignity and humility.
5
@Mystery Lits
Hilary lost for lots of reasons, one of which was Bernie voters who stayed home.
4
@Lefthalfbach
Some Bernie voters voted for Trump. I voted for Jill Stein, Green Party. I will do so again if the choice is a regime change supporting warmonger... even if that warmonger has some Progressive ideas
I am unwilling to choose a better Supreme Court, if it means accepting the destruction of whole countries and their people.
1
@Lefthalfbach
If Hillary wanted those voters to show up for her, all she had to do is make Bernie the VP on her ticker.
In that way she would have expanded her base.
That in turn would give her even more latitude to campaign harder to the right in the general while Bernie held up the left.
Reagan faced the same issue in 1980 & made his rival his VP to ensure that his rival's wing of the party showed up to vote.
Politics 101: expanding the base.
Its as if Hillary would rather lose to Trump than give Progressives a seat at the table.
We are talking about a powerless job with almost no portfolio.
You can't tell me Bernie wouldn't have gotten her 100k more votes in the rust belt state. In fact Michael Moore proved it in Michigan alone.
Instead Hillary picked Tim Kaine, a fine man but he brought no additional constituency to the ticket.
For Bernie's part, he campaigned relentlessly on behalf of Hillary.
Hillary was chummy with billionaires & Banksters. No credibility with working class whites. She got $500k an hour for speeches but thought $15 an hour was too much for minimum wage - and said so in the 1st debate.
By election day 2016 fully 25% of America lived in jurisdictions that had voted to raise the minimum wage to $15. That doesn't happen if Bernie didn't campaign by raising it as an issue.
If Hillary lost because of progressives staying at home, it's her own fault not giving them a reason to show up.
All she had to do was pick Bernie and she knows it.
1
[Tax cuts for the rich are the G.O.P.’s defining policy...]
From here, it's "saving America (from imminent threat of utter destruction)," Trump Wall/caravans of those God, apparently mistakenly, holds as among his favorite children the predominant active crusade.
The threats, somehow, never vary from emanating from the very least, most defenseless among us, and every so often Muppets of Sesame Street.
Meanwhile, congressional Republicans made no secret of the fraudulence of their investigation of Russian election interference, openly smirking for the cameras as they implied their bulletproof and impervious to wear defense: "You can't prove we're lying and not just exactly as stupid as we are unembarrassed to pretend, and imply we know you are."
Trump is merely the most spectacular symptom of the alternative fact Republican cancer on this country from which he erupted.
3
Thank you Paul.
1
Vast majority or our very recent white progenitors were proudly and un-repetently: racist, bigoted, misogynistic and miscegenistic. How much has public opinion changed since it was ok for Bull Connor to brutalize black children without recourse? Bull Connor was a "good man," in his day. He actions were also morally reprehensible. We have a racism now that is reflected more by public policy more than by brute force. We have racists and bigots that believe and espouse that people of color are inhabit prisons disproportionately because they commit crimes in disproportionately. We still hear that people are poor because they are lazy and want a handout. As soon as you believe that the above is determined by "race," you should know what you are.
2
Jesus - what an out of touch article. Krugman needs to get out of his echo chamber and take a walk.
You just wrote the playbook that will embarrass the democrats in the 2020 election. Good luck with that.
2
The thought of George Wallace coming back in any kind of incarnation is a frightening aspect, especially after two years of Donald Trump's racist rhetoric has whipped up neo-Nazis, white supremacists and bigots to a fever pitch.
If anything racist-populist voters, no matter how large or small their faction is should be the one thing ALL Americans, and not just Democrats should be afraid of.
In any case they should fear that a lot more than Howard Schultz, who comes across as a joke even on a good day.
3
Well, that was damned depressing. It is has be written in many forums that racism is the diseasse that will destroy us all. No need for The Bomb; racism's nasty insidiousness rots away at our core slowly and efficiency. Putin knows this and so does Xi.
The good doctor's analysis on this matter is one of the best I've seen. And it is depressing.
2
Interesting.
Still avoiding all discussion of rising wages and rising employment figures, which disprove the author's predictions.
1
Why is it so many of my white brothers and sisters can't stomach the notion that they may harbor, not explicit, but implicit racism? Not until whites in particular see that being racist need not be along the lines of Iowa's Rep King or Virginia's Ralph Northam, that there are plenty of things that we don't see that are obvious to most people of color, can we hope to make some progress.
36
@Bradley Bleck
I'm a civil-rights supporting liberal, at least somewhat aware of my deeply ingrained racial biases. That awareness notwithstanding, I gag at the notion that the same word should be used to describe me and Rep. King. If we can find many different words for snow (powder, slush, crust, granular, etc.) can't we find at least a few different words for people on different places on the spectrum from proud white supremacist to civil rights ally? Racist is such a loaded word it's no wonder people want to avoid that label. Even racists do. Is there a good reason to insist on calling all white people racist?
21
@PDXman I'm not like King either, and my racism isn't like his racism. And maybe not like your bias. But I think whites who care about beating back racism have to stop seeing ourselves through that one lens, that if I don't wear a hood or blackface, that I'm not racist, that I don't want the label that applies to King to apply to me, even if we have but one word for labeling that lens. I think white people just need to get over it already.
3
@Bradley Bleck 'white...s can't stomach the notion that they may harbor, not explicit, but implicit racism?'
I suspect we all grow up in an environment that trains us in certain cultural beliefs - and without any experience in what we haven't seen or learned.
Fear of the unknown may be innate. But to say someone is wrong because they haven't experienced something may be drawing a long bow.
One of my most amazing experiences as a white Australian guy was going to the Brooklyn Caribbean Carnival - maybe now called West Indian Parade or Labor Day Festival - https://www.timeout.com/newyork/west-indian-american-day-carnival-new-york
We spent the day amongst maybe 300,000 heaving sweating black people shaking their booties to chest-thumping-loud music from passing float trucks - and I counted no more than 30 whites all day. So whites were very much in a minority there - but we still had a fantastic time. Jerk chicken'n'all ...
2
Oh my...it has really become complicated.
Trump brings new lows to life every day of our lives with a tag team of followers.
Hang in there Democracy ~~ lets hope with all the reach for billions and power we do not lose our souls.
Trump loves chaos as that is where he makes his money. Makes you wonder if his "Executive Time" is spent doing Trump family business.
1
I think Krugman may be dismissing too quickly the economically conservative, socially racist voter. I grew up with them, have them throughout my extended family and know them well.
They are the types of folks who will passionately advocate against their own interests in order to deny the benefit to someone poorer or darker than them. The only self-respect they have in their dead-end jobs, high-school educations, dysfunctional communities, and opioid-addled families are that, thank God, they aren't like THOSE people. To bring other up out of their poverty would be to destroy the last vestige of identity they have.
2
I am third generation "life Long Dem" and am as upset about current Pres. I am however very depressed about our party appearing flaky regarding the Sanders wing eco policies such as his and Chuck S latest suggestion to prohibit publicly traded companies from buying back stock. I have no idea about the wisdom of such purchases but to suggest that the Government should have authorty to regulate this subject to companies increasing pay etc., is ludicrous.
3
I once asked a socially liberal and fiscal conservative what he meant. He told me being fair and having a balanced budget with low taxes.
I then asked him how was he going to pay for his socially liberal programs and would he adhere to a balanced budget if the sewers were in need of urgent repair, or if there was a medical crisis or if there was a war. He answers were betwixt and between.
Some states have balanced budget laws with debt. It is just like it when people say that they believe in the free market. There is no such thing as a free market or being socially liberal and economically conservative.
1
Speaking as a small-scale political scientist, I think that one of those quarters is actually filled--just not the way people think.
Democrats are trying to move our economy toward being better for all. While they are looking for 21st Century solutions to 21st Century problems, they want to make the economy work much more like it did in the 1950s to the mid-1970s, though without the racism and sexism. While they are working for a progressive vision, when it comes to their view of what makes the economy work, they fit the dictionary--not the modern political--version of "conservative."
If you don't call the right-wing radicals that are the modern Republican Party "conservatives", which you really shouldn't, then we do have a socially liberal, economically conservative quadrant. The fact that it overlaps the socially liberal, economically conservative quadrant is not a bug. It's a feature.
1
Rep Gov Charlie Baker, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, received 66.5% of the vote in "liberal" MA. Maybe not everybody like Starbucks
1
PK--fair enough. But to define the center by current conditions is unhelpful. America is a deeply conservative country. And demagogues have controlled the message for decades. First we got credit cards and financialization, and then we got unmanageable personal debt. Our votes are monetized, and are fought for as if by drunken prospectors of long ago. Asking if this generation will be better off than their parents sets no parameters. How many cars; how many sq.ft. of home; how many devices??? We have a raging epidemic of gun deaths; another of opioid addiction and death; homelessness is growing; working-poor is an accepted social class; police and military vets commit suicide at rates above the population averages. And this is all obfuscated in a fatuous argument about the ability of a southern wall to cure all ills. Meanwhile, global warming gallops on; Tasmania is burning; Australia is baking; melt-waters from Antarctica are raising sea levels; Himalayan and Andean frozen water reservoirs are melting; and refugees from dried out regions of Central America and the Middle East put great strain on their neighbors. Meanwhile, Trump et al. have conditioned Americans to a burrow mentality with perpetual hibernation--or an ant colony that sends out soldier ants on and on to punish the "enemies." No vision can overcome such rot.
3
@Des Johnson I blame organized religion for many American's outright rejection of science, lack of support for education and disdain for intellectual reasoning in general.
With the number of comments and their diversity, it appears the good doctor has touched a nerve. I would add, as a former Episcopalian from an upper middle class family, that the American pulpit is largely a hypocrisy wrapped in a veil of deceit. They operate so far from Christian writings, and pronouncements, that it's a denial of the holy soul. Not all, of course, having marched with a few good ones. But, the wide majority of ministers and hierarchy are blasphemous by their common betrayal.
22
@JLM
Agree, and as a retired physician, Vietnam (non-combatant) combat Battalion Surgeon, lifelong
liberal Democrat and mainstream Presbyterian--
please compare & contrast the $700 Billion annual Federal "Defense" (War) budget with the Sermon on
the Mount (Matthew 5-6)--think the God-Blessed
America is a little off track?
2
This from a guy who supported the worst Democratic candidate in history, the candidate so bad she couldn't even beat the Trumpster. This from a guy who downplayed Bernie and his policy positions; the guy, and the Democratic Party, are now adopting Bernie's policy positions. No credibility with me.
6
@Tony
Nor me. They're being forced, by popular demand, to embrace some of Bernie's agenda. They will never support Bernie - only an easy-to-discount representative of progressive politics, like AOC. She's a lot prettier than Bernie and seems to have good inclinations. But in terms of her knowledge and skill levels, she's on the order of Sarah Palin.
3
@Tony: Wow! She beat him handily. But the paleolithic Electoral College beat her.
2
I don't get the term "socially conservative". Does that mean certain American citizens don't deserve civil rights, don't deserve respect, don't deserve acceptance. "Social conservatism" is a abhorrent, malignant term that disguises hatred as some acceptable part of the American conversation.
5
@Rita L.
YES, EXACTLY!
Your conclusion is that, in order to control politics in the US, we need a party that is economically liberal and socially conservative. You further define socially conservative as racist, and presumably racist is broadly defined to include blacks and the ethnically different. I would add to that definition sexist, though less important and not presently well defined.
The problem with this analysis is its failure to deal with the fact that economics is fact based and racism is ideologically emotion based. You state that the Democrats have already won the economic battle; people may not fully understand the economics but they like what they see of liberal economics. So for the Democrats to win the political battle they must avoid losing the racists. Racism is emotional and visceral. The key to a democratic victory will be putting forth a white, male charismatic candidate. The candidate’s platform must deemphasize the racial aspects and instead focus on the liberal economic aspects, which you suggest will be well received. This platform can be as heavily focused on helping the poor minorities as any being espoused by the far left, but it must couched in terms of economics and not race. No part of a substantive anti-racist agenda need be sacrificed; it will all be in the presentation.
3
I love this country and its halting but inexorable progress towards inclusion; that said, racist populism had a far longer, more successful run in the Democratic Party than stated, starting with Andy Jackson.
2
@Slammy: Come on! Calling Jackson a Democrat is like calling Giordano Bruno a Trekkie.
2
@Slammy Watch out for anachronistic thinking. There was a crossover. There was a burgeoning difference between Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats when Northern Democrats started to embrace civil rights. Then Truman desegregated the military. Then Thurmond walked out of the 1948 convention because of the civil rights plank and formed the Dixiecrats. Southerners were incensed by Supreme Court rulings and outraged by the civil rights laws.
Republican nominee Goldwater courted the racists by "hunting where the ducks were." Republican Nixon implemented his Southern Strategy in 1968. By then the solid south remained solid but switched from Democrat to Republican.
Look it up.
2
I fully accept that the endorsement of their racism seems to be the one thing that Trump's base is actually getting out of this promise-breaking administration. My question is would these unrepresented financial liberals/social conservatives ever support financially progressive candidates who are moderate on social issues? Is racism a non-negotiable for them, or might they trade increased prosperity for the confirmation of their suspicion that non-whites are usurping what little power and prestige they have left?
1
One would think that decision making, what to buy, who to vote for, was an intellectual exercise of the mind.
However the work of neuroscientist Antonio Damario & other cognitive scientist have found that decision making (what to buy, who to vote for) is heavily reliant upon the emotional sphere of the mind.
The intellectual side of the mind learns quickly, learns from facts, & books & can even learn from other people’s experiences. The emotional side of the mind is just the opposite: it learns slowly & generally speaking, only from experience.
As Keynes might have noted: This explains why so few people change their minds even tho the facts have changed.
It explains why people’s opinion stay the same against growing evidence to the contrary. Remember the trauma of learning there wasn’t a Santa Clause? (Was that a good thing for us to experience or bad? Shouldn’t the mind learn how to change or is the trauma too devastating?)
You can find a Ted Talk by Simon Sinek that demonstrates that Marketeers, Branders & Corps know all about this & how to manipulate the masses via this.
So many if not most of us vote based upon our emotional experience. The GOP have known this ever since they told us about welfare queens abusing the system. Fox News inflames anger & hate (as did the Nazis). The only way to reverse this is for a person to become a victim of these policies & not blame another race but the GOP’s policies instead.
I don't know anymore what it means to be economically liberal or economically conservative. I am sure you have a different definition for every person asked.
Someone should inform Mr. Krugman that there are many people who are socially conservative and economically moderate or liberal — they aren't racist and they didn't vote for Mr. Trump. There's also a worldwide political movement with established parties that combine these two perspectives. It's called Christian Democracy.
3
If you are leftist on economy @ some point you will want limits on immigration.
Obama after having to endure a year of neg job creation thanks to inheriting Bush’s recession managed to still net the creation of 10 million jobs.
If you isolate on that figure alone Obama should have been an overwhelming economic success story.
After the GOP created the Great Recession & Obama fixed it & then adding 10 million net new jobs there should have been no leg on which the GOP could stand on to allow Trump to gain any traction whatsoever let alone win an election.
But he did. How can that be?
How can the GOP create a massive economic melt down then the Dems fix it add 10 million jobs then lose to Trump?
The answer is immigration.
During the Obama years American policy allowed 10 million people to immigrate into the United States. At least some of those people need jobs to live too.
So you have a jobs crater then you add 10 million jobs after the creator but you also import 10 million people so then you still in effect have the jobs crater.
For much of the working class, the Great Recession never ended & while jobs are still being created salaries have only barely improved.
Dems will or won’t be elected by Americans. Immigrants don’t vote until becoming citizens so they aren’t real constituents.
If you are on the left economically @ some point you will have to want to constrict immigration or you aren’t serving your constituents interests. That doesn’t mean becoming inhumane.
2
Paul,
Too many generalizations, some incoherent;
You use "civil rights" to include vilification of those who are not prepared for cultural changes. I'm not talking about racial integration, but a change in gender values, the vilification of male seduction, or flirting that has been demonized. Al Frankin stands for such excesses, that many of the women Democratic candidates still see as an example of this "evil"
While ending Jim Crow was a noble cause, the attempt to erase the scourge of gender differences that include, for we primates, multiple differences including interaction with the opposite sex This is not the "arc of history bending toward justice" but as some biologists will whisper when off the record the result of millions of years of evolution.
There is also the paradox of Democrats who had been "The Reality Party" is now the party with their own mythologies. They flaunt the DNC appointment of one who chose to join the Muslim religion as an adult, while condemning anyone who would oppose this. Meanwhile Dems hate Christian Dominionist, while the Muslim version inherent in the ideal of Sharia law is somehow advancing pluralism.
The concept of Monetary Money Policy is the closest we come to secular heaven -- all good things for all people. It had been a joke for centuries, but with the new class of house Dems, it's taken seriously.
1
Professor Krugman, can you please clarify something for your readers? What is your position regarding US debt and deficits?
In a recent piece, you seemed to downplay the importance of these issues, in part at least, since we can borrow so cheaply. But aren't our deficits on an unsustainable path, esp. in the wake of Trump's tax cut?
It seems to me, a non-expert, that our current level of national debt is not terribly unmanageable. However, if our annual deficits are significantly greater than our growth rate (which I think the forecasts show), doesn't that suggest an unsustainable trajectory where, eventually, interest rates and inflation will soar, and other expenditures will be crowded out to service debt interest payments?
A related issue is shifting definitions. I used to describe myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but conservative then meant I didn't think we should have exploding debt. It simply meant living within our means which, as needed to fund reasonable expenditures, could include higher taxes on the rich. Now, the definition of fiscally conservative seems to include small government and keeping taxes as low as possible. I never bought into that definitional change, but now I don't know how to describe my fiscal "conservatism" without being painted with the broad conservative brush.
I suspect there are many more people out there who hold my values than your stats indicate - whatever they are called.
@TheBoot
Paul Krugman has written many times on this issue. In general, he points out that both debt and deficiets are exploding as a consequence of Republican policies being enacted into law.
I respectfully disagree with you Mr. Krugman; there is actually a center in U.S. politics and it used to be where elections were won or lost. That being said, I agree with you that Howard Schultz or Michael Bloomberg might not be the ideal candidates to represent that center.
1
The last time I heard someone identify as an economic conservative but a social liberal was in 2007. The date is significant- before the 2008 economic crash.
The most important meme which came out of the crash was the 1% versus the 99%. Even though the Occupy Wall Street movement died fairly quickly the meme remained and unleashed an ongoing discussion and recognition about income inequality in this country and the concomitant development of oligarchic rule despite the facade of democracy.
The meme itself is significant because it points out not only the way forward for electoral victory but the danger which is always lurking for the Democrats and Progressives. The majority of Americans are not strongly motivated to vote against their self-interest because they hate immigrants, other races, gender non conformers, or support the rights of fetuses over the rights of women. However when the rhetoric of left focuses on issues that are not our SHARED ones (ie healthcare, income equality, jobs, education, social security etc) they leave themselves open to the Right stirring the pot of division and antagonism.
When middle and working class Americans feel a Party cares for “special interests” more than for regular Americans like them that Party is doomed. To be clear - does NOT mean changing allegiances but how you frame the issues. Further you can now easily show how it’s the republicans who are clearly the party of special interests - the 1 percent.
2
I am a social conservative who sees the need for economic change. I live in the midst of people who are farther right than me. In conversation and on Facebook posts they are telling me that they will never in good conscience be able to support a party that is for abortion rights, much less expanding that to the third trimester (Thanks, New York and Virginia for inflaming their passions recently). That is their conviction, irregardless of anything else. And now they are effectively immunized from giving any Democrat consideration, nearly two years before the 2020 election.
3
@Jay Fleming These same voters could very likely be motivated to continue voting GOP even if abortion were completely banned. Banning effective contraception and sex ed would be next on their list, or perhaps government monitoring of pregnancies and routine investigation of stillbirths, miscarriages and birth defects...
They don't like women having careers, avoiding marriage and delaying or declining motherhood.
So demagoguery has become the overarching modus operandi of the Republican party. I just think it is wonderful how Krugman has come to defend progressivism as opposed to that columnist who had such fits about the purity of the Bernie crowd in 2016. It is all becoming very clear now, and Krugman sees it. There was a point in '08 where the GOP was caught like a deer in the headlights and everyone knew where the blame lay. Then time went on, subterfuge and demagoguery clouded the issues. But now the chickens are come home to roost.
What an incredible amount of labels. These columns should come with a glossary to explain the following terms:
libertarian
populist racist
centrist
working class
socially liberal
economically conservative
economically liberal
socially conservative
segregationist Dixiecrats
Northern Democrats
rich
poor
racial liberalism
party establishment
racial illiberalism
I probably missed some.
5
If the country wants to avoid the specter of a "racist populist" president (a real one, not a fake populist like Trump), then the Democratic party has to seriously move left on economic matters.
A large swath of the country - including, but certainly not limited to the white working class - is fed up with the downward mobility and deep inequality that has resulted from decades of policies catering to the rich. As Krugman points out, polls show strong support for expanded social services and substantially higher taxes on the rich. Democrats need to get bold and deliver on such sentiments. The climate is such that proposals such as those put out by Warren, Sanders and AOC are actually taken seriously (I'm in my 40s, this is the first time in my adult lifetime that such proposals have been bandied about in the US).
If we get a centrist Dem pushing the same incremental corporate-friendly policies that Dems are generally known for, the country is going to lose out. And who knows, there may be a real racist populist waiting in the wings if that happens.
1
Racism is a trait of human beings. Like all human traits, racism is on a spectrum from very little to very much. Since the beginning of the human race, leaders have used racism to incite violence on others as well as to secure power and the spoils for themselves. Trump knows what he's doing. (David Duke; who?)
America may have the most diverse demographics of any country; and they are changing as so-called "whites" lose the outright majority. Like any relationship, we have to work at mutual respect and tolerance.
Obviously, we need to choose leaders that understand the role of fostering good will; at home and abroad. This will take a concerted effort working from many fronts. Paul is on the right track.
3
The Progressive agenda of free everything assumes we (the US) is rich enough to fund all the wild social programs, save the world from "global warming", open its borders, provide free medical care to all who reside here, free college for all, (I assume this includes theology and sociology majors), guaranteed income, pensions for all, etc. In essence the Argentina-Venezuela model. We are not that rich. Our debt is out of control. The number of people working for or dependent on Government(which produces nothing) has reached the tipping point. It does not work as is proven by the results. It probably can't be reversed. The problem with socialist government is it replaces rich capitalists with rich (and corrupt) politicians. (The Russian political elite always had their Dachas). The US has got to control what appears to be a death spiral. Theoretical solutions which ignore the human factor fail.
4
I assume when you say "the government doesn't produce anything" you mean tangible solid goods like cars or cement. Though I argue that roads, trains, libraries, funding fire fighters and police, and in and in and on are all products the government "produces" by subcontracting to companies that otherwise wouldn't produce pubic works. I wonder what tangibles Wall Street produces? Lots of money for some of course. Woe for others. Be careful what you wish for, Eddie. While you may be able to.pay for roads with your fortune, or to privately educate your kids, their will be the human faces of Ignorance and Want staring at you through your gates. They should be feared because they neither know about or care about your philosophy. If people give up a little everyone gets a lot.
1
@Eddie
Straw Man much?
"free everything"?
"open borders"?
No, not true, but continue with your rhetoric, I'm sure it all feels good when you believe the above quotes.
We ARE that rich, its just that the top few get it all and must get more, more more,..
3
@Eddie: Which human factor?
Our first past the post, winner takes all voting system means that we will have two parties. Parliamentary systems make room for multiple viewpoints that have to be brought together into a winning coalition. When rich white male landowners were the voters and the elected, two viewpoints were enough. We don't have leaders who are strong enough to open up our system, especially when one of those viewpoints caters directly to the ultra-rich, who own our system.
1
What’s worse? A Democrat Governor caught in blackface or a “smirking” Covington High School student with a MAGA hat?
3
As the Republican party has become the party of Trump, removing him and them is the only way to restore our democratic republic to the benefit of the vast majority of the people living here. See California.
1
On libertarianism; We’ve had our difficulties defining some concepts along the way in America since inception. One of those things, prevalent in discussions now, is the difference between an ‘Inalienable’ fundamental human right, and a ‘Liberty’.
The Founders of this nation understood the difference between a pure libertarian nation, and a realistic nation partly on the basis of that individual rights must balance out with the natural rights of groups. They understood that all of society is analogous to a stage play, where everything that takes place in life occurs on the stage. The workings of government are then like a system of props and pulleys behind the curtain, that the audience never sees. When one chain is pulled on, one prop goes up and another comes down, and vice-versa.
Similarly our individual choices may have an effect on those around us even when termed a ‘civil right’, and where the edges and limits of those rights lie is usually up to a court ruling by the Judicial Branch within the federal system. But the reality is, if we take the time to examine Supreme Court decisions, we will find that the court is very careful how it rules, so as not to upset the order of things based upon natural law in our nation, as this was a founding premise of the nation.
1
Unless ‘socially liberal’ means solely an absence of behavioral norms, I don’t see how social liberalism and economic conservatism can coexist. To most of us, social liberalism involves some sharing of wealth among all of us, so that all of us can live productive, enjoyable, and somewhat free lives.
2
I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Medicare for all fiscally conservative IF payscales for medical professional, drugs, and equipment are controlled as in Europe.
I support action on climate change and it should be entirely pinned on those causing the damage - those using fossil fuels. I think that is a fiscally conservative position.
People being paid enough to live on without depending on the public treasury I think is fiscally conservative.
Cutting the military in half is fiscally conservative and I support that.
Many of these things would reduce the amount of government spending, just like conservatives want.
Where is my party?
5
During the last great expansion of social spending in the Johnson administration, most voters could sympathize with the poor, who were depicted as white Appalachians. With the rise of Southern conservative politics and aid by Fox News, et al, now the poor are seen as exclusively people of color -- "others" -- an easy target for resentment in support spending cuts.
Many of today's Republicans were attracted to the party for its implicit, and at times explicit, race-baiting (a strategy hit upon by Goldwater and fostered by GOP leaders, especially in Texas, ever since) in service to its starve the beast strategy. The tragedy is that many of those voters today have more in common with the white Appalachians than the secure middle class they assumed they would always be, as they hung on to the false notion that as went the rich so they would go, too. Funny how it didn't turn out that way.
Economic conservatism by the GOP has always been for everyone else, just not the rich. Now, even Republican voters are catching on to that hypocrisy.
These definitions tend to be broad and leave little room for nuances. I consider myself very socially liberal but economically conservative. What does that mean. Do I support a Howard Schultz, absolutely not. Why not, because his conservative economics to me are offensive. I am for cutting the military budget. I am for raising taxes especially on the rich back to the Eisenhower era levels to properly fund government. I am for eliminating pork for the oil industry, tobacco, farming as so forth. But I am for Medicare for all and properly funding it. I am for a Social Security system that actually allows people to retire and not in poverty. I am for infrastructure rebuilding. I am for funding education including college so that young people do not start out adult life deep in debt. I am for returning to Glass Steagall. My economic conservatism is based upon eliminating rewards for the rich and the military industrial complex and the funding of our nations needs. This is not Schultz.
4
Some populist positions are essentially racist in that they are nearly certain to amplify racism eventually (or sooner), especially the profoundly un-American opposition to immigration. Doubling the federal minimum wage, nostalgia for unions and other policies are extremely likely to cause problems. Take a look at so-called European populists for a likely "steady state" of this process. Populists have no monopoly on toxic policies, but such policies seem to take center stage on the populist agenda. In short, we do have racist populists, it is just that much of the racism is covert and likely unintentional.
On the flip side, the "4%" of voters who are economically conservative but socially liberal just might be the pivotal group in an upcoming election. 4% does not round down to zero when it is in the center of the map. In fact, enough negative partisanship might make this the only group worth appealing to (this is an exaggeration, but not an absurd one).
2
Paul Krugman forgets that he is smearing people who don’t approve of illegal immigration and harmful globalization as racists for purely political as opposed to moral or economic reasons. Prior to Obama Krugman had problems with illegal immigration. Funny that he issued a mea culpa on the harmful effects of globalization once Trump came to power.
6
Paul should have Cornel West in this discussion. Last night, on CNN, Professor West reminded us about dealing with "white supremacy." I won't even attempt to try to reiterate the eloquence West brought to a discussion about the governor of Virginia and his medical school yearbook picture. But he reminded us about the large context in which that racist picture exists, and what all of us can do.
1
Like the song from Avenue Q, "Everyone's a little bit racist". Whether we like it or not. Even people who don't think they are do often have a bit of it. It's a human condition that many people can't completely cure themselves from.
Democrats MUST get beyond race and identity politics. They need to focus on making lives better for everyone economically with access to things like health care, housing, schooling and child care. Make things more fair for all. But stop with the overwhelming moral policing about racism, gays, me too etc. Yes, that stuff is all very important. Work on that with the courts and legislation, education etc once you regain power, but please keep it out of daily debates. It only add fuel to the right wing fire and unfortunately turns off voters.
3
@Celeste, they can't. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., a Democrat's Democrat and strong supporter of the New Deal; civil rights; Kennedy family, etc. warned against this in the late 1980's or early 1990's, during the first wave of political correctness taking over college campuses. His book, Disuniting of America-Reflections on a Multicultural Society, was highly prescient, if perhaps overly optimistic given what has played out. Democrat & Harvard prof. Samuel Huntington made similar argument in his book, Who are We? The Challenges to American Identity. Columbia Prof. & Democrat Mark Lilla tried to again, just after the 2016 election. For which he was roundly condemned, forcing some college campuses to cancel his appearance. The Democrats and their supposed allies in the media just can't help themselves. It will probably win millennials and Generation Z for now will, as Steve Bannon predicted, turn off enough in Generation X and older to end their support or at least push people into the ever growing camp of independents.
2
@Celeste Northham concealed this picture. He made an appeal to the voters in bad faith. It makes him an opportunistic trickster.
You are suggesting when stuff like this occurs, the people targeted for degradation should just laugh it off. That makes them more likely to be targeted. You might as well draw a bullseye on the oppressed person's chest.
@Celeste
Celeste, how about we address racism and its impact instead 'get beyond race.' We can even acknowledge that the concept of different races is made up, but the impact is real.
One example: Data shows that Hispanic students graduate high school and college at lower rates than white students. Unless you think that's genetics at play, there has to be an explanation. So why not understand why and address the cause? I think that kind of approach is fundamental to making 'things more fair for all' -- regardless how uncomfortable some of us may feel about acknowleding the unfairness in our society.
1
I think it is self evident that people are tribal. By that I mean we "associate" physically and mentally with people who we feel are "like us". We also tend to group people who are not like us into "them" groups based on what seems to "us" as similar characteristics. Mild to moderate stereotyping is common, especially when you have very little personal experience with the "them" group. Human nature and it affects us all. It is normal.
Politics is certainly very tribal today with many "us" groups and "them" groups.
That said, I think it is foolish when we assume that tribalism = racism. Racism is far more negative -- filled with feeling of strong dislike, hatred, disgust or heavy distrust. It is also closely associated with ethnic identity. Tribalism can be ethnic based, but often is not, especially when you talk politics. It is a term that means little specifically, and a lot emotionally.
Equally important, racism is a claim you make when you want to insult someone and declare their point of view as blasphemy. It is always a declaration of war that demands that everybody takes irrevocable sides in your disagreement. Sides that you are defining as good vs evil. Sometimes this is necessary, but those situations are extremely rare. Most of the time, claims of racism -- or many other isms popular with both the the left and the right -- are designed to social club your opponent into submission than to actually relate any real truth.
6
Krugman is an admirable writer on economic affairs for the non-PhD reader...but this column illustrates why he gets into deep doo-doo (maybe even voodoo) when he strays from his native ground. The casual slur, "conservative/racist voters" is a gross oversimplification. The rest of the column is, basically, a re-re-repeat of what he has written before. One wonders if he has his various paragraphs programmed on various keys on his laptop, his fingers wandering idly over the keyboard. Please, professor, stick to the syllabus!
2
It appears that the main problem here is the two-party system. If a third, or even fourth party would emerge, then I guess those empty quarters as P.K. identified them would have a home.
As a Canadian, I find the American two-party system highly entertaining, mainly because it is extremely easy to spot the glaring weaknesses of it. It's ironic because at it's core the Constitution was in it's intent made to prevent parties from abusing the government on all three branches.
Can't find it,but there was a study that mentioned how political parties affect the voting mechanism, and how the voting mecanism influenced how the political parties grew. It's a vicious cycle: to get more power parties need to nudge the rules in their favors, which affect how the parties will react to those new rules, and the wheel turns even farther than was originally intended.
Socially liberal and economically conservative is a base that exists but it needs to be built as an ardent movement.
The American Media however is largely owned by the 1% of centrists at the top that hire the other 3% to flog their ideas upon the Public. The NYT reporters bend the knee every day to a centrist ideology.
They kiss the rings of their owners, and largely the white “educated” class that they represent. Banquet has been quoted saying who the audience of the Times is, and how it directs editorial decisions.
And frankly when it comes to it in the end, the same thing happens at The Bezos owned paper. Or the Murdoch owned one.
The centrist drivel is propaganda by these institutions. Period. End of Story. Democracy does not die in the darkness. It is when all the news that is fit to print is just for 1% of society.
You want something different. It is time for the press to take a hard look at itself. It is a mockery of journalism and the truth.
6
White Americans have gone bonkers over racism. Of course we're all racists. Even Mary Poppins and the chimney sweeps.
Good luck America.
3
In my reading of the NYT Picks, it seems quite a few people want easy fixes for complex issues; and most of the fixes are focused on the symptoms not the causes of the issues. Trump doesn't have the depth of knowledge nor interest to propose anything but supposedly easy fixes to address the symptoms. Voters who want an easy out ate it up in 2016. Unfortunatley, that doesn't serve our national interests.
If we want to make the U.S. truly the land of equal opportunity, then we have to put in the work. Brown v Board didn't create equality in access to quality education (except on paper); Civil & Voting Rights legislation didn't change the mentality and actions of every individual administrator/official in a position to negatively affect either; even the GI Bill didn't ensure equality in opportunities for minority soldiers when the decision was left to someone who thought they already had enough opportunity or didn't deserve an equal one.
We can all claim that "I'm not a racist." We also know that actions matter more than words. If your daughter or son doesn't have the same opportunities (not outcomes) that mine do, then we should work to fix that, particularly where those opportunities or lack thereof were engineered over the course of our history.
Dealing with the symptoms isn't enough. The USA isn't going to fulfill its promise simply because we want it. It's up to as to make our society what we like to claim it is. We have some models of success but we're not there yet.
2
I understand fascists and socialists. We have a lot more of one than the other.
2
"Schultz is a fool — and so are those who dream of a reformed G.O.P. that remains conservative but drops its association with racists."
Must be fun when you bump into David Brooks at the water cooler!
1
What if I don’t want open borders Because I want wages to rise? Am I a racist economic liberal?
6
@Chip, by the logic of today's Democrats, who have pushed so many millions of people into the independent camp, African-American, Democratic Congresswoman and civil rights icon Barbara Jordan is/was a racist because, as leader of President Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform, she recommended all the same reforms now embraced by Trump. Also, foreign interference in elections is OK if it is to benefit Democrats (a la China's illegal campaign donations to the DNC in 1996, via John Huang, in exchange for the alleged quid pro quo of killing the Jordan Commission immigration reform; and laying the groundwork for China to be admitted to WTO, regardless of impact on American labor, China's intellectual property theft, etc.) Conveniently, Clinton delivered on both of the alleged things China was demanding.
4
@Chip You are asking yourself the wrong question from the wrong frame. The frame is against dark people. If the borders were opened for Scandanavians people would not care as much.
As far as wages are concerned, more people means more consumption, more investment which leads to higher individual compensation. Take away immigrants as consumers GDP will decline.
we got no one to blame but us. Don't point fingers at Republicans or others. Point that apish finger at yourself. We created this mess. We talk the talk but then drive our gas guzzles and jet about to our next consumable. Enjoy while it lasts. What happen to the age of reason?
2
When the GOP implodes, as it will as soon as the Trumpites realize they've been screwed, I predict there will be an abundance of politicians trying for the socially conservative, economicly liberal, i.e. racist, populist, mandate.
At that point, the rich will have the choice of exile, turning Democrat, or the lamppost. The kleptocrats will join the new movement. It is a pity that so few people watch Visconti's "The Damned" nowadays. This particular scenario has been around for a long time.
1
It's true that practically no one shares my position, that all Americans, rich and poor, need to be taxed more to raise income to provide the services that Americans want and need, and that regulations should be simplified so that people can understand them.
Congress writes poorly researched laws, based on lobbyist input, and leaves it to the executive to create the regulations and find the funding to execute them, resulting in a strong executive and no continuity in government. A better democratic strategy for the benefit of the people of the United States and the world would be to concentrate on congress and law-making. Do the work and leave the superhero business to the movies.
The American press is a wind tunnel. Orthodoxies blow through it and shred anything that does not conform, left and right.
We currently have a wealth tax called the AMT, one that you used to say was unfairly applied. Why not speak of simplifying taxes instead of simply taxing the wealthy? To vilify fat cats for the purpose of influence, identical to the stupidity of fear-mongering applied to race, immigration and poverty by republicans. This does not help. Moderate, please.
1
Mr. David:
In "Desunion", the extraordinary historical series published by the NYT on the Civil War, it has been explained that the reasons why the poor whites of the South fought were several, not only racial hatred: patriotic defense of their State, social pressure, family pride , fear for their future, etc.
3
Trump has been a con artist all his life and of course he conned his way into the White House starting with being a Birther his entry into politics. Selecting Hispanics as the enemies pouring into this country attacking blonde women ,taking our jobs and voting ten times for democrats . TRump is a classic demagogue who is trying to unravel the world order so he can have a chaotic world which is his favorite scenario. Attacking critics punching down TRump is a classic school yard bully which he has been all his life. and learned corruption at his father's knee. Trump brought his corruption into the White House with his aides and family all engaged in questionable activities of self dealing . Trump;s ties to Putin are disturbing as he trashes our intel chiefs while believing whatever Putin tells him and he may be the Russian asset that our FBI suspected him of being. Now what the GOP wants tax cuts .judges and will look the other way until he pulls us out of NATO which may be too late.
1
To quote that noted sage, Archie Bunker, "There's a little bit of me in all of you!"
1
Perhaps those Democrats demanding Northham to resign would prefer a Trump Republican as Governor of Virginia? Thank you for reminding me of the Republican support of Moore in Alabama! I accept Northam’s apology and it certainly does not reflect his current policies in Virginia. Northam also served as a U.S. Army doctor, no bone spur! Governor Northham should not resign any more than Senator Franken should have resigned as demanded by the righteous “headhunter” Senator Gillibrand! As to Northam, calm down and let us move on to the next fiasco or tragedy in America, gun massacres, further revelations of Trump corruption, endless stupid statements by Trump, corporate criminals nominated for regulatory offices, voter suppression by Republicans, you name it! Your choice!
TRUMP's wall is based in racism.
Therefore his Republican BASE is racist.
It is still shocking to see it stated so plainly.
Millions of white working class were no voting in their interest for the lying billionaire. They knew it. They voted their dog whistles. They didn't know it. It was discussed, but plausible deniability prevailed.
That web of lies is shredded. The truth is not hard to know, just hard to accept.
"Racism" is too nuanced for most racists to truly understand.
Steve Bannon was pushing Trump to be economically liberal and socially conservative. He saw how that was a winning platform.
God help us if it ever comes to pass...
The political system is so twisted and broken by Big Money and ignorant voters, it’s a total crapshoot on who and why they’ll float to the top of the cesspool of the endless election cycle.
I am a libertarian leaning , fiscal Conservative (Austrian School) and social moderate, “rich white man)
2
When I was a kid in the 60's, jokes about the cranky Southerners was everywhere, like jokes about Polish people. I even had a t-shirt that said "Save your dixie cups; the South shall rise again!" Cute, huh?
But now that I'm a grown up, it's really sad how much power the South has had since LOSING a civil war in which they fought against their nation for the cause of slavery. Treason in the cause of slavery.
I seriously don't know why Americans would be loyal to folk that defend that, and point at liberals as traitors somehow.
1
The GREAT ABSENCE in American life is BRAINS. A sufficiency of smart voters would not elect one Demagogue after another who promised them the moon and delivered it might as well be a raccoon.
2
Same old. Same old, Krugman?
4
It is lonely being one of the 4%! socially liberal, economically conservative. And not to forget there are racist voters on the left as well who may not have been included. I thought we would have moved past this 50 years ago but it is out in the open now across the globe.
1
@Chas, it is probably larger number than that. This is one poll.
It's much, much simpler than any here have explained. The American people will follow any politician who promises to cut their taxes. Vast swaths of our fellowmen have become convinced taxes are a bad thing. An entire nation of skinflints, from the oligarchs on down, simply do not want anyone to benefit from their money besides themselves.
2
On the other value system; we must be very careful to understand that the citizens of our republic have every right to be of their given race or a tribe. The founders set forth this in Federalist No.2, if we consider that Federalist to be pluralized, that is, logically sub-partitioned to be consistent with the subsequent constitutional amendments.
If this social compact is violated by the federal government at any time, then the US Constitution could legitimately be deemed null and void by the people, since the Federalist was written to convince the colonists to create this federal system in the first place.
But the elected government should not be racist, since it must establish one set of laws, for all. Once candidates for office cross the circle, into offices, they must cease being racist and represent All, equally. We should all expect this standard be upheld by government, or any one of us could become its victim.
2
I wonder how much abortion has affected the Repbulican voters' willingness to abandon their own economic interests ( and those of the children they want to save.) Some of them just want to control women, but some of them have genuine and serious problems with the Democrats' position on abortion. I don't know how significant these voters are, but I'm pretty sure they're not all racists.
4
@Pam. They may not all be racists, but IMO they are all misogynists, as they additionally oppose easy and affordable access to the most effective contraceptions which would reduce the already declining abortion rate even further.
There are economic conservatives who are socially liberal. Your counterpart Ms. Rubin over at WaPo is one of them. The thing is that her admitted "economic conservativism" does not automatically dismiss Sen. Warren's wealth tax or AOC's progressive income tax. Because she, like yourself, looks at the larger economic position.
Kudos to both of you.
1
Nate Silver says that socially liberal, fiscal conservatives comprised 15% of the 2016 presidential voters.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/socially-liberal-fiscally-conservative-voters-preferred-trump-in-2016/
2
Here in Massachusetts, we have had a number of socially liberal, economically conservative Republican governors - from Bill Weld to our current governor, Charlie Baker. These governors have been very popular and were easily reelected in the bluest of states, thus disproving your theory. Folks don't like Schultz because he is just another billionaire trying to buy his way into office.
5
If you go by Nate Silver's estimate, as he wrote on the same subject today, there are approximately 45 million Americans or 23 million voters that hold that position. So, assuming that such views are not equally distributed across the country it does not suprise me that the North East still has Rockefeller Republicans.
2
@debuci, same thing in Vermont, current GOP Governor Phil Scott; prior GOP Governor Jim Douglas. Wish someone like that could win nationally. People in blue states see what happens when there is super-majority blue control, and it is always excessive overreach.
2
@debuci Come on now. Charlie Baker could not get elected dog catcher in the south.
Is it really fair to assume that social conservatives are racist? A large percentage of "socially conservative, economically progressive" people I know are religious African-Americans, Latinos, and other recent immigrants who disapprove of abortion and gay marriage but also gladly pay their union dues and understand the importance of a social safety net. True, they often simply hold their noses and vote Democrat, but the right kind of populist could probably clean up well if he knew how to reach them.
4
@T. Warren
Thank you for the strong dose of sanity you have injected with your comments.
2
'Tis better to have earned millions and lost it to income-taxes, asset-taxes and estate taxes, than never to have earned millions at all!
I'd trade places any day, believe me!
2
I continue to be awestruck by the lack of comprehension of how the “socially liberal and economically conservative”, and militarist, viewpoint of this President and a certain segment of the populace is not seen for what it really is - a value system all too close to that of the ceasars of Rome.
If this set of values ever does become the most popular one in America, it could be the death knell for democracy.
4
True racism can now be found among the mainstream left as revealed by the response to the incident involving the Covington high school kids and also the far right.
4
Interesting analysis as always, but Mr. Krugman leaves out the three anti-democratic three elephants in the room (from my comfort here in Canada as an armchair critic of your great nation):
- voter suppression by Republicans of Blacks, Latinos and Asians
- electoral redistricting (gerrymandering), not exclusively but mostly done by Republicans, and
- the insane distortion of public discourse by unlimited election campaign spending via PACs and SuperPACS et al (again, not exclusively used by Republicans but definitely distorting the influence of the wealthy right-wing elite and Wall Street).
Address these three issues and Americans will once again get the democracy they deserve.
Fail to do so and racist (selective) "populists" will always have their thumb on the scale.
I weep for your nation but you guys will get through Trump.
6
Democrats are playing the Republican game. When a governor who put on black face almost 30 years ago is asked to leave his office, you totally disregard the fact that people grow and change. What are his policies? Has he shown racial bias in the policies he has presented in his political career. I believe all of this has gone too far. When the Senator from Minnesota is asked to leave his office because of an incident that occurred some time before when the woman had a vest on and he was being a cad, we play into the Republican play book. The real issues are being ignored.
3
@Jane, although the Northam case is particularly outrageous, the click bait culture of outrage discourages allowing for forgiveness and redemption. Ironically, to bipartisan credit, the criminal justice sentencing reform bill recently passed. However, there is too much in the way of double standards and obvious politics for both sides. For example, according to metoo and Democrats, GOP sexual harassment or alleged assault such as Kavanaugh and Trump is unforgivable, but Democratic sexual harassment or alleged assault, such as Gil Cisneros, Keith Ellison, or Justin Fairfax, is OK or justifies an intervention to make clear it was a "misunderstanding" on the part of the woman, etc.
3
Propaganda and brainwashing is strong in American voters, facilitated by poor education and low information. ie a lot of people voted for a reality TV conman.
It's always baffling to see people voting on dog whistle issues instead of their social and economic self interest. Voting is not just a right, it's a responsibility. It should be earned, not given away to random irresponsible individuals.
1
Dr. K: Not all social "conservatives" (radical theocrats, actually) are racist. It is the coalition of racists and the Christian Taliban that gives the GOP power way out of proportion to its following. These two groups are equally unscrupulous -- no act is too heinous to advance their goals. Gerrymandering, partisan judges, voter suppression and intimidation, and other tactics have allowed the GOP to promote its agenda of a de facto aristocracy (despite the founders' explicit desire not to have an official one). The younger generation is significantly more tolerant than mine, so there may be hope. If only they could get their noses out of their smartphones.
4
In going through the comments I see that many people are mad at the Democrats for the last 30 years of Republican government. It’s an odd way of thinking and an odd way of voting
4
@David S
What?! We've had 16 years of democratic presidents in the last 30 years.
1
I'm a white guy that votes for Democrats. I would love to vote for a politician who is considerably far to the left of Democrats on economic issues, but I wouldn't mind if they would tone it down on the social issues. Maybe slow down on universally advocating for trans rights and recognize that maybe a 16 ear old shouldn't undergo conversion therapy.
3
Thank you for the clear explanation of what “economically liberal” means. I was always baffled by the term!
We are what we eat...
trump is the best thing since white sliced bread. The cognoscenti know that white, highly refined flour is at the top of the nutritionist 'do not consume' list. Still Wonder Bread sells to the uninformed, palate challenged traditionalists --don't spare the mayonnaise.
It's a bit like right wing populist stone soup. Start with boiling water and stones. Add bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia pro-rich appeals to America First, frustration that 'others' are wrongfully getting the benefit and season with tax breaks for the obscenely rich paid for by cutting ACA and the social safety net.
Then remove the stones, throw them at the press and anyone who doesn't like your stone soup and enjoy the forbidding broth. We are what we eat....
Great article to encourage self reflection. I believe an objective phenomenon exists independently of our consciousness. Subjective phenomenon exists only in the imagination of a single individual. It can change as that single individual changes. Inter-subjective phenomenon exists within the communication networks that link the subjective consciousness of many individuals within a community. The inter-subjective is made up of the things in which many individuals, within the larger community in this case of what 9 year old me thought most Puerto Ricans & Dominicans believe. Thus my realization both Puerto Ricans, Dominicans & all people are the same, makes little to no difference to the beliefs of the community as a whole. So if many Puerto Ricans & Dominicans continue to view each group negatively, what I correctly believes won’t change much.
I propose a process based on 5 beliefs
1. Citizens and government want the same things.
2. Technique counts less than intent.
3. Solutions don’t have inherent value (one size fits all)
4. We Should Promote Methodology
5. World - class inquiry precedes world - class advocacy
These five key beliefs set the groundwork for a process that allows government to deal with complicated issues (immigration, free markets) in an honest, straightforward manner where we can discover all issues and needs, gather the hard information needed to create solutions that puts our country’s sustainability above all else. PS I'm both Dominican & Puerto Rican.
Paul ignores the fact that unemployment is the lowest ever with blacks, Hispanics and women employment at an all time high. Paul predicted the economy would crash under Trump. Paul has been wrong time and time again and is a fervent Trump hater. Keep that in mind.
4
@Sven Gall. Well to be honest most of us on this thread are probably also 'fervent Trump haters' by now. And he fervently hates us as well.
If you distinguish between the style and the substance of the Republican Party, post-Nixon/Ford, its appeal to populist, would-be leftists on economic issues makes sense. The substance of their program is the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, but the style is more egalitarian: supply-side, rising tide floats all boats, government is the problem, we’re all rich, job-creating entrepreneurs or would be if the gov’t would get off our backs, taxes are bad, regulation is harmful, etc., etc. this snake oil has sold remarkably well for decades. Add the other issues—racism, evangelical Christianity, anti-abortion fever, globalization, automation, technology revolution, militant Muslim fundamentalists’ terror attacks—and, voila, the right wing rides high (with the result that the country turns left).
1
Al labels are dangerous. Witness the assorted replies to this column.
24
@Karn Griffen
Are replies and labels the same thing?
1
The Democratic party can win by a landslide if it focuses on the key issues that unite almost the entire electorate - making life better for the vast majority.
That means crafting a message of economic and social inclusion that resonates for poor black votors in the South and their equally poor white neighbors. That excites the aging blue collar workforce of the rust belt and the Hispanic communities in Florida and across the country.
You have to tackle immigration and racist institutions in a way that benefits not just people of color but the poor and unrepresented of every race. Then you have to show everyone how they benefit from what you want to do.
You have to propose bold solutions to the Opioid epidemic and attack the underlying causes.
Your economic policy needs to be simple and broadly inclusive - and above all your message needs to be distilled to simple phrases to fight the Slogans Trump is so gifted at putting into circulation.
For Social issues the direct message must be about tolerance and inclusion not tribalism (which sadly defines Democratic politics just as much as Republican these days).
If every Democrat follows that broad template and fills in their own specifics as they vie to be the nominee then the Primary winner will have a chance to lead a landslide.
2
Part of the problem we face has to do with how we define "conservative" here.
In general usage, conservative means a slow, cautious approach to change. This has merits and drawbacks, but in and of itself it's not a bad thing to be conservative in some ways.
In US political usage, conservative used to match the general usage, but it has changed to mean "right wing"--regardless of how fast or incautious that right wing may be when proposing changes.
Too many people are used to calling right-wingers, no matter how radical they may be, "conservative". We need to reclaim the political label for actual conservatives and start calling out the Republican Party for what it is: a party of right-wing radicals.
As it stands right now, the Democratic Party is more liberal in its policy and more conservative in its approach to change than the GOP.
4
Finally, a clear explanation of why so many blue-collar and white collar citizens -- particularly those residing in the south and midwest -- consistently vote Republican and, in so doing, against their own interests: it's because the GOP diverts voter attention from its actual agenda -- tax cuts for the rich, and a weakened safety net for the everyone else -- by cloaking these policies beneath a mantle of not so thinly disguised racism. As the saying goes, distraction serves evil more than any other mental state.
Trying to put a face on Krugman's "socially liberal, economically conservative " that is more easy to spot.
Wouldn't this group be the people who think govt services are good (not evil) and want the govt to provide them, yet at the same time think we should be paying for those services instead of borrowing to do so?
Govt services range from roads, bridges, electric grids, clean water and food chain, to education, legal protections, law enforcement and fire departments. As well as managing our national resources (the commons) of land and mineral wealth.
Govt services also include the military branches & Coast Guard as well as Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare.
The last time we paid for those services (instead of borrowing hundreds of billions during a 12 month period) was the latter part of the Clinton administration. A three year window when govt provided all these services and the budget was somehow balanced.
Truly amazing there are now only 4% of people who think this was a good thing. What ever happened to them to make them change their minds.
1
"Second, fears that Democrats are putting their electoral prospects in danger by moving too far left, for example by proposing higher taxes on the rich and Medicare expansion, are grossly exaggerated. Voters want an economic move to the left — ... But maybe the gravitational attraction of big money — which has completely captured the G.O.P., and has arguably kept Democrats from moving as far left as the electorate really wants — is too great."
Is this - finally - your apology for helping to kill the Bernie Sanders campaign?
2
@readingatwork: Bernie's Socialist Party of One would probably have lost the popular vote to Trump.
@Steve Bolger
Did you read Krugmans article? The population is to the left of mainstream democratic party on economic issues.
We are in the end game of the Southern Strategy, which has succeeded so well that it's aims and effects are clear to see and can no longer be denied (after it grew up it was married to Reaganomics, and the pair really made out big). The Southern strategy (of Nixon's I think) was to divide the working classes by racial hatred, and leave the field clear for the wealthy to rob the nation blind. Nothing exceeds like excess. Forty years later, any progress we have made societally is threatened, and the rich have almost all the money. Anything after this point was not foreseen in the original strategy.
6
In a society replete with hypocrisy what I find the most troubling is a country full of people ready to pounce on the slightest whiff of what they perceive as political incorrectness elected a president that, even in 2016, was most assuredly a proven misogynist, a racist, a con man, and an elitist-but he was on a reality show, he used foul language, and he said he was from Queens so hey, he must be “a man of the people.” A takeaway from the Trump victory: even in today’s world, where gays can marry, gender is fluid, and diversity is on the rise, there are still two things Americans simply aren’t comfortable with in a public forum, displays of blatant racism and blatant elitism. The rich don’t want to acknowledge their wealth because that would of course then require acknowledging the flip side-the vast income inequality that exists and the massive distribution of wealth into the hands of a privileged few. Racists or populists don’t want to acknowledge they may be racist because to do would first require accepting the premise that racism is alive and well in America (and therefore protections afforded to people of color are still needed)-and moreover, may eventually force them to take some ownership of where they are in life. That’s never any fun.
6
Dr Krugman, I have followed and enjoyed your column for years. But this one perplexes me. I am and have always been socially liberal, economically conservative. I do not see my views anywhere in US politics today. I certainly do not see how my economically conservative stance can “only appeal to a small elite”, nor would I be interested in having it “packaged with racial hostility”. Is there any group that truly represents my need for responsibility on both social and economic issues left in America?
1
@Debbi Baron, you (and I) are in the 4 percent that Dr. Krugman DOES mention. Paragraph four.
1
I've known many a libertarian in my day and while many claim to be "socially liberal" they really aren't.
Many will claim to support LGBT rights, but ask them to back an ENDA law and they'll state they're against government intervention in businesses. They'll say they have no problem with people of color, but are vehemently opposed to affirmative action policies to level generations of inequity. They'll say, sure legalize marijuana, but when it comes to reforming criminal justice so that folks in jail for minor drug possession can be released, they're silent.
"Live and let live" is not social liberalism. Social liberalism is the recognition that inequities exist and when they do, actions need to be done to done to redress them. It's the understanding that when injustices abound, we should pay attention and fight them even when they aren't happening to us. It isn't "I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't affect me;" it's "what happens to others affects me because I'm a part of the social contract."
This is why for most libertarians, the social issues never outweigh their economic values and most end up supporting right-wingers.
We need to stop giving libertarianism the guise of "social liberalism" and call it what is: pure self-interest.
7
@Sean: Libertarians believe that God works by allocating wealth.
“Live and let live” is sloth.
This is precisely what happened in Brazil last election :"Nobody wants these policies on their own; they only sell if they’re packaged with racial hostility." Large majorities of voters in Brazil are opposed to most aspects of the economic reforms proposed by the new government. And yet they voted for them as they came packaged with a toxic sweetener of extreme homophobia and racism, as well as a thick coating of unenforceable or counterproductive crime measures (gun ownership among them).
2
"The other is the absence of economically liberal, socially conservative politicians — let’s be blunt and just say “racist populists.”
The leap to "racist populists" is Democratic logic that could elect a Republican President.
In January 2017 local group, Mobilize, formed to resist Trump. It has a very classy banner incorporating symbolism for every identity, leaving out Christianity and male.
While understanding their approach, I spoke out against their exclusive approach, as being unnecessarily small minded, and exuding a sense of superiority that only widens the gap.
Senator Bernie Sanders is the one candidate for President [as yet, undeclared] who, with total authenticity has always spoken to the needs and concerns of all poor and working people.
I think Paul Krugman has great disdain for Sanders. If he was more open, he would see that Sanders is the one candidate could get support from Trump voters.
All the warnings George Washington issued about the dangers of political parties in his Farewell Address are currently in full display
Forget tinkering around the edges to fix our broken political party system. The Republican Party is far to the right by now, blatantly lies, hawks a false destructive ideology, and is autocratic, which seems to greatly please the rich, sells to a certain segment of the middle and working classes, and is most comfortable to the religious zealots and fearful bigots.
The Democrats' have heart at least, grasp democracy, but are generally timid and ineffective. Why? Follow the money.
Big structural changes are needed before we become a 100% have vs. have-not, authoritarian regime. And don't think Donald Trump isn't working on it every day. See Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 11/9" (Amazon Prime).
It is actually easier to change people's behavior by changing the structure of the situation than it is to send everyone to therapy or try to persuade them to change their attitude.
In many issue areas, the American people are not really divided and polls have shown for a long time a majority want the same things: clean air & water, higher taxes on the rich, decent health care (maybe Medicare for all as a start), an end to Citizens United, some gun regulations, affordable college, fair wages & taxes...
For starts:
Get the private money out of politics, which means public financing of elections.
No Electoral College to override the popular vote...
4
Good analysis.
I think the role of the media is also important. Although the media may have a leftward bias on social issues (as most people in the media are educated and worldly, which does tend to reduce one's social biases), it also has a rightward bias on economic issues (as 'thought leaders' tend to be very wealthy and therefore have a self-interest in lionizing and rewarding the rich, corporate media consolidation has put most media under the potential influence of a few ultra-wealthy owners, and people who excel in corporate media jobs by definition tend to have bought in to the system).
Surely many Trump voters would not support his economic policy if they were not being told by Fox that 'tax cuts pay for themselves' makes sense, millions of illegal immigrants live off nothing but benefits, Obama's 8 year recession was turned on its head by Trump in 1 month, etc.
2
I would like to see a definition of what a conservative is and what they believe in, really. There are no conservatives left in the republican party.
With the rise of the New Deal that era's tycoons help promote the tent preacher evangelists to counter the liberalism of FDR. They preached the idea that accepting help from others, especially their government, was ungodly. That meme has stuck with many Americans in the so called heartland.
republicans have spent a century promoting this division we see in America. I wonder if it is possible to mend.
It speaks to the general non-utility, call it uselessness, of the Republican Party that with the Whitehouse, the Congress, and the Courts all within their grasp their found no use for this power but to protect crooks and idiots from their natural end.
Beautiful to behold.
1
There was a recent poll reported out on MTP with DJT taking 33%; Harris 32%; and, Schultz 17%.
Underestimate Schultz, or any other third party, at your own peril.
Thinking people know the only way DJT can win is with 3 or more parties on the ballot. Hence, take appropriate countermeasures ...i.e., step No. 1: abandon optimism and embrace pessimism.
Remember, planning D-Day Ike didn't say nope we won't need those extra divisions; he judged that they would need them and more to boot, and then he sat down and wrote a letter in case of defeat.....This is the power and the dark beauty of pessimism; meanwhile, Hitler, always the optimist, was convinced the wall could hold off the Allies, and took a nap!..... The rest is history, with its annals filled with optimistic losers.
As the ancient Gnostics believed and their most valuable insight, horrified by his creation, God long ago ran off leaving the world to be managed by the Devil and folly.
Experience makes proof unnecessary.
“I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will.”
“Pessimism of the spirit; optimism of the will.”
Antonio Gramsci
2
You can fool some of the people all of the time. They are the loyal GOP Base, the “ uneducated “ , the MAGA/dunce cap wearers, the FOX hyptonized, the fleeced sheep. They just don’t realize they’re ON the Menu.
Sad.
The dangerous part is in the last paragraph: some idiot running as indepdendent. If an independent snatches 4 percent, no matter what his or her political standpoints, the US will be stuck with another four years of Trump because independents always eat away more Dem than Rep votes.
1
I am not so sure that the racist S Democrats of the new deal era were all that populist
according to "When People Mattered" a recollection written by a young lawyer who worked for the New Deal and who wrote the first draft of what became soc security, the S Dems hated Soc Sec and only agreed cause there was near mass starvation and revolution in the air
https://www.amazon.com/Recollections-New-Deal-People-Mattered/dp/1555531342
“Polling is unambiguous here.”....
thank you. please stop using polls. voters prove they worthless.
2
The other is the absence of economically liberal, socially conservative politicians — let’s be blunt and just say “racist populists.”
Mr. Krugman has no idea what he is talking about
I suggest he looks up the record of Congress Member Amo Houghton , US Marine, member of the very rich Houghton Family, fiscal conservative, environmentalist, Republican, who voted both against the impeachment of Bill Clinton and against the Iraq War.
Not a bone of racism in this man
But Mr. Krugman, when he runs out of ideas, resorts to play the race card.
4
Sarah Palin was the perfect racist/populist candidate. The door was wide open for her to become a snarky racist Teddy Roosevelt. Fortunately for us, she was not intelligent enough to walk through that door.
1
Why does being "conservative" have to mean what's good for me to the exclusion of anyone else? Any mechanic knows that a small cog in an engine, left without lubrication, can jam up the functioning of the whole machine. Why can we not recognize that every citizen and their family needs to not only keep body and soul together but allow a level of income to be untaxed that permits well being and growth? If the majority of our population can barely keep their heads above water, we lose their potential to contribute and limit our innovation to the small, wealthy population that have the capacity to stretch beyond just staying alive.
Managers of businesses depend on improvements in products to remain competitive and they must provide the "excess capacity" employees need to develop those improvements. If only managers are given capacity, the hands on, close up perspective of the line operator is lost and the key to improvement can be missed.
We need to allow a broader, higher level of well being for all our citizens. Good health and educational opportunities should not be reserved for the wealthy.
Et tu Krugman?
“So? Did you read the NYT article about the ever expanding gulf between the increasing high incomes of the college educated high tech workers vis-a-vis the low incomes of the worker with limited tech education? It’s like the workforce is split in two!”
“No, but did you read the one about the nearly Manhattan size hole in a great Antarctica glacier? Yeah, huge hole caused by warming oceans! And, the scientists didn’t know about it!”
“And Krugman?”
“Oh he wrote about America’s political and economic power brokers, and once again he didn’t include key descriptors like sociopathic, kleptocratic, megalomaniacal, Randian.”
“Oh well.”
Isn’t it a wee bit early to be polling the electoral support of a man who has not even announced his candidacy? Or spent much of his billions on a campaign? Schultz has obviously scared the bejesus out of the liberal elites like this columnist, who is trying to knock Schultz out of the race before he even gets in.
1
I have always believed that economic conservatives and social liberals are really Republicans who don't want to appear stupid in public.
1
It is worthwhile mentioning that racist populists put Hitler in power . In the case of Germany in the 20`s and 30`s the hate was directed toward Slavs and Jews . History des not repeat itself but it often rhymes , as Mark Twine supposedly said .
1
Thanks for this. Now I won’t sleep at all tonight. George Wallace? Did you have to go there? Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Steve Bannon aren’t scary enough?
2
Go ahead – continue the socialist shoutdown…
4% of the people are socially liberal and economically conservative
2% GDP growth is all the US can manage
0% isn’t a real lower bound or a matter of concern for prevailing interest rates
…..
So – let me rebut with some deplorable math…
Two presidential elections ago, you and your paper and its dirtball selective flaming tactics drove Mitch Daniels from the race for the GOP candidacy
Two years ago, that 4% of the electorate held their noses and voted for Donald Trump
Two years from now, the odds are 50/50 that that same paltry 4% will vote Trump into a second term
See – Trump may be Satan incarnate, but Pence is Daniels’ guardian angel…
Literally, not metaphorically…
And - socialism so appalled the both of them, they formed a coalition of convenience and asked centrists to lend them their souls…
Now, with the second coming coming – they’re coming through with the baskets for another donation…
And you know how that goes…
The devil you know, vs the one you don’t…
4
I think this is why I stopped reading David Brooks “Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed whom” op eds. I used to think he represented a conservative point of view... now it’s clear he, like Shultz, represents a tiny sliver of Americans, who as Mr. Krugman regularly points out, have no influence.
2
@Sam Be not astonished at new ideas; for it is well known to you that a thing does not therefore cease to be true because it is not accepted by many.
1
Schulz may be a "fool" and Bloomberg may be a near relative but we are sailing on a ship of fools and Queequeg, er, Trump is our captain and the White Whale is fast approaching.
When will it end? The racism which still undermines us, weakens our foundations. and kills progress.
Wild guess: never!
Brilliant analysis. Someone should nominate this guy for a Nobel Prize.
1
"So what do the empty quarters of U.S. politics mean for the future? First, of course, that Schultz is a fool...." A black mark in the middle of a sensible column.
Mr. Krugman, name-calling is beneath you.
1
Getting poor whites to go against their economic interests based on race hatred has deep roots in this country; most of those Southern boys who were killed in the Civil War didn't own slaves.
275
@David Yes this is true, but they liked IDEA of one day being able to own slaves and that is what they were looking to protect.
21
@David
No, but *most* of them worked jobs that in one way or another depended on slave labor and the fortunes of the cotton industry (shipsmen who transported the cotton, shareholders in the cotton market, etc.) . If the South's slave-based agricultural sector collapsed, it would take all their jobs with it, and they knew it. It's part of the reason that those who lived in the Appalachians (many of whom, as sustenance farmers, truly did not benefit from the slave economy) were the most reluctant members of the CSA (many sided with the union).
20
@David You're right, Lyndon Johnson explained it decades ago. If you can convince the lowest white man that he is better than the best black man, you can pick his pocket all you want. Give him someone to look down on, and he'll actually empty his pockets for you.
40
Gee willikers, for being such an irrelevant non-entity, this Schultz character has sure drawn a lot of fire from all sides. I will stipulate that he does not appear to be anything close to viable (4% approval, indeed), but I must quibble with some of the assumptions and assertions Krugman makes here:
1) "Socially Conservative/Racist". Is that a package deal that is inseparable and immutable because Krugman says so? This must not require data because "everybody knows it's true".
2) Schultz is not viable *therefore* Socially Liberal/Economically Conservative Voters Don't Exist. This construction is awfully thin, it might need a bit of a re-think.
I agree with the point that Liberal economic thinking will frequently slide into Liberal social attitudes, but humans are complicated and it can cut both ways... or neither way. I also agree that Libertarians (almost always) lose elections, but because their excellent-sounding ideas don't translate into the real world. Not because it's necessary to be either a frothing racist or a frothing Socialist to represent a constituency and get elected. Libertarians are nerdy policy wonks who got stuck in a particular purist belief system, not Centrists. Krugman's false equivalents here are lazy formulas to avoid the hard work of thinking through the messiness of our politics.
5
Goldberg discussed the conservative/liberal social/fiscal quadrants a few days ago in her column, cited the study. I recommend it if you’re thinking of rethinking.
Krugman isn’t saying social conservatives are racists. He’s saying social conservatives and racists who are fiscally liberal make up 24% of the electorate.
Some social conservatives are racists. Some aren’t. Some racists couldn’t be called “conservative” but nonetheless vote Republican because of immigration or welfare. Together they constitute 1/4 of the electorate, and more than half of the Republican Party. Simple like that.
"Schultz is a fool " You may not like his politics or question his judgement - but to start making these statements is mind boggling.
He's a self made billionaire from the most humble background and a life-long democrat. You can disagree with him, but by insulting him shows insecurities.
Trump will loose to any generic Democrat , like he would have lost in 2016. But the Democrats were able to push forward the ONE PERSON that could loose to him.
1
There is an elephant in this room.
If Donald Trump has taught us anything it is that this country is full of racist voters whose white privilege is threatened by the browning of America, who believe the entire LGBTQ community is an abomination and who are happy as clams with economic policies that cut taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor. Many—like my bigoted relatives who are financially comfortable—despise populist economic policies because they see them as benefiting both the unworthy (“welfare queens”) and those with darker skin, anyone not a whiter shade of pale who is “taking over” what they see as “their” country. Many others—the bigots who do suffer financially—vote against populist politicians because their hatred eclipses their personal need.
Trump is beginning to fail now not because he hasn’t delivered on his populist promises, but because he is chaotic, likely corrupt and clearly incompetent, and because there’s serious question whether he can deliver on The Wall, the shining symbol of his—and his base’s—bigotry. There may or may not be a voter market for racist populists, but there is clearly one for racist economic conservatives. Heaven help us if a competent one came along. He—and it would, of course, be a “he”—might blow out the lights.
1
Paul, the world does not fit liberal stereotypes quite as neatly as you suppose. Although I personally am a social liberal, I assure you that most social conservatives are not motivated by racism.
Get out of your bubble. See the world. The stereotypes that prevail in the Times newsroom are not as pervasive as you might think.
5
If you think social conservatives are not, at their baseline, every ounce as racist as they are conservative, join a country club. Sit in the bar, dining room, by the pool, on the courts and course, and listen to them when they think no one is listening.
I have. They are.
1
I believe it was LBJ who said something along these lines “you make the worst white man think he’s better than the best black man and you can pick his pockets all day long.l. Very apropos, n’est çe pas?
2
Republicans are trying to be racist in policy only. Whites in many parts of the country believe minorities are trying to take their livelihoods. And with the fact whites will be in the minority, they don't want to be a minority because they don't want to be treated as such. They know full well what that means. What goes around certainly can come around. Secondly, both parties are old and out of touch. Anyone who runs for office now is not techno savvy. Anyone now a days can find out just about anything about you. So anyone with a skeleton or two and running for office with the belief :"no one will find out about that" is foolish. So behaving inappropriately and the witnesses not wanting to divulge what you did is self preservation on their part. Having photos you selected in your medical school yearbook and running for office thinking no one will ever see them is a good reason to say: "Nah. I don't think so. I have other things I want to do." when someone suggests you run for office. For some reason one after another they step up and say "Sure, why not". It used to be you could be a racist as long as you never smoked pot in college. Now you can have smoked lots of it. As long as you don't have photos of yourself in robes or blackface. Who would have thought? Someone missed the handwriting on the wall. Lots of someones.
Yep. Every bit of this.
1
Schultz is a charlatan. The New Economy's version of noblesse oblige. Heavy on the noblesse, light on the oblige.
If this was like the French Revolution, we wouldn't be talking about taxing the billionaires more, we would be cutting their heads off in public executions.
So what do the empty quarters of U.S. politics mean for the future? First, of course, that Schultz is a fool...
Second, don't forget to mention this to your colleague Bret Stephens.
2
A thought-provoking take on the situation. What I find particularly depressing about the current state of the GOP is that the party did this to itself by embracing conspiracy theories and similar stupid stuff.
I think the GOP took a dangerously evil turn when it collectively winked at the Obama birther conspiracy theory type crud peddled by people like Trump and various Tea Party and Freedom Caucus types, and it took a very stupid and destructive turn when it collectively denied the need to cut carbon emissions to reduce future global warming and climate change. Trump is the result of embracing evil and stupidity to win elections.
The bedrock of Trumpism and the Republican Party are the small towns and cities of rural America where the people receive more federal funds and state funds than they pay in federal or state taxes. They don't want to be welfare queens, but they are because their local environment does not provide jobs with sustainable incomes. The most capable young people leave and the older people have limited opportunities to make life changes. The irony is that these people continue to vote Republican in the hope that somehow that Party will make their towns great again.
1
I'd like to suggest being very leery of saying "I am not a racist". It looks to me as though everyone is a racist to some degree. How can anyone be brought up in such a racist world, and specifically in such a racist society as the United States, without being tainted to a certain extent? Of course, some people embrace the taint; all too many, as we're constantly reminded. But some people want not to be racists enough that they do their best to police themselves, while admitting that they aren't doing a perfect job. I'm afraid that's the best we're likely to get in this generation.
1
@Stephen Merritt It does not seem that at this point the US is any more or less racist than the vast majority of the world. Recent articles suggest that Europe is very similar to the US in the types of issues and percentage of people who suffer from racial violence, unfair policing, and discrimination. This sort of issue can be found in nations that aren’t primarily white as well. It’s a foolish idea that other parts of the world are so enlightened while America is stagnant. Many nations continue to work towards a fairer society. Please note that just having free healthcare, etc is not a sign of racial equality if people aren’t genuinely treated equally.
I don't know why a voter opposed to abortion but who supports economic liberalism and civil rights for racial minorities is somehow a racist. Moreover, not all voters with doubts about the malice-laced aspects of feminism are racists. There are, in fact, numerous Americans who still have some doubts about the sexual radicalism of the Democratic Party's extreme left wing and who still support the social safety net and economic liberalism, as defined by Mr. Krugman. He has, I fear, done some fuzzy thinking here, so uncharacteristic of him.
2
The U.S. has the most unequal distribution of incomes and wealth because it lacks a social democratic party.
1
Such delights, again and again. from Paul: truth discovered, observed, thought about, and then written.
2
This article is intellectually dishonest. It does not define its basic terms and relies on polls whose results depend on how you ask the question. Ask people whether they are in favor of Medicare for all and you have a majority. Ask them if they are in favor of government-run healthcare that will abolish their private insurance and levy new taxes, and the support plummets. And yet the two are the same. Similarly, if you define all socially conservative voters as racists, it’s easy to say that there are no politicians who are in their quarter. But how do you define the Nation of Islam that speaks of Jews as termites and the many liberal politicians who support them? Why are they not racists? And what category do they fit in? The American public is in favor of Medicare, and this makes it left-leaning? On what planet? Ask if they support socialism, and then we’ll find out just how many are in the same quarter as AOC. Prof. Krugman is not a political scientist and it shows.
2
"Schultz is a fool."
Thank you, Dr. Krugman, for stating the obvious without holding your punches.
I don't generally like to use the word "elite" because the many commentators who use it fail or refuse to identify who these people might be. It turns out that "elite" is a very elastic identifier in the US political news biz.
Can we agree, at least, that billionaires constitute an elite class? And that such extraordinarily wealthy people exert an inordinate and unhealthy influence on policy matters via armies of lobbyists? The "carried interest" law that treats the earnings of billionaire hedge fund titans as capital gains (low tax rates) rather than as ordinary income is but one poignant example.
And now the billionaires want to rule us (ruin us?). If he wished, a billionaire could launch and run an entire presidential campaign without needing financial contributions from a single supporter. That is not ideal for a country that pretends to be a representative democracy.
Some in the elite class of billionaires are now donating infrastructure to cities, whether out of generosity or merely for the naming rights. E.g., one ornate bridge I happened to cross in Dallas, Texas was designed by a Spanish engineer and paid for by a Dallas billionaire.
One danger we run is that as communities we will cut infrastructure budgets, preferring to defer to the tastes and *uncertain* charity of wealthy individuals rather than determining and meeting local needs in a more inclusive way.
2
"Once upon a time there were racist populists in Congress: The New Deal coalition relied on a large contingent of segregationist Dixiecrats."
I would say that calling them "racist populists" greatly misunderstands the Dixiecrats. Southern Democratic states were, as a rule, oligarchies run on that familiar ethos were racism was used to entrench money and power and disenfranchise poor and working people, black or otherwise.
In the antebellum world, the 3/5 compromise where slave owners could cast (some of) their slaves' votes didn't just overrepresent them in Washington; it overrepresented them in their own state legislatures, too, at the expense of those whites too poor to own slaves. In the Jim Crow era, poll taxes and the like were tolerated because they were clearly aimed at blacks, but a fairly large number of poor whites got caught up in the net as well and that, too, was a feature not a bug. And these states were wide open to the Yankee robber-barons their politicians claimed to hate (think Standard Oil in Louisiana). The typical Southern state government at the time was basically a joint venture between the big trusts from out of state (who supplied the money) and the local Boss Hogg types (who supplied the local political protection).
There were always populists, especially when the Great Depression created a demand for Huey Long types, but they were never the standard of what a Southern Democrat looked like.
Aren't civil rights a part of the economic move to the left? It's not that it would be a loss of soul, but rather a loss of sense, for the Democrats to be abandoning civil rights as they push for a more just and fair economic society. They do go hand and hand, sadly, because of our country's history.
#ITMFA.
For a writer whose metier relies on statistical analysis, Mr. Krugman seems awfully comfortable throwing around unattributed figures here ...if polling is so 'unambiguous' (his word), why not cite it? His lack of concrete sourcing weakens his argument...I am grateful, however, that he has the honesty to equate social conservatism with racism... it allows one to evaluate his reasoning based on his inherent biases (prejudices?).......
2
Doc! The reason you find the two quarters empty (and you get this because you are a genius), there is only once continuum here (economics and social issues are NOT orthogonal).
You are conservative (economically and socially) or liberal (economically and socially). The cross quarters are therefore sparse.
But the reality is perverted.
Republicans are definitely social conservatives. All non-whites, gays gone; women subservient. Slavery back. Cops can kill whom they want. No justice for poor. Cannon fodder for the war complex.
But very very selectively economic liberals they serve. Cash for suburban whites (particularly business owners), guns, bible, coal, and dioxin for rural cannon fodder, and subsidies-loophole complex for the rich.
How liberal, if selectively liberal? They would vote for free healthcare tomorrow if only whites could get it (after application of religious tests, that would come the day after tomorrow).
I would sincerely like for someone to explain to me what it means to be "socially" conservative and "economically" liberal at the same time. As a social conservative, what do you believe that doesn't limit the opportunities for poor blacks, immigrants, women and gender non-conforming individuals. This may sound snarky but that's not my intent. I really want to understand how the results of conservative values are not "ist".
In someone less intelligent than Krugman, I would say it is just plain silly to proffer Schultz's 4% approval rating as evidence of an absence of a socially liberal, economically conservative bloc. But with the Professor, it seems more like a disingenuous twist to make a point that probably isn't there.
Schultz has no approval because so few people have heard of him or know what he stands for. His disapproval is largely driven by the the concern among many Dems or never Trump-ers that his third party entry would be one of few paths to a Trump re-election. He would have less disapproval if he were to run as a Republican, or probably even if he ran as Democrat. Perhaps Bloomberg would be a better test of that thesis.
Schultz would have no chance as an independent, so perhaps that makes him a fool, but that does not mean that there aren't substantial socially liberal, economically conservative voters.
2
Finally, Paul Krugman admits that Sanders is basically right about the disproportionate power of the 0.1%. And, that the Democratic Party politicians are far to the right of the population on key economic issues.
Alas, for him, the only independent space he sees in US politics is for a George Wallace.
He is a such a cynic about us, white working-class and lower-middle class voters!
Many of the same people who voted for George Wallace in Michigan in 1976 changed and voted for Jesse Jackson in 1988 because the auto industry began to restructure, factories closed and he spoke to their wallets.
Many white working class people voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 again, largely because he spoke to hope and change after the 2008 economic crisis. Some of them changed and voted for Trump in 2016, for largely the same reasons. He spoke to their economic issues.
It is time to stop repeating the corporate media meme that nearly all white working class people are so racist that they will continue to vote for racist politicians rather than people who represent their economic interests.
Nearly everybody voting for the Democrats and Republicans is voting against their own economic inclinations, as Krugman reveals.
It’s time to encourage unity among all the people at the bottom to push back against the 0.1% and the two political parties which give them so much power.
What other force is there?
Retired Ford Worker
Detroit
4
Amen! Krugman shallowly criticized Sanders’ Medicare for All as more expensive and less comprehensive than Sanders claimed. He never admitted that whatever its flaws, we have every reason to believe it would have saved money and lives, and been better for nearly every voter, right and left.
Krugman isn’t saying white working class voters are racists. They must not be; they elected Obama.
It’s not novel or controversial to observe, though, that many working class Republicans are voting against their economic interests — and beliefs! — for social reasons. Until Trump, it was guns, gays, and abortion. Toss in prayer in school, flag burning, kneeling NFL players, and Islamic terrorism, and you hardly need add white supremacy to win elections. Just look at the US senate.
Voters voted for change in 2008 and 2016, both. The difference was that in 2016 it was the Republican who promised change. Let’s hope in 2020 Democratic candidates finally embrace it without holding their nose with one hand and guarding their wallet with the other.
1
Where did the socially liberal/economically conservative class go? This paper from 2009 shows there were plenty of them calling themselves moderates: https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/files/2014/06/TreierHillygus.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3yZBvQqN1mckCy3uQLCtE0HDMWxVwB3ne-RVCLLVJeS8msEtzQJYxzMeo
1
Krugman asks when a true racist populist politico will arise. There is already one and he's rising. The southern senator named Tom Cotton.
3
Part of the lack of such "economically conservative" voters is that it's not even clear anymore what the term means, if anything at all. It used to mean achieving a balanced budget through some combination of cutting spending and raising taxes, which actually seems responsible, even if there are obviously times when deficit spending on certain things and other fiscal stimulus are necessary for the economy. At some point (perhaps during the presidency of George HW Bush), raising taxes under any circumstances was taken off the table, and so cutting spending (especially on programs with which your party disagreed with politically), and loudly worrying about the deficit, become the "fiscal conservative" order of the day. And now, here we are in 2019, where "fiscal conservative" doesn't mean anything other than low taxes--none of the supposed fiscal conservatives actually cared that much about spending or the deficit. It's basically duplicative of one's political positions (pay for things you support, don't pay for things you don't support) so at this point it's meaningless.
2
The problem with American politics is that there is no heart at the core of our capitalistic culture.
We’ve sold our soul to the dollar so long ago that we have forgotten what it feels like to do something for another person without expecting a reward in return.
Just ask yourselves when was the last time you felt genuinely good about helping a fellow citizen and at the same time experienced the warmth of caring?
2
@Michael Kittle These are two very separate issues. Charity and helping others is absolutely a social good. Capitalism isn’t a deterrent to doing good. Doing good, though, only helps some. Capitalism helps the vast majority. More people have benefited and been pulled out of poverty by capitalism than by charity or benevolence. Enlightened self interest drives the greatest good.
I used to self-identify as 'socially liberal, economically conservative'. From 18 to my 40's I voted Republican. Over that time the Republican party steadfastly proved to be neither 'socially liberal' (not even 'semi-tolerant', really) nor economically (meaning 'fiscally') conservative. Republican administrations moved to imposing their own moral restrictions on everyone through government, hardly 'conservative' in the old sense; while at the same time cutting taxes and increasing spending (usually on the military) and raising deficits. By the end of Reagan's second term, it was hard for me to believe that any Republican would be 'socially liberal' - they were all too busy sucking up to the evangelical "Christians" who wanted "Christian sharia" laws. Republicans went along with them wholeheartedly. Reagan was also busy enacting the fraud of "trickle down, supply side" tax cuts. I'm still waiting for my big payoff from the Reagan tax cuts, much less Bush's, or Trump's "Tax Reform". Of course the national debt ballooned, and the economy bubbled and popped, and the wealthy got bailed out while 'the rest of us' are still trying to get back to even with 2007.
I'd still like to see a more traditionally Keyensian approach, a pretense at small deficits in good economic times, and some fiscal stimulation when needed. No chance of that from Republicans, ever. Maybe the new Democrats like AOC and Warren will bring it about... I'll give them a chance.
4
Perhaps your definition of the "center" is skewed to the right, Dr. K. IMO, since Sunny St Ronnie's turn at the stick, the center of the Political Bell Curve has slouched its way slowly Rightward, all the way out there to the Briar Patch of the Fringe—the Land of Afraid. The center didn't move much for the Left, but they tried, you know, to over there where the money grows. Anyway, IMO, this view could make today's Centrists like Shultz what they truly are: Former Republican liberals and moderates—RockyRockefellers.
3
Paul, if you were a billionaire would you have the same attitude. You have the nerve to call Howard Schultz, a man who made it to the top, from humble beginnings, in a housing project, a fool?
Who made you GOD?
You talk of "The Empty Quarters of U.S. Politics".
Perhaps it is the "Empty Quarters" of your alt- left dialogue that is the problem. Your opinions are sure NOT the solutions.
3
Howard Schultz appeals to 4% of the electorate. Maybe, given his humble beginnings and fantastic success, that’s not surprising. That he decided to run without even starting to bone up on the issues makes him a fool.
@James K. Lowden Hey James, just curious, what issues are the rest of the politicians espousing other than healthcare for all, education for all, redistribution of income, with no realistic proposals to make that happen?
Further, Cory Booker has only 3%, and Gildebrand 2%. Perhaps you were not paying attention.
2
I’d argue in an era of rabid political correctness, there are two things you must never publicly own up to: being racist and being rich.
So the economic conservatives Simpson/Bowles, who Krugman loves to excoriate are racists. Schultz, too, I guess. God, I've been such a fool not to see this.
2
Krugman isn’t saying plutocrats are racists.
Simpson, Bowles, Bohner, Ryan, McConnell: they don’t need to be racists. They’re not voting against their interests and beliefs. They’re being paid by special interests not to have any beliefs.
If Northam today is for Medicaid expansion, ending mass incarceration and rushing aid to blacks kids in public schools, I really could not care less about one stupid thing he did back in the 80s. Who did not do something stupid in college 35 years ago? Trump is the real racist. The GOP is the racist party. Playing gotcha with every white politician who has done something that was not politically correct, even on the left when the guy is a clear liberal, causes the term racist to lose all meaning.
3
Thank you. We have not, culturally, adjusted to the internet age, when our every juvenile act is available to be searched and disseminated instantaneously. Neither have we come to terms with the deep cynical pockets that fund “opposition research” perennially, not just during an election.
It’s what Northam says and does that matter, not a joke in poor taste when he was 23 or whatever. Let the voters decide.
1
Also, the desperate attempt of MSM to normalize this State of Disunion is laughable to say the least.
Please don't go overboard, let's stay sane...
Enough insanity in a parallel universe, where we're all forced to live.
Don't bring his sycophants to our TV screens just to spew more garbage and lies.
Don't you think we've been tormented enough by this unsufferable WH.
1
Question: How many idiots does it take to elect a "centrist?"
Answer: Enough to get Trump reelected.
3
Nancy -- You have to move Left!!
2
Krugman for President?
1
But Trump's (racist) base thinks he's a populist. Oh, that's right, he's a (white) "nationalist." He gets the seething mob chanting "USA! USA!" at his rallies in Nuremberg -- er, I mean, Pittsburgh. (It's all about Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, right?)
1
One would think that decision making: what to buy, who to vote for was an intellectual exercise in the mind.
A recent Brooks column mentioned the work of neuroscientist Antonio Damario. Damario & other cognitive scientist have learned that decision making (what to buy, who to vote for) is heavily reliant upon the emotional sphere of the mind.
The intellectual side of the mind learns quickly, learns from facts, & books & can even learn from other people’s experiences. The emotional side of the mind is just the opposite: it learns very slowly and generally speaking, only learns from experience.
This explains why so few people, as Keynes once remarked, change their minds when the facts change.
It explains why people’s opinion stay the same against growing evidence to the contrary. Remember the trauma of learning there wasn’t a Santa Clause. (One wonders if that was a good thing for us to experience or bad-shouldn’t the mind learn how to change or is the trauma too devastating?)
You can find a Ted Talk by Simon Sinek that demonstrates that Marketeers, Branders & Corporations know all about this & how to manipulate the masses via this.
So many if not most of us vote based upon our emotional experience. The GOP have known this ever since they told us about welfare queens abusing the system. Fox News inflames anger & hate (as did the Nazis). The only way to reverse this is for a person to become victim of these policies & not blame another race but the GOP’s policies instead.
3
I gotta agree with Paul on this one. The only way you get poor and middle class people to agree with soaking themselves to give to the rich is by pandering to whit racial purity and extremist religious fanaticism...Those so-called evangelicals puritans who think it’s just fine for their elected officials to violate the constitution, grab genitals, frequent the porn star ladies, and lock up anyone who isn’t them.
1
Many working class whites have been voting against their economic needs to support their values - racist and anti-Semitic ones.
Ya casts yer votes and ya takes yer choice.
1
I say move the capital back to Philadelphia and let the south succeed from the union.
1
Maybe Ann Coulter will run as a racist populist.
1
This all has been the most successful tactic in the GOPs playbook for about 50 years now. And exactly what LBJ predicted when he told the following to Bill Moyers one campaign trail night:
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
He also predicted that in doing the morally right thing by pushing through his landmark civil rights laws, that the democratic party would lose the south for a generation. He underestimated that one. Apparently he was more optimistic about the 'better angels' of white America - and the GOP - than was warranted.
2
LBJ once said "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." The GOP still won't admit that this pertains to them.
2
Uh oh. I belong in that 4% you mentioned. Guess I better crawl back under that rock and wait for the younger generations to take over. I have absolutely no problem with that as it seems we "baby boomers" have managed to rack up over 20 Trillion in debt and screwed up our healthcare system to the point of implosion.
I'm ashamed that what my generation has left the youth of this country is the likes of a donald trump. I can only hope the younger generation at least sees the value of studying the last 4 decades, politically speaking, in order to learn from our dramatic errors in leadership.
1
You left out abortion. People will vote for the devil (oh wait maybe they did) if he/she is opposed to abortion. Add racism and you get Republican wins in areas particularly hurt by Republican economic policy's.
277
@Riverwoman Yes, Prof. Krugman overlooked the role of conservative religious forces in giving Republican monied and corporate interests a voting base they would not otherwise have.
28
@Riverwoman, on the other hand, lots of people will vote for a candidate solely because the candidate is pro-choice. Personally, I am pro-choice (although understand the other side better after becoming parent). Just trying to look at this from all directions. That issue is a single-issue that cuts both ways.
3
@Riverwoman Agree that Krugman has forgotten misogyny and religious bigotry as prime motivators for many who claim to be socially conservative.
13
Another unmentioned factor is the twisted notion of security. An armed populace, sealed borders, throwing out "undesirables" gives fodder to those whose fear quotient is off the charts. Just charting the decreasing distance over the years children are permitted to go in their neighborhoods demonstrates that caution has given way to tension in everyday life. A quarter of scaredy cats also led to pushing the lever for Trump. Heightening the discomfort by phenotype or culture has supplanted what is written on the Statue of Liberty.
1
There are no moderate Republicans or honest
Conservatives
Michael Tomasky
Donald Trump is simply a mainstream Republican without the dog whistle. He spouted populist economics but anyone with a modicum of insight knew that was just a bold faced lie to get the working class racists vote in the heartland. The question is can this last for another election cycle?
1
"Once upon a time there were racist populists in Congress"
"Racist populists" is a contradiction in terms. "Populist" implies being "for the people", but nowadays it has been redefined to mean "for racist white people", and that's creating huge confusion. For from being "for the people", the "racist populists" were fascists who kept themselves in office by rigging elections.
Schultz has a 4% approval rating and a 40% disapproval rating?
So 56% are "in play".
As Jim Carrey famously said in "Dumb and Dumber":
"So you're telling me there's a chance! Yea!"
Is Krugman as garbled today as it seems to me? I can't figure out what he is trying to say.
The subhead is particularly weird: "Two missing species: libertarian voters and populist racist politicians."
Does he talk about libertarians anywhere in the piece? Do we really have a paucity of populist racist politicians?
1
Racist populists exist and they voted for Trump, our racist president, and elected him. Socially liberal voters exist today, but are rare as "black specks in white rice" ( H/T Our beloved First Lady, Michelle Robinson Obama, about her life at Princeton Unviersity in 1984).
The GOP is the angry hive of social and racial illiberalism today. Big money is still financing our president and his party.
Clearly (though dangerously, Dr. Paul), there is an opening for an independent candidate in 2020 -- " more like George Wallace than Howard Schultz).
Our democracy is in crisis, due to an intelligence-challenged bigoted president who will whistle to his base tonight in the Democratic Congress during his State of the Union Address
in The House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be looking over his shoulder. With luck, she and her Majority in Congress will put the kibosh on Trump's demented wall demand for our southern border with Mexico. With luck, our 45th president will not be giving our SOTU address in 2020.
Nate Silver has a piece on the Missing Quadrant today: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/socially-liberal-fiscally-conservative-voters-preferred-trump-in-2016/
Hey, almost half of America supports Trump despite he is obviously in his dotage and pursuing policies that are ruinous. Why is that? Is it because they see clearly what he’s doing and understand his reasoning?
Yeah, sure.
No, this large support for a dunce who cannot read or frame a whole paragraph of spoken thought is all due to brainwashing by an enormously successful propaganda machine. And that machine is run by a handful of billionaires out to install a narrow-minded fundamentalist “Christian” Oligarchy.
You cannot persuade the believers. They are following their Messiah. Wherever he goes.
Until the brainwashing machine is dismantled, nothing will get through its clamor to break its spell. That is where the effort must go, not into conversion of the intoxicated.
4
Yes it is somewhat trite, yet true.
You may be paranoid, or you may not be paranoid enough.
How can we deny the reality of rich/ corporate investment in our new digital media, with the obvious aim of increasing the bitter, black or white division among the low and middle-class?
They have packaged and sold a shameless product to a large part of the American public, and done so well with it that a big section of our electorate obviously and continuously votes against their own personal interest.
Middle-class facebook friends (or Russian trolls) posting hateful stuff to oppose Democrats, leftists, socialists, baby killers and sexual deviants while attacking experienced, principled, mostly honest politicians with outlandish, distorted, patently false accusations.
But it looks like their gordian knot is unraveling.
"You can fool all of the people some of the time..."
1
Dear Paul,
The thought of a third-party run by Howard Schultz must really have you spooked. Just for the record, who do you think should be the Democratic Party nominees for President and Vice President in 2020? Lay out your case.
Please give us your definitions for what it means to be a liberal or conservative in economic and social terms. Better still, take this simple quiz and see where you stand:
https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/
2
I think the NYT should stop referring to some candidares as black. They don’t (and shouldn’t) refer to others as white. It’s time to stop referring to candidates by race except in rare cases when because of a particular issue it matters.
1
THANKS, PAUL!
The racist-populist politician would certainly cut less ice today than 50 years ago. Today Citizen's United means corporations = people and such highly influential "people" tend not to support populism. Today a larger fraction of the voters are not white and and they tend not to support racists.
Nothing prevents the democrats from being a winning “populist” party.
Aside from all the greedy for the spoils of white patriarchy crowd of identity politics hacks.
Al Franken was the patriarchal problem?????
Yeah yeah. Sure he was.
Etc etc etc.
I don’t care much about the autopsy. I care about why the one choice other than republicans has been an electoral disaster since Reagan. And between Clintonian elitist triangulation and identity politic foolishness there is the recipe for republican success and fascisism’s opening.
And all those the wave is coming hacks should spend a week with a Hispanic Roman Catholic family or an African American Baptist family or an Asian American filial piety family and learn something about who the real conservatives are.
3
I wouldn't say Schultz is a fool; he's accomplished too much. But he's said and apparently believes foolish things.
My experience, which dates back to a segregated South, is buttresssd by study of V.O. Key's Southern Politics in State and Nation, which laid bare the workings of segregationist politics.
The Rutherford B. Hayes election, in ending Reconstruction, unleashed the forces of segregation. The Klan and by extension Southern Democratic politicians, such as Tom Watson, gave us the Southern White Primary. There demagogues like Bilbo and Gene Talmadge rode to power on the votes of poor whites who were all too happy to believe that they were superior to blacks. I recall a scummy Congressman dressed all in white, in case his constituents needed visible hints, railingon and on about running to "protect southern women".
I am not surprised southern populism persisted in the South and in states like Indiana which once had a strong Klan presence but I'm not sure racism explains why so many blue collar voters choose Trump in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.. It explains some of that vote but not all.
At any rate, it is good Democrats are demanding Northam quit. This is not about him but about the country. If he wants forgiveness, he will get it only after he leaves office.
The Confederacy has WON! The combination of money, racism, economic insecurity, national debt, trade policies, gerrymandering, guns, failure to deal with immigration, political and private corruption, abortion and gay rights, and the dogmatically conservative Supreme Court have accomplished what Lee, Jim Crow and the KKK were unable to do.
Maybe we have to be grateful that Trump, so far, does not have the skills of a George Wallace or a Vladimir Putin. If he (or someone else) uses such skills, we may look back at this time as a time of calm and peace.
Contrary to Paul Krugman I believe that only a centrist left/right President can “govern” the country. We need an “Eisenhower,” someone who 75% will believe is telling them what he truly believes based on facts. The Democrat party has to decide whether it wants to defeat Trump with a “moderate” candidate, or it would rather go down to defeat advocating programs and issues that 60 % of voters are not yet ready for.
BUCKLE UP!
So, where does the following group fit in? Ardent Second Amendment supporters who are also right wing Christians.
The group has made a deal with an amoral president: It will support him as long as he'll choose people for the SCOTUS who will try to order to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
So what is the difference between a racist politician and a "racist populist"? For the hairsplitting tribe, it matters, I suppose, if the Democrats only have the former in their midst. But the question on everyone's mind is "how many more of these sleepers are there ready to disembed going into 2020." Case in point: Democrats also have "zero tolerance" for #Metoo transgressors, except that there seems to be an endless number of them. Fairfax, a rising Dem star, is in the cross-hairs. The old saying, "if you see one hornet coming out of a hole, no problem. Three or four and you've got a nest down there. The suspicion, Paul, is that the Left love to mingle in public, but remain highly segregated behind their gated redoubts (the Ivy League is a Leftwing redoubt with a few token minorities). Northam is a member of a black church (a few token hours of his life) while enjoying all the perks of white privilege in the swank clubs of the old gentry. The two Left coasts are swank clubs of white segregated privilege. Davos is pure Left/Right segregated privilege. Judgment must begin in the houses of (even) false gods.
It is truly slanderous to say that those that are socially conservative and economically progressive are, by definition, racists. These people, my people, are philosophically communitarians and Christian democrats. Some that find themselves in this quadrant of the two-axis political spectrum are racists, but no more so than any other political ideology or quadrant. Newsflash, humans are racists/sinners. Historically, most of the black church is soc con /econ prog. Are they racists? Likewise with Latinos. Likewise with many, especially poor, whites. Likewise with Catholics. You paint with way way too broad a brush. I'm pro-life and for Bernie-style Medicare for all. That doesn't make me a racist. I'm a Christian social democrat; not a racist. By the way I'm to your left on a number of issues. -- Chris Erickson, Vice Chair of the Texas chapter of the American Solidarity Party, a generally socially conservative (not racist) and economically progressive party
2
@chris erickson: the left has devolved to use "racism" as a universal word that means "anything they don't like".
They know it is such a horrible insult, that it utterly discredits anyone you use it against.
They tried to destroy Trump with it and it backfired, making them furious with white hot rage.
1
Internationally, of course, the are already racist populists: Poland's ruling Law and Justice party, and France's opposition Marine Le Pen.
"Basically nobody wants these policies on their own; they only sell if they’re packaged with racial hostility."
And they sell to Evangelicals (who make up more than a quarter of the U.S. population), if they're packaged with the alarm that Democrats disrespect you, and will deny you your rights or even persecute you.
I would argue that Trump is a populist racist. He cultivated hatred and anger to get votes.
70
@PATRICK: "He cultivated hatred and anger to get votes."
There are plenty of politicians on both sides of the aisle who cultivate fear and loathing of the opposition in their speeches. It's not about what they stand for as much as how bad their opponent is.
3
@hm1342
"Both sides" fallacy here. One party is WAY more guilty than the other here.
15
@PATRICK He's not really a populist, he's clearly not supporting any populist policies (like Medicare for all, public education, etc.). He's just a racist...
17
It is undeniable that there is a very important racist block of voters out there who will never vote for democrats for the very reasons mentioned in the column. Even so, my sense is that the Democratic party has a fixation on identity politics at the expense of populist issues. It seems to me that every discussion eventually moves to a focus on LGBT, Me Too, BLM, immigration,or the latest instance of someone being insulted on the street somewhere, anywhere. Our society has made so much progress on these issues but I fear we have been cynically manipulated to create a smokescreen for Republican control. Just consider the tactics the Russian election hackers have used.
It is well past time to deploy more political capital in the areas where Democrats are badly loosing the day - i.e. those so-called populist issues.
3
Paul,
I'm not sure it's an "empty"quarter. I think those poll numbers are a function of how much they dislike Schultz - or maybe the way he is running.
I'm also not sure how deep the racism in the Republican party is. Oh, it's there; it's hard to deny when a candidate announces his candidacy by talking about Mexican rapist, then wins his party's nomination. But just how deep and central to the core of the modern Republican party it is is another question.
Take my friend who is a perfect example of someone who inhabits the "empty"quarter. He is a successful businessman who voted for both BILL Clinton and Obama. But he also voted for Trump. He did so because he thought Trump was just what the country needed - a successful business man who could get things done. (And he also disliked HILLARY Clinton; good job Trump TV.) He knows now that Trump is neither, and bitterly regrets his vote.
I believe there are many more people like my friend. The empty quarter is not so empty; those eyes peeking at us from the forest are its inhabitants.
1
Dr. Krugman -- I think you missed the 800 lb gorilla in the room -- abortion policies. If the Democrats took a more nuanced position on abortion, they could claw back many current GOP supporters. Remember the Roy Moore supporter that reportedly said that she would give up voting rights if that meant abortion would be outlawed.
4
Trump will continue to appeal to large parts of the country by pursuing xenophobic and racists policies while lying about his economic agenda. Remember the analysis in 2016? His supporters took him seriously but not literally while his opponents did the opposite? Well, he has demonstrated his serious commitment to the policies of division. And he has, literally, no concern about the taxation policies that he blabs on about. And his supporters have, literally, no chance of obtaining the tax relief he likes to claim, but they don’t actually care because they they are willing to believe lies.
1
@Mike Iker Please document the racist and xenophobic policies you imagine. I get so tired of leftists using this trite, meaningless name calling with nothing to back it up. And please feel free to pay YOUR taxes at the old rate while the rest of us enjoy lower tax rates.
2
Oh my goodness. Now you tell us that the public is actually to the "left of Democrats." Then why did you demonize Bernie Sanders and promote the milquetoasty ideas of HRC, which frankly were exactly those of someone socially liberal and economically conservative? And now we have Donald Trump and our democracy is in danger. Maybe you, and the rest of the NY Times columnists who pushed HRC's candidacy, should apologize.
1
What once was "extreme left" is no longer that. Automation, climate change, the cost of health care that can bankrupt and the "extreme cost" necessary to compete in this new economy requires we rethink what is needed if our society is to prosper.
Existing policies and laws are woefully inadequate if not a downright criminal affront our world that has sustained life thus far. We get to choose our future; I can only hope we make the right choices.
3
@v
I have been a political cynic all of my life.
One of my earliest, strongest memories is getting dismissed from school early in the 2nd grade and arriving home to find my Great Aunt Sadie on her knees in front of the old black and white TV that she was watching President Kennedy's assassination unfold.
Then came several years of Vietnam and some truly (for the time) images that are seared in my mind. I cannot unsee the burnt little girl although I could not tell you her name without looking it up.
During that time, also came Dr. King's assassination and the main street of my community was lined with National Guard in full BDUs.
Not long thereafter another assassination took Bobby.
Since then we have witnessed 1968 D. convention, Kent State, Watergate, and the scandalous Regan and Clinton years. I'm trying to avoid over making my point, but there are so many examples of things to be cynical about it's hard for me to not to look at American politics in much of any other light.
I started my political life as an Independent. I leaned left when Wayne LaPierre took over the NRA and Rash Limburger (the big irritating stinker) took over the airwaves. I have always been an informed "super voter" if you know the term? I went Democrat to have a say in primaries.
What I'm getting at, respectfully is; I really don't think being an American is as simple as just making the right choice.
There seems to me, a lot more work involved.
We need to be ready to defend our votes henceforth.
You are absolutely right but neither you or I on our own can make this right for our kids and grandkids.
You are talking not about politics, the art of the possible, but about the current 'politicking', noxious to any democracy worth it's name. Unless we can have some pragmatism in satisfying the needs of the majority, always based on moral grounds, we may be kicking our responsibilities down the road. Actually, our current position, quite Trumpian, as you know.
2
I agree with most of this, but one thing I think we need to reckon with is the difference between symbols and empirical reality. We assume a world where the two things are generally in alignment, but that is not at all the case in America today. People can say that they want, empirically, taxes on the rich to be raised, and yet vote for a party that cuts them because cutting them symbolizes something else. It's counter-intuitive and anti-rational, but how else do you end up with a President who is seen as a straight-shooter not in spite of his lies, but because of them. No politician would tell lies like that, the "logic" goes, so Trump is no ordinary politician, ergo he's more "honest" because "ordinary" politician are "slick" and he clearly is not. He lies by lying and the others lie by twisting the truth and this makes him someone you can trust. It's a symbolic claim that makes no sense empirically. This is not exclusive to the Right. The equivalent on the Left is voting for a 3rd party candidate and they marching in Washington with a pink hat on. You are more interested in symbolizing your own moral rectitude than you are in taking a simple action to change the empirical world around you. (I do think the Right is much worse.) These disconnects will persist until we decide to be just a little bit self-critical, as individuals and as a culture.
3
Aren't mainstream Democrats like Hillary Clinton in the socially liberal [when it's politically safe] fiscally conservative quarter? As Professor Krugman has pointed out in the past, there's no room for a centrist party because the DLC and mainstream Democrats are already there.
2
I like coffee and while I try to support local coffee shops over Starbucks (usually better coffee), I do like the convenience of having the Starbucks on the Pennsylvania Turnpike open 24 hours a day and having an option other than McDs for coffee everywhere else. Been buying bean coffee since well before Sbucks ..
But I do not want another billionaire businessman as president. After 4 years of Trump and 6 years of republican control of the congress before that, we probably need to swing considerably left of center for a while. And centrist today is pretty far right of the general public. Billionaire independent won't raise taxes on his 0.1% buddies and on corporations.
And obviously Shultz would be a spoiler for whoever runs against Trump in 2020 and we can't deal with that.
PS - why would I want to keep my health insurance which is supposedly a "good plan" but involves paying the first $3000 a year myself in addition to my premiums and the money my company really doesn't want to spend on me, which makes it even more likely I will be laid off in my late 50s .. Give me single payer or some national buy on line plans and I can go out and either form a company or be less unattractive to employers ... cost of insurance is definitely part of age discrimination ..
6
@Innovator: my husband -- an engineer with a college degree -- really WAS laid off -- once at 50 and again at 62.
His employer cheerfully told him that he "could just go on SS" -- never mind, at 62, you take a 30% cut in benefits FOR LIFE.
His employer "forgot" that a man of 62 cannot easily find either a new job OR health insurance!!!
Lousy, worthless Obamacare offered my husband a "plan" that cost $400 a month with a $10,000 deductible (FOR ONE PERSON).
Short of a major operation or cancer…..this means you pay and pay and pay 100% of your bills for everything (drugs, doctors, hospitals) because most people will NEVER hit $10,000 in any given year. You pay premiums, but you get NOTHING in return.
It's a total scam. Most people like Krugman praising Obamacare think it is all "free Medicaid" but IT IS NOT!!!
It is a tragic disaster and false promise for Americans over 50 or who are not poor enough for Medicaid but not rich enough to pay $10K a year for a deductible.
2
Gee Paul, it seems like anyone who disagrees with you is a fool. The surveys you cite are misleading and ambiguous. Let's face it, most people don't have a clue how high tax rates are for the rich nor have any idea what percentage of all taxes they actually pay.
2
I consider myself socially conservative and economically liberal and I very bitterly reject the idea that I am a "racist".
The left has to stop tossing around the word "racist" to essentially mean "anything they dislike" and "anyone they disagree with".
I am not a racist, and I defy anyone to prove I am. Dr. Krugman, if you are going to call 50% of the voters in the US "racists"....well, consider what happened when your pal Hillary called us "deplorables in a basket".
How'd that work out for her?
71
@Concerned Citizen - she STILL won the popular vote, something the Trumpster still refuses to acknowledge.
78
@Concerned Citizen - Given Trump's policies, it seems that it didn't work out for those 50% of voters, either... Well, maybe 49% of voters (the top 1% got everything they wanted from the divide and conquer media coverage).
52
@Concerned Citizen
How about bigoted? That's more of a general term for those who discriminate against groups.
I'm assuming that if you're "socially conservative," you discriminate, or approve of the discrimination, against certain groups, correct?
For example, if you don't support gay marriage (a fairly typical socially conservative position), you're de facto discriminating against gay people... but that's not racist, it's homophobic, which can broadly be captured by the term "bigot."
Is that a fair assessment?
134
Brilliant use of Square of Opposition logical analysis to crack the puzzle! Thanks.
1
People who feel they have less want more, that's the only economic issue.
The Republicans' "original sin" is indeed racism - see Barry Goldwater's 1964 "conservative" run that turned the South Republican for the first time in 100 years. That bell has not been unrung.
However, the Democrats' "original sin" is abortion. Some people are as opposed to it as people are opposed to racism, each believing each to be morally wrong. Neither is a political or economic issue. Hence the depth of feeling and division.
If the axes are abortion and racism, all the quadrants fill neatly - creating 4 political divisions and, no more clarity.
1
the difference between Donald and Howard:
Donald is a fake authentic;
Howard is an authentic fake.
1
Democrats love to eat their own. We have one of the most racist presidents to ever hold office in modern times, yet some Democrats are going after Northam over some dumb stunt that happened decades ago. Is he a good leader NOW? Does he support good policies NOW? Is Northam's behavior really any worse (blackface versus sexual misconduct) than someone who just got a seat on the Supreme Court? Wow, this is like watching an episode of The Twilight Zone.
Republicans have a strategic advantage because, while Democrats get all twisted up in identity politics, Republican leaders are only tightly focused on serving the rich and powerful at the expense of average Americans. No party disunity there.
Democrats need to start focusing on the basic, kitchen table issues that average Americans care about, like affordable health care, affordable housing and affordable higher education. With that strong streak of self-destruction that runs through Democrats, Nancy Pelosi is needed more than ever in the people's House where badly needed legislation has to move forward.
365
@Trajan. Nice column, Trajan. You’re absolutely right about Nancy Pelosi and the necessaries of the Democrats. True, Northam’s behavior was reprehensible, and may still be, but he’ll be sacrificed on the pyre of zero tolerance just so Republicans will stop wagging their fingers and tut-tutting. They’re so pure...
31
@Trajan "at the expense of average Americans." I've always found it strange that the segment of the population that votes GOP, would be damaged the most, by the GOP. The GOP has hoodwinked them into voting for a party that passes one tax cut after another for the wealthy and then wants to cut the programs that benefit their voting bloc, Medicare and SS, oh yes, and take away their health care too.
26
@Trajan
With regards to Northam, it may be wise to defer to the set of rules Ice Cube laid out for white people.
With regards to the "N" word and why white people can no longer use it, Ice said something like this...."We own that word now, if WE want to use it, we can....but YOU cannot." That seems like a very sound arrangement. We should have no problem giving up on that word.
With regards to Northam behavior, it should follow the Ice Cube test. Essentially, it's really up to them to decide if he should go or not. It doesn't matter if it offends me or not, it matters if it offends Ice Cube quite frankly.
If Ice says Northam must go...then he should go...and we can move on with another warm body who can certainly carry out the job that likely requires only a high school degree.
Move on.
8
Krugman’s economic analyses can be brilliant, but his breakdown of American “social politics” is laughable. I’d say many Democrats today aren’t so much socially liberal as socially hysterical. Every new revelation from someone’s past is a new crisis, a new moment for more unjustified outrage when real issues go unsolved that hurt Americans of all kinds every day. Choosing to not fixate on racial and identity politics in every issue does not make you a racist... but many Democrats and clearly Krugman too only see American social life in binary terms. If you don’t agree with their social policy positions then you must be a racist. It’s illiberal nonsense. If the Democrats can refocus themselves on being a working class party for ALL Americans then maybe the country will finally be able to reach an economic policy compromise that lifts up the middle class. This endless spew about social identity and baseless accusations of racism are stealing away that opportunity from everyone. Most Americans have had enough.
7
@Alex Yuly I'm guessing you're a white male who's never felt the effects of racism, sexism, misogyny, or other forms of discrimination. I don't disagree that Dems need to refocus on economic policies for the middle class but please don't disregard what others have experienced.
Dr, Krugman has shed light on a rather scary truth:
"[There is an] absence of economically liberal, socially conservative politicians — let’s be blunt and just say “racist populists.” There are plenty of voters who would like that mix, and Trump pretended to be their man; but he wasn’t, and neither is anyone else. Hence the failure of our political system to serve socially conservative/racist voters who also want to tax the rich and preserve Social Security. Republicans will "ratify their racism," but [they] won’t protect the programs they depend on."
Bingo!! Krugman has fully exposed The Deplorables as the hypocritical racists that they indeed are!
(And the fact that they account for about 1/3 of our electorate is indeed truly frightening.)
3
You forgot the number one issue that keeps many voters voting for Republicans despite their repugnant policies; abortion. This issue dominates the pulpits on Sunday and it is hard for many to understand the nuance of the issue. The Russians will run a Jill Stein candidate again as well.
2
A Democrat could beat Trump if he was pro-single payer, pro family, pro-union, anti-war, and for the aggressive taxing of ultra high wealth if he could just shut down the flagrant abuse of our immigration laws and border. That candidate can’t win the primary though because not welcoming the infinite number of suffering illegal immigrants to share these expensive benefits or wanting law and order to immigration earns a label of “racist” in the Democratic Party. Trump will win in 2020 unless dems stop with the wild misuse of the word racist.
77
@Allright The total number of immigrants who are trying to sneak across the border is actually quite low. It was way higher some 25-30 years ago. The problem lies in the way the Trump Administration is dealing with children of legit asylum seekers or those who are currently in the USA under temporary protection. Democrats know that this country can't let in an infinite number of people...but Trump's wall isn't going to solve anything.
9
@Allright
you infuse reason with hyperbole to the extent the argument can't support the weight of your inaccuracy.
Flagrant abuse of immigration laws? Not true -- illegals are at a 10 year low.
Infinite numbers of suffering illegals? None such.
Immigrants to share these expensive benefits? Most come to work, not go on the great liberal dole that pays a whopping $200 / month in food stamps.
Law and order to some means racist to others? Seems to be the point. Perhaps it is when it shouldn't be at all.
6
@Allright
"the infinite number of suffering illegal immigrants"
You are simply misinformed. The number of immigrants of all kinds has dropped pretty drastically in this no-longer-young century. And they commit crimes at lower rates than the native-born. These are facts, and when you trumpet your ignorance of them, you are simply trumpeting your ignorance. Pardon me for pointing it out.
This country faces great challenges, including thoroughly hypocritical immigration policy and practice. But the immigrants themselves are not the problem, they're fellow sufferers under a corporatist vampire system sucking up our common wealth. Reversing that flow will ease all our other problems.
8
Love this: "Basically nobody wants these policies on their own; they only sell if they’re packaged with racial hostility."
2
I am a libertarian and I voted for Sanders
Derided by Krugman
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html
1
I actually have many friends in the South who fall in the socially liberal, but fiscally conservative quarter. You could get a lot of votes there. But you won't get a lot of money. All that emptiness means is that if you need votes you can just buy them, whereas votes don't get you money.
1
Much of the electorate seems to be economically liberal, but socially middle of the road.
Liberal politicians however have gone off the rails in an attempt to satisfy the socially liberal extremes of their party.
Hillary Clinton could have centered her campaign on economically liberal issues. As First Lady she supported something like universal health care, but when she ran for president, it was Bernie Sanders who argued for universal health care while Clinton favored the status quo.
On the other hand, when it comes to social liberalism, Clinton tried to appeal to radical feminists like Gloria Allred. You will remember that Allred took the Bill Cosby trial out of the courts, and tried it instead in the press. Some were uncomfortable with this flagrant disregard of the constitutional guarantee of due process. Those voters were characterized as sexists and bigots.
Some might have questioned: If Bill Cosby deserves jail, why not Bill Clinton? Somehow, liberals couldn't see the hypocrisy.
Socially middle of the road voters might have wanted an actual solution to the problem of illegal immigration, one that involved compromise. But Hillary seemed to take the extreme position of open borders. Once again there was name calling: Those who wanted discussion of the issues were called racists.
Voters were given a terrible choice in 2016. Most could see that Trump was flawed, but Hillary Clinton appeared even worse.
Democrats, don't make the same mistake again!
2
@Jake Wagner
"Hillary Clinton could have centered her campaign on economically liberal issues."
She did.
The media decided that showing film footage of an empty podium waiting for Donald Trump was preferable to airing that kind of thing.
The working poor will always be swayed by racial pride, religion, and leader worship, never by economics. The Elizabeth Warrens of this world will never beat the Donald Trumps, and we’d all be better off if liberal intellectuals accepted this reality.
3
If that were true, we literally never would have moved beyond the "cavemen bashing heads in with rocks" status.
A stimulating analysis about a "homogenized" population. Diverse in so many ways, even as some sharing can, and does, exist. At times. In a divided nation. United by name only. THEN as well as NOW. Racism is only one face of the toxic, rooted, historical WE-THEY legacy. Which enables violating ranges of created, selected, targeted, "the other(s)." Daily. Dy words and deeds. With barely-moving-barriers. Non-existing bridges to getting to know. Appreciate.Trust. Respect. Care for and about. Mutual help, when and if needed. Reach out; not push away. With open hands; not with closed, mantra-moving fists. An additional dimension is missing from this prophesizing analysis. In an age of denied, ever-present uncertainties. Randomness. Unpredictabilities. A lack of total controls and competing secular prophets. In which people, menschlich values, and norms are commodified-objects-for profiting. Personal accountability is a stranger! In all parties.Neither a candidate nor a voter, active or not, is accountable. For one's doings or not doings. Words written or voiced For "heavenly" fostered-foisted-hate. Faux-religiosity. For traditions which can and do traumatize. From a THEN to today; and likely, tomorrow as well. As each of US continue, by complacency or complicity, to enable the word-game of Right-Center(ist)-Left; Illiberal-Moderate-liberal-& BEYOND.As people-personally-pay with limb. Life. Psyche. Soul. Our God-Big Bang created environment is being destroyed. Prophesies?
Liberal-
The GOP gets its votes from the religious right, to whom abortion is the only thing that matters, and racists. The policies favoring the 1% are a price they are more than willing to pay.
3
Right. Which is why we pretty much never get "racist populists." It's impossible to lead such a movement without understanding that the "racist" part matters *more* to your supporters than the "populist" part... Which means that even if in the abstract they might want both, they've essentially given you a license to tear up all the "populist" things for your own benefit, safe in the knowledge that they won't turn on you. No leadership resists that kind of urge for power very long.
There are no racist populists who are fiscally spenders [don't call that liberal] and racist. Although Russian propagandists, Hillary, and the leftist media have advanced the narrative that Trump supporters are the alt-right, the reality is that the white supremacist population consists of about 50,000 individuals who rarely vote.
The people who voted for Trump wanted the elimination of the executive branch issuing regulations that did not make sense and were not authorized by the legislative branch. They wanted existing regulations enforced. They were horrified that children in blue cities like Flint Michigan and NYC were exposed to lead paint and tainted water supplies and that city, state and the EPA organizations did nothing to warn families. NYC dumps a million gallons per year of raw sewage into he waters of America while NYC takes sewage user fees and diverts them to other uses, like putting solar panels on city buildings. Half of NYC public schools use bottled water because the drinking fountains are contaminated.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration imposes CAFE standards that cost billions more than any fuel savings so that California can sell EVs subsidized by the rest of the country in California.
The prospect of federal judges who will follow the law rather than creating new law was enough to overcome the fact that Trump was a womanizer. Particularly when his opponent was a misogynist enabler of a sexual predator.
"Racial hostility" is what I, a white male, feel from the Democrats. It's a common thread among the reluctant Trump supporters I know - they are disgusted by Trump, but they won't support the Democrats for that reason.
My 66-year-old father recently said to me, for the first time, "well, you know, I'm a racist."
This man voted for Obama, but I wouldn't be surprised if he casts his vote for Trump in 2020 because the left has lost all credibility in his eyes. They call my dad a racist over and over, but he knows he's a fair person, so he's accepted that the "racist" label isn't that big of a deal.
61
@Patrick
Ever heard the phrase, "cut off your nose to spite your face"?
Anyone who would vote for a Democrat but for the fact that Democrats (the party, not the fringe) call out racists embodies that idea.
They are literally voting against their own interests (assuming they're not independently wealthy, which is accurate for about 99.99% of the population) if they support Trump and/or the GOP.
In light of extreme economic illiteracy and their willingness to hurt others out of spite, please... the Republicans can keep those voters.
34
@John Marshall
Well, I'm wealthy enough that I have the option to withhold my support from a party that doesn't believe in treating me fairly. And with low unemployment and rising wages, there are a lot of people like me out here. The Democrats need to stop making us scapegoats.
5
@Patrick
You do understand that most racists don't think they are racist, don't you? Sexist people don't think they are sexist (women just aren't as capable, everybody knows that). People who practice ageism don't think they are being ageist (old people just aren't as skillful, everybody knows that)
PS. I'll bet your 66 year old father has run up against ageism more than a few time. How does he feel about that?
30
Dr. Krugman,
In my view, there is one significant omission in your reading of the political landscape: Abortion. Legions of single-issue voters linger in the cold embrace of the GOP solely because of their views on this topic.
5
I have a hard time getting my head around the author's use of "racist". For example 'economically liberal, socially conservative politicians — let’s be blunt and just say “racist populists.”' Where does he get that connection from? Certainly not from any dictionary I have seen.
I realize that the left has adopted the habit of calling everyone they disagree with "racist", but this article seems to completely disconnect the word from its meaning. In fact, I have to wonder whether any of the labels he is using, "conservative", "liberal", "populist", etc. are anchored to their literal meanings. Making sense of what he is talking about is impossible if his words have no well defined meaning.
55
@Don B Krugman assumes that the readers are familiar with the context. Apparently, you missed all the frequent news about the dominant profile and motivation of Trump's supporters - "ethnic and cultural anxiety". Guess what is the shorthand word for that.
13
@Don B ok, what does ‘socially conservative’ mean to you? We’re all waiting.
10
@Don B
I usually agree with PK but you are spot on here. Although I should note that I am a moderate on social issues, I take issue with the characterization that all social conservatives are in their heart racists. It is possible to have been raised to believe in racial equality while also being conflicted on abortion, and hence identify as a social conservative. The same is true on an issue like immigration. You can support caps on immigration and not be a racist.
This absolutist positions noted above are where the democrats lose so many voters. "Racist" is an epithet and should be used sparingly. So is "misogynist." I am fully committed to liberal economic priorities, and indeed most democratic priorities, but as a social moderate I am increasingly disgusted at the casual use of these words, and the zero tolerance attitudes of some vocal democratic politicians.
If the democrats could just focus on economic issues they would win easily. Diving into the social miasma to endlessly debate who has more "privilege" (another loaded term the left likes to throw around) is the way you lose elections.
8
There are those who think freedom means freedom from hunger, deprivation, inequality, cruelty, ignorance, deception, and hate. That no one is free unless all are.
Then there are those who think freedom means freedom to hate, exploit, cheat, deceive, exclude, humiliate, impose and voraciously amass wealth and privilege. To these people freedom means free of responsibility and any defining sense of humanity.
This is also the freedom to be arrogant, ignorant and stupid while acting superior to everyone else. Trump when asked what he calls cheating on his taxes answered "smart." If asked what he calls the culture that spawned a monster like him Trump would answer "freedom" -- free and dumb.
One side believes freedom means everyone; the other side says freedom means just me. One side sees similarity in others; the other side only scary differences.
This left or right stuff is just baiting and fog. It allows pundits to dismiss ideas to fix the Republicans mess as "leftist, socialist, Democratic suicide" without having to debate the merits. It's enough to say "Warren/Harris/AOC and wacko."
Higher taxes on the rich and Medicare expansion aren't Che Guevara talking points. They're common sense acts of human decency basic to national integrity.
Trump is an unnatural disaster. Post-catastrophe response is always relief and rescue. Not wandering aimlessly through the rubble.
There's no left and right. Just left and wrong.
5
Too reductive and stereotypical. Surely there are chunks of voters who might be economically liberal, socially conservative, and not racist. I'm thinking, say, union Democrats and some religious voters. I'd also be shocked if there weren't people of color in those groups.
46
@rtj These descriptions cause lots of confusion. Democrats are not economically liberal. They are mostly socially liberal. Liberalism is losing all of its meaning.
5
@rtj
Not all Bepublicans are racist, but the republican party can't win without the racist vote. Your hypothetical moderate Republican should take a look at who they are in bed with.
Have you seen what happens at Trump rallies?
4
@John
You have your point. Recommended.
1
I suppose I fall within the 4 percent of socially and economically liberal voters. I say that because Democrats are not economically liberal. It’s difficult in a nation of abundance to get people to see the value of their own freedom. I believe that there are more people like me than 4% but clearly not enough to make a significant dent. Opinions and ideologies are fluent though and change over time. Many Americans don’t truly understand how Progressive policy ideas will effect them. Many people believe that they can keep their current insurance plan under single payer for instance. When you actually provide more details of progressive policies beyond the cursory, medical coverage for all, etc, not as many support them. The devil is always in the details and progressives are usually really quiet on those.
If Americans will pay to buy a DVD of Super Bowl commercials, I dare not predict their powers of political reasoning.
1
Trump could run for reelection with a noose in his hand and a burning cross behind him. He would still get the GOP's nomination without losing a single vote.
3
What's Michael Bloomberg's approval rating? Or John Kasich for that matter? Oh right...those would not support your thesis so you ignore them. Cherry picking is so unscientific.
I enjoy Krugman's economics-related articles because he is an expert in that area. When he strays from that topic, he drips with condescension, and more recently he has become unhinged, calling social conservatives racist.
2
"Socially liberal but economically conservative" was and is nothing but an empty buzzword phrase. It sounds both modestly serious and also potentially progressive on diversity issues, but in reality it's nothing but a worthless heuristic. It's a mentality, and political concept, that needs to die off.
It is beyond time that the Democratic party boldly, and without apology, move back to it's economically progressive roots. We've been suffering under the insanity of "trickle down" economic rot for nearly four decades.
As far as the "racist populists"? That's the Republican party. Their deeply racist policies and rhetoric have poisoned our nation for too long. They don't deserve any political or social home, they deserve the wilderness.
4
Selective polling and agenda pushing, and a very ideological tub-thumping for the hard left. The idea that there is no "center" in American politics is absurd. One party has gone off the rails into the la la land of white grievance/paranoia combined with an abandonment of its alleged principles of free trade and deficit concern and international outlook and alliances.
It is now the party of Trump with all the meanness and narrowness that implies and a sudden love of dictators and nationalists. Groups that just a minute ago were considered fringe conspiracy kooks are now producing local GOP leadership.
Meanwhile to read the Gray Lady (and a few other activist friendly journals) Democrats are all on the hard left express, and woe betide the rest of us left on the platform. Malarkey.
There are plenty of voters who do not want a polar opposite of the GOP, but a Big Tent appealing to independent voters and a broad coalition. One party has become radical right leaving the Rotary Club Republicans behind. We don't need the Democrats to become just the party of activists, socialists, black nationalists and elite academia. If that happens millions of Americans will have no home in either party.
Since 2008, I watched 25+ Republican friends and family, of all socio-economic levels, and who live all over the country, lose their minds. Obama was an aberration, The Affordable Care Act was the worst legislation in history, Muslims and Mexicans were destroying our nation and Democrats were aiding them to destroy our way of life. These folks don't know, or care, about economics or public policy, whether foreign or domestic. They parrot Fox News, sometimes word-for-word. It is more important to ensure that a black family never again resides in the White House, or a Mexican family never lives next door, then concern over the size of the national debt or obscene tax cuts for the rich. Thankfully, most Americans do not feel this way but the racist GOP will not die until the Baby Boomer generation dies.
2
@Michelle Just for the record, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, ME - all baby boomers. I do understand that there are many in my generation who have moved "right" as they've aged but I know just as many who have become more liberal with age. The most rabid conservatives I know are in their 30's. I'm surrounded by very liberal baby boomers. In my experience location is the key factor. I'm thrilled that the last election brought out millennials and Gen Xers in record numbers. The Democratic leaders must make sure that they step back and hand over the reigns to the next generation of leaders, but please don't kill me off just yet!
@Michelle
My wife knows a woman whose husband left her for another. She now works in a “club” store where we see her. After working there, and probably based on her own situation, she is a Trump supporter, despite being a Democrat all her life. Something about seeing “those people”, no specifics but I’m sure it has to do with all the perceived free things they get, she is rabid. I would guess there is a lot of that, the idea that I am paying for them to have free stuff.
Throw in the abortion question, which is another highly emotionally issue, and you collect a lot of people. People get those images in their head of babies being killed ( I am not pro abortion btw) and everything else fades. It’s okay to ruin the country as long as people don’t have to think about those babies. That is foolish thinking because unless there is a constitutional amendment, abortion is not a national question, it is a state question.
The Republicans are creating a country for the rich and privileged because many voters cannot see a bigger picture.
Your analysis misses something fairly obvious--not all "social conservatives" are racist. Those like me--a socio-cultural Ross Douthat but a politico-economic Paul Krugman--have no home. That is, what used to be known as the pro-life Democrat. And while we do not make up anything like a majority of the electorate, there are enough of us that we should matter. But we don't.
2
I think PK missed an obvious point here - its about the abortion, period. The evangelical hypocrites who voted for tRump and are a substantial and overwhelmingly republican bloc, will overlook anything and I mean anything, if it gets them judges who they think will outlaw abortion
2
Nobody in evangelical-land cared about abortion until around 1980. The religious right was a cheap makeover for the segregationist bloc, period.
"socially conservative/racist voters" Mr. Krugman isn't even trying to hide his disdain for socially conservative voters by lumping them in with, and calling them the same as, racist voters.
However, if you're promoting a liberal agenda, branding all socially conservative voters as racist would make those voters and positions less appealing, even though it's obviously not true.
Democrats have in the past been nearly as socially conservative as Republicans. They have shied away from labor unions, have favored deregulation and have signed onto free trade agreements. They have abandoned the middle and lower classes and then they have had the bad habit of attacking the same people as racists. Most people I know are not racist, but they do have a tendency to react negatively when people say that they are privileged because of the color of their skin. When have been laid off multiple times, struggled to make ends meet and have not been able to achieve even the modest lifestyle of your parents; you do not feel privileged. So, I think Democrats need to talk about the struggles of everyday working people, white, black, female, immigrant, Okie and Hoosier alike. If they get too bogged down in the politics of race and gender then they lose.
1
"The two great absences in American political life" are the non-existence of two separate and sovereign Red and Blue nation states of southern North America. It's clear that there's no longer any point in trying to square the circle of our diametrically opposed political factions. California will secede the moment Roe v. Wade is overturned, and the blue states of the northeast will be forced to follow suit or find themselves under the thumb of the stupid and reckless rule of Red America.
Krugman is so wrong on the following:
"The other is the absence of economically liberal, socially conservative politicians — let’s be blunt and just say “racist populists.” There are plenty of voters who would like that mix,..."
What Krugman is missing is that we don't want socially conservative politicians but socially neutral politicians.
Around 40% of Americans, plus or minus 5%, have no tolerance for the Democrats fanatical obsession with identity politics. They are for an equal playing field. They are not for a guarantee of equal outcome. They are for equal rights and fair treatment of all people. They are not for special treatment of those that identify as a special group and an aggrieved class. Until the Democrats start getting that, they'll keep struggling to build consensus.
Yes, Americans are railing against the Golden Rule from "The Wizard of Id" (whoever has the gold, makes the rules). Yet they also don't like the Democrats de facto tolerance of George Orwell's famous aphorism: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Americans want a return to the Golden Rule of Jesus (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) along with bedrock Revolutionary precepts of this country - "live free or die" and "don't tread on me".
1
"Let's be blunt".
Smearing an "economically liberal, social conservative" individual as "racist" is offensive, repugnant and false.
As Senator Blumenthal ironically stated
"False in one, false in all."
2
And I thought the empty quarters of U.S. politics were the brain cavities of Trump and his "base," who keep believing that tax cuts for the rich will somehow trickle down.
2
Howard Schultz' biggest shortcoming was not the position he tried to stake out but his shallowness, negative charisma and complete banality.
He had a one off lightning strike with his Starbucks success and obviously took to heart one too many of his press clippings over the years. Running for president, even in the age of Trump, requires a little more than what Howard Schultz has got.
On paper, Trump has "betrayed" a huge part of his base, but that's only in the myopic view of Democrats.
What many of us fail to factor in is that to most of his base, all politicians are scoundrels and crooks, it's baked into their world view. They expect nothing from any of them, as such Trump's trail of "broken promises" are not deal breakers, it's actually "part of the deal".
The two things they love and admire about Trump are his utter disdain for institutions and his palpable hatred of minorities. They love it when he blowtorches the media and congressional democrats, it's more entertaining than American Idol and Duck Dynasty combined.
He had them at "Obama was born in Kenya", and nothing he could ever do after that could possibly ruin their love affair.
It's one for the ages.
3
“Because they could.”
The opening for the Republicans to eschew civil rights protections for non-whites was the daylight that existed as the party moved from the center-right (Eisenhower, 1953-61) to the hard-right as John F. Kennedy took office.
He walked a very thin line. All evidence now points to the barely-disguised racism that his apologists—Cabinet, Democratic governors, civil rights activists—papered over as “caution.” He was frightened to death of the powerful Dixiecrat Senate. Southern governors like Ross Barnett (Arkansas); John Patterson (Mississippi); George Wallace (Alabama) held his presidency hostage as Northern liberals invaded the South with legions of voting rights and accommodations volunteers. Kennedy hid behind his brother Bobby, the Attorney General, whom he used to absorb the PR hits.
Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan saw all this, of course, and used Barry Goldwater and the John Birch Society as pilot fish as they looked to 1968. The disastrous Vietnam War ruined LBJ’s presidency. The conservative right took the closing door to rally disaffected whites against not only the war but also civil rights. Thus began their culture war in which they successfully sought white votes while staking out their protectionist politics—geared to commerce and industry. Nothing for labor unions, mind.
So today we have Donald Trump, the supreme scavenger of the vomit of American politics the past 60 years. Beneath the grimy surface, it was always race. Always.
2
This analysis is simple, elegant, and completely wrong. Libertarians are far from a majority, but far more than 4%. Probably about 20-25%. “Live and let live” isn’t quite that dead. The two party kakistocracy gives people few opportunities to express it in elections.
Sorry Professor, but there are plenty of us who don’t care who you marry, make cakes for, dress up as, smoke, grow, say, write, spend your money on, put in your or in your body, just so long as you leave us alone. In a dim past it was called Liberalism. Before that it was called Liberty.
54
@KBronson
Libertarians don't want to be left alone. That's just what they say to the mirror or the empty chair as it were). What they want is all the benefits of government without paying for them. How's Trump working out for you?
24
@KBronson
The inherent equation is leave me alone AND don't ask me to support anyone else, because look how generous I am already by not caring about what you do or who you are. Every man for himself.
Great return on investment in that social contract if you see the value of ISIS end times doom over every other belief system. Even all greed for everyone capitalism can't thrive under that ethic.
10
@KBronson He's citing a poll about Schultz, not libertarians.
9
Paul thinks Republicans think. They don’t. They are brainwashed by a very effective propaganda machine run by a handful of billionaires. And because the Republicans are brainwashed to vote as instructed, the billionaires decide who the GOP will elect, and therefore what their candidates will do.
It’s not about what the voters want; it’s about what these billionaires want. They dish out the twaddle, the Fox/Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannity/fundamentalist swill, that sells their candidates, but the candidates are just a show and obey their masters’ voice.
4
The Center is where the majority are. Not where the parties think they are or would like them to be. Howard Schultz is a wing-nut by this definition....and so are many Democrats who don't play to their Centrist constituents. Trump played to the Center and Republicans bought it and rejected all the others Unfortunately it was and is all lies. So if there is such a thing as an "honest Trump" bring 'em on.
There are those who think freedom means freedom from hunger, deprivation, inequality, cruelty, ignorance, deception, and hate. That no one is free unless all are.
Then there are those who think freedom means freedom to hate, exploit, cheat, deceive, exclude, humiliate, impose and voraciously amass wealth and privilege. To these people freedom means free of responsibility and any defining sense of humanity.
This is also the freedom to be arrogant, ignorant and stupid while acting superior to everyone else. Trump when asked what he calls cheating on his taxes answered "smart." If asked what he calls the culture that spawned a monster like him Trump would answer "freedom" -- free and dumb.
One side believes freedom means everyone; the other side says freedom means just me. One side sees similarity in others; the other side only scary differences.
This left or right stuff is just baiting and fog. It allows pundits to dismiss ideas to fix the Republicans mess as "leftist, socialist, Democratic suicide" without having to debate the merits. It's enough to say "Warren/Harris/AOC and wacko."
Higher taxes on the rich and Medicare expansion aren't Che Guevara talking points. They're common sense acts of human decency basic to national integrity.
Trump is an unnatural disaster. Post-catastrophe response is always relief and rescue. Not wandering aimlessly through the rubble.
There's no left and right. Just left and wrong.
2
What???
I don't know myself after that.
All kidding aside, that was terrific thinking.
Dr Krugman is spot-on that Trump and his ilk can distract poor whites with racism, xenophobia and gun lust well enough that they fail to see their pockets being picked.
But he fails to see an available and successful niche for the economically liberal but socially conservative voter. Socially conservative does not equate to racist. That's just short sighted. Some of us believe that society is better off with fewer legal drugs, less untrammeled sexuality and pornography, and stronger families. It's hard to argue that a closer hewing to at least the secular of the Ten Commandments would not lead to a far stronger society.
The biggest social conservatives in the country are black evangelicals. The biggest libertines are wealthy whites. With them, anything goes.
Where's Huey Long when we need him?
Democrats cannot drop their support for civil rights without losing their base. I will vote Green in a general election before I vote for someone like Donnelly from Indiana who bragged in his commercials about supporting “Trump’s wall.”
Senator Durbin, tread lightly.
The same poll cited by Krugman in the opening paragraph wherein he dismisses Howard Schultz because his approval rating is only 4% also shows he would garner an impressive 8-10% of the vote running against Trump and any likely Democrat in a 3-way race. And this is before Schultz has started to build up significant voter recognition. No wonder the left is scared and apoplectic. And no wonder Krugman is so desperate to discredit the guy.
1
While I often read opinion articles I also often find them full of terms that are undefined. Simply put...pls define what the term “the rich” means?
Without definition the term itself is terribly ambiguous. I am sure I am not classified as a mebmer of “the rich” . Opinion has meaning has meaning to me when I understand the meaning of the key parameters. WIthout them, the piece is largely undefined.
Or, in my words; People are both Conservative and liberal depending on the topic of concern. People are naturally racist to various degrees because of primitive tribal instincts we all possess. All people want money and politicians garner their love by paying them with law. And lastly, all leaders appeal to animal instincts of hate and anger we humans still hold.
That means it could be wondered about that we might be Moderate racist socially selfish greedy people with an affinity for resorting to primitive thought.
"Why did Republicans stake out a position so far from voter's preferences..."
Mr. Krugman, you meant to say why did Democrats stake out a position so far from voter's preferences...when they nominated Hillary Clinton, which in effect, enabled Donald Trump to win.
Maybe the Democrats will wake up and select a viable candidate who can win in 2020 - and it's not Elizabeth Warren.
P.S. Polls reflect if Virginians voted again, they would elect Governor Northam.
Governor, don't let pundits like Paul Krugman force you to resign - don't let one act define your career.
Mr. Krugman also called for Justice Kavanaugh to withdraw - his opinions aren't worth the paper they're written on.
1
@JMS------------------------------Now, Mr. JMS, obviously you're intelligent but obviously you prefer to bluster rather than to think with your good brain. Just to make my point, let's look your today's comment;
". . .they nominated Hillary Clinton, which in effect, enabled Donald Trump to win. " As everyone knows, Mrs. Clinton received approximately 3,000,000 more votes than did Mr. Trump. Therefore, how could you say "why did Democrats stake out a position for far from voter's preferences." If you put those two statements together, they cancel each other out. That's lazy thinking.
I look forward to read another, more logical comment from you I the future.
As you have probably concluded, I am a teacher.
@Mary Feral
Thank you for your comment - blustery may be more descriptive.
Ms Clinton lost - it’s irrelevant what the vote count was.
I believe Joe Biden, who wanted to run and was our Vice President, should have gotten the nomination. The Clintons strong armed the Party - that’s how Hillary became the candidate.
Mr Biden should run again - he probably stands a fighting chance of winning, if the Democrats don’t glum it all up again.
I must beg to differ with Dr. Krugman about his assessment of this country's "racist populists". They are the backbone of Trump voters. And of the two prongs that define them, racism is by far the more important.
Dr. Krugman and other commenters have often decried Trump's actions as "betraying" his base, with his tax cut helping only the very wealthy, and his disastrous trade war that will only hurt his base.
But two years on in the most horrific presidency in my lifetime (and I remember presidents back to Eisenhower), Trump's voters remain in lockstep with him. Why? Because if forced to choose between racism and populism, they'll pick racism. Every single time.
Put simply, Trump voters don't care that they cannot afford higher education or good healthcare. They don't care that there aren't meaningful job retraining programs for them. They don't care that treatment for one of their sick children will bankrupt them. Again, they do not care.
Because Trump's voters' interest is race, and only race. As long as he tells them that as whites, they are the only "real" Americans, they will stand in soup lines for this man. Many liberal pundits are missing the mark when they engage in the intellectual hand wringing that Trump voters are voting against their own interests. Wrong. Race is the interest that drives their votes. They have gotten exactly what they want from Trump - a president who tells them that they are the "true" Americans. This is all they've ever wanted.
1
"In any case, if there’s a real opening for an independent, that candidate will look more like George Wallace"
Let's take a look at George Wallace's presidential bid in 1972. At that time a major issue was forced busing as a remedy for supposed racially segregated public schools in Detroit. Federal Judge Roth attempted to fold in the entire Detroit Metro Area saying in part:
“Transportation of kindergarten children for upwards of 45 minutes, one way, does not appear unreasonable, harmful, or unsafe in any way. ..kindergarten children should be included in the final plan of desegregation.”
Talk about weaponizing the judiciary - Roth seems to have been a pioneer and master.
Wallace ran against forced busing. He won the Michigan Democratic Primary and was supported by many working class whites. Fortunately Judge Roth was limited by the Supreme Court and not allowed to dictate to school districts outside Detroit. Unfortunately Detroit was included and it all but destroyed the public school system in the city. This was long before Betsy Devos or the mortgage-as-an-ATM fad.
Now fast forward to current day NYC. Their public schools are some of the most racially segregated in the country.
Is Krugman leading marches up Fifth Ave linked arm in arm with other OP-ED page writers calling for an end to racial segregation in NYC public schools?
Krugman how's school desegregation working out for you? Do provide guidance to Wallace supporters in flyover country.
1
The real problems are that greed and religion are destroying the world through the climate crisis. When Clinton and Obama became Cheney's fracking salespeople, they drove the good people to Bernie Sanders. Nothing really matters now except getting off the fossil fuels death march. I've lost all respect for my own country.
2
I’ve had a hard time understanding folks who cannot seem to combine thinking with feeling; a head with a heart!
We get the rigid personality disorders: certain grey-haired senators from the least populous states who bloviate endlessly (and ignorantly) about the country’s needs, all the while forgetting their responsibilities to future generations; to wit, their children and grandchildren!
And we get those “leaders” who are socially empathic, but who could not put a budget together if their lives depended on it; as well it someday may!
It’s as if there’s no chance these two groups, so immutably disinclined to understand one another might room together, or perhaps talk to one another to attempt to modify their incomprehensible, incompatible views of social justice and economics!
One might even argue it ain’t about which tribe you belong to; it’s about the language of their exactly similar oaths of office!
On economic issues, especially on social programs, the public is to the left of the Democrats but the numbers of the public who are racist populist are sizable enough for the Republicans to successfully exploit it every election cycle. That's why Trump carried the white working class voters and enough of the suburban and college educated white voters to win the electoral votes. This is the dilemma of the Democrats for they cannot win elections without working class white support. Racism, and the history of it, is like a curse spelled upon the American political system and as long as there are politicians, mostly Republicans, and others who politically and financially benefit from appealing to racism, true democracy and racial harmony will never arrive in America.
38
This comment summarizes Dr Krugman’s piece down to its essential theme.
The secondary thread about Trump’s truly racist approach and his falsely promoted populist in the piece still can’t be ignored.
3
There is a very large block of one-issue voters whose belief system allows them to be manipulated in ways beyond cynical. The religious right, Catholics, Republican leaders, and the very wealthy have formed an unholy alliance. The rot within is destroying all four groups.
The religious right who follow Reverend Falwell, Jr., should soon understand the ugly reasons (pool boy, Fountainbleau, $1.8 million loan, $20/night motel and bar, the necessity for Michael Cohen legal help) he decided to throw his lot (and theirs) in with Mr. Trump. The Catholic Church has its long history of papering over horrific crime. Republican leaders, exemplified by Hastert, Gingrich, Delay, Livingstone, Hyde, Bush, Jr., McConnell, Ryan, Graham, Trump, et. al., suffer moral/ethic rot. The greed of the very wealthy is destroying them.
Some 30-40% of the population cares only about the unborn. Children, immigrants, the uninsured, the old and infirm, even themselves? Not so much.
1
I really don't think @paulkrugman is in touch with the people of our country. I have lived in many diverse places across the country over my lifetime and rarely have I come across people with the extreme left-leaning political stance that he seems to believe is common. Of course, if you only dwell in the large cities of America that is likely the view you will have. That is precisely why many underestimated the chances of Trump being elected. I am not sure who did the polling on Schultz or where it took place, but I believe he is correct in that there are so many in the middle (neither far left or far right) politically that very few candidates, from the established parties, truly represent the views of Americans.
1
@Steve Halstead
Have you seen those maps of the all the states where the size is "distorted" to represent the number of voters rather than geographic size? Have you seen any discussion of the way a majority in the Senate can be contracted from Senators that represent around 25% of the country—and none of them with any of the largest cities?
It is thus easy to think that traveling across the country and talking to people on the way would give you a feeling for the feelings of most of the country, and yet be wrong, because the feelings of those city dwellers you dismissed them as just a small segment of the country maybe because you, like many, conflate geographic size with population size?
Note how the 2016 voter turnout was down from the previous elections, and then realize that it was the voters who did not turn out that elected Donald Trump. Republicans have always wanted a low turnout, from the days of Paul Weyrich in early 1980:
"I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections—quite candidly—goes up, as the voting populace goes down."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw
Certainly many voters fit the definition of "low-information" voter: they have other things to do like multiple jobs, kids to help with their schooling, etc., to spend the needed time to educate themselves beyond the "talking points."
Krugman is right about the divide, but making racism a central part of it is too narrow. Let’s call them “values voters” instead. These are people who could benefit from the Democratic center/left economic agenda, but don’t want to buy in to the rest of the menu: pro-choice in all circumstances, fully secular when it comes to faith, and demands for complete ideological lock-step in all aspects of one’s personal and political present and past. (I say this as a life-long Democrat.)
These voters are less fearful of the economic hand the GOP deals them each day than of what their lives might look like if leaders with values opposed to theirs were in charge. Yes, racism — in forms subtle and not-so — is a part of this for some of these voters. But it is far from the entire reason behind their wariness of Democrats and progressives. The Democratic tent is getting very small these days, as ideological-purity battles rage inside the party. Outsiders, looking in and wondering where they should vote in 2020, are unlikely to be encouraged.
2
@Joe Ferullo
Consider these items in the news:
1) The pushback against the "Black Lives Matter" movement with the counter slogan, "All Lives Matter." Well, if All Lives Matter, why don't Black Lives Matter as much to some police officers as White Lives? Why is the separation of children from their parents who are fleeing from a violent society, at least partially caused by U.S. political intervention in the past (Guatemala, 1954; El Salvador, 1980s; etc.; fortunately, Chile, 1973, did not prove as disastrous)? Doesn't the fact that those seeking asylum, the majority since the Great Recession, have a different color skin make it a big factor in the lack of a big response? Yes, Republicans have decried it, but are they making it clear to Donald Trump to fire those who suggested it and implemented it?
There are many more instances of events, from the near election of Roy Moore to the U.S. Senate (from Alabama), as the replacement for Jeff Sessions (with an interlude of Luther Strange by the governor's appointment). Remember, it was Attorney General Sessions who created the "Separation Policy."
Racism is not the "in your face" (except to Black people) it used to be, but it is still just as corrosive, if only because it can be more easily dismissed by those not directly affected by it.
But your main argument, that voters often reject new things, is more because they are familiar with what exists, having partially effective workarounds, and can be frightened by false claims.
I thought financing social programs was economically conservative. We tax in order to spend. Spending without taxing is economically liberal. Look at the deficit projections. Republicans are economically liberal. They are only economically conservative when Democrats are in power. Their economic position is predictably fluid.
Speaking of Medicaid though, you should look at the news about Utah's prop 3. Utah popularly elected to expand Medicaid through ballot initiative. Meaning a majority of Utahns selected to expand Medicaid. Utah Senate Republicans however are attempting to repeal the popular initiative through fiat. This despite the fact that voters were informed and selected to suffer a tax increase in order to expand Medicaid.
I think this episode demonstrates US politics perfectly. One party refuses to listen to popular opinion. Republicans intentionally twist the law to subvert democracy. Democrats have their own problems but this is a clear cut case of political abuse.
5
People have come to understand that fiscal conservatism is incompatible with social liberalism. The policies that address economic inequality include living wage, universal medical care, affordable or free education, improving infrastructure such as Flint water, public schools, etc., cost money. If fiscal conservatives were true social liberals, they would need to support those policy agendas, and find the money to pay for the upgrade. That would mean getting into the military budget, adopting things like Warren's wealth tax, cutting loopholes in inheritance taxes. The fact is that fiscal conservatives in our day and age sounds like "protect Wall Street, corporations, and wealthy". It really should sound like "let's figure out how to pay for the policy initiatives we think are important". That is why the sector is empty - they are just right wing conservatives hiding behind the status quo.
1
Actually, I've found that Democratic Presidents (and leadership in general) run like that minority 4 percent that is socially liberal, but economically conservative. Bill Clinton did balance Reagan's unsustainable massive deficit spending. Obama did cut spending enough that reduced Bush's tax cuts for elites, while paying for an economic recovery. And both Democratic presidents did not go far enough to reduce racial divides - Obama was also deporter-in-chief. Democrats are the center-right party - and many left of center and left wing voters continue to show up to elections. But the media, owned by elites, never on Democrats' economic track record. The Media focusing on Democrats' social record is enough to get low information voters to continue voting for the elite's party: the GOP. Some elites like the Kochs funded the Tea Party; but now that defiicts are massive under their Party (the GOP), there's no Tea Party fundraising... It's a slow starving of "the beast" to justify cuts to social security and Medicare.
3
Dr. Krugman appears to bewail the demise of the "Rockefeller Republican." As should we all.
49
@Steve my parents remain so-called "Rockefeller Republicans" decades later. They did not vote for Trump. They did not cast votes for a president in the last election (neither did I) as neither candidate was palatable. They live in a heavily Democrat state where the victor is invarible Democrat but they vote GOP.
@JDL - I dropped out of the GOP in 2011, when it became clear that the Tea Party was just recycling past, failed policies, with an added dollop of racism. In CA, one learns to hold one's nose and vote Democratic, since the CA GOP has nichts, nothing and nada to offer, except lower taxes - and even lower services.
4
"[F]ears that Democrats are putting their electoral prospects in danger by moving too far left... are grossly exaggerated."
So maybe Bernie Sanders wasn't such an irresponsible choice?
2
I am skeptical that most Trump voters actually want to tax the rich. They have all been drinking the Kool-Aid of "wealth is the American dream" for too long. In my small, rural, Northeastern, blue state, the working-class conservatives spend most of their time in tax-induced apoplexy. THEY WANT TAXES CUT, PERIOD. For everyone, but especially themselves, and then business. They fully believe the race-to-the-bottom rhetoric about any taxes and any regulations only existing to strangle the economy. It may be different in the South or Midwest where taxes and regulations (at least at the state level) are already relatively lower than what we see here. But here, that's what we see.
Racist populism is definitely a thing. But taxing the rich simply isn't part of that platform. Taking benefits away from the "undeserving poor" sure is, though! Largely, I think, because some of these folks know they're only one streak of bad luck away from being in just that same position, so the farther away they push those who are poorer than themselves, the better they'll feel. A strange psychology ...
3
Prof Krugman,
I believe both Trump and Bernie Sanders made similar messages to the electorate in 2016 - economic nationalism through ending crony capitalistic policies for corporations, income equality, leveling the playing field in favor of workers over management and investors, and an end to favoritism to the needs of the 5%.
Bernie didn't get the nomination, but Trump did. People heard what they wanted to hear from Trump and simply believed. They voted their hopes and dreams for told them what they wanted to hear, despite all the negative and contrary evidence presented on an almost daily basis indicating Trump was a con artist. Voters weren't hearing a similar "hope and dreams" message from Clinton.
Trump's now been exposed as a self-centered, self-aggrandizing petulant man-child more concerned with his image and ego satisfaction than governing. Enough people are defecting from the Trump Alternative Fact Universe to provide an opportunity to a messenger who will fight for them, expose the GOP for the obstructionist Know-Nothings they are, and move the country back to a level playing field.
Find a candidate who will actually not triangulate, but stand for the common American's best interests, not the 5%. All the billionaires' wealth combined cannot defeat a message of economic fairness, equal economic opportunity and equal treatment of everyone. The 5% can fool some of the people only so long before they wake up and see trickle down economics for what it is - a myth.
7
@John Voters didn't hear much of anything of substance from Hillary Clinton. Here in Iowa. where candidates stage pre- pre- campaigns, she initially presented herself as a wife and mother who had dreams which she didn't articulate. Bill showed up and praised her as a "change agent". They managed nothing more than to stir up the loyal rank and file, offering a generic song which, curiously, lacked words. You mention that Trump got his party's nomination while Sanders did not--but it is worth noting here that Sanders might well have gotten his party's nomination if the Democrats had allowed their selection process to develop unhindered, as the Republicans did during the most recent election cycle. After anointing Dole and Romney as candidates and expecting their party to rally and elect, the Republicans had learned their lesson. The Democrats pushed strongly for Hillary Clinton, in the face of very credible evidence that Sanders had the message and vision their party needed to win. Now, in hindsight, it is obvious that the electorate has turned populist; and that is why Trump is president now, though his populism was a sham.
1
Conservatives who have always represented big money wee that keeping the working class down has been the path to accumulating wealth. From there it is a small step to racism which sees the rise of various elements of society as a threat to their privilege. In our society it is fashionable to appear racially and for the the under dog, but when it comes to the bottom line of big money this goes out the window and money as power rules.
2
Trying a second time to get a discussion of Krugman and Wallace...
Speaking of George Wallace, in 1972 he won the Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary. The issue was forced school busing.
In ruling on it, Judge Roth wrote in part:
“Transportation of kindergarten children for upwards of 45 minutes, one way, does not appear unreasonable, harmful, or unsafe in any way. ...kindergarten children should be included in the final plan of desegregation.”
Talk about weaponizing the judiciary and identity politics - Roth seems to have been the master.
Fortunately the SCOTUS did not include the suburban districts. Unfortunately it did include Detroit.
George McGovern was in favor of forced busing as a remedy.
Fast forward to current day NYC. It has one of the most racially segregated public schools systems in the country.
Is it a censorable offense to point out hypocrisy?
Because one might ask if folks who profess to feel strongly about racial harmony and integration, walk the walk? Do they lead active protests against racial segregation in their own public schools systems.
It would be good to clean up their own house then come back to show those in flyover country how it's done.
How's all that working out for you?
The position taken by George Wallace - indeed.
3
I do not think that a racially populist is even in the mix, if the indications of younger voters and the newly elected Democrats are the wave of the future. And I believe they are.
We are all going to be surprised in 2020. All of the issues regarding Gun Reform, Tax Reform, Social safety nets and voter interference by the GOP is going to come home to roost regarding
Conservatives, racists and the wealthy.
The politicians running in both parties are going to be eliminated if they do not start reacting to doing the right thing, as advocated by more and more voters.
3
I'm not against money - heck, I'd like a bit more of it myself. But I am against billionaires running for president. I won't vote for one. Money doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence, judgement, or empathy. The proof of that is sitting in the Oval Office right now.
5
@Pat Boice I think you are eliminating potentially great leaders by saying "never" essentially to billionaires. It really depends on how one came to be wealthy. There are many millionaires in America now who just plodded along but made wise decisions along the way and as a result now they are wealthy. That should not be the excluding factor. Did you inherit your wealth? That is more telling. Kennedy, and probably many others got wealthy through no effort of their own. Is that the kind we want leading us? Is it enough to be charismatic? I think we need to look deeper and look at the soul of the persons wanting to lead us. That's why I like Corey Booker.
1
@Steve Halstead - I agree that charisma isn't enough. And, as you suggest, never say never. I'll recant to the point of saying I don't see any billionaires on the horizon that I want running this country.
As far as "look deeper and look at the soul of the persons wanting to lead us"....reminds me of Bush the Younger saying he had looked into Putin's eyes...
Yes, Americans are economically to the left but only if they see themselves--or people like themselves--as the beneficiaries. One of the chief attacks on ACA was that Obama was giving a better deal to African Americans than to whites. And polling showed that working-class whites bought this line. The bottom line is we all imagine ourselves as "hard-working Americans who play by the rules." The other folks, though, are always the "undeserving poor."
4
Several years ago, some strategists at the Republican Party (or, more likely, somebody at the Koch Brothers’ think tank) came up with a brilliant idea to sell their philosophy—that rich guys should pay less taxes and take more of the pie—to lower and middle class voters, primarily in the south and rural west and mid west. They did this by redrafting their messaging with three big lies:
1. To distract people from the fact that rich guys were taking more and more of the county’s wealth, they remade the message into the concept of higher taxes being being socialist and a form of income redistribution. Hence the bumper stickers we see all over the south on battered pick-up trucks: “We don’t redistribute income, we EARN it.”
2. They created slight of hand by blaming the fact that rich guys were taking more of the pie on “immigrants taking their jobs” and so-called bad trade deals. “Don’t look at how the rich guys are taking all of the country’s wealth and leaving you with scraps to fight over—look at NAFTA and TPP and Mexicans! They are the problem!”
3. They claimed all of the money saved in taxes would be used to pay higher wages (which have been stagnant in real terms for 20 plus years) and to build new plants to create jobs.
These three big lies, and the fact that lower and middle class Trump. voters went for them like dogs chasing a tennis ball at the park, is why we are where we are.
3
@Jack Sonville Perhaps Mr. Sonville could offer his services to the DNC to help frame their messages in a way that might resonate with a wide swath of potential voters not enamored with economic elitism as the defining characteristic of a worthy candidate for public office.
For some people, their class interests and their racial interests coincide. For many American however they are opposite. There used to be many people of color, generally well-to-do folks, who were Republicans and conservatives. This was particularly true in California. However the increasing racist nature of Republican politics drove them out. The same situation holds for working class white people. They were once the core of the "Yellow Dog Democrats" delivering the "Solid South" election after election. The increasing anti-racist politics of the Democratic Party drove them out.
They can vote their class interests or their racial interests but not both. The Democrats cannot win those voters by appealing to racism but they can win many of them if they make a real effort to deliver goods on their class interests.
2
"Hence the failure of our political system to serve socially conservative/racist voters who also want to tax the rich and preserve Social Security"
That's where you go wrong. They ARE being served, by Trump. Well, not in reality, but they are getting exactly what they hoped for according to the alternative facts they are served by their media. Remember Trump saying “We’re saving Social Security. The Democrats will destroy Social Security. We’re saving Medicare. The Democrats want to destroy Medicare".
His base eats this up, giving him his 40% approval rating and their unswavering devotion. Facts like this column will never change their minds. Only when the checks stop showing up in their mailbox might they understand, and even then their media will convince them it's all the fault of those Democrats and probably Hillary too.
2
We need more editorial writers to recognize the massive impact of race on American politics. Racism is by far the dominant reason why we have Trump as our President. You correctly observe that the Democratic Party loses millions of voters because it refuses to tolerate racism at virtually every level. But the party cannot waver in an effort to attract these "racist-populist" voters. Attacking racism is not only the correct and moral position. As highlighted by the mid-terms, running minority candidates can offset the loss of support from those you describe as racist populist.
1
@Disillusioned I strongly disagree with your stance. There may be a faction that responds yet to racism in our country, but it is so far removed from where it was in the past that it is clearly not a "Dominant" reason. We have Trump in the White House because the Democrats put up nothing as an alternative. Here is their chance now that so many are disillusioned with our current President. If the Democratic party pushes far to the left when 40% of Americans or more are in the center politically, it will open the door for 4 more years of GOP leadership in the WH. Heaven (and Democrats) help us.
"Conservative" is easy--"conserve the past"--varying with how far past.
"Socially Conservative" evidently covers everything but economics. It too varies with how far past, but also with the fuzzy boundaries of 'economics'--production, distribution and consumption of good and services--could cover anything, including love and sex--certainly sex--as Trump knows.
But the mainstream includes race, gender, and all public services. So "Social Conservative" is indeed racist, gyno-repressive (dependent wife and mother), homo-hatred/phobia, as well as xenophobia, anti-education except for the wealthy, and god-story monolatry.
"Economic Conservative" begins with Reagan's resurrection of pre-Roosevelt (FDR and TJr)--essentially the Robber Baron days. Beyond that it's Mercantilism and Feudalism.
"Social Liberal" begins with "free thinkers"--anti-dogmatist/traditonalist--about race, god-stories, gender and sexual oppression.
"Economic Liberal" however is messy. In centuries m18/19 it meant anti-mercantilism, anti-monarchist corruption. Free from THAT government was like social liberal--free from political stupidity and classist corruption.
But as Private Enterprise (free from government regulation, markets free from law and logic) evolved into neo-feudalism and worker neo-serfdom (union heyday aside), "Liberal" came to mean "Progressive" --better welfare for common people and well-managed macro-economics--really political-economics--based on property tax and labor law.
2
@Michael Kubara
Classifying/describing political platforms/ideologies in terms of "Progressive vs Regressive" is better/clearer than "Liberal vs Conservative"; or the stupid "Left vs Right"
It applies especially to Tax Law and spreads out from there.
The term "civil rights" covers a broad range of people whose rights are being or have been abused, from people of color to the LGBTQ population. I would argue that many people in the United States, in particular the evangelical population, find most instances of the LGBTQ world to be anywhere from weird to deviant. (I don't want to hear from the pearl clutchers; that is not my opinion.) Unless and until the Democrats/social liberals can address this very real issue, it cannot bring true reconciliation to the electorate.
1
America has moved to a democracy manipulated by oligarchs like the Kochs and Mercers. They, with Russian help and cover from the GOP stalwarts like McConnell and Ryan, took over Congress and the Presidency. This alliance tore up protections for consumer health, safety, environmental and financial regulations, waged a war against the ACA, and staged a huge raid on the poor and middle-class disguised as a tax-cut. In Trump, the American oligarchy has found a man after its own heart - with no principles and no convictions other than that he should make more money, no matter how. The White House is the exact point where Russian sabotage, international crime, the American plutocracy, and the New York mafia meet.
1
one other group is missing in american politics.....liberals that would be considered liberal in other western democracies.
it was amusing that obama was considered liberal, especially in his first term, when he was against gay marriage, for capital punishment and felt compelled to mention that he read the good book and prayed.
not that liberals can't be religious, but having to proclaim it at all.
When I recall the ridicule that Bernie's income equalizing socialist programs garnered from some of the folks we had thought were liberals, it breaks my heart. This column is just the conscience of an illiberal liberal, still trying to justify losing the last presidential election. The Clinton Third Way was modeled to capture much of that racist populist quarter that Paul offers as the independent billionaire's only available constituency. I think he hasn't quite realized that he's ruminating on that constituency because he believes that the Bernie pioneered socialism he ridiculed may be swaying many of those populist racists who have been so crushed by income inequality that they are recognizing these democrat socialists as the finger in the eye of the wealthy insufferables that Trump has proven not to be.
2
Those who are socially conservative but politically/economically liberal are not necessarily racists.
Certain Mennonites are a good example of this. They are conservative on behavioral matters, but their pacifism has sent them leftward on economic and foreign policy issues.
The same could be said of the liberation theology Catholics. They support all the traditional doctrines on personal behavior, but their political and economic beliefs get them branded as Marxists.
2
There is the economically "conservative" donor class, and there is the economically ignorant voter class that gives them their votes. There are not economically conservative working class people – people don't vote against their own interests out of ideology, only out of mistake.
The socially conservative (bigoted) economically liberal box is empty because the criteria are self-contradictory. Racist medicare for all, racist minimum wage, racist free tuition, are not viable positions. We have at least made that amount of progress.
1
The democrats really shot themselves in the foot when they decided to take the stand that those who want less immigration or legal immigration are “racists”. That is the wedge the will drive off the most important block which is the working class midwestern men. If only there were a democrat or an outsider that could stomach being called a racist who was conservative on immigration but liberal on economics, pro-worker, families then he could beat Trump. Otherwise with Kamala or someone that does not appeal to rust-belt workers, there will be 4 more years of Trump. Mark my words.
52
@Allright. I know this doesn’t disprove your observation, but I’m living in the rust belt and Kamala Harris appeals to me.
14
The polling clearly shows that 60+ percent of Americans think 'the wall' is a dumb idea, and that 81% of voters believe there should be a path to citizenship for undocumented (a.k.a. 'illegal') immigrants.
If anything, trump is on the wrong side of that 'wedge'.
16
@Mike Dream on, how do you think Trump got elected?
1)As evidenced in 2016 polls are flawed by social desirability bias (people do not tell the truth if it is considered socially unacceptable. They want to please pollster.)
2) It does not matter if 90% are anti-wall if they are already in democratic states like NY, CA, CT. All that matters are the positions of the voters in the key states that a democratic must swing like PN, WI, MI, FL, NC. Take the poll there and then adjust the result for the social desirability bias.
4
IDK. I used to think I was a "conservative" . Now things have changed so much. I seem to have become a "Liberal". But I still think the same way.
IDK. I just don't know.
2
In Europe the combination of economic populism and xenophobia is a common in politicians. The question is, why is America different?
How’d those polls work out for you in 2016? Krugman avers that social liberals/economic conservatives don’t exist? His own wishful thinking, as such people threaten the myth of the progressive majority that Krugman promotes. I suggest some travel west of the Hudson to get a new perspective, or maybe even to Buffalo.
3
"Voters want an economic move to the left — it’s just that some of them dislike Democratic support for civil rights, which the party can’t drop without losing its soul."
And I thought I was a cynic. Assuming this isn't satire- it seems to beckon the racist populist as a preferable alternative to...what exactly?
Americans are largely ignorant of their political system and the policies of its government. This ignorance, willful or not breeds distrust and at times an openness to racist/wedge politics that seeks to exploit fear and insecurity to serve what are essentially the enemy of the people.
The struggle must not be defined as a Left politically cynical blueprint- but a staunch support of truth, integrity and democratic principles- not matter how difficult and costly in the short run.
The Democratic Party may now have "very little tolerance for even the appearance of racism" but it certainly is showing tolerance for the appearance of anti-semitism. More specifically, BDS appears to be anti-semitism to the older Jewish voters of Broward and Palm Beach Counties in Florida and in a state as purple as Florida, the Democrats cannot win without a very solid majority of those voters. There are very few paths for democrats to 270 electoral votes that do not include Florida's 29 so the tolerance that Democrats are showing for BDS may very be the key to Donald Trump winning a second term.
1
An anti-immigrant, tax hikes on the rich, Medicare for all white guy would win easily. Republicans have alredy shown the anti-immigrant/racial plank trumps all else, while many Democrats would hold their noses and vote in their economic interests.
1
While racial hostility is at the core of the modern GOP there are other elements equally significant: the gun lobby, religious rights (anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-science), climate change denial, anti social welfare, anti Medicare, and of course, anti-taxes. Not an attractive picture.
1
Let's get to the essence.
The USA is headed toward a theocratic demagogic plutocracy with consequential diminished status, protections, and rights as a People. Liberal democracy, modernity, and egalitarianism thrown in the dumpster.
This is NOT hyperbole. Look around and get woke.
Any sane thoughtful honest consideration of the wealth/power being aggregated by the 1% would have to conclude plutocracy is at the door.
And any sane thoughtful honest consideration of of what is the delivery system for the plutocracy would have to conclude GOP.
And since that delivery system needs a solid base to vote them into power they need to play to the most historically rabid - their base will force the GOP to tinge the plutocracy with theocracy, xenophobia, militarism, forms of racism, hyper-regionalism, lack of inclusiveness and diversity, etc.
The demagoguery the GOP will by necessity drag along will scare even the plutocrats! Fortunate for them - as powerful elites - they'll somehow get around it - we will not be so lucky. Handmaid's Tale?
Again this is NOT hyperbole, impossible, liberal hysteria. Many were DEAD wrong in 1930s Europe to ignore warnings of nightmares to come.
The game boils down to this: 42% will vote GOP immutably. The 58% that do not have the authoritarian, theocratic, etc. proclivities of the 42% MUST save this Nation from existential ruin.
58% MUST vote and vote D now. From the Ds shake out 2 sane patriotic Parties later when dangers eliminated.
I don't think Schultz will give up just because he has no constituency. If his fiscal conservatism can split D votes at all and throw the election to some other fiscal conservative, that still works for him. He is rich enough to kee[ his family insulated from the social conservatism/racism/misogyny.
1
I agree with almost everything you are saying; except that everyone who voted for Trump is racist; or that the populist right is necessarily racist. When given the option between Trump, someone who was pretending to be an economic populist, and Hillary, someone who was openly an elitist; most people who are poor are going to choose the economic populist; in spite of the fact that he is racist. The small elite minority (or 1%) that you outline in the article, benefit from this myth that there are these polarities between the poor; the poor white racists and the non white anti-racists. I would argue that those are way overstated and are a myth that benefits the elite, because it accentuates this idea that they are in between two opposing radical fringe groups and are the pragmatists. But poor white people and poor people of color are only told that we oppose each other from the people who benefit from that tension. Bc Trump has betrayed the working class that voted for him, someone like Bernie Sanders can destroy him in the election by combining these two opposing subgroups that make up the vast majority of the country-the not wealthy. Our true enemy is the middle. The billionaire class, the Schultzs, the Kochs. They horde their money for what? Are they saving up for a nuke? Or are they just making sure the rest of us don't have money in order to artificially inflate the value of their own money? They are evil, and will be overthrown by a united multiracial undercaste
2
Republicans continue to pedal the updated version of the Southern Strategy, which Donald Trump proved is not a Southern Strategy at all. He also proved that the time for racist dog whistles is past. He also has proved that the essence of the strategy has not changed; throw red meat to the ravenous base, while handing trillions to billionaires, just like him. What sets Trump aside from all the other Republicans around him and those who went before him and should frighten every American so much more, is this might not be a cynical act. Donald Trump might actually believe, deep in his heart, every contradictory, nonsensical, lying statement that makes its halting way out of his mouth. Otherwise, he is a much better actor than anyone has given him credit.
2
Still have the blinkers on a bit. Getting close with "when it comes to economic issues the public is overwhelmingly left of center; if anything, it’s to the left of the Democrats." The dirty little secret is that the D Party was captured by "centrists" in the 70s, but they are really Rockefeller Republicans in drag. Bill Clinton was to the right of Nixon with respect to domestic policy, Obama ditto except less so on law and order issues. (It's not for nothing that Hillary Clinton was a Goldwaterite at one time. Pardon me, ma'am, but your slip is showing...)
The D establishment went limo to the Street, and only looked good by comparison to the Rs, which went wacko, on hoarding (because they could, as you've said in a different respect) and on fearmongering to MASK it. (Fear, Goering noted, is an effective manipulation tool, and the Rs have been masters at social fearmongering - Nixon's Southern Strategy, Reagan's dogwhistling, Atwater, Rove, the coziness with the evangelical right...)
Certainly plenty plutocratic power has been behind Reaganism and what's left of Republicanism. But there's been plenty covering its bets behind the D establishment, which slipstreamed behind the abhorrent Rs. At least the Rs are more upfront about it. The "Democrats?" Duplicitous.
The fight to correct the wild inequality acceleration is thus with two Republican parties. That only amplifies that it must be party-transcending.
Doctor, do you still not see your darling Hillary for what she is?
Is not the main problem that the American system somehow does not allow new parties to blossom?
1
Economic Conservatives don't like taxes and want small government with nearly-zero social services. Grover Norquist's quip is their fantasy: "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
It's a fantasy because they never really shrink it; they just cut taxes and run monster deficits.
2
The, "it's the racists stupid," meme is becoming tedious if not dangerous, not so much because it's not in many respects accurate, but because it consumes the Democratic Party to the extent that its rhetorical use has become ubiquitous to the extent that it heightens the class divisions exposed by the "deplorables" mentality triggered any time they see a conservative on the loose.
In fact, not only can it arguably be referred to as reverse racism, relying on it to the exclusion of other legitimate traits to define conservatives and working class people not only trivializes the term, but by exclusion avoids the real issues that cost Democrats the Presidency and, incidentally, two Supreme Court appointments.
The fact that the recent gains in the House were driven by appeal to local issues and voters should make it apparent that, to win elections and implement their policies, politicians need to appeal to as broad a constituency as possible, even if it requires a little rhetorical sleight of hand…
2
I wonder why Krugman stopped there. What about the Dems' social policy (read: trans in the bathrooms of their choice)? What about immigration (read: abolish ICE; every living soul, if she/he wants to, has the right to move to the US; fee everything for all: education, healthcare, retirement, European-style vacations). It is no coincidence that while Europe is sinking both demographically and socially, the US is standing strong: the voters of this country are no fools (hence Trump and not Clinton). Those who like Paul, think they are holier than thou (read the amerikkan voter) will be disappointed again and again.
3
Interesting column. Extreme MeTooism and Exaggerated Pseduo Racism which chooses 35 year old offenses to remove individuals from important jobs gets to the point of absurdity. I see a 35 year old image as part of a graduate yearbook which probably no body looks at as disgusting, but not meriting a resignation. The statue of limitations or rape in Massachusetts is a full 20 years less!! Likewise Al Franken was accused of groping inappropriately 10 years ago. Disgusting behavior to be sure but not meriting a resignation. This is reminiscent of accusing Dr.s who had a picture of Joe Stalin on magazines in their offices as card carrying communists. If Northham's polices are strongly racist then he should resign. If Franken still exhibits lewd behavior likewise. If we demand political correctness out of all politicians for their entire lives we may find that there is nobody left to govern us.
3
Krugman has a map dividing the American electorate along axes representing economic and social positions of voters. He uses it to really illuminate reality. He usually describes the social axis in terms related to race, which is very important. But the fit is also excellent with relation to sex. The Democrats just elected a LOT of women. The Republicans, led by Trump, just jettisoned their one black woman in Congress.
The body of "thought" that calls itself American libertarianism is simply a fraud. Or, more accurately, it is at least two frauds.
There are basically two subsets of this joke: (1) Charles Koch Foundation (uh, er, now known as the Cato Institute) types who demand laissez-faire liberalism with no constraints on capitalism like pesky taxes or terrible laws and regulations about labor or pollution or really anything capitalists want to do, seize or horde while singing hosannas to Ayn Rand's nonsensical pulp novels; and, (2) simpletons who wish to sound grandiose and "serious" by wrapping their "philosophy" in a big, fancy word - a philosophy that can be pretty much boiled down to "I wanna be able to smoke weed, and I don't wanna pay taxes."
The first subset wields substantial influence and power. It is a grave danger. Unfortunately, this subset owns the GOP outright, a sizable number of Democrats and an ever-increasing percentage of the federal bench, including 5 out of 9 Supreme Court seats.
The second subset is just silly. But, they can be entertaining. I mean, Penn Jillette puts on a pretty good magic show.
Michael Bloomberg tried to be the GOP leader who combined economic conservatism and racial/social liberalism, but found there was no place for him in the Republican Party. So now he will try his luck as an Independent or as a quasi-Democrat. Schultz is deluded if he thinks he has widespread appeal. Maybe he should run for mayor of Seattle or for congress. He is like the mayor of South Bend who thinks he has an irresistible message. Sorry, not so. Perhaps Sherrod Brown can appeal to disaffected white voters while maintaining a liberal socio/economic message that would resonate with non-whites. The GOP allied with the racist South after the Civil War and never came out strongly for civil rights, even when Eisenhower and Nixon were the party's leaders. The GOP rejected Nelson Rockefeller, who, like Bloomberg, had a message of inclusion along with the billionaire friendly economic message. The fastest growing non-white group in the U.S. these days are people from Asia. Perhaps one of their leaders can fill the empty space that Prof. Krugman has identified: very rich, liberal, and non-white.
We tried this 3rd party Independent in 1992 with billionaire Ross Perot. And he was, I believe, the biggest 3rd party vote getter with 19%. Back then it was welcomed, there was Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, so candidates were more or less acceptable all the way around. Today is different, we have a despot in the Oval Office.
A 3rd party candidate no matter how well qualified could swing the election away from the Democrats, and that would be tragic. Howard Schultz should pull back and wait until this current President is nothing but a bad memory in the minds of the world.
I wouldn't write off "racist populists" quite just yet. Trump proved that's a voter segment you can win the presidency with. I think America will be plagued with politicians who are going to try to run on a combination of xenophobic sentiments married to promises of "yuge amazing healthcare" for at least a couple of election cycles.
1
@citybumpkin Modelling who voted for Trump using exit polls suggested that the best fit to actual voting was those who told the exit polls they voted for Trump, + black males who refused to answer the exit pollsters. Black unemployment is currently as low as it has ever been measured.
Don't assume that Trump won with racist populists: male populists of all races would be closer.
What makes Schultz's campaign even more ridiculous is the very obvious failure of his political strategy in recent times under the failed leadership of Democrat elites like Clinton and Schumer. For decades they parroted the same narrative that the key to electoral success was capturing this non-existent socially liberal and economically conservative (e.g., the "white suburban") voting bloc. We all know how that turned out...
"The other is the absence of economically liberal, socially conservative politicians — let’s be blunt and just say “racist populists.”"
OK got it, social conservatism = racism, and there is no possibility of being a principled socially conservative on any topic without being a racist who wants George Wallace reincarnated.
This kind of reductio ad absurdum is why Krugman (and perhaps even the pollsters) can't find anyone in the "missing quarters." They are reducing voters to caricatures.
At least we now know Krugman's true thoughts about whether the minds of voters are capable of entertaining any subtleties, regardless of the slate of candidates either party shoves to the front of the line.
What's really missing is a mix of conservative positions on different issues. Here is what I'd like to see:
1. Big-time environmentalism.
2. A strong but not stupid national defense.
3. No cozying up to dictators but some degree of Realpolitik.
4. Limited immigration, both legal and illegal. Immigration is bad for bears.
5. Full and equal rights for all races of Americans.
6. The right to buy into Medicare but no obliteration of private insurance.
7. Full women's rights.
8. Full rights for gays and transgender people.
9. The end of identity politics and the demonization of the white male.
10. Higher taxes for the rich.
Are there candidates out there for someone like me? I don't see them.
Shultz and Bernie Sanders, two egotistical fakers sitting in their very own Wonderland, oblivious to reality in any form. Money corrupts and Trump and his mob are living proof. Labels like liberal and conservative seem to have lost their meaning to many of us in this constant tug of war. Dogma and ideology have swamped reason.
The GOP is the current champion of hypocrisy, greed and corruption. For the record though: Historically the D's find ways to fragment and spoil a good story. Have we gone too far into the abyss of confusion created by some of the 1%, Trump, Mercers, Putin, etc?
I don't think so. Trump and team are on the verge of dissolution, possibly prison for all. A mix of elderly and younger leaders have surfaced that see the problems clearly. My own choice of leadership going forward would a Trio of strong women: Harris, Warren, and Klobuchar. A team with a very strong supporting cast, e.g. Pelosi, AOC, and others. Leave Biden out. A good man but can't keep his mouth shut.
This was a missed opportunity to write an interesting column; it lands as a blanket attack on social conservatives as racists instead.
That kind of unsubtle portrayal of Trump voters *is* (unlike economic populism) the kind of thinking that could give away an election that is the Democratic Party's to lose.
What's sad is that it wasn't even necessary - the rest of the piece would have been fine if you'd just stuck with "social conservatives".
The empty headed and spiritually empty quarters, however, are at full capacity in the Republican party.
Read the Constitution and try to square it with our current form of government; Want to abandon the Constitution to usher in a"progressive" future? Once you give away your liberty you may never recover it. Careful what you wish for.
1
You want to understand American politics? Go to a hot dog or relish factory. People like hot dogs, and relish. But if they had the slightest inkling of what went into making them they wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.
Who knew that lying would be such a big seller (Hot dogs)? And that the bigger the lie, the more they'd buy (Relish)? The modern GOP - That's who.
"We're going to poison your water and air and you're going to thank us for it! We'll just call it deregulation!"
"We're going to enrich the rich while fleecing the middle class and you're going to root for it! We'll just call it tax reform!"
"We're going to have endless wars in places you've never heard of, filled with people who never did anything to us, and you're going to cheer us on! We'll just call it patriotism!"
Who knew that people could be so gullible? So gullible that even with the most powerful form of individual political self-expression available to them they would so willingly give it all away to the biggest sleaziest bunch of crooks to ever come down the pike. To me, that's the big mystery.
How the greatest coup d'etat was carried out right in front of our eyes with everyone watching. With the vast minority of voters, and the acquiesce of the vast majority of voters full consent.
The British have railed against this tyranny in our own country far more than we have. All we've done so far is complain from our living rooms, with a panicked hope that someone else will come along and save us.
The situation described is a bit of a greek comedy, if you read it correctly. I laughed several times. The problem for even the racist populists is that the working people are largely brown. How can you be both for the working people and against the other? It seems a contradiction in terms.
On the other hand, the democrats have tried everything except being liberal. Maybe they will try it this time for a change. That means being both socially and fiscally progressive. The myth was at one time that that is what they were. I guess they have too many centrists to ever accomplish anything meaningful, which is why people were convinced that Trump was a populist, because the democrats sure were not. Two parties for the rich. If you got money then you got politicians to represent you. If not then you'll go with whoever the best liar is. Either way, you get a liar.
There are no racist populist politicians because there is essentially no significant racism in the US any more. That is why the progressive media needs to constantly barrage us with examples of racism from scores and hundreds of years ago in order to keep whipping up minority resentment and white guilt. So-called examples like crime statistics, mass incarceration, and racial gaps in achievement have nothing to do with nonexistent current racism and everything to do with the cultures of the affected groups.
2
"...... maybe the gravitational attraction of big money"
Politics has become the last refuge where the sexis, racist and scamming dregs who will always exist in any society can find those of similar empty mind. It has been moving in this direction since we began accepting myth as our guiding light and most recently as our treasury underwent this administration's major surgery.
Our present government has been staging a worthless show and we along with the rest of the world know it. The only beneficiaries already had more than any of us will ever know and none of them on either side of the aisle is returning a penny.
We really are a great nation of truly great people who have been misled throughout my life and if we stay at the top for the next ten years it will surprise me.
The only possibility I see is the surge of women in politics.
............. maybe?
I am truly saddened by how much race and poverty effect the vote of far too many in this country. Too many bought into the welfare queen argument of Reagan and we are living the aftermath of that largely false concept.
It seems Krugman, the fake economist, is once again choosing to ignore his supposed profession (economics), instead choosing to comment on electoral politics and demographics . It's easy to understand why.
This is his first column since the Labor department announced a second consecutive month of 300,000 plus job creation. With unemployment at historic lows, incomes growing above 3 percent, (higher for blue collar workers), and the economy roaring under Trump's policies, it seems Krugman thinks it best to avoid talking about about the economy altogether. Instead, let's talk about everything EXCEPT the economy.
Krugman rises each day to extol the virtues of collectivism, and dismiss the positive results of capitalism. With the collapse of Venezuela, and a president in office who is an unabashed capitalist, and with the successes of Trump's policies obvious to everyone but rank progressive partisans, what is a socialist economist to do? That's right--avoid the subject. I say we pay no attention to the faux economist behind the curtain.
6
@Jesse The Conservative
Ah, the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
@Jesse The Conservative: Relativity divides you from me. You see things as absolutes, I see them in relation to other things. All economies are "mixed", with private sectors where spending is voluntary, and public sectors where it is coerced. The US coerces $700 billion of spending per year on military activities, which does nothing to improve the quality of life, but I would wager you find it indispensable if not inadequate.
PS...one has to imagine, had the Obama policies been able to achieve the economy we see today, Krugman would have climbed to the very tippy top of his ivory tower, to beat his progressive chest in victory. As it turned out however, Obama's more socialist, anti-business policies kept a lid on capitalism's animal spirits. Those policies have now been replaced with pro-growth, pro-business policies--resulting in more investment, more hiring, and measures of business sentiment that are off the chart.
Let's talk about the economy, Mr. Krugman. After all, what are you afraid of--that everything you have been preaching for 20 years will be shown to be just so much bunk?
The USA soon could be a theocratic Plutocracy. Why? The GOP wins elections and such is its mission!
Yet 58% of us know intellectually that the GOP is an existential danger and the D Party really is not.
But a good part of that 58% seems too lazy, too petulant, too uncaring to cast a vote to save our Country.
So the 42% of us who cannot do anything but vote GOP rule elections! They will not change and we waste time trying to entice them to vote D.
Half of those are psychologically bound authoritarian oriented conservatives.
Enamored of strong figures;
convinced that their faith/gut/opinion trumps facts;
sure of their innate superiority;
resistant to anything that threatens established power and privilege;
defenders at all costs of their ingrained dogma/doctrine/presuppositions;
in some fashion adherents to a brand of Calvinistic divine election.
Another quarter of the 42% at some level allow their inner tinges of racism, bigotries, xenophobia, sexual insecurities, fears, anger, and hyper-regionalism to compel their GOP vote.
Another quarter of the 42% simply are hyper-susceptible to the misinformation and overly simplistic framing of the GOP. The Ds just seem "effete" to them relative to easy to buy GOP framing.
Not complicated - the 58% does not vote or votes not seriously - the 42% rules the day. Got to stop!
We're doomed unless at least 80% of the 58% votes.
Get woke VOTE and vote D - shake out proper conservative and progressive Parties later.
3
This makes enough sense to be truly scary.
A huge part of our population needs people to look down on and despise, be it due to their origin, religion, political leanings, appearance, or socioeconomic status, and can always find those who are 'lower' to blame for all social ills.
Donald Trump is a prime example. He looks down on everybody unless they're kissing his feet. And those, he'll stomp on without a thought. The man who has been only an occasional Republican is the perfect example of one.
3
@KJ
What is needed is for the forces of light and reason to buy a big tent and to evangelize to the sinners who now reject the social gospel.
@KJ
"A huge part of our population needs people to look down on and despise"
I know that KJ thinks he or she is talking about Republicans, but it also fits Mrs. Clinton's famous dismissal of "deplorables".
@Charlesbalpha
In spite of having voted for her, I have an intense dislike for Hillary Clinton. Unlike her husband, she really doesn't like people in general. And it shows.
The real target of this column? Howard Schultz. If he only has 4% approval why are liberals so afraid of him?
3
@JB Liberals are afraid of Schultz because of GOP-biased gerrymandering to juice the electoral college. They need to vote in between 5 and 10% in greater to be even with the GOP results. That 2-4 percent can lose the election, even if they represent the majority of the popular vote nationally. Lesson learned with Jill Stein and 2016.
I take issue with two ideas of Mr Krugman: the statement that Trump is not a true 'racist populist' ...what does that mean anyway? , and that Democrats are moving too left, endangering their prospects. The first idea is that Trump is not keeping a racist agenda is clearly false. His Muslim ban, immigration policies and mass detentions are all following thru on racist ideas. Why Krugman does not feel these are somehow playing to a racist base, and is faking begs credulity.
The second idea that Dems are moving too far is not supported by polls that show a majority of people support Medicare for all and taxes on billionaires.
The country's middle class has been beaten down for 30 years and now is the time to correct that!
28
@grantgreen Trump is a true racist - but he's certainly not a true "populist." While he talked at his rallies about better health care for all, and ending tax subsidies to rich people, etc., he has governed as a true modern day Republican - tax cuts for the rich, bupkis for everyone else.
17
@grantgreen Mr. Krugman isn't arguing DT sold out the "racist" part of his "racist populist" formulation. It was the "economic populism" part that DT has sold out by cutting taxes on the 1%, thus exacerbating wealth inequality.
20
@grantgreen. Your second point is also off - Krugman IS saying that Democrats (the politicians) have room to move to the left, to match the base.
10
"Voters want an economic move to the left — it’s just that some of them dislike Democratic support for civil rights, which the party can’t drop without losing its soul."
The Democratic Party lost its soul long ago Paul. It lost it when it championed free trade, unguarded borders, Nafta, destroyed defense budgets, tolerated the indecency of Bill Clinton, allowed unions to become corrupt, failed to fix Social Security and bankrupted every American downtown and small business for the pursuit of the mythological better jobs and better living through more imports of products from China as our factories closed and our industries moved offshore.
The Democratic Party has betrayed America for the last 30 years and now you're lamenting the loss of Democratic Party members and conservative left wingers.
The Democrats moved too far left many years ago. The issues Paul are jobs, industry, affordable housing and healthcare, education for our children, and retirement with dignity. Not to forget safety without sacrificing our right to self-defense. The Republicans and the Democrats equally and together polluted our Democratic institutions. They've corrupted our judicial processes and disenfranchised minorities.
We don't need a coffee billionaire or any other billionaire. We need decent, hardworking, intelligent and socially responsible citizens who want legitimate government and institutions. Not corruption from Wall St. or Washington DC.
Where are the legitimate candidates?
65
@Jay
You make some excellent points, sir. But "destroyed defense budgets" is puzzling. The one thing both parties share is an addiction to pouring money into defense. The left just pours a little less.
44
@Jay
"Tolerated the indecency of Bill Clinton." Really? In what way did Democrats allegedly do that? Donald Trump essentially defines the word indecency. More false comparisons that "both sides" equally contributed to the problem.
49
@Jay
Elizabeth Warren for one is a very legitimate candidate who has struggled against corruption and the economic elite for some time. And I'm sure there are others. Nancy Pelosi is another through not a presidential candidate.
34
Politics is the process of deciding to what extent the government plays Robin Hood.
Sorry, Professor Krugman, many of us socially progressive but economically moderate independents are not staking out positions that protect an elite, and we are not racist. Rather, we believe that our middle class families should be allowed to keep the post-tax proceeds of ours, and our ancestors’ labors rather than having them confiscated and given to others who have the same opportunity to work, sacrifice and save. Otherwise, what’s the point of working and saving to help educate and support one’s family?
The Democratic Party’s candidate and platform in 2020 will ignore us at their own peril.
40
@Adk
I don’t think middle class families are in danger of their fortunes being confiscated by any of the current Democratic candidates. Warren is talking about taxing fortunes of over 50 million, hardly a middle class level. Other plans to raise taxes on the very rich aren’t likely to affect the middle class. As other reader commented above, if you support the socially responsible policies, you should realize that they need to be funded. A higher tax on the top earners and closing many of the loopholes they are currently abusing, is a necessary first step.
49
@Adk Because business is not paying living wages and republicans keep voting down minimum wages. Life WAS better for the middle class in the 1950s with higher wages and higher taxes!
25
@Adk
I disagree with you but I thank you for articulating for this discussion the familiar crux of the white working-class lament that is: "I work hard and don't get any help from the government, but I have anecdotal or Fox-supplied proof that all those black and Hispanic people are getting free stuff with my tax dollars that I'm not getting."
First, no "they" are not all getting free stuff.
Second, you are getting plenty of free stuff that you don't even realize or admit to.
Third, no "they" don't always have the"same opportunity to work." Wouldn't it be a good thing for America if we all did?
Fourth, how much did your ancestors leave you? Estate taxes under Obama exempted any tax on the first $5 million. Is a $5 million estate middle class?
Fifth, if you're worried about Elizabeth Warren and her fellow Democrats "confiscating" your wealth, you must be a middle class person with $50 million in assets, because that's the amount at which the proposed tax would start.
And Sixth, if you don't realize that one of the greatest problems with our country right now is ever growing income inequality, exacerbated by the last GOP tax giveaway to the richest, again, than I guess you will return to your lament that the problem is "other" people getting all that free stuff, while Trump and the billionaires rob you blind.
How's that working for you?
51
Part of the problem is that what counts as fiscal conservatism today, has become as much orthodoxy to the GOP as their social positions. Namely, it is about two things: 1. Lower taxes for the wealthiest of Americans; 2. Support of big donors' interests. Free market economics is not really the focus the party has pretended it to be. This should be clear to anyone that is paying attention to the Trump administration's attacks on free trade and globalism in general.
Low information voters have been exploited for their votes by the GOP since Nixon. The formula is simple. The big donors and their GOP tools cut taxes for themselves and opportunities for improved social programs that would actually help those they exploit. These plutocrats then turn around and blame the economic woes experienced by the low information types on the educated, suburban, salaried "elite". The low information voters are appealed to by this anger towards "liberals" as well as their social conservatism. This message is then amplified by the echo chamber of conservative talk radio and Fox News. It works every time.
Democrats' messaging needs to improve. They need a simple message that can explain the benefits of socially democratic programs as opposed to the pejorative "socialist" narrative the GOP has successfully hijacked with its references to Venezuela and the old Soviet Union. It must be simple, concise, and not insult the average working class American.
2
@Jason Vanrell
Actually the "elite" really exist. They're the people who removed the abortion issue from democratic control for 40 years because they feared the people would vote for regulation. They're still afraid. The "low-information" voters understood what was going on perfectly well.
@Charlesbalpha
How so? Are you implying that a Supreme Court decision was somehow affected by working, suburban, salaried "elites" in 1973?
That sounds just a bit conspiratorial. If that is your logic, then it proves my point. A critical thinker would not come to that conclusion.
Like it or not, it is true that too many of the electorate lack critical thinking skills. These types are easy to exploit when their biases are appealed to. The solution lies in a simple message that can lead the majority of voters to better decisions.
@Jason Vanrell
"Like it or not, it is true that too many of the electorate lack critical thinking skills."
Such as feminists who think the abortion regulation is an illegitimate issue because it is a "religious issue". There is no legal precedent for this. Roe vs Wade said nothing about opposition to abortion being religious. And nobody criticized the civil rights revolution just because there were numerous ministers involved.
Excellent analysis. Your point is certainly borne out in Europe, where racist populists are the order of the day. Indeed, for many of the far-right European parties, attacking immigrants and non-white people as threats to the traditional social welfare state and the ethnic-religious solidarity of the community is a large part of what motivates them. Here in Canada, the situation is more complex. Canada is often somewhere mid-way between Europe and the US. The Conservative Party here is openly flirting with anti-immigrant policies whereas, in the recent past, it was only openly anti-Muslim. It's moving in that direction, in part, because of the emergence of a new right-wing political party that is run by a libertarian who is preaching the dismantling of government while also advocating for racist and anti-immigrant policies. In this, Canadian conservatives remain closer to their American counterparts, but they are usually much more ambivalent about attacking the social safety net (though many of them clearly do want to dismantle it, again because of how their thinking has been affected by US influences). An added dimension in Canada is that the ethnic/tribal politics of white Quebec have made that province much more overtly racist in its politics than other parts of Canada and has helped to make it somewhat easier for some politicians to push this agenda into the political mainstream.
4
It's very possible Trump wasn't faking the populist planks of his kinda platform. He simply didn't understand what the Republican party stood for and what would be possible. Well into his term he would blurt out things like,"let's spend a lot of money and get great health care," until his minders shushed him. It's also possible that, like many narcissists, he thinks everyone operates the same way he does. He thought Republican politicians would fall over themselves to please the Trump rally crowds even though the populist aspects were anathema to them. Since he himself doesn't care at all what policies are enacted and doesn't have any interest in actually working to achieve results,, better conditions for the working class fell by the wayside. None of this matters, of course, but it's possible that people found his original populism convincing because at the time he believed it himself.
3
There are very few comments here that are not related to the fact that republicans run their campaigns on mountains of money. Republicans who hold office know exactly where that money came from and what is expected of them to keep the money flowing into their treasure chests. Measures of the coin of the realm, the dollar, no longer measure the wealth of a nation of healthy happy and satisfied citizens in all walks of life. The coin of the realm is now a measure of the wealth the top two or three tiers of income along with the vast amounts of that wealth held by One percenters. Every economic decision making equation measuring dollars of wealth are related to growth in the economy. But when those dollars tip the results of such measures to favor the top tiers of income and wealth a false picture of the economic health of the nation. For obvious reasons conservatives want to disregard such facts of the matter that citizens who cannot afford something such as health care and keep food in their bellies and a roof over their heads at the same time are not experiencing the benefits of wealth in a wealthy nation. This is true for in the lower tiers of economic status where survival can turn over night to struggle for necessities.
3
"One is the absence of socially liberal, economically conservative voters ... the other is the absence of economically liberal, socially conservative politicians "
It seems to me that the problem is that pundits have the wrong political model. They treat political positions as a one-dimensional spectrum going from "left" to "right", assuming that if you support one "liberal" position you will support all the others, and ditto for conservatives. If somebody doesn't fit the model, they get dismissed as "independents" and ridiculed because they "can't make up their minds". Or as Dr. Krugman puts it, they are "absent". I don't think they are really absent; they are just being treated as if they didn't exist.
1
@Charlesbalpha
When he says absent, he means few in number: to be precise, about 4% of people polled about their opinions.
This tends to be the view of are cosmopolitan enough to be open-minded and tolerant on social issues, but desirous of low taxes on high incomes, and conditions that favor stockholders rather than wage earners.
The opposite of "populist nationalist" sort who are Trump's biggest supporters.
I have met a lot of such people, so while they are not literally absent, 4% of Americans is perhaps 14 million people, they aren't going to carry any elections by themselves.
1
That many people support higher taxes on someone else so they themselves can increase their own benefits is hardly surprising, and certainly not a good basis for making policy. For years we're told that the rich "benefit" and "get," but seldom is the correct word "earn" ever used. While you may not think someone with a high income deserves it, but--guess what--you are not paying him, and the persons who is paying him does think he does, either directly or indirectly.
It's understandable why every prominent Democrat opposes Schultz's campaign: he certainly would draw more votes from Democrats than from the GOP. However, it is disingenuous to gloss over the fact that the most high-profile positions of the leading Democrat candidates are far to the left of those of even Obama. Massive tax increases on a few, the destruction of the health insurance arrangements with which hundreds of millions are generally satisfied, to name just two, create a huge space for many voters to go. If there were just two finalists in the general election--e.g. Kamala Harris and Howard Schultz--he'd probably win, for just that reason. Currently, there is not one, serious mainstream Democrat in the race--that is their real problem.
1
@james s. biggs
" but seldom is the correct word "earn" ever used."
"Earn" is rarely used because it's not applicable. The huge rise in income for the 1% is due to computer technology, combined with the new philosophical notion that corporations owe nothing to the society that nurtures them.
2
@Charlesbalpha
Add inheritance to the list.
@james s. biggs
Many of us don't think "earn" and "get" mean the same thing. And the biggest incomes do not accrue to people who are getting big paychecks. It is absurd to say that X, who is wisely advised to put his inheritance into Z investment, and doubles his money in a year, has in any way "earned" that money.
2
The socially-liberal/economically-conservative quarter may not be heavily populated but it represents a lot of money. Actually this combination was a large part of the original Republican Party - Northerners including industrialists and other wealthy people who opposed slavery. Many migrated to the Democratic Party as Southern politicians and working people migrated to the Republican Party. This group is very well represented in the owners of the major media, and also in TV "news" stars. It has excessive influence because of this media control and through political donations.
There are signs that socially conservative working people are getting fed up with growing inequality. If Democrats want to attract such people and build a majority that can accomplish major reforms, they will probably have to reduce their monetary dependence on "centrist" money and commit to policies that will reduce inequality. Rejecting declared candidates of this type is not enough.
2
In politics one size never fits all. The parties that gain power tend to be those most in tune with the discontents of the electorate. Discontents are like the flavor of the month , having a finite lifetime until a complaisance set in.
Some discontents are noble, and have lead to ending segregation, and establishing voting rights, some discontents such as income distribution inequalities are only starting move some voters.Some discontents are ignoble when based on fear of the poor, of immigration.
What all discontents have in common is that very rarely do single solutions satisfy all and this is large part due to the search for quick fixes that ignore root causes. Doctors know that to make a patient well it is not enough to treat symptoms of a disease, the disease itself needs to be treated. In politics its the same problem, it is the underlying cause of the discontents that need addressing not the superficial appearances. And this is what politicians need to address rather than presenting themselves as right ,center or left!
1
No big mystery here. As Hillary demonstrated, it's hard for a candidate to raise tens or hundreds of million dollars if they are advocating for increasing taxes on the rich. The thoughts and desires of 80% of the electorate on this subject are completely irrelevant.
"when it comes to economic issues the public is overwhelmingly left of center; if anything, it’s to the left of the Democrats. " Thank you Paul Krugman. I've been saying this since 2011.
Unfortunately, as usual, this op-ed is concentrated on understanding the Trump voter, instead of understanding non-voters.
The real problem with the Democratic Party spending 25 years in the center pretending it has no values, to try to win back Reagan Democrats is that it has driven turnout down as centrists convinced people that there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
While the Republicans PRETEND to have strong values (family, troops, defence, supply side economics, etc.) centrist Democrats pretend they have no values, thinking that by offending no one they could win election. They kept sacrificing their values on they day they announced for office.
Americans vote for people that believe in something and are willing to fight for it. They don't trust those that sacrifice their own morality to get along with those they call the "greater evil."
"Lesser Evil" is the lamest slogan in the history of slogans. It implies that there is a Greater Evil, but that you would rather be evil than fight against it.
Every time the Democratic Party picks up one vote from the fake center it loses ten voters from the wage worker base. Democrats keep telling workers that there is nothing that can be done for them, then whining that no one comes out to vote.
Make Evil Compromise.
LEAD!
6
@McGloin
I'm not sure what you think voting for the lesser evil means.
It means exactly the same thing as voting for the greater good.
I've yet to see a candidate that appears from my point of view to be perfect, and hold the right position on every issue. Therefore there is some "evil" element in every candidate, just as there is almost always something "good" in every candidate.
I didn't think Clinton was perfect. Far from it. But there was less bad in her than Trump, and more good in her than Trump. I would have said the same no matter who the nominee was.
Of the two, she was the lesser evil, and the greater good.
"When you vote for the lesser of evils, you're still voting for evil. Why not vote for good?" Because there are no angels on the ballot, that's why. And never will be.
Every human being is a mixture of good and bad (with very few exceptions). Only Hollywood and children divide everyone into "good guys" and "bad guys."
1
I think that a great many of us feel that neither party represents us economically or in terms of our political "beliefs". I refuse to register for either party on the grounds that both cater to their moneyed supporters and that they don't hear the voices of the rest. We don't have a true democracy in America. What we have is an oligarchy and a kakistocracy.
I find it ironic that the man who is in the White House would not be able to get a loan from some of the biggest banks in America. The party in charge of the Senate, which is supposedly less idealistic than the Democrats, refuses to act on anything that could help 99% of us on the grounds that the very, very rich would leave the country if taxed too much. What about the fact that 99% of us are being crushed because 1%, including major corporations, don't pay their fair share of taxes, receive federal handouts in return for flattery, and that 99% of us bear the burden of any major economic downturn while, once again, the 1% are bailed out at our expense as well?
We are living in a country where anyone who is not rich is being punished. Anyone who cannot find a job is being punished. Anyone who is not able to contribute tons of money to the right campaign is being unheard and ignored. It's enough to make the average person turn into an extremist. Where are our representatives, the ones who "have been there"?
14
@hen3ry: If you don't register in a party in New York, you cannot participate in the candidate nomination process at the primary level.
1
@hen3ry
If you don't vote against the Trump and the Republicans, you deserve them.
@DFS and how did you vote? At this point how I or anyone else voted in 2016 is irrelevant to the discussion. What matters most is who is in the House and Senate. Sorry but when people voted for Obama and then for the GOP they got a completely non-functional government. Now we have a completely incompetent government.
Unfortunately there are many people who describe themselves as socially liberal, economically conservative. You see their comments everyday. They come right out and say it. They may want higher taxes on the Rich, but they also want "fiscal responsibility."
The following exchange is attributed to Adlai Stevenson although it may be apocryphal:
A woman called out to him: "Governor, you have the vote of every thinking person!"
Stevenson: That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!
That's the situation with economic conservatism today. Most people believe that the finances of the federal government are similar to their personal finances. Eliminate the deficit! Pay down the debt! Balance the budget!
This is in spite of history's blindingly clear verdict against these ideas. For example:
Every one of our 6 depressions was preceded by a period of "fiscal responsibility" during which we paid down the federal debt by 10% or more, and every such period has been followed by a terrible depression.
I have asked over and over for these people to point to a period in all of the US's economic history when too high federal debt, or deficits, or debt service has negatively impacted the economy.
Crickets.
9
@Len Charlap ,
I believe that, in general, there's no problem with the government accumulating debt or running annual budget deficits - with caveats!
Annual Deficits: running annual budget deficits is not the issue, nor is an increasing rate of debt (as a percentage year-over-year). The time to worry is when the percentage of deficit increases exceeds the percentage of revenue growth. Over time, that is not a good condition. Trump and the GOP 2017 tax cut made the annual budget deficit increase worse not by increasing spending, but by purposely decreasing revenues.
National Debt: Unlike annual budget deficits, I have no problem with paying down the national debt. We came very close to doing this while having a robust economy during the Clinton years. Yes, the economy was slowing down by 2000, but this was not unexpected considering the excesses of the dotcom bubble. If not for 9/11, the country would have had a period of reduced growth while still paying down the debt. A debt that is over 75% owed to or owned by Americans. "W" and the Congressional GOP passed 2 tax cuts claiming "its your money, not the governments" forgetting to tell people that "its your debt owed to you, not the government's."
What creditor would tell a debtor, "Never mind - I don't need you to pay me back"?
" I have no problem with paying down the national debt."
Did you read what has happened every time we significantly (10% or more) paid down the national debt? It's posted right above your reply. Here are the figures and dates:
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years, and paid down the debt more than 10% in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 38% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
Also if you make assertions like "The time to worry is when the percentage of deficit increases exceeds the percentage of revenue growth. Over time, that is not a good condition.", you have to provide a period when this happened and the economy suffered. Did it ever happen? You at least have to provide an argument as to why it should be the case.
Certainly revenue growth can exceed deficit growth, and the economy can still crater. All 6 of the above depression show that.
As a matter of fact, let's look at the ratio deficit/GDP. You claim when this is increasing, things will go bad. It increased during 1989 thru 1992, also from 2001 to 2006 and then decreased until the crash of 2008.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
Americans who believe in the constitution and bill of rights are all reacting to the gross effects of Donald J. Chaos & Co. This reaction is skewing everything political right now. Trump is rightfully described as un hinged and out of touch with a majority of Americans. That is why the usual political labels are so hard to apply at this point in our history. We are living in another Gilded age driven by technology. Millions are under employed. The American dream assumptions do not apply for a majority of us. The AI future of millions totally out of the labor force, due to shiny robots, will as envisioned by many is scary. The argument is that it is the market so nothing can be done. That is a direful view and we will regret it if nothing is done. People want the opportunity to contribute to our economy, not a handout. The cumulative effect of right wing fake news as practiced by Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones is seeping in to our views of each other. Wake up America!
6
Let's hope that the 4% approval for Schultz is no higher .. and preferably, actually, less: last thing we need is another 4 years of our wannabee-autocrat (and his craven GOP apologists) because of a spoiler 3rd party candidate.
10
What about a candidate and a party who will espouse socially and economically liberal voters and eschew the “gravitational” attraction of big money and embrace two thirds of voters who support very high taxes on the rich and democratic socialism. That is the far from empty quarter that is not being served.
10
Doesn’t matter who the Dems put up or who the third party candidate is: gerrymandering, voter suppression, and if necessary, hacked voting machines with zero day bugs and no paper trail ( just like Venezuela) will ensure the 0.1% get their candidates in - and it probably will be necessary.
The current Republicans could not win a free and fair election in the USA, against any opposition, and they know it.
Instead of all this bather about this candidate or that candidate, this demographic or that demographic, talk about how to ensure free elections.
15
@James Cottonhead How about proportional representation?
@James Cottonhead----------------Thank you, James.
It would be nice to see a progressive Democrat that is willing to fight for equality, access to health care, taxation of the rich, a clean environment, a solution for DACA, an independent judiciary, gun restrictions and combine that with common sense migration and security measures.
We don't need more racism and bigotry, nor do we need invented crisises at the border. At the same time it is clear that ignoring the causes of migration won't work either. The USA needs a clear and workable policy who is allowed in and who not. It also needs to address underlying causes (like poverty and environment). Be tough once the rules are clear.
You don't need to declare a national emergency nor lie about this in order to effectively address these important issues. We definitely do not need another four years of this crazy.
9
@Dutchie----------------------"It would be nice to see a progressive Democrat that is willing to fight for equality, access to health care, taxation of the rich, a clean environment, a solution for DACA, an independent judiciary, gun restrictions and combine that with common sense migration and security measures."
I agree, Dutchie. Do you know that you have described Elizabeth Warren? The big guns will shoot her down, I fear.
1
@Mary Feral I forgot to mention that I would also prefer that the current mess is cleaned up by a woman. Ms Warren seems like a strong candidate, as does Ms Harris. Choices enough!
Good analysis. If you really want to know why white people have embraced the economic and social "libertarianism" Republicans have been selling the last 40 years, it all boils down to race. The Republican party and its media mouthpieces have done a masterful job over the last 50 years painting non-whites as being the primary recipients of government spending. Remember Reagan's "welfare momma in a Cadillac" characterization? So when white conservatives support cuts in government spending, it's because they think they're hurting black and brown people. When Republican voters support tax cuts for the wealthy, they do so because they think reductions in government revenue will result in cuts to spending that benefits minorities. These people are what I call "spite voters." Their political decisions are made with the intent to hurt minority voters.
9
@Joe Bastrimovich Agreed. Note the quote from a disgruntled Trump voter during the shutdown to the effect that "he's not hurting the right people."
1
@Joe Bastrimovich
According to statistics more whites collect benefits than do any other race.
2
@Joe Bastrimovich-----------That's a great comment, Joe, but you forgot one thing: misogyny. The Repubs boil with outrage at the thought that women doing the same work as men should have the same salaries as men. Usually, women doing the exact same work as men are allowed 80 percent a man's salary. I've been there.
And why do you think their tears about birth control and abortion? Alas, those tears are crocodile tears.
1
Want more voices in the political scene? Support ranked choice elections. That simple.
2
The past isn't prologue; it's forgotten.
If you don't know what a Republican looked like before 1980, and worse, before 2010, you can't understand that "center" as defined today would have been a Reaganite dream.
The Democrats aren't radical, they are just edging back to being what the party looked like decades ago, before Bill Clinton introduced the Republicrat or the Democratlican. Frankly, I don't deny that Clinton's direction appealed to me - one of those lost centrists (one of the 4%, maybe, who still doesn't believe we need an independentnt challenger) - but he wasn't anywhere close to being leftist.
Nor was Obama a leftist. Having your major piece of social legislation uphold the central capitalist institutions in healthcare is not the stuff of socialism or communism.
What we have done is forgotten to recalibrate our thinking, and it is driving us off course. It wouldn't hurt for people to study a little 20th Century US History.
6
"fiscally conservative" -- what does that even mean? against social welfare programs because "they" benefit? against entitlement spending because "they" benefit?
at the heart of "fiscally conservative" is racism
also, "don't raise my taxes"
6
Thank you Mr. Krugman. Good observations. I suspect in the coming two decades all this is going to change as the Latino immigrant vote starts to take center stage and the baby boomers die out. What you describe is largely a baby boomer thing......economically liberal but socially conservative when it comes to race.
1
I don't know if I buy this argument. Everything is labeled racist today and I fear that this negativity and over the top focus on racism is really going to bring us down. The focus on racism is like the focus on violent crime. On the one hand facts show that both are way down from the past , on the other, we focus too narrowly on goofy episodes of "blackface" whether they caused real harm or not and are willing to crucify a person based on ignorant past behavior no matter their present accomplishments. I'm going to postulate here (horrors of horror) that many white people, yes even in the 80's were not aware that dressing up as black was racist. Is ignorance the same as willful racism? If so, we are intolerant and blind to the potential for growth and human development. Don't we have the lowest unemployment rate among blacks and Latinos today? Don't we have much more minority representation in government at all levels? If so, you would never know it because of media focus on trifling matters. As far as classifying people's political inclinations, Mr. Krugman leaves out a huge section of people, those of us who want money out of politics both liberals and conservatives. We will never be represented for obvious reasons. Thus the Democratic party has sadly become the party of the elite, and the moneyed. The midterms clearly showed this. Wealthier and more educated people voted for Democrats; how can we truly represent the downtrodden?
4
@Saramaria Really, you don't think the racism inherent in dressing up in blackface (or KKK robes) wasn't obvious by the 80's? I promise you that it was perfectly obvious here in Los Angeles. I guess I can't speak for Cincinnati.
Hah! Before I was halfway through Krugman's piece today, the name "George Wallace" popped into my head. We have forgotten how powerful and disruptive a political force Wallace was. His populism appeared to come from the heart. In his later days he appeared to regret a lot of his racism.
And yes a Wallace avatar could have success now. Racism largely explains Trump's solid approval ratings in spite of the pain he inflicts on his supporters. A latter day Wallace, not another billionaire, made-from-TV fraud like the current occupant of the Oval Office, could serve up genuine populism with a side of racism and win.
3
Of course Trump was a fake populist, but I'd argue that his fakeness was readily apparent to voters. You're explaining Trump's election as a sort of novelty, a fluke, someone who defrauded voters. But that fraudulence was central to his entertainment appeal. He's telling you you're being tricked. People who play the lottery are aware they're being bilked, yet participate knowing that they're purchasing a happy fantasy, a fix. Trump was selling a mirage of the good life. It was basic American advertising.
4
"There are plenty of voters who would like that mix, and Trump pretended to be their man; but he wasn’t, and neither is anyone else." What about Steve Bannon?
2
Mr Krugman,
Many of my family and friends voted for Trump and while bigotry and racism aren’t absent for some, abortion politics is the elephant in the room. These voters are willing to sacrifice most any position or allegiance to any pillar of traditional Republicanism if this President continues to be publicly anti-abortion and keep appointing like-minded judges. A Democratic Party that refuses to recognize this reality in the small red states will continue to lose for the foreseeable future unless demographics change, for example the rich billionaires can set up jobs programs to send Blue families into red states.
3
@John Brewer
Fortunately the issue is likely to go away once the Supreme Court returns abortion to democratic control and it becomes a state matter, not a national one. The "foreseeable future" is not a problem.
Donald Trump does represent the GOP. His narcissism, a focus on the self and only the self, is very real for many. “Government limits what I want to do” is a mantra for many. So, laws limiting the amount of mercury from coal are eliminated in the name of reducing government interference. Laws that might limit the sale of automatic weapons (Ar’s, AK’s, etc) or size of magazines are trampled because of gun rights advocates along with an NRA protecting gun manufacturers. Fueling the narcissism are those single-issue voters. Only focused on abortion or guns or white supremacy (protecting whites against “those people” - whoever they are) these voters have sadly ignored how the GOP leaders would damage their social security or health care or environment. GOP voters with their single issues have ignored how GOP leaders would cripple the very social programs many desperately need. Maybe some loyal to the GOP are beginning to see the consequence of single issue voting.
2
There is a professor in Michigan,Elizabeth Anderson, who is wrestling with these issues in serious complicated granular ways. I hope you will look into her writing and help all of us understand it better.
The fault Prof. Krugman lies not in the stars but in our propaganda machines. The right has been effective in making the words "Democratic", "Liberal", "Progressive", and "Government" marks of the devil.
As you say, the policies of the left are valued, but Democrats cannot get attached to them.
The iconic image was of the woman carrying a sign at a Tea Party event (where is the Tea Party now?) that said, "Keep Government Out Of My Medicare!"
That is all ye know and all ye need to know.
5
Dear Lord, this is the party that was looking to secessionists for votes in the years before it turned to Trump. Conservatives couldn't win with ideas. They took on the Evangelicals and other religious anti-abortionists, they took on the segregationists, the gun zealots, government haters and finally the openly racist. All this radicalism to have the chance to cut taxes, pump up the debt, and own the Judiciary.
Yes. They got their judges and justices, their tax cuts and deregulation. But it took getting to the point where Trump was possible - perhaps inevitable. It exposed the ugliness "conservatives" were willing to cede power to in order to win.
They have done their party great harm. It may take a decade or more before we know the full extent of the damage.
6
Mr. Schultz and Mr. Bloomberg want to run for President because they now know what every billionaire knows, it there for the buying.
9
Republicans don't frame their position as tax cuts for the rich, just as tax cuts, They don't frame their position as taking away benefits, just keeping Democrats from using your money to give "free stuff" to the people you hate. Democrats have been on the defensive, ceding their position as the party of working people to being the defenders of minority rights, instead of focusing on economic injustice, they are caught in a series of culture wars that obscure the real issues. Neither are what they appear.
I love the phrase "the gravitational pull of big money." Most politicians in both parties have become the financial handmaidens of a corporatocracy. The Republicans openly advocate for it, and the Democrats are its enablers, adjusting their policies to not make waves.
I cannot remember a time when racism wasn't a part of public policy. I cannot remember a time when it was not protested. Modern communications have made it possible for both to be constantly monopolizing the conversation. The way wealth disparity is impacting our society is the crucial issue, but the culture wars are making it impossible for that message to be heard. As long as fiscal policy is argued in terms of its cultural ramifications, no rational decisions are likely to be reached.
12
@michaeltide On the face of it, this argument sounds like it's building the case for abandoning minorities in the interests of economic justice, as if it were a simple case of "either/or". And another argument, not stated here but often raised when this argument is offered -- namely that economic justice somehow "naturally" leads to racial justice and justice for other minorities -- is a dubious one.
1
@Terry Koch, I didn't mean to imply that. Only that the narrative that could be truly unitive – economic disparity, and the policies that could correct that, are being subsumed by a focus on social issues. Defense of minority rights is implicit in strong social programs, but that doesn't mean they should not be explicitly named. It's more a question, for me of what's on the front burner.
Thanks for your reply, I hope I clarified my point.
1
@michaeltide Yes. Thank you for your thoughtful and clarifying reply.
Maybe Schultz was disappointing because he turned out to be a demand side economic conservative, instead of supply side. What do I mean? High deductibles on your health insurance is an example of demand side economic conservatism - reduce the societal cost of health care by shifting it to the people who need it. No surprise why that's unpopular, but it's also anti-utilitarian unless you can show that people want to go get medical tests only as useless amusement.
Supply side economic conservatism would focus on reducing the cost of providing social services. The cost of building a mile of new subway in NYC is a perfect example of low hanging fruit. The barrier to us having nice things isn't their real cost, but the cost of inefficient government planning, contracting and corruption. The way we pay for health care, per procedure versus per condition addressed, is another example.
If there were an economic conservative out there focused on making government work better, not just either eliminating the demand for government services or spending freely without regard to value for the money, then maybe another type of voter would come forward.
4
@peh
Whatever happened to the time where a government economist admitted that "supply side economics" was a hoax ("nobody knows what those numbers mean") and the elder George Bush called it "voodoo economics" ?
@Charlesbalpha
Good question, but what I'm taking about is totally different. That's the idea that the economy will grow if you make it easier to do business. Much debate on that. What I'm talking about is the difference between arguing over we should have more government and arguing over how to make government better. Right now the discussing is just more government versus less.
Hillary Clinton was a centrist who is both socially liberal and economically conservative. She also wiped the floor with both Sanders and Trump in actually votes.
It took years of fake Congressional hearings, a Russian media campaign coordinated with her opponent and finally the FBI director overstepping his position to keep her out of the Presidency.
Both Clinton and Obama were centrist. I think people forget where the center actually is because the Republican party has moved so far right.
29
American politics is full of paradoxes. Most of the incredibly liberal (in the context of the times) New Deal legislation was passed with Southern racist votes while the South (probably because of its military tradition) was most strident in the need to confront Hitler. Today it's probably fair to say most voters are mildly to seriously conservative (because that is the nature of all societies which don't in principle like change) but they are also operationally liberal in that they like the security and services which government provides.
8
@John That's a keen observation. People forget the conditions that existed in the south, particularly the deep south prior to the New Deal. Before rural electrification, people lived by the light of kerosene lanterns and not in good health. Some southerners, the sandy-haired Georgia boy and JFK/LBJ Secretary of State Dean Rusk being one example of a committed New Dealer grateful for all it brought to his home state. Sad that unlike Rusk, so many other southerners could be grateful enough to accept New Deal programs while failing to shed the racism in their culture and then once having benefited from the New Deal, became Republicans and turned their back on the party that supported them when they were down.
3
@G. James
Well they were all in favor of redistribution of wealth from the North to the South as long as they had control of the money and made sure black Southerners didn't get too much of it. Another paradox is that over 80 years later most of these Southern states are still benefiting from redistribution. There is a story elsewhere in this paper about LA (Hughie Long's state) that is in complete thrall to big oil and chemicals but remains the second poorest state in the country.
1
Mr. Krugman missteps when he equates Howard Schultz's approval rating with the size of the socially liberal, economically conservative (better defined as responsible) population in the US. The primary objection to Howard Schultz is not his policies but his thinking that the best way to achieve his goals is by running as an independent. As any rational individual knows (and as was carefully researched by Michael Bloomberg during the last election), a third party candidate of the sort Schultz would represent would guarantee a Trump re-election. If, on the other hand, a George Wallace independent would run, he (it would have to be a he) would splinter the Republican coalition and the Democrats would win the same way Bill Clinton did.
7
@AD
You may be right that Schultz would be more popular if he joined a party, but his policies are Republican policies not not Democratic policies.
Protecting tax cuts for the rich and demanding cuts to Entitlements (which we are entitled to because we paid into them all of our working lives) has no appeal to the base of the Democratic Party. These are libertarian positions. (Libertarian means that the only thing government should do is police and military).
I don't believe that Schultz would pull votes from Democrats, unless that Democrat is a centrist. Schultz would pull votes from Republicans looking to an alternative to Trump. He has the same policies, but is more polite.
The Republican Party keeps helping the rich at the expense of everyone else. The obvious thing for Democrats to do is the opposite. Any candidate that puts compromise with the party of the rich over helping the 60% of the population that works for a living, plus their families, will not only lose, but also drive away the base of the Democratic Party.
Krugman says, "when it comes to economic issues the public is overwhelmingly left of center; if anything, it’s to the left of the Democrats." This is fully backed by years of polling data that is trending ever left as supply side economics fails again and again.
Democrats have to promise to tax the mega-rich (including their capital gains, not just their wages which make up a small part of their income), to actually help American workers.
George Wallace did not win the presidency, Dr. Krugman. His third party race did, however, do better than anything that came after, and provided a virtual roadmap to the Republican southern strategy. An analysis of that election in 1968 was a kind of crystal ball that might have predicted the rise of Trump. Wallace did very well in some northern industrial precincts (my older brother, a northeastern blue collar worker, voted for Wallace). The 5 Confederate states won by Wallace form the bulwark of the secessionist south where racism still plays and where Trump is a hero.
The factors that have moved things since 1968 are not insignificant. The rallying of fundamentalist religionists who were cemented to Catholics by Reagan and the anti-abortion sentiment has morphed into a morally decayed horror backing the most depraved president in our history. The economic landscape for folks like my (now deceased) brother has become something of a field of tears, its inhabitants yearning for a return of the American dream in a form other than an opioid stupor.
It's complex but not obtuse. Democrats must rally their actual and potential soulmates by holding true to an ideology of inclusion, by race, gender, age, and the working stiff. Hold true, reject billionaire billiousness, racism, anti-LGBTQ hate, and walls in general.
That coalition will look a lot like the new freshman crop of Democrats in the House of Representatives.
It will sound like them too.
15
Finally, I do sense that cutting taxes, for the GOP is losing traction--so much so, that it is overshadowing the default option of the GOP--which was the cultural issue of the day. The sleeper issue in this shift to the left was the Affordable Health Care act. The American public got a taste, albeit, just a taste, of socialism lite---and they liked it--and want to see more of it. The other sleeper issue, which is throwing gasoline onto to simmering middle class resentment, is the coming out party of billionaires. For decades, really rich people, mostly in the GOP, were, discreet about their money---they avoided the media, masks their large money purchases, and when, the did appear in public, it was always centered around some charity event. Not anymore ---the billionaire class today likes to smash you in the face with their wealth--Trump like---with how much money they have and what luxury they just purchased--and, to add insult to injury---how little taxes they actually pay. And for the billionaires attempting to duplicate Trump's political victory--forget it---he completely destroyed the myth benevolent billionaire ready to make business of America, business.
7
Yep, this has been the narrative since 1968, when the police went after the hippies at the Democratic convention and most Americans (including baby-boomers) were all for it. The way forward was clear: go conservative socially and grab the money for the rich. There was the Nixon Watergate interruption, but they kept to the plan and it resulted in two generations of power.
4
There are a few critiques to your construct. First, you assume that voters use rational thought when voting. That is not true. Racism is inherent and ingrained but culturally suppressed more recently. The Republican party started winning votes with racism. Electablity is the buzz; political ads and influence is a billions dollar industry; and many if not most people are not well informed except about say old year book pictures.
Second the four part construct may not be as accurate as all that because of definitions. What is liberal? what is conservative?
Third, I fully agree with linking Populism with Racism, and would add anger for immigrants and Muslims, also based on misinformation (hmph, the wall).
Democrats, the saviors of the nation if they can get a cohesive plan together without shooting themselves in the foot like last time, need to think through their own religion. They should represent the working guy, not just the liberals in suburbs. They lost a lot of these last election because they saw Trump giving the finger to "liberals" their proxy enemy, their nemesis, their bete noir. They were and are so angry that they voted against their economic interest just to poke "liberals" in the eye. Democrats should and a plank that admits "conservative" ideals that do not violate their principles. Honesty, honor, loyalty, frugality, etc. The low information people are "conservative", like retired military.
5
At a time in our history when healthcare is a requirement for a full life, healthcare becomes a “right” for all citizens.
At a time in our history ween post secondary education is a requirement for a full life, availability of secondary education becomes a “right” for all citizens.
At a time in our history when climate change becomes an existential threat, a “Green New Deal” becomes a necessity.
I consider myself a “modern” economic conservative who accepts my conservatism today must reflect today is not the 1950’s when a doctor was more like a friendly pharmacist; I was one of a very few in my extended family who thought of college as an option; and, climate change was barely on the horizon.
I still spend money pretty conservatively and think government should do the same; I still think the good life requires one take personal responsibility; I still think government ought to tax & spend responsibly, but times change and so has my economic conservatism.
I cannot imagine voting for a Republican, any Republican, who’s conservatism hasn’t similarly changed.
13
how about easily led voters. there are plenty of them, and they are fooled, not one, not twice, but every time.
10
Yes! I grew up in that empty Republican quarter and often wonder what my parents would think now. In 1968 at the beginning of the appeal to social conservatives my father, a delegate to the Republican Convention, was asked numerous times if he had been born again. He always answered, "No, I thought once was enough."
I've been left of center all my adult life, but I do think we are missing something by not having rational opponents on the right.
11
One thing missing in this narrative is the power of the "R," the invisible hand that forces so many Republicans to vote for the "R" guy, and it's usually a guy. While there have always been "D" people, there are policies of the Democratic party that are attractive to the majority of Americans. Not so the Republicans.
The hold comes from the personality types of Republicans: family tradition, loyalty to the party, longing for the simpler times of the past and the simplistic message of Republicans. What could be more simplistic than Trumps campaign speeches?
How is this hold on Republicans broken? Trump helps a little now that it is so apparent how hideous he really is, even to Republicans. But it is a slow process.
Hillary certainly didn't help the cause. She was too easy a target.
Democrats need to come home. Embrace what the party used to stand for: the common good. Don't be so afraid that someone on the right will disapprove of our position. Of course they will. But the majority supports the party's principles. Be proud of them.
20
Don't leave out sexism, of the crude sort but also the sort masked by "policy discussions" about "family issues." A lot of people who vote for the right live far away from any racial diversity and therefore have only theoretical opinions about it. But single mothers are right there, perhaps in their own families, and so they feel qualified to judge and harangue.
There would probably be fewer single mothers in a more generous economic system. And even if there weren't, their kids would do better.
16
I live in one of the reddest counties in a state from which 49% of its 2016 presidential votes went to Trump. No one I know (and nearly all of my neighbors are Republicans) wants to see social security or medicare or medicaid cut. They know that these programs are lifelines for themselves and their families. They know this is particularly true because they also understand that our society has become dog-eat-dog economically, and the big federal net is all that stands between them and real hardship. All the Republican talk about trimming back these programs (my neighbors would actually support them being expanded, if we could strip away the toxic packaging wrapped around expansion by the wealthy) is so much hot air.
21
I've said for a long time that Republicans were geniuses when they adopted socially conservative issues in their platform. Obviously their true intent, as stated in the article, was to lower taxes on the wealthy while attempting to decimate programs for the poor. Unfortunately people do not think rationally; they allow their emotions to overcome logic. The majority of Americans do not read and analyze policies to determine how it impacts their lives and others.
24
Excellent article. While the described "vacuum" further develops, fiscal conservatism (once an important part of conservatism) has all but disappeared.
8
I think we can agree that a majority of Americans are not in favor of larger tax cuts for the wealthy, paid-for by benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare. This, by the way, is a "populist" position. At issue is what constitutes "racism" vs "social conservatism," the latter category according to polling interpretation may represent a broad consensus of American beliefs. If you ask American voters would they like to take in a million refugees from Africa and the Middle East, what do you think their response would be? Democratic politicians run substantial risks by straying from economic populism to social liberalism. Trump knows knows this and so should his opponents.
13
@Lar
Good points. But your line about a million refugees from Africa and the middle east is a gop/trump-o-p canard.
No dem favors that; no dem policy even contemplates that.
More effective smoke/mirrors. Im being too nice. Really what your statement does is keep alive the racism and xenophobia the right lives/dies on. And that, my fellow countryman, is the point Dr. K is making. (At least one of them.)
I really object to the characterization of social conservative/economic liberals as racist. Granted, some may be racist, but others may, like me, be more of what the alt-right denigrates as "cultural nationalists" - recognizing and valuing traditional custom, norms, and community - as well as the danger posed by a heterogeneous society in the long run. How many examples can you name of successful states with disparate nations or vying cultural groups that survived for long under any non-despotic system? I think we're learning our institutions are not nearly as invulnerable as we'd like to think.
A good book that illuminates this motive for social "conservatism" is "The End of Liberalism" (not a political book).
10
@B Samuels
How about Switzerland? They speak three separate languages (some would say four); they follow different religions; Geneva has a culture and outlook different from Zurich. There are large and small cantons, each with much of the independence of our states. But, with few raw materials except its people, the country prospers and - by and large - lives in harmony.
1
@B Samuels
I believe you have proved Mr. Krugman's point about social conservatives feelings on race.
rac·ist
A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
We are all a bit racist - don't we all take pride in our own heritage? But to keep people out/away/back only because of their heritage so that the best race can remain pure is abhorrent to me.
@B Samuels the US, for all its flaws, is a prime example of a successful state w vying cultural groups, up until the present in a non-despotic governmental system.
The chilling witness of this intense focus of the rich and powerful smashing boundaries is in recent memory: this country allowed an American resident to be murdered and dismembered by a wealthy ally. The death and mutilation occurred when nothing was at risk--not security or wealth or state secrets. Governments weren't falling, uprisings weren't occurring. Instead, it seemed to be a sign of a perverse pleasure, a blood sport, later distributed with video and sound.
Who does this? What does it say about the values buried beneath the tolerance of national leadership that are its accomplices? What does it say that we are not repelled by the broad embrace of these same destructive tendencies in our economic life--our wages, housing, healthcare, environmental stewardship, in our sense of fairness and justice?
Have we combined Old Bailey's and Pavlov's realization: do we come running toward the worst of ourselves, mocking not supporting, slashing not saving, in our heady desire to win the rewards of pain and cruelty we have been conditioned to receive and celebrate?
32
@walterhett
there is nothing the Soudies did that the Americans haven[t done, dear. It is OK to be indignant, but not OK to be naive or willfully ignorant (read: hypocritical).
2
I consider myself socially liberal and economically conservative. I think there are a lot more of us out there, much more than 4%, and our ranks would swell if people could detach themselves from ideology and fake news. Take each issue on its own merit, ignore the crazies (current POTUS included), and look at true facts (not alternative). And treat people as individuals, not groups based on race, etc.
Then policies like increased taxes on the rich, right-sizing regulation, addressing climate change, protecting voter rights, and even single payer healthcare make a lot of sense.
10
You say you’re economically conservative, but you advocate higher taxes on the rich and single payer health care. You may not be so economically conservative.
3
@Evan Benjamin: Economic "conservatism" is often taken to mean opposition to deficit spending. But when they're in office, debt skyrockets.
3
@John Erickson
You've hit on something important here. Probably many many people would call themselves economically conservative and want the policies you state in last sentence. But, as you state, increase taxes on the wealthy [corporations, I add].
Economic conservatives (like you/me) want the better policies to make the country better for the majority but we don't want the deficit to grow as a consequence.
4
Truth be told, since Clinton (Bill) took the party so far right, normal Democratic positions seem radical. And they are not. I see no benefit in electing a centrist Democrat in 2020. Nothing will happen, nothing will change economically for people, and the Republicans will point that out to the short term memory voters and win again. Medicare for all!
11
@LFK
Bill Clinton didn't take the party "far right". The voters did. It's hard to understand the level of denial about the unpopularity of far left policies.
5
@AACNY
Disagree. Clinton did it strategically. "Far left"? That's my point. FDR was far left? It's hard to understand the right's denial about the damage they are doing to the economy and the gifts to the wealthy that they keep on giving.
1
Excellent rendering of the political landscape in the USA, showing quite evidently that Mr. Krugman is paying attention to more than just economics and that's good for us.
The message here is that people like me, having lived through the Civil Rights movement and thought that we would be in an entirely different place by now, and having also lived through more than a few recessions, as well as The Great Recession, I have come to fully understand that economic conditions create a person's social conditions, and it is now high time to act to correct the economic inequality in our society.
This will sound terribly naive, but as someone who believes that the Civil War was fought over economics, and that slavery was only part of it, I believe that economic equality for all will reduce racism, and may help to eliminate it entirely if economic equality is maintained for a significant period of time. The politics of minorities is not really about skin color, it's about economics.
The unifying element in our society stares us in the face, and to capture it, we need to move left in the economic spectrum. It seems as plain as day.
25
@Reuben. Our fellow Karl Marx wrote it a century ago. The only problem is that implementing his solutions led to the GULAG... Better Clinton than Stalin.
@Yulia Berkovitz That is an extreme assessment. There is a lot of room on the left. Our economy is hugely different than Russia's was in the 1900's. We are an industrialized nation, so we should be thinking more along the lines of what Sweden has done, i.e. controlled capitalism.
1
[Social Liberal: universal health care.]
+ [Fiscal Conservative: progressive individual income tax rates to pay for universal health care while holding the annual rate of an increasing federal debt at equal or less than an increasing GDP.]
= [Centrist: not, racist, not populist, not socialist]
For crying out loud, give the citizens what they need and have them pay for it.
Those who say it is not enough there is always supplemental insurance
9
In the summer of 2016 Maine's Libertarian Party got on the ballot for the coming election. It took a bit of court action and there may have been a bit of shenanigans keeping the Party off the ballot. (Not acceptable!)
After the 2018 election the Libertarians are OFF the next ballot because 10,000 or more registered Libertarians failed to vote.
Only 6,168 registered Libertarian souls here in Maine voted.
They will now be out in the streets getting 5,000 souls to register as Libertarians if they want to be on the 2020 ballot. Bit of a sisyphean task but it gives them something to do.
1
Krugman is wrong, there are socially liberal and economically conservative voters. I am one of them. But the problem is in determining which economic issues we are worried about.
Schultz got us wrong. I do worry about the burgeoning debt but the solution is to raise taxes significantly - and to collect them, so enforce the law. Schultz has no tax program at all. Worse than that, he appears ready to cut Medicare and Social Security which would turn on American who use both as a base line from which to build a secure retirement.
Then there is Medicare for all. Schultz is wrong to dismiss it. Yes, criticism is easy but we have already tried the market based solutions. They simply don’t work. We may not want to move everyone into single payor, but since most health claims are paid by either government or employer based health insurance, it is clear we need to make sure folks are covered by one or the other. So if not covered by an employer paid plan, Medicare is the best idea (yes we will need tax money, but to be frank, few in this population can afford an unsubsidized health insurance policy.
So how is this conservative at all? Well it is what we in business know about - the real world. We are not driven by ideology, but instead by the facts before us.
But if you define us by a poll that uses the wrong questions, you will never find us.
21
@Terry McKenna Actually, I don't think Dr. K is trying to find you. One can be fiscally responsible, which is a position you seem to espouse, but that is not the same as being economically conservative.
10
@dcf perhaps, but I don't know how conservatism became the support of low taxes, and not seeing that this idea does not work. (Too high taxes are not good either but being oblivious is not conservative, it is bizarre.)
5
@Terry McKenna It is bizarre but probably explained by corporate capture of the Republican party and they use the party's perceived conservative positions to hide behind. Case in point, Mitch McConnell. Anyway, cheers!
2
I can't understand how someone such as Dr. Krugman can use Howard Schultz as a proxy for entire political point of view. The man says it would be too "hypothetical" for him to actually state his policy specifics, but he decides to label himself MODERATE! (tm), and Dr. K. somehow equates 4% Schultz = only 4% moderates.
Where is the logic in assuming that any moderate would support Schultz? I'm liberal, but I wouldn't support Ben or Jerry.
4
@ImagineMoments
People supported Trump who had anything but descriptive and detailed policies. I think Krugman is actually right in his assessment of Schultz. Schultz thought he could capture a voting bloc that is "above the fray" from the "radical left" and the "radical right"--The problem is that there is no radical left in US politics. Finally, at least I hope, people are starting to see that.
12
Read the study he links to. He’s not pulling numbers out of the air. There are very few voters who match that combination of policy preferences, according to the study cited.
3
Oh, it's so complicated!! I wish someone would simplify it all.
Say, by realizing that a majority of voters would have corrected this some time ago.
But, Hey, at least we get complicated political analysis along with obscuring the actual solution. Twenty-five grains of sand vs two dead leaves. Which one is worth less?
2
"Socially liberal, economically conservative voters … basically … don’t exist."
I may or may not exist, but I still vote, and if there's no one to for *for*, I intend to vote against politicians who take me for granted.
8
@DPB
The problem with progressives is they deny what you can see with your own two eyes, or, in your case, what you know firsthand. They know very little but espouse a tremendous amount.
It is like cable bundling, if you want ESPN you have to take the lifetime channel too.
13
What would it take to move voters from one quadrant to another? For example, what would happen if the US debt to GDP ratio entered the danger zone? We don't know where that is and economic theory is hazy on the question of what would happen to a country like the United States.
We should be careful in using the past to predict the future. Isn't that a basic tenet of financial investing? Analyses such as the present one seem to all be drawing from the same survey results of the 2016 election.
We should be careful about making predictions for the next election based on the results of the past one.
I believe our country needs to exercise caution in expanding spending without finding revenue sources to pay for it. Does that put me in the 4 percent category, or are there actually many more like me out there?
3
The new representative took the seats of people who had been there holding space, voting the right way at the right time, but never putting in the work for the people of the districts they were supposed to represent. They were complacent.
The new representative are not complacent. They know that the people they represent are oppressed by the current mangagment/slavery business model that keeps their constituents in perpetual poverty. They want to even the playing field. The 1% would do well to surrender now and graciously because the tide has just started to turn. If the 1% can accept the responsibility to pay their fair share, the tide will not rise too high. If they try to use their wealth to maintain the status quo that turning tide will become a tsunami.
13
Dr. Krugman: "Voters want an economic move to the left — it’s just that some of them dislike Democratic support for civil rights, which the party can’t drop without losing its soul."
That statement is the key to THE problem for Democrats. The real question is: Which of these two policies, an economic move to the left or continued emphasis on civil rights, is going to be more important to voters. If the past is good predictor of the future, and it usually is, civil rights, particularly in the form of immigration policy, will continue to be the more important for far too many voters. And, as we also know from history, Republicans will exploit this fear of "illegals" to their advantage. And there is no one better at fear politics than Donald Trump.
22
@RF
Democrats could avoid "THE problem" by focusing primarily on economic policies. They don't have to betray their civil rights agenda--but they don't have to dwell on it either. THE problem, the way I see it, is that Democrats have focused solely on identity politics (posing as Civil Rights) at the expense of real substantive economic change (and even racial change) in this country. Until very recently (like the last mid term elections) most Democrats have been centrist Republicans.
11
@RF: Since 2013 there have been bipartisan bills and proposals on immigration, that didn't go anywhere in the Republican-led Senate, because McConnell wanted something to drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans and say that Democrats are for open borders, which is a blatant lie. And Trump wanted something to placate his base.
6
@Bret Even if Democrats try to focus on economic policy, Republicans will bring up civil rights (mostly as it relates to immigration). For example, if Democrats don't agree to building at least part of Trump's wall, we'll hear plenty of "Democrats are for open borders and crime" and "they are taking away our jobs." Democratic politicians will be drawn into the discussion whether they want to be or not.
3
The reality is that the state of the union is unpredictably robust. There is the most employment among all Americans in the history of the Unites States. What does that mean? Fewer Americans need assistance. More people paying into social security and medicare, more people paying taxes. Whats wrong with that Prof. Krugman?
7
@Girish Kotwal I think you'd find that a lot of the new employment since the Great Recession is low-wage, less than full time assured, and low benefits. "Full employment" does not mean today what it meant in the 1960s. There may be "jobs" but there is much less economic security. That's the problem.
8
@Girish Kotwal People are working, but wages have stagnated. Many have part-time or low paying jobs, or both. The unemployment rate is not a reliable measure of economic health. Wealth continues to be channeled to the .1%. When .1% of the population hold as much wealth as the lower 90%, a societal problem of epic proportions is in the making. In the middle ages, that unjust economic system was called Feudalism. What's wrong with Dr. Krugman's arguement? Come on....
7
@Girish Kotwal. The low unemployment figures are deceptive. People are in low wage jobs or the gig economy, which provide small income and small tax revenue.
7
You're a week or two behind everyone else who's been reporting on this.
In the meantime, Saez and others have been publishing on coming debates about taxation and economics. Maybe talk about those things. Or Davos...
How about highly progressive taxation on corporate profits as a means to obviate the need for antitrust rules? With the right kind of highly progressive taxation, investors would pressure companies to break themselves apart with no need for government intervention. Something like that...
3
@WJL Higher taxes, especially progressive corporate taxes, do no obviate the need antitrust regulation. At least not without substantial changes to the regulation of trade, banks, financial markets and labor. We have had forty years of politicians who have served their wealthy donors by dismantling effective economic and building a regulatory scheme, brick by brick, that serves the interests of wealth donors. It will take years of thoughtful governance to rebuild a robust, multidimensional regulatory system. Taxation is only one dimension.
6
@WJL Ah, yes. Alan Greenspan's self-correcting, moral market.
Sadly, Mr Krugman is way off base. As the midterms showed as well as subsequent polling, the electorate is to the RIGHT of Democrats; it was moderates who delivered the House to the Democrats, beating incumbent Republicans. Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk, whom Krugman seems to think is the current and future of the Democrats, did nothing to help us win the House, as they won safe, liberal districts.
Following Mr Krugman's advice on this or the "democratic socialists" is the best way to get Trump re-elected.
9
Hmmm, I am sorry, but I don’t agree. Certainly there is a lot of anger at the status quo, and even a light sampling of the news indicates beyond doubt that it is the right that is holding back progress. For heavens sake! These old men don’t understand, let alone use, technology. The country is moving left, as Dr. Krugmans’ well sourced opinion suggests. Going with your gut isn’t remotely convincing.
1
@Danny
The democrats who won in republican districts ran as moderates. If you want to see the results of Krugman's political prognostications, go back one more midterm. Then, like now, Speaker Pelosi led her party over a cliff. Democrats were decimated.
Progressives didn't learn from that experience and, if anything, seem to be doubling down.
@MaryAnn. When so-called progressives run and win in, say, Nebraska, then they'll have credibility. claiming the country is moving left when the only polls that matter (elections) say otherwise is almost Trumpian in its denial of reality; I'm not going with my gut. The Democratic Party, in which I am registered, is definitely moving left, but not the country as a whole. And we need to realise that or we'll have another nasty surprise in November 2020.
...actually, I liked the piece. it explained Schultz very well.
9
@te Yes. Schultz is a charlatan. The New Economy's version of noblesse oblige. Heavy on the noblesse, light on the oblige.
'The result is that to be an economic conservative in America means advocating policies that, on their merits, only appeal to a small elite. Basically nobody wants these policies on their own; they only sell if they’re packaged with racial hostility.'
This is what a lot of people on the left in the US don't understand about Brexit. The strongest advocates of Brexit are a minority of Tories who want to create a 'Global Britain' free from the shackles of what they see as an over-regulated and socially-oriented EU. The future they envision is strict austerity, fewer trade and regulatory protections for domestic industries, and a Britain more dependent than ever on the financial sector based in London. They packaged this, though, on hostility towards immigrants.
12
@D Moore Over a beer with a Brit from London - a self-described lifetime 'working class', Labor supporter - he told me he voted for Brexit solely on immigration ('insufficient housing and jobs left due to immigration'). I have no idea if this is actually true or if he got this idea from Tory propaganda. (He added that he despises Corbyn because he thinks Corbyn is a communist, and he's sympathetic to May because she has an impossible job).
@Unconvinced That sounds pretty common. You probably got him to speak more openly about his reasons for voting that perhaps he would here, since saying you are against immigration is less socially acceptable than couching it in terms like 'take back control' [from Brussels]. Most research points to immigration being a main factor.
About the housing and jobs: in the aggregate, immigrants from the EU are net contributors to the British economy, putting in more taxes than they take out. Most are high skilled - think German car designer or Polish plumber - and lots of evidence that they are creating jobs. But the Tories have cut back tons on housing, health care, and benefits, and people feel the pain. These cuts, by the way, have nothing to do with the EU. Blaming the EU and EU immigrants has always been a very convenient way to shift the blame away from the UK government.
@Unconvinced It's true. A particular problem is the housing shortage. Since WW1 much of the housing construction was done by local authorities, and rented to people unable to buy. Mrs Thatcher wanted a 'property-owning democracy' and sold much of this rental housing stock to sitting tenants. Most of it is now private rental housing.
The way the remaining housing stock was allocated was always by waiting lists of local people. This was changed to a 'need-based' system a few years ago. The effect is that an immigrant extended family gets housed before locals who have been on the list for years.
One can argue that the new system helps the neediest more efficiently, but the politics is as your source suggested.
Krugman is making this over complicated with all his definitions.
But our whole political spectrum is warped---by legalized power of private donors to elections. Our media opinionators write columns lamenting our various problems, but they avoid talking campaign finance-- the underlying problem-- like the plague.
Our corporate and super rich mega donors set up the limits of our lawmaking, and define left/right/center for their advantage. The GOP state media FOX News disseminates these distortions as normal.
Our corporate rich don't just donate, they INVEST in our politics for good returns----in lower taxes, and little regulation.
So what's labeled left or liberal is what would be quite centrist per 20th Century standards of other capitalist democracies.
Notice that our media opinionators avoid this contrast.
Best example---health care for all -- a life & death matter--has been centrist for generations abroad. We still are blocked from it. We have 39 million uninsured and rising costs. ACA which we fight to preserve, uses the taxes of average citizens to subsidize insurance companies, as the price of extending insurance to millions.
Other countries either have single payer of use insurance mandates, but with the crucial factor of govt regulations of premium costs for citizens. Here, that's off the table.
Our liberal columnists don't discuss this, much less advocate for it. They are 'safe' ---just more humanitarian.
20
@Meredith
Exactly! You said it so well.
I hate the idea of the government spending money it doesn't have and passing the mounting debt onto the next generation.
A few outspoken souls propose taxing the super-rich to raise more funds in order to have more government which in turn will spend even more money that it doesn't have.
Ah, but Krugman says the debt doesn't really matter. I disagree.
5
@G. I think you'll find you're in a ever smaller minority with that position. The 'Freedom Caucus' and the Tea Party have also been noticeably silent on deficit spending since Trump was elected. Even some of the biggest debt hawks among economists are now suggesting deficit spending is not quite as bad as they once warned. I think Krugman's point here is that promises to reduce government debt doesn't really matter these days in attracting votes.
5
Looks like Prof just got the news that the jobs number was 306,000 new jobs last month.
GDP from manufacturing is climbing fast. The stock market, after a stumble entirely due to the Democrats' success in November, is now stabilized and rebounding. China is slowing as would any leech ripped from its host, as is Europe due to the immigration problem Trump is trying to shield the US from.
NAFTA has been renegotiated in favor of the US, and troops will soon be leaving Syria and Afghanistan, while holding a big, beautiful fort in Iraq to keep an eye on things.
In other words, Trump is crushing it, and the Professor knows it. Short of Russian collusion by Trump himself, which the Professor knows didn't happen, the only way Trump doesn't make it to 2024 as Pres is impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate which will also never happen.
Folks, just relax and take a breath. You can't go on living like this. Look, nothing you said could happen has happened, your "he'll have the codes!" screed of 2016 never lived up to the hype.
Trump will be the US president for 8 years. You better learn to deal with that because if not, how will you learn to deal with a Supreme Court that will be conservative for the next 30 years! Can you say 2050? Long after Trump is gone.
This is not a sprint of pain you are in people, this is a marathon of pain for you for 3 decades. You better learn to pace yourselves better.
7
@Jerome 'Europe due to the immigration problem Trump is trying to shield the US from.'
On the contrary, Europe's slump can be attributed in large part to an ageing population. If anything, restricting immigration is going to make that slump worse.
5
@Jerome Seven lies per day. Done!
@Jerome... Donald, is that you? No...you don’t read The NY Times, and you wouldn’t have the attention span to string together that many words.
The glowing review offered seems to neglect the imminent collapse of the environment due to our horrid stewardship of the planet. Not to mention the exponentially growing investigations and indictments swallowing up what is left of this administration. The cabinet is thin and getting thinner. The rats are jumping off the sinking ship. No one with a shred of decency or interest in their own political future wants to be within a mile of these grifters.
Our allies are terrified. We have no coherent foreign policy. The executive branch is soley devoted to building an idiotic wall on out southern border. Only a FOX news fanatic could see this train wreck in such a positive light.
Like all good Liberals, Krugman is conflating two different concepts. Economic conservative? What is that?
There are many of us who are Fiscal Conservatives, who are social Liberals, in fact that pretty much describes most independents. A political party arose from this group, the Tea Party, or Taxed Enough Already, a group Krugman relentlessly ridiculed along with Paul Ryan.
Anyone who resists Krugmans’ over the top spending ideas is automatically labeled negatively
6
@hawk I think that you should look at the research linked to here and in Michelle Goldbergs piece from the other day. When people earnestly go looking for your combination of opinions, they turn ut to actually be very rare in the US today. You probably meet a lot of people who agree with you in your daily life, but don't confuse that with your opinion being held by a lot of people, you really don't meet that many of the 330 or so million people in the US.
34
@hawk -- the idea that the Tea Party was "full of social Liberals" leaves me ROFL. Look at the Wikipedia list of politicians identified with the Tea Party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_politicians_affiliated_with_the_Tea_Party_movement
The one thing that could be said to be true however is that while they wanted to "down the Federal government in the bathtub" they couldn't, so they just cut taxes, leading to spectacular deficits. Their rage at "tax and spend" led to "cut revenue ad spend" -- the height of improvidence.
1
@hawkKind of strange that 43 percent of fiscally conservative independents voted for the King of debt. Could it be that the package of racial/immigrant hostility was attractive?
If the comments here are any indication real socially liberal and economically conservative types are as rare as PK says, because they few who say they are then describe behavior and beliefs entirely different from what PK described.
5
Can someone please explain what "economically conservative" means?
Raise taxes? Lower taxes?
High interest rates? Low rates?
Cut spending? Fund education? Subsidize factory farms? Parental leave? Subsidize gas/oil companies? Invest in public transportation? The point is--it's a moving target--hard to hit.
What about balancing (attempting to balance) the budget? We can all agree that that is a goal of economic conservatism. Curiously, if this is a criteria, the Democratic Party is the economically conservative party if you consider deficits from 1980--present. Yet, in a perfect example of how the GOP, aided by FOX, Rush, Sinclair, et al, have scrambled the brains of half the population, everybody "knows" that GOP=the party of financial responsibility.
Centrists and independents have been lured away from the Democratic Party for years thanks to this myth.
43
Dear Dr K...
I read everything you put out in the Times and on twitter, and rely on you and your wise readers for your insights. This column is as informative as most, but tonight I haven't time or heart to read all the comments; so I apologize to all in advance if others have already pointed out one significant ommission in your statement in a late paragraph, where you said Republican policies "only sell if they're packaged with racial hostility". I suggest it would be more accurate if you had added "and/or anti-abortion rhetoric" after 'hostility'. Abortion rights is as divisive an issue as race is for many, many Republican voters.
97
@Jim O'Neill That was a thing I also picked up on. The whole abortion rethorik has devolved in the same way most things have in US politics. You might say that it's also the Republicans fault since they deploy their stick where they simply say we are against something. Be it taxes be it abortion and then the other party has to play the role to move the hostage the Republicans have taken an inch/cm.
1
@Jim O'Neill
You are quite right, with the exception that these Republican voters wrap up their believes in being pro something. They are pro-life, pro death penalty and pro arming themselves to the teeth.
6
Not sure that it is quite true that there are no economically conservative socially liberal voters left. I for example am one of those. Of course, living as an expat in Germany, I enjoy programmes that would be considered radically liberal in the USA - such as universal medical care, good unemployment support and a decent retirement check. No conservative politician in his or her right mind would even question these things here.
29
@Ken ...and, of course, the infrastructure, like that public transit system. Truly impressive.
And, despite the robust public spending, signs of private wealth abound.
11
It might be helpful for those of us that don't share the economic conservative social liberal mindset to understand how one can "enjoy" the benefits of Germany's "radically liberal" policies without recognizing that one's own conservatism could be wrong.
That's why the economic conservative social liberal combination is so rare. Most of us re-evaluate our beliefs when faced with the reality that some long-held personal beliefs are wrong (eg, economic conservatism says Germany should not work).
I grew up in a libertarian household (yes, that weird combination) but came to learn through travel, education, and experience that the economic conservative component of that combination is nonsense. Germany is doing just fine, as is Canada, Sweden, Denmark, etc.
There are times when the facts of our lives need to win out over our self-professed ideologies. Krugman is right that this is one of those times.
12
@Michael
Germany is certainly doing just fine, but there are significant differences in our culture. Several German concepts would be anathema to Americans.
First is the union/company partnership. Our unions were always adversarial and proudly so. Their job was to "fight". They would shutter a plant in a New York second to get what they wanted.
Second are the requirements that Germany imposes on immigrants. They must learn the language, put their children in state daycare and get a job, right? After the last influx, Germany tightened its immigration policies to require language skills and a means of self-support from those entering the country without a job.
There would be howls from progressives if our government dared to impose requirements like that.
4
The way to economic conservative government is to put all revenue and expenditures online. Physically it means downloading data onto a memory stick and uploading the info into a public government site(s). Cheap. But taxpayers could pour over each detail during their free time. Chat groups would spring up and many would get involved in monitoring our institutions.
7
@Phyllis Mazik It is available online. About the only way to make it more available would be to proactively email to everyone whether they want it or not.
A quick search for federal budget will get you an incredible amount of results all with the information you think is not available online.
It's pretty much all available, but it does actually take looking rather than simply assuming it is not.
17
@johnnymorales. A budget - or government appropriations is not the same as money spent - it is more like a kids allowance. How is our money actually used - or wasted? Our government probably doesn’t fully keep track of that.
Democrats are not putting their electoral prospects in danger by proposing higher taxes on the rich. But they are alienating some voters by going to the Bush-Cheney/Dulles Brothers right by embracing Bush-Cheney neo-cons like Max Boot; attacking candidates like Tulsi Gabbard because, according to Daily Beast, apparently her skepticism toward military-industrial complex overreach is "out-of-step" with foreign policy of today's Democratic Party; and showing double-standard on prosecutions and national security state abuse (i.e., Roger Stone's perjury bad [yes, absolutely, agree]; but somehow Obama's NSA Director James Clapper's perjury regarding mass warrantless surveillance of US citizens is OK and Clapper should be celebrated and paid by CNN as some kind of moral authority, instead of receiving similar Roger Stone treatment for same crime). Today's Democrats have done their best to kick out "Frank Church" Democrats on issue of national security state overreach.
Also, Democrats seem to have abandoned concern for civil liberties, at least to extent civil liberties ever conflict with current notions of identity politics. Finally, Democrats have done everything possible to kick any "Barbara Jordan" Democrats out of the party. African-American, Democratic Congresswoman and civil rights icon Barbara Jordan led Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform. Recommended same reforms now supported by Trump.
These are why Dems put their electoral prospects in danger.
8
@GRH
I am disheartened by the disappearance of “national security state overreach” as an issue in recent elections. At one time, I expected the Democrats to take up the cause, but they seem to be as complicit as the Republicans. Thank you for bringing this up.
3
@GRH
I couldn't agree more about Clapper. I'd argue he's worse than Stone since he supposedly worked on behalf of the American electorate, and blatantly lied to Congress about surveillance
1
It depends how you define economic conservatism. I would say that it means keeping programs that are in effect and expanding Medicare to those who want it. I don’t think at this juncture we should put health insurance companies out of business altogether, and free state college tuition is not a federal issue.
Similarly, you neglect to mention single issue conservatives who are “pro-life” and pro 2nd Amendment. I disagree vehemently with those positions, but we should be careful not to brand all who hold them as “racists”.
13
Why would free college tuition be only a state matter? Are you aware of Pell and other federal avenues of academic support?
4
@Dsmith
To my mind, there’s a difference between federally financed grants and loans, and “free tuition”.
Historically, the economy has performed far better under Democratic presidents, in terms of job creation, GDP growth, and stock market returns. It was Clinton who balanced the budget for four years while creating more jobs than any modern president, and Obama who kept the spending he inherited from Bush flat from fiscal year 2010 to 2014, reducing the deficit below historical average as % GDP.
The economy imploded under Bush and Trump has increased the debt addition trajectory he inherited from Obama by about 40% over the next decade, so we know it isn’t economics or fiscal conservatism that drives Republican voters; their politicians are demonstrably inferior in those arenas.
Social conservatism/racism gets you the Trump vote, so if you go anti-immigrant, pro gun with your Medicare for all and soak the rich tax plan, that is a winning ticket.
9
As a foreigner, I am struck that most of your readers fail to appreciate what it would mean to offer Medicare to everyone and low- or no-cost college to all qualified students: increasing the cost of government from 36% of GDP to about 50%. The public sector in European countries consumes 45-55% of GDP. In Canada it is about 45%, even with a budget medical system, subsidized but not free college, and nothing much in the way of a defence budget. To get public services to the Canadian level your federal and lower level governments would have to increase revenue by as much as 40%. That would mean a huge increase in the the taxes not just of the wealthy, but of the top 20-25%. Try selling that your readers, who are almost all in that bracket. Also try selling Americans on a national sales tax, which would probably be needed. America cannot reduce her defence budget significantly without disastrous consequences worldwide. Perhaps entitlements can be means tested, as they are to an extent in Canada, but I think that would be a hard sell. So would removing deductions like that on mortgage interest. And in addition to the fierce opposition of tens of millions whose taxes would go through the roof, you would face the fury of the health care establishment, private schools and colleges, developers and builders, and the whole business class. The Democrats may win with a lefty, in a whiplash reaction to Trump, but that winner will not deliver. Of that I'm sure.
16
@William Benjamin: The US has spent $6 trillion, so far, all borrowed, in the "War on Terror" that began with the 9/11 attack. Imagine what a difference doing something else with that money would have made.
48
@William Benjamin
We already spend far more than Canada on healthcare. MCA wouldn’t require an increase in spending, it would just require a shift in spend from insurance premiums to payroll taxes—net take home wouldn’t be affected much. The only real requirement is to overcome the scaremongering and explain that an insurance premium is no less of a burden than a payroll tax and creates more paperwork and spending that doesn’t actually go to healthcare.
25
@William Benjamin
Many in high taxed states are howling that their federal taxes have gone up. They are Americans in the top 20%. One wonders who they think will be paying for their rich proposals. Clearly, not they.
3
Max Boot wrote a piece recently in the Washington Post, declaring that Democrats no longer wish to compromise with Republicans.
Good. We shouldn't. President Obama like Clinton before him bent over backwards to try and accommodate an increasingly radical and right-wing GOP, one which no longer values the commons let alone ordinary people.
Result: the economy has been captured by a tiny percentage of the people and corporations are free to virtually enslave workers and destroy the environment for profit.
Trump has gone all in with the destruction of the government, the commons, democracy itself.
The only way the GOP gets away with this is by appealing to the basest impulses of a minority of American voters who via gerrymandering, the anti-democratic nature of the Senate and the under-representation of voters in the House now enjoy tyranny over the majority.
So it's great that Democrats are putting their feet down on economic principles but also moral issues like the Wall. But as soon as possible we must fix some of the structural issues that harm out democracy too, so that we can get actual legal protection from the next group of Visigoths. It's been shockingly easy for Trump to commit gross violations of human rights, like his border policy, and otherwise assault our government and weaken our long range economy.
124
@Sophia, Max Boot is an extremist Bush-Cheney neo-con who never saw a war or foreign intervention he wouldn't support. It has been so disappointing to watch the Democrats embrace the neo-cons with such open arms, contrary to everything they supposedly stood for in winning back the House and Senate in 2006, and winning the presidency in 2008. But now Max Boot is some important authority for the Democrats; and Democrat Tulsi Gabbard is attacked by "liberal" media because apparently, according to outlets like Daily Beast, her skepticism toward the military-industrial complex and massive overreach of the national security state is "out of step" with the foreign policy of today's Democratic Party. Strange times.
5
@GRH - calling Max Boot "an extremist Bush-Cheney neo-con who never saw a war or foreign intervention he wouldn't support" is what I'd expect from a Tulsi Gabbard fan: nonsense.
Claiming "now Max Boot is some important authority for the Democrats" ... WHAT? Your average Democrat has no idea who he is, and those who do know he's the ex-editor of the WSJ, and indeed something of a neo-Con, but the idea that he's on par with Cheney or "never saw a war or foreign intervention he wouldn't support" is hyperbolic to an extreme.
He argues that we shouldn't leave Afghanistan and Syria asserting the costs are bearable and better than walking out:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-us-cant-win-the-wars-in-afghanistan-and-syria--but-we-can-lose-them/2019/01/30/e440c54e-23ea-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html
I don't agree ... for reasons too lengthy to explain here ... but the argument is worth hearing and the decision of when to exit brushfire wars one got into is quite different than Cheney's systematic perversion of US intelligence to manufacture an entry into a ruinous war.
1
@Sophia: "State's rights" are unequally protective laws.
I suggest Krugman take a trip back and forth across the country at ground level, talking to people, not their "representatives", "spokespeople", polls, and pundits. I would bet that, as an intelligent compassionate person, it would substantially broaden his perspective and understanding of the nuances of America removed from airline hubs.
In any case, the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" are largely useless, intellectually lazy terms lacking much in the way of consaistent content in the current cultural and political environments. The Entertainer-In-Chief's media ratings are so high that effectively and sadly the electorate boils down to Trumpistas and anti-Trumpistas,
9
@Steve Fankuchen
I guess you don't keep up with the news. Nearly every time I read the news, I encounter a piece by a liberal journalist venturing into the hinterlands to discover why "the poor, forgotten Americans" voted for Trump. We have to be sympathetic and listen...
I've had more than enough of that. Why not take a different tack and flip the script? Let's send Sean Hannity to the University of Minnesota to interview a Marxist sociology professor--an adjunct, not tenured of course--like 70% of college instructors. He could ask about the insecurity of short term contracts or the lack of benefits, or how he manages without health care. He might ask what it's like to live on 27K, what it's like applying for food stamps. He could ask if it isn't frustrating to devote eight years to higher education, face a mountain of debt, while also coming to grips with the fact that he will never be able to afford a home--let alone be able to raise a family.
"Real Americans" come in many different flavors. Not all of them are Trump voters.
I’m sure there are many Socially Liberal Economically Conservatives meaning supply side Chicago School types ...I doubt many Liberals can even articulate an Economic System preference...Does Paul assume most Liberals possess a genuine passion for Keynesian economics? Or are they tax n spenders?
5
@Trained In Lobbying: Taxation and spending is fiscal policy only the Congress can conduct.
5
@Trained In Lobbying
No fancy Econ required. Economically, Liberals want healthcare and social security and don’t mind increasing taxes on the rich to pay for it. Cons want tax cuts for the wealthy and don’t mind borrowing to pay for it until healthcare and social spending are under the knife. Simple.
15
@Trained In Lobbying - There is another word for “tax and spenders”... smart. Government will always spend, so the only question is where will they get the money from? There are two basic ways for a government to get money; irresponsible borrowing like Republicans, and taxation like responsible Democrats.
Unfortunately, Americans have been conditioned to reject any argument in which the words "Socialism" and "Socialist" are used. They are convinced that an unchecked, unregulated and un-taxed Free Market Capitalism is the only road to prosperity. And so it was for the past 70 years or so. There even was a time that this country was praised for and became the envy of the whole World for its, wait for it! Middle Class. Remember those single earner families with 2.4 children and 1,6 cars and 1.2 dogs who lived happily ever after with mom cooking great dinners for the family who gathered around the kitchen table every evening and talked about their "day"? The good old days when not a single low cost labor market existed anywhere, and when American Industries employed American workers and paid them decent wages. Compared to the Soviet Union which happened to be the other side of the coin of prosperity, we and our Free Market Capitalism seemed the only way to go no questions asked. No one dared to ask : what happens if our Industries find a low cost labor market somewhere outside of the United States? the answer would have been pretty clear. Corporate America's loyalty under the Free Market Capitalism is not to the workers. And so, they will close shop here and set up shop in China and India. American workers will be left with no income while the Corporate becomes richer and richer. the income inequality is growing to a staggering level, can we talk about some Socialism perhaps? No?
37
@Kami
Instead of bringing the Bogeyman fear of "Socialism"(Bloomberg) and Venezuela as a total fiasco, let's just first understand none of these country had any true Socialism. Venezuela was ruled by dictator, so is Russia still ruled by autocrat I think it's very important at this moment in time, to figure out what Socialism is and learn the difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism that seems to work in some European countries.
Here's detail article on this subject...
https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/
HISTORY POLITICS
Socialism Was Once America's Political Taboo. Now, Democratic Socialism Is a Viable Platform. Here's What to Know
http://time.com/5422714/what-is-democratic-socialism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
Should be informative to finally understand the core distinctions, instead our billionaires prefer to scare people with labels. As of now we live in a plutocracy/oligarchy of Russian variety...
Let's just start thinking.
4
Yes, but only if we stop using words like socialist or socialism as Americans have been conditioned against them. Even the European countries that we want not to emulate don’t use them. They use terms like Social Democrats instead.
1
You left our reproductive rights, many, many people in this country vote single issue conservative “values”, anti choice.
19
@DJM: Failure to comply with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" underlies the abuse of government to serve religious ends that paralyzes US politics.
1
@DJM a distinctly small group, largely overlapping the racist group.
1
Trump, of course, got "elected" precisely because he ran as a populist--even, in certain respects, economically to the left of Hillary--who promised to preserve Social Security and create a "great" solution to health insurance.
Of course, he also promised to build a wall (and have Mexico pay for it)--he went right after those frightened-of-a black/brown planet social conservatives Krugman is describing.
The problem, of course, is that he never intended the economic populist part. People were fooled, they were gulled, they had been dumbed down by social media and lack of civics education and couldn't tell the difference between a Huey Long type and a con artist type whose only interest was self-aggrandizement. The small group of Calvinist libertarian oligarchs who provide the campaign funds for their bought representatives weren't conned, and realized that Trump was a useful short attention span tool to get more of their agenda realized. (They only pretend to care about immigration and evangelical concerns to get more votes so they can enact what they really want--tax cuts and reduced commerce.)
regulation.)
And given the gerrymandered electorate, this may well continue with others once Trump is gone--unless we can somehow get the oligarchs to stop buying legislators. And that's only probable if we can force through complete public funding of campaigns, so maybe elected representatives can actually represent their districts and not their donors.
25
@Glenn Ribotsky: voting for Trump after he refused to divulge his tax returns fully explains why so many of his fans plead economic distress.
11
P.K. said: "Understanding these empty quarters is, I’d argue, the key to understanding U.S. politics." YES!
The defect in the concept "conservative" is that no one can 'keep'/'conserve' things that never were. Our memories of the past are invariably fantasies to one degree or another.
"Conservative" is an oxymoron like 'lead balloon' , 'plastic silverware' etc etc.
BTW, "centrist conservative" and "conservative centrist" are oxymoronic too.
Democrats must (learn to) LISTEN.
8
Dr. Krugman is exactly on the money. And this is the true shame of Trump's missed opportunity.
A once in a generation politician who reveled in frustrating our moneyed ruling class caved to them immediately (due to his personal insecurities about not actually being a good businessman) and the swamp became a toxic tide.
I agree that a George Wallace 2.0 is the future of the GOP, and if he had a Latino surname he would be president in 2024. Someone tell the RNC to read Paul Krugman!
But in all seriousness, a candidate with the platform of "Medicare for all (but not the illegals) and tax the rich at 50% (but no more Muslims)" would win by a landslide.
But sleep easy democrats, the GOP is far too beholden to Koch money to make it happen.
13
Really sorry to burst your bubble about Trump.
The Donald has always been a key part of our moneyed ruling class.
What on earth made you think he wasn’t & that he actually enjoyed “frustrating” the rest of his rich, ruling pals?
Because of the con-job talk about eliminating the massive tax advantages enjoyed by hedge fund managers?
Because he lied to the gullible about raising taxes on the rich (if you actually read the linked article about this, Trump admitted to Krugman soon after making that claim that he actually planned to LOWER TAXES on the rich). He didn’t change his plans after the election, he just didn’t inform the public that he was momentarily lying. Like he does seemingly several times a day.
As for Trump’s great promise to “drain the swamp,” I guess you missed the update from his cronies not that many months after the electing that it was nothing more than a catchy saying.
One that folks like you obviously bought.
I’m not sure what “economically conservative” means. The GOP has tried to spin it as being equivalent to “fiscally responsible,” but history and accumulated evidence shows this to be false.
And the term implies the existence of an opposite, the “economically liberal” voter. But these days, economic liberals are defined by a willingness to invest in the people by funding preschool, better k-12 education, free college, universal healthcare, job transition training and public infrastructure. Conservatives, whose zero-sum imaginations fail them, see these as unattainable, but data suggests a positive ROI for these enterprises.
So in the end, isn’t it true that economic liberals are the responsible ones?
16
I feel like Krugman is talking about a different country than the one I live in. He’s describing the one he thinks is true, and by doing so validates his own political views, but unfortunately is not reality. Perhaps take some time and get off your high horse, in the big city you live in and go explore the rest of the country.
14
@Kevin I fully agree. The article is built on a "study" by a group that wants to lead us on "an insider’s journey to understanding the voters who will choose the next Democratic nominee for President." It's a politicized polling organization that drew strong opinions about a candidate that 56% of people have never heard of. I imagine that many of the people who disapprove of him have never heard of him either, but disapproved anyway.
7
@Kevin
Krugman's groups of made-up people are designed to fit into his narratives.
1
I am one of the socially liberal, economically conservative voters, and I can't believe there are only 4% of us. That said, Trump's tax whacks would benefit our family, but at the expense of the well-being of other people with whom we interact daily as well as our entire economy. I would rather live in a peaceful, educated, wise and respectful nation even if it meant paying a few more dollars in taxes - as long as those dollars aren't going to Trump and his collaborating cronies, and as long as the social, economic and ecological safety nets of our country aren't being torn apart.
All that said, I view Howard Schultz as a spoiler. If his ideas are that good, he should fight for the nomination within the structure of the Democratic party. Any third party candidate will wind up re-electing Trump; I hope Schultz is smart enough and wise enough to realize that. His tilt at windmills is not at all what this country needs right now; the only thing worse for us is the continuation of Trump and trumpism.
13
@CP
Always interesting how people claim they don't mind paying higher taxes as long as [fill-in-the-blank]. In their perfectly constructed world -- the one in which higher taxes would be welcomed -- it's (a) always someone else who gets taxed a great deal more and (b) only their pet policies are implemented.
In other words, they are willing to pay more in taxes as long as they get exactly what they wish. Of course, this is not how the real world works. And, in fact, they really just like most Americans who don't want to pay for something with which they disagree or of which they disapprove.
They really aren't wiling to pay more in taxes.
2
@AACNY, thanks to the "reforms" of the last tax package, I an others of some comfort but not extreme wealth are already paying more taxes and getting trumpism in return. Not a fair trade-off. As I said, I would be willing to play FOR something, instead of now paying taxes into a government I don't believe in and then having to donate to other entities to try to keep that government at bay.
I think anti-semitism plays more a part in folks desire to tax the rich than is acknowledged. Revenge politics is just sometimes race based and some of these "populists" just want to get all the money they can from the "bad" people, in the name of equality. Since you asked: I would recommend Uncle Sam eliminate our poverty and save our environment achieving those goals with deficit spending. Then work on spending efficiencies and debt management; and in the meantime have a new tax on the 1% to cover the rising annual interest payment on the debt.
5
I am looking forward to the day when we don't have to talk about Howard Schultz. At 4% approval and 40% disapproval, maybe he'll take a hint.
17
I would consider myself socially liberal and economically pragmatic. Sometimes this is the same thing as “economically conservative”, but usually it isn’t.
How, exactly, did I benefit from the invasion of Iraq? How do I benefit from the subsidies given to the fossil fuel industries, when my electric train to Manhattan runs off the rails every month or so? Why do I have to pay so much for prisons when schools would be so much cheaper? Why can’t we hire people to clean up the Hudson River instead of handing out money to people who want to pollute it?
Can it really be that people like me are only 4% of the population? Were we all somehow dreaming?
64
@Andrew M.
Why do Americans pay so much more for K-12 education than the rest of the developed world and get worse results?
Why do we pay twice as much for health care as the rest of the developed world? Why did increasing spending on healthcare from 18% of GDP in 2010 to 20% of GDP in a bigger economy in 2018 result in a reduction in life expectancies at birth? Could it be that giving free opioids to able bodied childless adults was not a great use of federal taxpayer dollars? Could it be that cutting off Medicaid supplemental funds to clinics and hospitals that served a high proportion of Medicaid clients to compensate the providers for the fact that Medicaid reimbursement do not cover the cost of care was not clever? We increased profits to big medicine and cut spending that benefited the most vulnerable.
Why is it that mass transit in the NE corridor, which has tens of millions of daily riders, does not have enough money to maintain its infrastructure from fares and is begging the rest of the country to pay for its capital to replace hundred year old tunnels?
18
@ebmem
The cut in reimbursements was offset by the cut in uninsured persons (who didn’t pay) treated by those clinics and hospitals—that’s why the hospitals went along with it. But as ACA is undermined and the uninsured begin to rise again, the calculus will change.
7
@Andrew M. Given your positions, I don't think you represent "economically conservative."
1
What bothers me most about Schultz is his rhetoric that taxing the rich and universal health care is "extreme left wing." It seems that in the current environment, if you keep repeating something on the news, people begin to believe it.
28
@Michael
Universal health care is not left wing, it is equally right wing.
Universal health insurance, subsidized by the taxpayer and the young and healthy to reduce premiums for the old and wealthy, and increasing profits to big medicine is socialism and extreme left wing.
2
@ebmem Do you have any insurance? I think you do.There is a randomness to misfortune. It could hit anyone.The average price is affordable to anyone. The specific price is affordable to no one. That is insurance. Misfortune does not strike only the undeserving. This is the conservative fantasy. Thump your chest. Praise you own virtue. Kill the unfortunate is your politics.
1
I suggest Krugman take a trip back and forth across the country at ground level, talking to people, not their "representatives", "spokespeople", polls, and pundits. I would bet that, as an intelligent compassionate person, it would substantially broaden his perspective and understanding of the nuances of America removed from airline hubs.
7
@Steve Fankuchen
If middle Americans were " as an intelligent compassionate" Trump would not be President. Listening to those in the midwest is what got us into this mess. I'm with Krugman.
15
Al, it was not Trump who effectively lynched your former intelligent, compassionate Senator, Al Franken.
1
@Steve Fankuchen -- I've spent a fair amount of time on the ground in rural Oklahoma and Kansas. You only need to spend a little while in rural America today to realize something: if you don't have the resources to farm at an adequate scale, there's just nearly nothing else one can do that will make a living, locally.
Some men turn into long-haul truckers and there are a few other jobs, but largely people must leave, and many don't want to: family or social reasons or property ties. For many the idea of moving "just doesn't compute," nor do they have the resources to do it.
I'm struck by Mr. Krugman's assertion that someone who is socially liberal, yet economically conservative is a Republican. I'm that animal, and have always identified as a Democrat. It appears that neither tent is large enough these days to include me, and as such I welcome Mr. Schultz's run. Both parties need to quit running to their bases.
10
@Jon
If you are economically and fiscally conservative, you should certainly be a Democrat. The entire record of official GDP data shows that GDP growth has been 142% better under Democratic administrations. That's like a basketball game with a final score of 121 to 50, an epic blowout for Democrats. Similarly, the last four Republican administrations, including Trump, have all increased deficits during their time in office, while the last two Democratic administrations have sharply decreased them. Stock market gains, real income growth and job creation are also far superior under Democrats.
Isn't the idea of conservatism to do what works?
49
@Jon: So far, Schultz has offered no ideas, only what he is against. He has already said that universal health care and universal education are unattainable, which is certainly not in line with the majority of American opinion. “I don’t want to talk in the hypothetical about what I would do if I was president,” he said (vox.com). How, then, are we to know what he proposes as the future of the U.S.A.; and isn't talking "in the hypothetical" exactly what campaigning is?
We all know what happened in 2000 when Ralph Nader pulled millions of votes from the Democrats; and in 2016, the Libertarian and Green parties drew 4.4% of the vote. If you believe it cannot happen again, please reconsider.
31
@Jon, it's simple, actually. Economic conservatism, i.e., Democratic finance: 2 + 2 = 4. Republican finance: 2 + 2 = whatever we need it to be to get richer, keep our grip on power and keep the poor and the "others" down. And a message to Mr. Schultz: anyone who can get people to spend twice as much on a cup of burnt coffee is a glorified huckster who is selling image, not substance, and is not someone I'd trust with the presidency.
10
In today's world, we've learned that to be "socially liberal and economically conservative" as I once thought myself to be, is an oxymoron. Being socially liberal doesn't just mean supporting equal rights for all races, sexes and orientations. It also means protecting the infrastructure that allows everyone to get to work efficiently, fund schools so that young people are all prepared for the workplace after graduating, and providing adequate health care for every person as a basic human right, certainly regardless of one's economic status. Therein is the catch: in order to assure these precepts which one could call "socially liberal" but which I now refer to as "basic human concepts of decency", one must be prepared to spend the money to see them done and to be sure that the country's wealth is distributed equitably. One can't say they feel a duty to help those less fortunate then fail to support providing the means to do so. Charity is NOT the domain of a free society where one should have the right to EXPECT minimum levels of service rather than depending upon the good will of the super rich. It's clear to me that Schultz is a phony and those that lean left are not to buying his brand of selfishness masquerading as "centrist" or "moderate". The mindless minions on the right continue their torrid love affair with the charlatan-in-chief, but no intelligent, decent person believes that social issues can advance while the right get richer and the poor become irrelevant.
155
@ManhattanWilliam:
"no intelligent, decent person believes that social issues can advance while the [rich] get richer and the poor become irrelevant."
Unfortunately, the selfish rich and their wholly owned political party are very resourceful when it comes to playing identity politics and cobbling together various groups that will embrace the Republican Party, even though their policies are anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-future generations and anti-decency.
Their propaganda apparatus has done a stellar job of distorting and demonizing liberalism. Demagoguing race, religion, abortion, guns and national identity has worked spectacularly well for them. In the world of politics, never count out moneyed interests who are willing to resort to blatant immorality in furtherance of their selfish interests.
23
@ManhattanWilliam
NYC has the most segregated school system in the country. NYC has public housing that would result in a private landlord going to jail, and the city is begging the state and the federal taxpayers to repair it.
In other parts of the country, we look after our poor with local funds. Residents of NYC not only do not contribute to charities, they use their tax dollars to pay off politicians and corruption rather than caring for local needs and they excoriate the rest of the country for declining to increase their subsidies.
Why is it that the "liberal" blue cities are the ones demanding the federal government pay for 50% of their infrastructure?
6
@ebmem
You need to look where tax dollars come from and go. Overwhelmingly federal taxes flow from blue states to red states. If federal tax dollars were spent in proportion to where they were generated, NYC would be a huge beneficiary. You have the direction of the subsidy completely backwards.
29
"But maybe the gravitational attraction of big money — which has completely captured the G.O.P., and has arguably kept Democrats from moving as far left as the electorate really wants — is too great."
Maybe?
24
Howard Schulz’s problem is that he is a low energy “explainer.” He comes across as someone who doesn’t believe in much more than practicality. What’s his vision for the US? Who knows? As one of the people who would no doubt be taxed under E. Warren’s plan it is no surprise that he is pretty cool to it. At least in Warren I heard and see someone who is incensed by the inequities of our system and has already done some things to try to mitigate the worst of it for average people.
27
I question the apparent extrapolation of saying only 4% of people support Shultz therefore only 4% support social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. The low support for Shultz is more likely because the vast majority of Dems see that a candidacy such as his would all but assure a Republican victory by splitting the liberal vote.
20
@Upstate Guy
So, after skimming both for the numbers, it looks like Mr. Krugman *is* doing some very minimal rounding (tenths of a percentage point), but he wasn't extrapolating. The phrasing in the his article admittedly could have been a little more clear.
1
@Upstate Guy
The numbers he he was referencing actually came from two different sources. While it does suggest some correlation, that they were both *exactly* 4% was coincidental. Here are the links from the article...
Schultz Poll Numbers: https://medium.com/@ChngRsrch/presidential-polling-on-howard-schultz-for-president-db970ad2b42d
Social Liberalism/Fiscal Conservatism:
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond
2
The question in 2016 was: were voters so dissatisfied that they would elect a Republican who promised the middle class a better economic outcome than both parties delivered to them over the past four decades (wage stagnation in the face of unrelenting rising costs)? The decision was made easier for many when the Democrat continued to offer the same old deal her party always had.
The question in 2020 will be different. Democrats are entering the race who understand the traditional platform of being fiscally conservative while gradually expanding the safety net for the very poor is no longer enough. They now realize that, to get elected, they must offer a better deal to the entire 90% (not just the very poor). Their focus has shifted from aiding the top 10% and hoping that works out to everyone's benefit (trickle down) to taxing the top 10% and providing assistance to the 90% directly.
Senator Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act and her plan to enact a wealth tax on Americans with net assets over $50 million are two giant steps in that direction. Senator Brown's ideas regarding the dignity of work are another important contribution.
When Democrats start talking about helping the middle class as well as the poor, a lot of voters formerly attracted to Trump's faux populism will likely break ranks with the Republicans. Most of those that were won over by Trump are not as racist as they get portrayed. They simply want government to work for them too.
18
@Robert C. Hinkley
A better strategy would be to impose a 3% wealth tax on endowments which the wealthy use to maintain control of their wealth in perpetuity.
Most of Trump's supporters are not racist at all. They were horrified by the gifts Democrats made to their big med donors as well as their high tech tax scofflaws who offshored their income to minimize taxes paid. Democrats ignored that middle and lower income taxpayers got tax cuts under the Republican tax reform and pretended the wealthy were the primary beneficiaries. Even with lower corporate tax rates, their primary objection was that their big business cronies had to repatriate foreign earnings and pay taxes on those earnings. And the needs of Democrat big donors outweighs any concerns for those of us who don't have armies of accountants and tax attorneys gaming the system.
4
@ebmem
Americans will get to see with their own eyes how the new tax laws affect them. If you consider that the average US property taxes are around $3,500 and most families will benefit greatly from the now doubled $2K per child tax *credit* (versus deduction), democrats will be increasingly singing only to the high taxed state residents.
2
I find it troubling how much of the conversations in these comments as well as for other articles is labeling people and ideas in groups without any specifics and then citing statistics that don’t clarify anything but place things on two parallel one dimensional lines. What is so progressive about that. There are plenty of valuable market based ideas that people call conservative but can easily be adapted to generate solutions which spread and encourage wealth. The wealthy are always going to find their way around high taxes so we should try to figure out who can be mire lopsided and vengeful but what workarounds produce the desired results. I’d like to see the Democrats talk about the results we want. We’re all over the place with useless labels.
8
Mr. Schultz is an admirable corporate executive and global citizen. Please stay in your lane! We’ve had so much business-centric and favorable government that now we need liberalism to swing the pendulum back. I used to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. True conservatism supports free markets and antitrust. Today’s “conservatives” support consolidation and mega-corporations rather than true competition.
12
One reason there are so few "socially liberal" but "economically conservative" voters is that the two positions contradict. One of the biggest social problems is economic inequality, but the policies that economic conservatives support make that worse, not better.
24
@Zeno
Progressive redistribution schemes increase economic inequality. During the Obama administration, median real wages declined, and the wealth of the top 1% grew.
2
ebmem,
Obama steered our country through our worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Wages were stagnant you say? Millions were thrown out of work, because the economy was in the tank due to a herd mentality on Wall street. What planet were you living on in 2008?
2
@ebmem
According to a Tax Policy Center study of 175 million Americans:
"For 2018, households in the top 20% will have income of about $150,000 or more and 52% of total income, about the same as in 2017. But they will pay about 87% of income taxes, up from about 84% last year."
**********
* "Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001
I think Sherrod Brown is the closest we will get to this populist candidate as he appeals to the working class and Warren’s economic platform is spot-on.
9
Is inequality good or bad for democracy? Paul Krugman thinks it is a self-evident truth that the "great enrichment" of the 0.1% (or even the 1%) augurs the dissolution of the Republic. (Self-evident in the sense that he dispenses with facts or argument).
But why should today's gilded age lead to an American aristocracy if the first Gilded Age didn't? There is nothing deterministic about inequality and the decay of democracy.
The opposite is more likely. Billionaires are good for democracy. Here is the argument from a Nobel laureate in economics. (Can you guess who?): "Radical movements in capitalist societies ... have typically been supported by a few wealthy individuals ... - by a Frederick Vanderbilt Field, or an Anita McCormick Blaine, or a Corliss Lamont, ... or by a Friedrich Engels. This is a role of the inequality of wealth in preserving political freedom that is seldom noted -- the role of the patron."
Let's not settle for slogans any longer.
7
@Ian Maitland: The first Gilded Age didn't lead to a permanent aristocracy (well, mostly - I recall a passel of politicians named Rockefeller) because of people like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt. The rich actually tried to carry out an armed coup against the latter.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Adelsons and Kochs, Waltons and Purdues to overthrow our current Gilded Age.
37
@Ian Maitland
There is a strong argument for the justice, morality, and practical utility of inequality. Equality is inherently unnatural and must be coerced and maintained with force. The concentration of the necessary power itself requires and maintains inequality. Inequality both drives and results from innovation that improves the quality of the lives of all. When an innovator provides a hundred dollars of value to a billion people, justice demands that a few dollars of that hundred be his just reward. Billionaire entrepreneurs drive bold innovation that sclerotic corporate and government bureaucracies can not. Billionaires enrich society preserving art, natural spaces, and habitat.
3
Most innovation is created by underpaid engineers who receive no additional compensation for their innovation. These innovators work to provide for their families and make a better world. That is a just reward. All that is needed to hire and expropriate this talent is money. The boldness of billionaire innovation is most commonly known by the financial collapse. They were not hurt at all, as they knew they would not be.
1
I grew up in the small town South, where my family members supported George Wallace and Jesse Helms. But today I see a huge generational divide between my parents generation, proudly wearing MAGA hats, and their grandchildren, who are repulsed by Trump. I see an opening for a less overtly racist Republican candidate like Nicki Hailey, but I don’t see that happening in 2020. Democrats have a real opportunity in the South with an agenda built on affrordable health care and education.
22
There are, in my view, quite many socially liberal fiscal conservative voters and Paul Krugman is one of them. To be a fiscal conservative in my view means paying your bills. To be a fiscal consevative means you must be for universal health care or government and everyone else will die broke. It means paying for what you do now now, instead of running big deficits. It means requiring those with the most, who benefit the most from our liberal democracy, paying taxes to cover today's cost. Or to put another way, Ronald Reaganm George W Bush and Paul Ryan were not fiscal conservatives they were the opposite of fiscal conservatives. Bill Clinton one the other hand was the poster child for true fiscal conservatives.
17
Just to be clear, Krugman, like most economists, has nothing against running a fiscal deficit when the situation calls for it. Run a deficit during recession and reduce spending during a boom. So calling him a fiscal conservative is a bit misleading. Call him fiscally rational.
29
@Dangoodbar
“To be a fiscal conservative means you must be for universal health care ...”
Well I guess just about any label must mean just about anything so there is no point in attempting an intelligent conversation.
@KBronson
If "fiscal conservative" has any minning it means paying your bills. Noting that ending Obamacare will increase the deficit, prior to Obamacare the American Government and many if not most Americans, were unable to pay their healthcare bills. Therefore by definition, to be a fiscal conservative you had to support healthcare reform so that the Government and most Americans could pay their bills.
The so called missing first quarter is the conventional wisdom of the New Democrats, including Krugman.
Schultz is unpopular among educated Democratic votersm because he is indistinguishable from the modern Democrat and would just split the Democratic vote
5
@Jerry Hough
You have to be joking. Schultz is nothing like today's modern Democrat. He is a billionaire in the Trump mold. Thinks his ideas are the best and only he can fix it. That is not the position of any Democrat I'm aware of.
Do we believe we have better ideas than Republicans? You bet we do, but we don't think we are the only ones with good ideas.
The reason Howard Shultz can overestimate support for his position is that the socially liberal economically well off are over-represented in the news media, and they write and report from that perspective. How many middle class pundits do you see on television these days?
By the way, I refuse to use the term "conservative" for those who want to redistribute wealth upward. The term has been captured for political gain, but I don't think old school conservatism simply meant cater to the rich.
9
@EdBx, Nope, it did simply mean cater to the rich. Always has.
8
Great piece. Excellent.
17
The problem with the politics of economic populism is that many people think they are deserving of benefits, but many others are not, especially those who they believe are inferior (hence the racism). So the desire to keep the government from taxing their hard earned money in order to spend on someone that they don't think deserves it plays into Republican hands.
24
So they are racists if they don’t want their taxes distributed to the unlimited number of people that would like to come across the border.
How is the lone core belief that taxes on the wealthy should be reduced what passes for "conservative" today?
...Andrew
7
@A. Gideon: of course not. We also want secure national borders and the immediate deportation of every single illegal alien and their illegal families.
Oh and reasonable restrictions on abortion after 12-20 weeks.
If I may, I'd like to respectfully disagree by citing the Gallup poll of Jan 2-10, 2019 [ https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx ]
Republicans - 25%
Democrats - 34%
*Independents - 39%
*Independents being voters who are not registered with either political party.
2
@Texexnv
Studies show that many independents predictably vote for one party or the other. They likely believe the party for which they reliably vote needs to earn their vote and not take it for granted.
2
It seems finally everyone is joining the progressive wing. Today Schumer and Dr. Krugman.
I think it’s great and I hope it works!
8
I'm one of the 4% who is socially liberal and economically conservative. Pro-choice and pro-immigration while against ever-increasing spending and budgetary deficits. Myself and folks like myself have no home in either party - it's always merely a choice of holding your nose and choosing the lesser of two evils.
10
@Kyla, "increasing spending and budgetary deficits" aren't inevitable. It takes political effort to keep them under control. You'll have to work at it to get what you want.
2
@Kyla Budget deficits are caused as much by tax cuts and under taxation as they are by increased spending.
4
@Kyla
You used to have a "home" in the pre-1964 Republican Party known as the Rockefeller Republicans.
The Rockefeller Republicans were killed by the Goldwater Republicans who begat Regan Democrats who set the stage for Trump and his Trumpists.
The policies of Clinton & Obama would have been quite familiar to Rockefeller Republicans.
1
Racism is not the only metric for the social divide. By ignoring religion, and other issues (eg, western libertarianism) , PK has defined social liberalism/conservatism too narrowly. This lacuna weakens his argument considerably.
4
They want someone who is left or “leftish” and also someone who seems like an actual person. That was the slice that Clinton lost to Trump, who bizarrely seemed like less of a construct.
4
"that candidate will look more like George Wallace than like Howard Schultz" .....
Or perhaps Huey Long, who was planning a run for the Presidency when he was shot and killed in 1935. "Every man a king!" He felt that Roosevelt didn't go far enough, and proposed a "net asset tax", the proceeds of which would be redistributed. On racial matters he was a man of his time and place. Unlike Trump, though, he did keep faith with his constituency.
9
Socially moderate/conservative voters are not automatically racist. That is a bigoted assessment that says more about a classist, wealthy elite like Krugman than it does about the mostly working-class people with those views. It also explains why the Democrats remain so toxic in much of America, despite the awfulness of Republicans. Nobody's going to vote for a party that hates them; minorities eschew the Republican Party and the white working class avoids the Democratic Party for the same reason.
There are many issues from abortion to gun rights to religion to immigration where we may disagree without branding everyone racist who disagrees or leaping to the conclusion that they are racist just because they disagree with you, Paul. Donald Trump thanks you for being his foil.
14
Agree. I was taken aback to here such a large population just cavalierly labeled “racist.” Reminded me of HRC and her “deplorable” gaffe. No one wants to be part of a party who calls them “racist” for not wanting to pay taxes to fund schools and medical care to those who have entered illegally. PK clearly never had to put his kids into a school with MS-13 gang members and then get called a racist for being unhappy.
1
@Chris Gray
The use of the word, "racist", is highly offensive. And flat out wrong, but there is no arguing with them.
1
Racism & xenophobia packaged with anti-government sentiment is the prescription for a successful GOP. Reagan successfully convinced the entire conservative class that government is both useless & domineering longing for control. In their minds universal healthcare coverage isn’t a gesture by good people in government wanting help the less fortunate, its government bureaucrats seeking control. A progressive tax system isn’t thought of as an initiative by good people in government wanting to resist the inequality capitalism produces, in their minds it’s the first step to ‘socialism’ & ‘Venezuela’. So it’s not entirely true that republican voters will look the other way as the GOP caters toward the billionaire class; as they actually believe taxing the rich & universal healthcare is wrong. They are motivated by fear. Be it fear of immigrants taking jobs or mugging them (hey it’s what they believe), or fear of the ‘big government’ bogey man taking away their freedom (whatever that means). The GOP doesn’t run on solutions & improvement, they run on offering protection from government, minorities. It’s nothing more than a political racket – offering protection from invented threats.
15
@Adam
It is beyond sad, a tragedy really, that any conscious human soul does not even know what freedom means.
The voters get their information from the media. That's the most important explanation of where all the voters are. They vote against their own interests and support candidates to the right in both parties because people in the media CHOOSE to tell them that the policies on the right will be good for them. These media players make that choice to say such dishonest things because they are PAID to say them. In short there are very many well paid liars in the american media.
All professions need to be largely self policing if they are to remain functional and promote the general good. That is not where we find ourselves in America.
Media empires are owned by right wing billionaires, almost exclusively. Even papers calling themselves liberal nevertheless give direction to their editorialist and writers to skewer economic arguments so far to the right that they are largely non-sensical, if yet effective smokescreens.
The american news industry is now an oligopoly with only six companies controlling the distribution of almost all the news. journalists like politicians are playing along to get along and that explains the wide disconnect to voters who favor left of center policies and a political cast that doesn't. as for the racism, well promoting that is just standard divide and conquer, but the politicians couldn't send out racist messages without the help of media _ so set your own house in order journalists.
8
It's probably unwise to draw too many ideological conclusions from the negative reaction to Schultz's centrist presidential flirtation because Schultz himself plainly knows almost nothing about government and his meager public record in Seattle is that of a feckless buffoon. In his particular case, the personal baggage may be the dominant factor in eliciting the reaction.
One cannot question the racist component in Trump's victory, but its depth and virulence may be less than supposed. There was a strong component of cynical despair underpinning the Trump vote.
Democratic politicians abandoned the working class in exchange for barrels of Wall Street cash, then nominated the poster girl for this opportunistic sell-out as their presidential nominee. Clinton tried gamely to play down her Wall Street allegiance, but no one was persuaded. So, in addition to the racist tinge, there was a message of punishment and revenge contained in the white working class Trump vote.
And that message seems to have been heard and taken to heart by a significant fraction of the Democratic Party. If the Democrats nominate a candidate credibly and forcefully committed to restoring the primacy of working class interests to its policy deliberations, the appeal of that tectonic shift should be strong enough to overcome any latent racist inclinations. The appeal would likely become even more compelling if the candidate were a lunch bucket midwesterner and not a wine and cheese coastal liberal.
7
Paul Krugman should stick to economic analysis. This column has few citations, no perspective or history, and fails to examine past elections. Leave this topic to Nate Silver. Caveat: I generally agree, and almost always appreciate, his perspective. But not this time.
2
Very insightful. Then bottom line is that money can buy anything. It can distract and divert attention, manipulate public opinion and fool enough of the people all the time. Apparently. Only once did it not work: during the Great Depression and FDR’s New Deal. But all that has been washed away now.
5
I am on the far left on both economic and social policy, and deeply admire Krugman but economic liberal (assuming he means the U.S. misuse of the term "liberal" to mean "left"/socially conservative does not have to equal racist populist. Racist populism is a hugely powerful force for evil in this country, but there is nothing that says that combination have to be racist. In fact, I would argue that the Pope is an example of socially conservative/economically left wing. It's long been a principle of Catholic teaching to oppose abortion, homosexuality, female equality, and contraception and promote environmental stewardship and social programs designed to bring about economic justice, not to mention anti-racist teachings. So, I think there's some untapped power in economic policies that could unite a broader swath of the population if it eschewed racism, actually. But true, no one likes that Schultz guy for that very reason: he combines everything loathsome to all involved.
All this is about extremes. Haven't we had enough???
Could there possibly be a constituency of moderates on both economics and "social" values? A Rockefeller Republican; a Bloomberg, an Eisenhower? Someone who is really boring.
Of course Krugman thinks that this kind of position on economics is, I don't know, that of a troglodyte or cro-magnon, but I don't agree. A lot less activist. Imperfect, yes, but not crazy. Taking small risks but avoiding big ones? And, while we're at it, stop fighting wars that can't be "won" and would do very little for us even if they were? Settling for the acceptable and not shooting for the moon? Somehow, sometime, somewhere???
1
The eternal cry of the lonely Democrat: "Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist (or occasionally a misogynist)." Yet Democrats continue to lose elections at least half the time, despite the demonstrable decrease in racism (and sexism) in the country over the last two generations.
What is closer to the truth is that the enemies of the Democrats, who have nobody but Republicans to vote for, oppose a party that seeks to win by demonizing large parts of the American public. Since the civil rights movement, the Democratic party has been a party of protest, itching to find one group after another that has suffered some injustice, because fighting injustice is what they do. They are the party of victims rights; any victim will do. That's fine as far as it goes. There are injustices to battle in America.
But the Democratic party isn't a party of government. It is a party of causes and groups with causes. They don't have policies for all of America. They exist to pit one part of America against another. Now they'll probably win the anti-Trump vs. pro-Trump battle, but when they win they'll pass legislation to win a dozen small battles, right a dozen wrongs, but not fundamentally change the country. Obamacare affected perhaps 5% of Americans; will the next health care reform affect another 3%? I have yet to see a Democrat propose the middle class tax rise to enable Medicare for all (yes, that's what it will take). Democrats can't just be the party of protest.
6
@Tom
Identity politics slices and dices us, pitting one group against another, allowing the democrats to rush in to rescue the groups they've depicted as being under attack.
Americans are truly sick of it.
What does "independent" mean? There is no such thing as and Independent any thing.
What we are moving toward, and this may be beyond the grasp of some people who are frozen in the statics of dense physical stuff, is a synthesis of principles that includes those aspect of each position that actually support the Common Good and General Welfare.
Watch it be born.
1
As history shows, a George Wallace or a Huey Long also have quite limited electoral appeal as party outsiders. The reason a Trump could win isn't that a majority of voters in enough states necessarily approved of his racist-populist appeal; it's that the number who approved, plus those who don't disapprove strongly enough to vote for anyone but the Republican, put him over the top.
I've noticed that it's only Republican pundits who say Dem's risk election chances if they move too far left.
Fear mongering-- one more way Republicans attempt to sabotage Dem's who dare to be bold.
9
@SLBvt
On the contrary, democratic voters themselves are trying to tell you this. You are ignoring them.
The left has coopted what used to be a Republican belief: If you say something is a fact enough times, it will be one. Now, the racist label is attached to anyone who isn't left enough for the leftists. I do not believe that the electorate is as far left as Mr. Krugman claims. I think, once again, it is the narcissism of the coasts that cannot comprehend, let alone accept, that most of the country does not think like them. Mr. Krugman argued for the nationalization of the banks in 2008. We know where he is on the spectrum. But if the left really believes what Mr. Krugman claims, they can probably look forward to another defeat in 2020.
3
This article is correct about the voter profiles in the country today, ie. the absence of social liberal/economic conservatives, like Rockerfeller Republicans, and the prevalence of socially conservative Americans wanting economic reforms/justice.
Where Dr. Krugman leads us astray is in generalizing this latter group as supporters of "racist populists". Where does he come up with this? Wouldn't truly progressive candidates appeal to this group? (Jamelle Bouie wrote a great article last week describing 'labor and agrarian radicals', supporters of Eugene Debs and other underpinnings of the modern progressive movement.) Progressives and New Deal Democrats are the ticket - not racist populists!
The neoliberal platform (which Dr. Krugman has supported) alienates the working class because of its PC morality, identity politics, and social justice agenda AND its LACK of real economic reform, i.e. it protects the prosperity of the educated/professional class, first and foremost, while pretending to be humanistic. Nor is there an absence of true progressive candidates, like Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader (below is a link to a C-SPAN interview of Nader showing how prescient he was... and the whole "spoiler" issue.) But Dr. Krugman likes using straw men and women, it seems. Racist populists are easy to discount. As is AOC, who may have great inclinations. She is clearly not ready for prime time - and that's why she's being put there.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?168072-1/crashing-party
2
I realize that what I am about to suggest is -- and should be -- somewhat disagreeable to Prof. Krugman. I realize this simply because I have had professional colleagues with whose politics I profoundly disagreed and, of course, disagreement is, at least formally, symmetric. (I am now a fully retired Computer Scientist, having specialized in AI for almost 40 years.) SO: what I suggest is that Prof. Krugman begin to call out some (more than 1) of his colleagues as NYT Op-Ed Columnists for the ignoramuses that they are -- especially w/domestic policy, including of course macroeconomic, tax- and distribution-oriented policies. I do realize that the NYT wants -- and indeed is right in wanting -- to have Op-Ed Columnists of varying political hues; but surely it can be encouraged to do better. Indeed, here's a little thought experiment: Because I am a nerd, even an amateur econo-nerd, I immensely appreciate Krugman's more "Wonkish" pieces; the more and the more wonkish, the better. Now, to name names, imagine Brooks or Douthat or Stephens writing a wonkish piece. Brooks' amateur socio-psychological musings wouldn't pass muster, would they? Perhaps Douthat's obviously quite knowledgeable articles on Catholic doctrine? Well, that is a rather odd form of wonkery, but still, he is clearly qualified in that area, if in no other.... And as for Stephens, I have no idea in what area he may have expertise. Just a thought.
6
The GOP is just following the script laid out by Southern elites since 1865. Use the tribal appeal of racial resentment to foment poor and working-class whites against black people and thereby distract them from a system where the elites prospered off their work and did nothing for them. Nixon just turned that into a national strategy of the Republican Party, then Reagan perfected the model. Think of Trump as the representative of slave-owning plantation operators and you understand his role.
8
When it becomes apparent that red state modest income
white voters decide they've had enough of sacrificing their
economic interests to maintain their social privileges (real or fantasized) a new day will dawn. But don't hold your breath.
The sell out by the current administration of these people's
economic interest is either something they refuse
to believe or are too ignorant to grasp. They are
completely capable of blaming big city liberals for anything.
But it is also the case that the part of the comfortable middle class with portfolios or 401K plans to nurture are not
necessarily in favor of tax policies that will gnaw away
at their savings/investments.
It is this significant core of the suburban swing voter in
red or blue regions that must be attended to by the Democrats, and not be alienated by policies that will easily be manipulated by the usual propaganda chains into
attacks upon their own interests. It has to be repeated
over and over and over again that the interests of these
voters are going to be preserved in any tax the rich effort
to trim the glaring inequalities.
If this is not attended to, those swing districts that
went blue in November can easily revert to red. Protecting
essential economic security, even of the comfortable but not
overly rich, is not a theme to be made light of.
6
40 years should tell us how Democratic voters will vote:
1) Centrist or Conservative Democrats generally alienate leftist and Progressive Democrats who stay home or vote 3rd party, except in Montana and West Virginia. It has lost Democrats all kinds of elections, most notably the 2000 and 2016 Presidential elections
2) Centrist Democrats will vote for leftist and Progressive Democrats even if they don't like them, as the sweep of the House in November.
3) Typical "pundits" and Democratic leadership is only SLOWLY coming to realize these 2 facts, and that turnout is EVERYTHING!
3
@Dadof2
The democrats who won in republican districts ran as centrists. You're kidding yourself if you believe those voters will vote for a far left candidate.
Progressives need to be honest with themselves about the level of acceptance of their policies across the country. It is not that high.
2
As long as big-money interests finance political campaigns, this country's economic policies will never match the preferences of the majority. Realistically, there's no chance Congress will vote for publicly financed campaigns. And the Democrats won't surrender unilaterally on taking donations from corporate sponsors, especially in the Senate. The only hope I see is the creation of a viable third party that refuses to accept big money donations as its central tenet. It won't succeed in Presidential elections, but if it can become a big enough force at the Congressional level -- even achieving control of one-third of the seats in Congress -- it could lead to a significant improvement in the economic prospects of the majority of Americans. Impossible? That's what I thought 10 years ago about legalization of gay marriage and marijuana.
4
@Larry
You don't appear to be familiar with the concept of "spoiler".
Milton Friedman said, long ago, that a person can be successful no matter if they are conservative or liberal, but not if they are economically on one of those sides but socially and politically on the other.
3