Prof Krugman seems to dream of ways to disagree with Sanders and to support Hillary. While I do like much of what he writes, he - like all people - is not free of inherent biases that impact his logic. What he writes here is true, that complex prejudices must be sorted out; but given that, it is hard to see his huge jump in logic to conclude that Hillary is able to do this and not Sanders.
244
A masterful diagnosis of the causes of plutocracy. I'm sure an oncologist could write an equally insightful treatise on the causes of cancer. But issue of how the patient got here shouldn't be seen as an impediment to effecting a cure. Yes, he still smokes, and yes, he still drinks more than is good for him--but he sure would like his cancer cured! And he'd like is cured sooner rather than in the long run. After all, you know what Dr. Keynes said about the long run....
48
Either way, we'll get nowhere unless and until Dem voters will bother to show up for mid-term elections as they do for presidential elections. To overcome gerrymandering and voter suppression, we need to vote in state and local elections.
294
I agree with you Dr. Krugman. A President may have a vision for change, but as we have seen, the President has to deal with Congress to achieve that vision. If the Republican majority in Congress is maintained come the election, it will assure that whatever progress is made in terms of social change will be minimum at best. One has only to look at The Affordable Care Act as an example of this. We had to settle for what could be accomplished in the poisonous atmosphere of non-cooperation by fire breathing Republicans.
Sanders offers the utopian change that can only be achieved with a fully cooperative Congress. If elected and the Republican majority in Congress is maintained he will become a "Don Quixote" tilting at windmills. His visions for change will remain just that, visions.
Hillary Clinton will not offer sweeping changes that is true. She will not "rock the boat". She offers the middle ground, that some moderate (if there is such a thing) Republicans might find at least somewhat acceptable. She will work for incremental change. She will work hard to maintain the progressive social changes that have come at a great price, and if progress can be preserved, I will be content.
As far as all wealth being evil, I enjoy PBS, I enjoy our local museums, and I enjoy a number of things that were and are made possible by generous wealthy donors. I care not that the contributions are a tax write off. I care that good has come from these endowments.
Sanders offers the utopian change that can only be achieved with a fully cooperative Congress. If elected and the Republican majority in Congress is maintained he will become a "Don Quixote" tilting at windmills. His visions for change will remain just that, visions.
Hillary Clinton will not offer sweeping changes that is true. She will not "rock the boat". She offers the middle ground, that some moderate (if there is such a thing) Republicans might find at least somewhat acceptable. She will work for incremental change. She will work hard to maintain the progressive social changes that have come at a great price, and if progress can be preserved, I will be content.
As far as all wealth being evil, I enjoy PBS, I enjoy our local museums, and I enjoy a number of things that were and are made possible by generous wealthy donors. I care not that the contributions are a tax write off. I care that good has come from these endowments.
59
Whooa, quite an article regarding substance aka reality.
For dreamers, like myself, this quantify's "Hold your nose" as in:
Hold your nose and vote for Hillary.
And yes,
I will.
Great summarizing article.
Thank You.
For dreamers, like myself, this quantify's "Hold your nose" as in:
Hold your nose and vote for Hillary.
And yes,
I will.
Great summarizing article.
Thank You.
45
This is how the oligarchy divides us.
90
The Obama years have been marked by significant but incomplete victories?
True, tried that but failed because of the other two branches of government. He would have been magnificent and profound with a progressive congress and supreme court.
But it didn't work out. The economy is nil, TPP will be a continued disaster (that baby is his alone) and a loss of American jobs, climate change denial is very high in the U.S. and the world is moving far too slowly to solve that problem (oil prices are dropping; people are buying SUVs, fossil fuel use will soar in general, its dirt cheap), white persons are dying at higher rates than other groups, corporations are more and more in control and united with congress (fascism its called -- see Elizabeth Warren's piece in this paper today), capitalism is becoming less and less inclusive, and the two parties in this country vary very little in philosophy and both promote the wretched form of capitalism just described. Hilary makes fun of Scandinavian countries because they are socialist and yells, "This is America," without explanation.
The education of the public continues to be horrid, with presidential candidates spouting off falsehoods left and right and the media does not challenge them when they make the most grievance false statements for their own glory and to excite the public. And we know the wealthy are buying off most of congress. Democracy is as Plato discussed, quite nearly impossible to implement.
No room for more.
True, tried that but failed because of the other two branches of government. He would have been magnificent and profound with a progressive congress and supreme court.
But it didn't work out. The economy is nil, TPP will be a continued disaster (that baby is his alone) and a loss of American jobs, climate change denial is very high in the U.S. and the world is moving far too slowly to solve that problem (oil prices are dropping; people are buying SUVs, fossil fuel use will soar in general, its dirt cheap), white persons are dying at higher rates than other groups, corporations are more and more in control and united with congress (fascism its called -- see Elizabeth Warren's piece in this paper today), capitalism is becoming less and less inclusive, and the two parties in this country vary very little in philosophy and both promote the wretched form of capitalism just described. Hilary makes fun of Scandinavian countries because they are socialist and yells, "This is America," without explanation.
The education of the public continues to be horrid, with presidential candidates spouting off falsehoods left and right and the media does not challenge them when they make the most grievance false statements for their own glory and to excite the public. And we know the wealthy are buying off most of congress. Democracy is as Plato discussed, quite nearly impossible to implement.
No room for more.
51
Bernie Sanders is a fine public servant. I share his anger at the trashing of America by the corporate predators who now dominate the landscape.
But Bernie Sanders is not electable.
No candidate who publicly self-identifies as a socialist is electable in today's United States.
Eugene Debs, the last open socialist to run seriously for President, won only 6 percent of the vote in 1912. Henry Wallace won 2% in 1948. George McGovern, the Democrats' furthest-left nominee in modern times, lost the 1972 election in a landslide, the Democrats' worst defeat since the 1920s, 61%-38%. Ouch!
The inability of open socialists to win elections in the United States is an iron law.
To students of US political history this law is as regular as the sun rising in the east.
Socialists have won more than a handful of statewide offices only in North Dakota (under the Nonpartisan League banner) and in Minnesota (under the Farmer-Labor party banner). But this happened long ago, it didn't happen much, and it didn't last long. Socialists were gone entirely from the US political scene by the 1950s. They have not returned. They will not return.
The Democrats will seal their own fate if they nominate Sanders.
Everyone should take a deep breath and get real about this.
But Bernie Sanders is not electable.
No candidate who publicly self-identifies as a socialist is electable in today's United States.
Eugene Debs, the last open socialist to run seriously for President, won only 6 percent of the vote in 1912. Henry Wallace won 2% in 1948. George McGovern, the Democrats' furthest-left nominee in modern times, lost the 1972 election in a landslide, the Democrats' worst defeat since the 1920s, 61%-38%. Ouch!
The inability of open socialists to win elections in the United States is an iron law.
To students of US political history this law is as regular as the sun rising in the east.
Socialists have won more than a handful of statewide offices only in North Dakota (under the Nonpartisan League banner) and in Minnesota (under the Farmer-Labor party banner). But this happened long ago, it didn't happen much, and it didn't last long. Socialists were gone entirely from the US political scene by the 1950s. They have not returned. They will not return.
The Democrats will seal their own fate if they nominate Sanders.
Everyone should take a deep breath and get real about this.
103
Dr. Krugman, what makes your column so outrageous, and may I dare say dangerous to democracy is your desire to bring bi-partisan support to money controlling politics. Republicans are firmly entrenched and have no interest turning off the spigot. The DNC seems happy with the arrangement, so we are seriously close to neutering forever the "pay to play" opposition.
Your column provides a rationale for not worrying so much about money in politics. It may be the root of "some evil"--hedged for future credibility by writing "maybe a lot of evil", but racism is a huge driving part of the problem. So which do you believe--"some evil" or "maybe a lot of evil"? Can't have it both ways.
You are trying to clean up a problem the Clintons created--taking money for 15 years from the power elite. It is their problem, not yours. You should not provide cover. It is a problem most Americans understand is the root of all that fails us in democracy. To the donators go the spoils--and here's the bad part-at the expense of the rest of us.
So if you are convincing in your argument and yet another bought and paid for candidate is elected will you be happy? And do you really think that candidate is going to engage in any serious regulation of people who have lavished the Clintons with tens of millions in speaking fees and foundation donations?
There is an elephant in the room and it is not just the Republicans.
Your column provides a rationale for not worrying so much about money in politics. It may be the root of "some evil"--hedged for future credibility by writing "maybe a lot of evil", but racism is a huge driving part of the problem. So which do you believe--"some evil" or "maybe a lot of evil"? Can't have it both ways.
You are trying to clean up a problem the Clintons created--taking money for 15 years from the power elite. It is their problem, not yours. You should not provide cover. It is a problem most Americans understand is the root of all that fails us in democracy. To the donators go the spoils--and here's the bad part-at the expense of the rest of us.
So if you are convincing in your argument and yet another bought and paid for candidate is elected will you be happy? And do you really think that candidate is going to engage in any serious regulation of people who have lavished the Clintons with tens of millions in speaking fees and foundation donations?
There is an elephant in the room and it is not just the Republicans.
131
" And isn’t there something noble, even inspiring, about fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better?"
Well PK, an emphatic no! The poor are not inspired, nor is fading middle class. You have reported that the 1% actually gained wealth during the country's financial collapse, while the rest of us lost wealth. We are at a tipping point where those tired of "gradual", especially poor minorities, will be willing to put their lives on the line. We need Sanders' political revolution NOW! Otherwise, I fear this country is soon to face a violent socio-economic revolution.
Well PK, an emphatic no! The poor are not inspired, nor is fading middle class. You have reported that the 1% actually gained wealth during the country's financial collapse, while the rest of us lost wealth. We are at a tipping point where those tired of "gradual", especially poor minorities, will be willing to put their lives on the line. We need Sanders' political revolution NOW! Otherwise, I fear this country is soon to face a violent socio-economic revolution.
81
If money is the root even of "some" evil, as you suggest, Dr. Krugman, then Hillary Clinton is awash in evil. Bernie Sanders is awash in no such thing, and I think that's his point. You'll never excise the root disease when your floral existence depends crucially on that same root.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
85
"Mr. Sanders correctly points out that Americans have faced the threat of Corporate Fascism before and successfully checked it in the Progressive era and the New Deal."
Absolutely correct, except to accomplish this progressives had to leave black Americans behind in the lions cage to appease the southern wing of the party.
Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy began taking steps to right this wrong, and then LBJ came along and took leaps to do so, thereby alienating the southern wing, and in reality a large chunk of white working class voters in the process.
Progressives (like me) and Sanders like to wax poetic about the time in the 20th century when unions were strong, income equality was on the rise, social mobility was possible, CEO pay was only in up in the stratosphere instead of beyond our solar system, and quality education was affordable and widely available.
What we often forget is that this world simply didn't exist for practically all non-whites at that time - and it still doesn't today. Similar to the recent shift in some states' policies to regard drug use as a sickness instead of a crime, perhaps because now it's affecting white families(?), I guess inequality and a shoddy yet expensive education system are problems worth addressing now that they affect the white middle class.
The sad part is that with 5% of the world's population, yet 25% of the world's wealth, the pie is big enough for everyone, yet half of our families are about 1 paycheck away from financial ruin.
Absolutely correct, except to accomplish this progressives had to leave black Americans behind in the lions cage to appease the southern wing of the party.
Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy began taking steps to right this wrong, and then LBJ came along and took leaps to do so, thereby alienating the southern wing, and in reality a large chunk of white working class voters in the process.
Progressives (like me) and Sanders like to wax poetic about the time in the 20th century when unions were strong, income equality was on the rise, social mobility was possible, CEO pay was only in up in the stratosphere instead of beyond our solar system, and quality education was affordable and widely available.
What we often forget is that this world simply didn't exist for practically all non-whites at that time - and it still doesn't today. Similar to the recent shift in some states' policies to regard drug use as a sickness instead of a crime, perhaps because now it's affecting white families(?), I guess inequality and a shoddy yet expensive education system are problems worth addressing now that they affect the white middle class.
The sad part is that with 5% of the world's population, yet 25% of the world's wealth, the pie is big enough for everyone, yet half of our families are about 1 paycheck away from financial ruin.
73
Take the case of slavery: the Franks made ot unlawful in their empire in 655 CE. Four centuries later, in 1066 CE they (re) conquered England, and outlawed slavery there too. The American colons re-invented slavery in New England, starting in 1620 CE. Those colons were richer, by far, than European peasants. Their motivation was greed. Tobacco culture expanded greatly, very soon after, thanks to the import of massive numbers of slaves from Africa. Some American states were 90% African slaves.
This is a debate about how evil works.
“Pluto” is the god of the underground, thus hell, fire, but also gold, silver, precious stones, riches. The modern usage keeps only in mind the latter part, but Jesus disagreed (and so do I). “Pluto” has many of the characteristics we see in today’s plutocracy: for example, he could make itself invisible (like Dark Money, invisible to tax authorities and gullible voters alike).
Money it ultimately power, and ultimate money corrupts ultimately. And ultimate corruption means the affected individual becomes satanic, or, using the root of the concept of satan, plutocratic. Yes, plutocratic means satanic, it’s as simple as that.
Slavery, racism, sexism, are all consequences of plutocracy. There is the master cause. Periodically, plutocracy runs out of control, and takes over. At best, it’s stopped by revolution (Britain, France and the USA had revolutions, and the former two, several).
This is a debate about how evil works.
“Pluto” is the god of the underground, thus hell, fire, but also gold, silver, precious stones, riches. The modern usage keeps only in mind the latter part, but Jesus disagreed (and so do I). “Pluto” has many of the characteristics we see in today’s plutocracy: for example, he could make itself invisible (like Dark Money, invisible to tax authorities and gullible voters alike).
Money it ultimately power, and ultimate money corrupts ultimately. And ultimate corruption means the affected individual becomes satanic, or, using the root of the concept of satan, plutocratic. Yes, plutocratic means satanic, it’s as simple as that.
Slavery, racism, sexism, are all consequences of plutocracy. There is the master cause. Periodically, plutocracy runs out of control, and takes over. At best, it’s stopped by revolution (Britain, France and the USA had revolutions, and the former two, several).
47
The Democratic Party narrative continues to be (as PK so lazily repeats) that all white men are evil sexist racists and bigots, and we must fight them to maintain the rights of women and minorities. That's a deeply negative message, and a deeply conservative (as in conserving previous gains) agenda. Only by bringing working class white men under the umbrella can a winning coalition be built, as in winning in Congress and at the state level. And to do that you have to stop labeling white men as the enemy. PK is satisfied being an ivory tower liberal, bewailing the ignorance of the masses. The Democratic Party has to be something much more than that if it wishes to govern.
30
If money is just one of the major issues today, then a mprogresive approach like Hillary Clkinton's would best serve a change that will be much slower. on the other hand, if income inequality is a major issue, then a more rapid solution has to come about by a revolution like Bernie Sanders suggests.
In order to gaina perspective on how to solve this problem, just look at the facts. If thge top 1% possess wealth that is equivalent to the wealth held by the bottom 50% of the population then I suggest a revolution is absolutely necessary to effect a quick change. Then Sanders is correct and Clinton is behind the curve.
In order to gaina perspective on how to solve this problem, just look at the facts. If thge top 1% possess wealth that is equivalent to the wealth held by the bottom 50% of the population then I suggest a revolution is absolutely necessary to effect a quick change. Then Sanders is correct and Clinton is behind the curve.
32
Most Americans have nothing against Hillary Clinton EXCEPT her record.
49
..... because a majority of Republcan caucus goers are white, native-born believe that electing a demagogue will make America white again"
Shame on you Mr. Egan for this shameful, racist comment.
Shame on you Mr. Egan for this shameful, racist comment.
5
"False consciousness"? Is it possible during those years grinding away at neoclassical economics and climbing the academic ladder, Prof Krugman took time out secretly to read some Marxist text?
4
Really Krugman?
As if you'd give a factual response about Republicans. Everything is designed to denegrate and mock what they say. Where are your economic plans? Let's see them so we can make make baseless comments like you.
If Republicans are racing to the bottom Hillary Clinton will be waiting to greet them. Why? Clearly there are no standards for Democrats If there were how could you nominate
1) someone who violated her signed agreement with Obama not to take foreign money at the Foundation while she was at State
2) Interesting how after she approved overseas contracts to Dell, Microsoft, GE and Boeing they donated heavily to the foundation. Quid pro quo?
3) Let's talk about the FBI investigation, something you avoid. Do you disputes that super secret emails from agencies that don't exist somehow ended up on her server by accident? Can you factually prove to me she wasn't hacked and national security compromised? How is it that the Obama appointed IG did not have clearance to see them but Cheryl Mills ( who lost her Blackberry) and Huma Abedin did? Explain that. Explain Hillary's defiance one day , apologizing, denial. anger, contrite? Which is it? Or do we have to wait for a poll to find out
Amazing how you can mock our people when you have someone who can be bought for a donation and who has lied repeatedly about the emails. Is a night in the Lincoln Bedroom riding on this. Obviously
As if you'd give a factual response about Republicans. Everything is designed to denegrate and mock what they say. Where are your economic plans? Let's see them so we can make make baseless comments like you.
If Republicans are racing to the bottom Hillary Clinton will be waiting to greet them. Why? Clearly there are no standards for Democrats If there were how could you nominate
1) someone who violated her signed agreement with Obama not to take foreign money at the Foundation while she was at State
2) Interesting how after she approved overseas contracts to Dell, Microsoft, GE and Boeing they donated heavily to the foundation. Quid pro quo?
3) Let's talk about the FBI investigation, something you avoid. Do you disputes that super secret emails from agencies that don't exist somehow ended up on her server by accident? Can you factually prove to me she wasn't hacked and national security compromised? How is it that the Obama appointed IG did not have clearance to see them but Cheryl Mills ( who lost her Blackberry) and Huma Abedin did? Explain that. Explain Hillary's defiance one day , apologizing, denial. anger, contrite? Which is it? Or do we have to wait for a poll to find out
Amazing how you can mock our people when you have someone who can be bought for a donation and who has lied repeatedly about the emails. Is a night in the Lincoln Bedroom riding on this. Obviously
23
What happened to the Paul Krugman I used to know and love? Who is this guy manufacturing reasons to support the wall street bought-and-paid for democratic candidate?
81
"This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
Bernie took his marching orders from Dr. King, and from we, the people, who understand that racial justice, sex justice, will not happen without economic justice.
Remember what Dr. King was doing when he was assassinated? He was organizing the Poor People's March. Not the Black People's, or the Women's March.
Sorry, Krugman, but we can see through your prescription for gradualism- its just appeasement.
Bernie took his marching orders from Dr. King, and from we, the people, who understand that racial justice, sex justice, will not happen without economic justice.
Remember what Dr. King was doing when he was assassinated? He was organizing the Poor People's March. Not the Black People's, or the Women's March.
Sorry, Krugman, but we can see through your prescription for gradualism- its just appeasement.
72
Yes let's talk about the situation that leads to blue collar false consciousness.
-1- A HS diploma is no longer enough to guarantee a job. More so for BC children.
-2- BC jobs have been de-unionized (eg. construction) and are being taken by immigrants who form a pool of low wage labor
-3- BCs that once were middle class have watched their wages stagnate, their Homes depreciate, and their old age benefits come under attack.
-4- you somehow believe that these BC workers will trust the elite including the Clintons to do anything to reverse this situation when the elite brought it about.
Republicans will try to build false consciousness using nativism, racism, etc.
What should we do?
First have the right messenger. Hilary said she wants the support of Wall Street too. She has taken in enough money from them to become wealthy. How can any BC person believe she will ever restore their lost middle class status with that record?
We need a more positive message to BC workers. Example: Sanders has proposed free tuition to state colleges. Many BC children are never going to college nor getting a college degree. Make community colleges a fifth year of high school(German model). Establish lower corporate tax rates for companies that hire workers from those colleges. Penalize companies that move their BC jobs abroad. That creates an incentive to hire BC children and hire locally.
Think positive Paul. After all I was on the picket lines when you were working for Ronald Raygun.
-1- A HS diploma is no longer enough to guarantee a job. More so for BC children.
-2- BC jobs have been de-unionized (eg. construction) and are being taken by immigrants who form a pool of low wage labor
-3- BCs that once were middle class have watched their wages stagnate, their Homes depreciate, and their old age benefits come under attack.
-4- you somehow believe that these BC workers will trust the elite including the Clintons to do anything to reverse this situation when the elite brought it about.
Republicans will try to build false consciousness using nativism, racism, etc.
What should we do?
First have the right messenger. Hilary said she wants the support of Wall Street too. She has taken in enough money from them to become wealthy. How can any BC person believe she will ever restore their lost middle class status with that record?
We need a more positive message to BC workers. Example: Sanders has proposed free tuition to state colleges. Many BC children are never going to college nor getting a college degree. Make community colleges a fifth year of high school(German model). Establish lower corporate tax rates for companies that hire workers from those colleges. Penalize companies that move their BC jobs abroad. That creates an incentive to hire BC children and hire locally.
Think positive Paul. After all I was on the picket lines when you were working for Ronald Raygun.
53
"back when many of today’s Sanders supporters were in elementary school."
Oh no, you di-int! You're sounding like a cranky old white man, Paul. And if I'm gonna listen to a cranky old White man, let him be a socialist senator from Vermont. These attacks don't suit you, Paul. You're too good to work as an attack dog for the Clintons.
Oh no, you di-int! You're sounding like a cranky old white man, Paul. And if I'm gonna listen to a cranky old White man, let him be a socialist senator from Vermont. These attacks don't suit you, Paul. You're too good to work as an attack dog for the Clintons.
44
Sanders view, as I read it, is not "that money is the root of all evil." Rather, (and as per the actual adage) the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. There is a big difference between in meaning between the two -- as big as the difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders when it comes to income inequality and dealing with the modern day robber barons.
23
Bernie Sanders is mobilizing millions of voters, many of whom don't vote all that often, by pointing out they are being ripped off everyday by a super wealthy class that can, literally, buy elections. He next points out that if enough of the people being ripped off go vote for Sanders, then they can overwhelm all the money against them. 'Enough is enough,' Sanders says. That he is spot on in this analysis is the primary reason for his popularity. I mean look at the guy. He's old. He's from a rural state and grew up in Brooklyn. He has Einstein hair. Yet his brand is magnificent. And he's about the only one with the brand. He's certainly the only one on the ballot with this brand. Will a majority of voters, vote for honesty in this rigged world? We're about to find out. I think the answer will surprise many people.
49
I am concerned that Dr. Krugman has yet to mention Clinton's disastrous foreign policy record. Aside from aknowledging that her vote to invade Iraq was wrong I see no record of anything but failure in her positions. It seems naive to compare her to Sanders solely on domestic issues in what is clearly a growing global community.
In future promotions of Clinton please address this part of her past. It is, for me, the major issue that pushes me to Sanders.
In future promotions of Clinton please address this part of her past. It is, for me, the major issue that pushes me to Sanders.
29
ignoring "prejudices that progressives simply can’t appease"
Hillary is one of the appeasers. "Ending welfare as we know it" - remember that?
Though Hillary was board member of Children's Defense Fund, CDF president Marion Wright Edelman said this: "For the sake of looking tough on 'welfare queens,' Bill and Hillary (and they were indeed a team) sacrificed the well-being of millions, forced single mothers into underpaid, underinsured work and added further strain to many families."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/22/441421/-Marian-Wright-Edelman-o...
"Those people," are now obviously mostly working poor, and formerly working, whites. Just the logical extension of the "run government like a business" neo-liberal ideology. Hillary (and Bill) helped bring that about.
Hardly "progressive" or practical. Hillary has a lot of explaining to do.
Hillary is one of the appeasers. "Ending welfare as we know it" - remember that?
Though Hillary was board member of Children's Defense Fund, CDF president Marion Wright Edelman said this: "For the sake of looking tough on 'welfare queens,' Bill and Hillary (and they were indeed a team) sacrificed the well-being of millions, forced single mothers into underpaid, underinsured work and added further strain to many families."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/22/441421/-Marian-Wright-Edelman-o...
"Those people," are now obviously mostly working poor, and formerly working, whites. Just the logical extension of the "run government like a business" neo-liberal ideology. Hillary (and Bill) helped bring that about.
Hardly "progressive" or practical. Hillary has a lot of explaining to do.
29
Paul Krugman HELPED the damaging rise of the Oligarchy when Paul Krugman supported the Oligarchies NAFTA, GATT, WTO, ect that killed the Middle Class and created the Oligarchy!
17
This is a valid, but flawed argument. The Southern strategy and social conservatism that PK identifies are exacerbated by the low economic success and poor education of those who were so targeted. Fix the economic injustice, and the anger toward outsiders will also abate somewhat.
21
Different focus this time, one that indicates inaccuracy of political analysis. "Crucially, the rise of the American hard right was the rise of a coalition, an alliance between an elite seeking low taxes and deregulation and a base of voters motivated by fears of social change and, above all, by hostility toward you-know-who.
Yes, there was a concerted, successful effort by billionaires to push America to the right. That’s not conspiracy theorizing; it’s just history, documented at length in Jane Mayer’s eye-opening new book “Dark Money.”
The majority of the "1%" are not to be conflated with the political movement of the Far Right. This latter is relatively marginal to the "1%"; Bloomberg is an explicit political example of where the mainstream of the "1%" really stands.
And since Bloombergs' politics don't differ all that much from the two Clintons and Obama, these Democrats are also implicated in advancing the fortunes of the "1%". This reveals that Mr. Krugman engages here in a ruse: To draw attention away from the relation of the conservative wing of the Democrats to the interests of the "1%". The former has served the latter well.
And that is exactly why Bloomberg contemplates entry into the POTUS race, should Trump capture one party and Clinton appear weak in the other.
Yes, there was a concerted, successful effort by billionaires to push America to the right. That’s not conspiracy theorizing; it’s just history, documented at length in Jane Mayer’s eye-opening new book “Dark Money.”
The majority of the "1%" are not to be conflated with the political movement of the Far Right. This latter is relatively marginal to the "1%"; Bloomberg is an explicit political example of where the mainstream of the "1%" really stands.
And since Bloombergs' politics don't differ all that much from the two Clintons and Obama, these Democrats are also implicated in advancing the fortunes of the "1%". This reveals that Mr. Krugman engages here in a ruse: To draw attention away from the relation of the conservative wing of the Democrats to the interests of the "1%". The former has served the latter well.
And that is exactly why Bloomberg contemplates entry into the POTUS race, should Trump capture one party and Clinton appear weak in the other.
14
Paul Krugman is right. People who think it is all about the banks have not been talking to the Republican base over the years.The Republican Party has encouraged racism, sexism, religious zealotry, wrapped it up and tied with the bow of "smaller government" . Now they are shocked that Trump has removed the bow, opened the package, to reveal what is inside.
26
Paul, your columns arguing for Hillary have taken quite a hammering in the comments. I make it at least 80% against and it seems to be coming from folks who, like myself, have read and admired your columns for many years.
Thoreau's said "a man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one ...". It's a doctrine I cherish and there's ample evidence you've been more right than many of your neighbor economists on austerity, national debt, etc.
Still, I think it should give you pause that so many of your usually loyal readers find your arguments weak and disingenuous.
Thoreau's said "a man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one ...". It's a doctrine I cherish and there's ample evidence you've been more right than many of your neighbor economists on austerity, national debt, etc.
Still, I think it should give you pause that so many of your usually loyal readers find your arguments weak and disingenuous.
39
"But there’s still a lot of real prejudice out there, and probably enough so that political revolution from the left is off the table. Instead, it’s going to be a hard slog at best."
Political revolution from the left is NOT off the table. Neither Hillary or Bernie is going to be able to achieve a great deal with the current GOP Congress. And let's face it "Dark Money" is indeed evil and the Koch brothers and their friends are interested in nothing more than money and doing away with "big" government which effects the bottom line.
Political revolution from the left is NOT off the table. Neither Hillary or Bernie is going to be able to achieve a great deal with the current GOP Congress. And let's face it "Dark Money" is indeed evil and the Koch brothers and their friends are interested in nothing more than money and doing away with "big" government which effects the bottom line.
9
In reading Dr. Krugman's recent pieces, you would gather that a President Sanders would chuck all that incremental change to establish a socialistic utopia. Krugman cites his pragmatism in 'knowing' Sanders' economic proposals are 'unworkable,' as if any candidate's primary season promises ever are. Fear of losing what you have is the hallmark of conservatism; striving for a better tomorrow -for everyone- is progressive. It's a wonder our professor still calls himself a liberal. Citing papers he's written when others were toddlers, he's beginning to look like an old codger, standing out on the railroad tracks, waving his cane and cursing loudly the oncoming iron horse.
28
How much monies were put in Richard Nixion's closet by American Business' and friends ?Now wonder legislation to combat campaign finance reform never made it out of committee in the late 60's and early 70's.And that is just the one that got caught 40 years ago.What's changed Paul? Not to much except they way it is collected today.Citizens United?
7
"And isn’t there something noble, even inspiring, about fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better?"
No, that's what we thought we were doing in the 60s when you were in elementary school. It's depressing to fight the fight all over again. Canada is looking better and better.
No, that's what we thought we were doing in the 60s when you were in elementary school. It's depressing to fight the fight all over again. Canada is looking better and better.
16
The young people see that they work harder for less than their parents got and may never attain middle class status. Access to health care has improved but is still precarious, especially for the chronically ill trying to hang on to a few assets for retirement. Their dismayed parents see that too. Because of you, Paul, plus some others, we understand how this happened.
That is why so many people in both generations are for Bernie. He is the only candidate willing to antagonize the power establishment for our sake. I am a progressive, but I really don't care if Bernie can move the needle on those policies, as long as he fights inequality like hell, doing whatever he can, every single day.
If he doesn't win the nomination, I expect him to keep up this fight, while we all work to see as many Democrats voted into office as possible, Hillary included.
That is why so many people in both generations are for Bernie. He is the only candidate willing to antagonize the power establishment for our sake. I am a progressive, but I really don't care if Bernie can move the needle on those policies, as long as he fights inequality like hell, doing whatever he can, every single day.
If he doesn't win the nomination, I expect him to keep up this fight, while we all work to see as many Democrats voted into office as possible, Hillary included.
22
Sanders' position is "money is the ROOT of all evil", says PK. where, in the article tho, is it shown NOT to be the case?
If we speak of ROOTs (meaning origins, fundamentals) of a so-called evil, then trotting-out some verifiable, and elaborate mechanics, of how MONEY works,
then using this--history and its evidence--looks like K's subtle end-run, dismissing the principal initiating elements of The Problem--
a problem is the more obscured, not illuminated, via HC' rhetoric, viz, i.e., her broad expertise and experience--qualities as "best choice to fix things, as next Prex", liberal-flavor'd content.
The objective of useful analyses (that want to improve OUR hellishly undemocratic structural state of affairs) cannot stand on Paul's (yes! ideological) basis--that disregards the very 'roots'.
Wilfully ignoring fundamental forces, or initiating energies (i.e., the controlling power of MONEY) is not a blindness Sanders suffers too much. His position on these points isn't so much "rhetorical"
perhaps, as that of the candidate who's packing, in her expertise, her times on the board of Walmart, e.g.
pecuniam radix omnia malorum est. har har!
If we speak of ROOTs (meaning origins, fundamentals) of a so-called evil, then trotting-out some verifiable, and elaborate mechanics, of how MONEY works,
then using this--history and its evidence--looks like K's subtle end-run, dismissing the principal initiating elements of The Problem--
a problem is the more obscured, not illuminated, via HC' rhetoric, viz, i.e., her broad expertise and experience--qualities as "best choice to fix things, as next Prex", liberal-flavor'd content.
The objective of useful analyses (that want to improve OUR hellishly undemocratic structural state of affairs) cannot stand on Paul's (yes! ideological) basis--that disregards the very 'roots'.
Wilfully ignoring fundamental forces, or initiating energies (i.e., the controlling power of MONEY) is not a blindness Sanders suffers too much. His position on these points isn't so much "rhetorical"
perhaps, as that of the candidate who's packing, in her expertise, her times on the board of Walmart, e.g.
pecuniam radix omnia malorum est. har har!
5
This column is a plug for Hillary Clinton resting on a peculiar base, summed up in its conclusion: " And isn’t there something noble, even inspiring, about fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better?"
Bernie Sanders has been "fighting the good fight" for longer than Clinton, and was respected for his ability to work with both Republicans and Democrats when he was Mayor, Congressman, and Senator. He is on the Veterans' Committee in the Senate, a committee which has nothing to do with the one percent, and has lived the principles he speaks of. Clinton has taken millions of dollars for entities she says she will fight, leaving generous room for doubt.
Isn't there something to be said for living what you preach? To even whisper that Bernie Sanders has been less steadfast in supporting civil rights and decrying prejudice is practically libelous.
The question which comes to my mind is why does the New York Times, and Professor Krugman in particular, cling so tightly to Clinton? What's in it for them?
Young people are supporting Bernie Sanders. They are the ones who will have to fix the mess that our current politics has left us in. Give them their candidate.
Bernie Sanders has been "fighting the good fight" for longer than Clinton, and was respected for his ability to work with both Republicans and Democrats when he was Mayor, Congressman, and Senator. He is on the Veterans' Committee in the Senate, a committee which has nothing to do with the one percent, and has lived the principles he speaks of. Clinton has taken millions of dollars for entities she says she will fight, leaving generous room for doubt.
Isn't there something to be said for living what you preach? To even whisper that Bernie Sanders has been less steadfast in supporting civil rights and decrying prejudice is practically libelous.
The question which comes to my mind is why does the New York Times, and Professor Krugman in particular, cling so tightly to Clinton? What's in it for them?
Young people are supporting Bernie Sanders. They are the ones who will have to fix the mess that our current politics has left us in. Give them their candidate.
32
Amen, Professor.
10
Re: Competing theories of change between HRC and Sanders
The number 1 readers pick in today's Times "Why Don’t Boomer Women Like Hillary " is, quote:
" ideologically Hillary is a moderate Republican--she maintains a hawkish foreign policy, and promotes neoliberal economic positions.
Progressives, are not interested in voting for a moderate Republican, whose integrity is questionable."
Correct.
The number 1 readers pick in today's Times "Why Don’t Boomer Women Like Hillary " is, quote:
" ideologically Hillary is a moderate Republican--she maintains a hawkish foreign policy, and promotes neoliberal economic positions.
Progressives, are not interested in voting for a moderate Republican, whose integrity is questionable."
Correct.
40
Frankly, Krugman has hit the nail on the head by stating that there is still a big problem with racism in this country. The non-educated Southern (primarily) white man does not want to give his hard earned money to the lazy & good for nothing black man. This was taught to him by Nixon, Reagan, and the Atwater & Rove strategists. But what the Southern white man and others who think like him do not realize is that more of their hard earned meager salaries are going to the rich and other lazy and good for nothing white guys and very little is actually going to black people. The GOP continues to dupe these poor unsuspecting voters by getting them angry and keeping them ticked off. But their numbers are dwindling; and things will change. Just look at how the W. Bush strategists hoodwinked the Evangelicals by worrying about gays & lesbians in 2004. That has changed and hopefully racism will change soon too. The color of ones skin has nothing to do with their character; and the GOP white guys prove that MLK premise each and every day.
17
It's not all about money? How convenient. Diffusing the issue to include prejudices, almost impossible to measure, much less change, diverts our attention from the real issue. Money is power. Far too much of it is in the hands of a few. That fact makes the range of prospects for hope, freedom, prosperity and justice for the multitude of have-littles or have-nots between slim and none. Fix the money problems and the other issues won't go away, but they won't matter very much. The hidden message in this piece is that NO ONE in the political establishment, conservative or liberal, wants to derail the one-percenters' gravy train. After all, most of them are riding it, too.
15
I'm increasingly discouraged by the intransigence an naivety by those on the left. Sanders supporters seem just as unwilling to engage in rational discussion and debate and just as clueless as to how the economy and the political system work in this country as Trump supporters. When you suggest that Paul Krugman and Hilary Clinton are tools of big money, you are living in some sot of never-neverland divorced from reality.
It seems that rational, thinking people are being left at the side of the road in this election.
It seems that rational, thinking people are being left at the side of the road in this election.
15
Mr. Krugman is normally very good at using the scientific method of subjecting a claim about economic issues (the hypothesis) to experimentation (verifying that the data fits the hypothesis). But on issues outside economics, he abandons rigorous analysis.
Mr. Krugman has a hypothesis: because of racism, only gradual progressive change is possible. Let's test that hypothesis.
Gun control provides such a test. Racism and paranoia play a significant role in many middle class whites objections to any restrictions on gun rights. According to PKs hypothesis, gradual change is the only change possible.
How has that worked? Have "incremental" progressives such as Presidents Obama and Bill Clinton achieved measurable progress on gun control issues? Ah, no.
Racism also plays a huge role in Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Has a gradual approach reduced Republican opposition to, or willingness to modify, the ACA? Again, no. Check the results of the recent Kentucky gubernatorial election to see how incrementalism worked out. In fact, the evidence is just as strong that a gradual approach, by providing inadequate coverage while not creating strong political acceptance may harm the long run goal of a single payer system.
Mr. Krugman, please analyze your own hypotheses involving Hillary Clinton using the same rigorous analysis you apply to economic issues.
Mr. Krugman has a hypothesis: because of racism, only gradual progressive change is possible. Let's test that hypothesis.
Gun control provides such a test. Racism and paranoia play a significant role in many middle class whites objections to any restrictions on gun rights. According to PKs hypothesis, gradual change is the only change possible.
How has that worked? Have "incremental" progressives such as Presidents Obama and Bill Clinton achieved measurable progress on gun control issues? Ah, no.
Racism also plays a huge role in Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Has a gradual approach reduced Republican opposition to, or willingness to modify, the ACA? Again, no. Check the results of the recent Kentucky gubernatorial election to see how incrementalism worked out. In fact, the evidence is just as strong that a gradual approach, by providing inadequate coverage while not creating strong political acceptance may harm the long run goal of a single payer system.
Mr. Krugman, please analyze your own hypotheses involving Hillary Clinton using the same rigorous analysis you apply to economic issues.
14
Dr. Krugman, you're so uptight about Bernie Sanders that it's corrupting your better judgment capacities. Relax, take a pill, and let Sanders and Clinton battle it out freely on each of their own ideological grounds. President Obama is willing to let the two of them have his even-handed treatment during these early stages of the primary season...and I do believe that you should think about adopting such a position yourself. You're privileged position as a columnist pundit with the NY Times is beginning to take on signs of a bully pulpit...something you should give serious thought to before you self-destruct professionally. Ordinary people can think, too, believe it or not, and without your sovereignty as a crutch ... and they are listening, carefully, to Bernie and Hillary, forming their own judgments...just as you should be doing, quietly, and in an even-handed manner. Save your bully-pulpit for your own specialty area of expertise...where it is most appreciated.
21
Paul Krugman is losing his sense of urgency, fiddling as the planet slowly burns.
The impending climate catastrophe demands more than business as usual, more than the agonizingly slow centrist policies of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party. Only a revolution offers hope for arresting the steady decline of the planet.
Bernie Sanders knows perfectly well that he will be unable to implement his policies any time soon. But he will fight for those policies in ways that we never saw from Barack Obama and will not see from Hillary Clinton. He will inspire and lead, and just possibly spark the revolution that will never arrive under Hillary Clinton.
The impending climate catastrophe demands more than business as usual, more than the agonizingly slow centrist policies of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party. Only a revolution offers hope for arresting the steady decline of the planet.
Bernie Sanders knows perfectly well that he will be unable to implement his policies any time soon. But he will fight for those policies in ways that we never saw from Barack Obama and will not see from Hillary Clinton. He will inspire and lead, and just possibly spark the revolution that will never arrive under Hillary Clinton.
20
Bernie has a lot of positions I support and many other Americans also do when you take away the socialism label. Let's face it the vast majority of Americans could not accurately describe the differences between socialism and communism if their lives depended upon it. The republicans have made the words interchangeable since probably FDR. All that being said the really scary thing to me is that in a Trump/Cruz versus Sanders race we could very well end up with Trump /Cruz in the white house.
When Obama was elected The Republican leader of the Senate went on record as saying his number one priority was making a Obama a one term president. Can you imagine Sanders being elected and there response to that? I hate to say it but incremental change is better than a Trump or Cruz presidency with both a Republican Senate and House. This I describe as thinking with Intellect rather than emotion. I like to leave that to my conservative friends.
When Obama was elected The Republican leader of the Senate went on record as saying his number one priority was making a Obama a one term president. Can you imagine Sanders being elected and there response to that? I hate to say it but incremental change is better than a Trump or Cruz presidency with both a Republican Senate and House. This I describe as thinking with Intellect rather than emotion. I like to leave that to my conservative friends.
13
Okay, so back in 2008, it was dangerous going with a black candidate because Racism, now in 2016, it's dangerous going with the white guy, because Racism?
Forgive me for over-simplifying, there's a lot of it going around.
Forgive me for over-simplifying, there's a lot of it going around.
10
This sophistry only illustrates that the elite and monied classes will stoop to anything to keep power
20
Paul is overly simplistic in his reading of the popularity of the message of Bernie Sanders. The old centrist Democratic values, such as Clinton/Obama, have proved their cynicism towards progressive values time and time again. Being manipulated into believing politician's liberal speeches has grow weary when their actions speak more to the Republican base.
We need politician's who actually believe in what they say and create a new dialogue in the U.S.. The Republicans have succeeded in pulling Democrats into their talking points over decades. Only newly inspired politicians can create a new dialogue for countering the ideas burned into the consciousness of the public. Clinton is no leader in this regard, but Bernie Sanders is.
We need politician's who actually believe in what they say and create a new dialogue in the U.S.. The Republicans have succeeded in pulling Democrats into their talking points over decades. Only newly inspired politicians can create a new dialogue for countering the ideas burned into the consciousness of the public. Clinton is no leader in this regard, but Bernie Sanders is.
17
What an unbelievably condescending article from Professor Krugman high aloft in his ivory tower eating strawberries in cream no doubt .
All those white people are just hopelessly afeard of black people, too blinded by prejudice to see what’s good for them. That’s why they don’t fess up to racism and allow how they created this systemically racist country, that’s why they don’t up an admit to their white privilege, that’s why they won’t pay reparations for the sins of their ancestors to drug dealers and pimps.
Yes, White America unless you are willing to admit you are a racist you are suffering from a false consciousness. Beware though Liberals get to say what racist means and they change it around a lot. This month it is racist if you don’t think any black actors deserved and Academy Award nomination. You have to stand before the great liberal tribunal at your very own show trial and confess your sins. Maybe then, we will do something about inequality and poverty and you can have a decent paying job again.
Dear Professor you can’t call people racist and then feign surprise when they don’t vote your way.
So, the Left can’t or shouldn’t bother to frame a message and worldview that includes racial justice and appeals to the White Working class? Is the Professor admitting defeat or is he just so disdainful of half of America that he would just dismiss them with one column?
Have another strawberry Professor, the rest of us need to find work.
All those white people are just hopelessly afeard of black people, too blinded by prejudice to see what’s good for them. That’s why they don’t fess up to racism and allow how they created this systemically racist country, that’s why they don’t up an admit to their white privilege, that’s why they won’t pay reparations for the sins of their ancestors to drug dealers and pimps.
Yes, White America unless you are willing to admit you are a racist you are suffering from a false consciousness. Beware though Liberals get to say what racist means and they change it around a lot. This month it is racist if you don’t think any black actors deserved and Academy Award nomination. You have to stand before the great liberal tribunal at your very own show trial and confess your sins. Maybe then, we will do something about inequality and poverty and you can have a decent paying job again.
Dear Professor you can’t call people racist and then feign surprise when they don’t vote your way.
So, the Left can’t or shouldn’t bother to frame a message and worldview that includes racial justice and appeals to the White Working class? Is the Professor admitting defeat or is he just so disdainful of half of America that he would just dismiss them with one column?
Have another strawberry Professor, the rest of us need to find work.
7
Krugman's point is that complete Republican control of the federal government would be a disaster; that a Sanders nomination is far more likely to lead to such a disaster than a Clinton nomination. Philosophical/ideological nitpicking aside, why is he wrong?
10
Bill Clinton “we help the bond market, and we hurt the people who voted us in.”
A growing number of us our voting Sanders or Trump and NEVER Clinton no matter who the nominee is.
There is BIPARTISAN agreement between Sanders and Trump on how they will help the 99%.
While Clinton will continue the "War On the Middle Class" Bill Clinton said “we help the bond market, and we hurt the people who voted us in.”-truer words have never been spoken.
From Sanders or Trump we get:
BOTH Sanders and Trump CHEAPER Universal healthcare for ALL paid for by the govt. for at least the poor.
BOTH Sanders and Trump will save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The Clintons tried and WANT to cut Social Security for Wall Street!
BOTH Sanders and Trump will help rebuild the middle class by canceling/redo the CLINTON (and Krugman approved) NAFTA, GATT, WTO that outsourced the Middle Class Jobs under the Clintons.
BOTH Sanders and Trump will regulate and tax WALL Street and the Banks.
While the Clintons and Obama ARE Wall Street!
BOTH Sanders and Trump can do all these things but Clinton WON'T!
So we have BIPARTISAN agreement between Sanders and Trump they can do these things-aint Bipartisanship Beautiful.
Both Sanders and Trump will help the 99% and Hillary Clinton says she WON'T.
Keep it up Hillary Clinton and Paul Krugman you are driving more and more democrats to vote for Sanders or Trump because they will help the 99% while Mrs. "Wall Street" Hillary Clinton WON'T!
A growing number of us our voting Sanders or Trump and NEVER Clinton no matter who the nominee is.
There is BIPARTISAN agreement between Sanders and Trump on how they will help the 99%.
While Clinton will continue the "War On the Middle Class" Bill Clinton said “we help the bond market, and we hurt the people who voted us in.”-truer words have never been spoken.
From Sanders or Trump we get:
BOTH Sanders and Trump CHEAPER Universal healthcare for ALL paid for by the govt. for at least the poor.
BOTH Sanders and Trump will save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The Clintons tried and WANT to cut Social Security for Wall Street!
BOTH Sanders and Trump will help rebuild the middle class by canceling/redo the CLINTON (and Krugman approved) NAFTA, GATT, WTO that outsourced the Middle Class Jobs under the Clintons.
BOTH Sanders and Trump will regulate and tax WALL Street and the Banks.
While the Clintons and Obama ARE Wall Street!
BOTH Sanders and Trump can do all these things but Clinton WON'T!
So we have BIPARTISAN agreement between Sanders and Trump they can do these things-aint Bipartisanship Beautiful.
Both Sanders and Trump will help the 99% and Hillary Clinton says she WON'T.
Keep it up Hillary Clinton and Paul Krugman you are driving more and more democrats to vote for Sanders or Trump because they will help the 99% while Mrs. "Wall Street" Hillary Clinton WON'T!
8
So " working-class voters who support the right are victims of false consciousness. "?
This is the condescending attitude of a liberal who refuses to acknowledge that the Democratic policies on illegal immigration and international trade are destroying the jobs of the working class.
The working class has not deserted the Democratic party. The Democratic party has deserted the working class.
This is the condescending attitude of a liberal who refuses to acknowledge that the Democratic policies on illegal immigration and international trade are destroying the jobs of the working class.
The working class has not deserted the Democratic party. The Democratic party has deserted the working class.
10
"To do things gradually, will bring more tragedy."
-Nina Simone
-Nina Simone
8
Poor Krugman. He is bending over backwards to rationalize his positions.
8
I can't accept this analysis' for all that I'm a devoted Paulist. What bernie is trying to change is the enormous lack of attention the public pays to economic issues. I doubt very much that the Bern thinks that economic change is the key to all. Rather, its that withort economic change we just go in circles.
16
Does Krugman really think that Bernie Sanders believes that the sole source of our country's problems is money? Does he really believe that Sanders is simple-minded? I don't think so. This is another way of denigrating the senator from Vermont, unfairly and prejudicially. Krugman is a mouthpiece for the Beltway establishment and business as usual. He doesn't understand the needs and complaints of the common people, the suffering that's destroying their homes and families. Politics has to change at a fundamental level, and Krugman and Clinton and the whole culture of the liberal establishment isn't up to it.
16
I rarely disagree with Paul but in this case I disagree. It quite possibly is the time to act as good shepherds to red state republicans. They have figured out that the Republican Party has been lying to them and using them for their votes. This could be the opening to shepherd them into the fold. We can hope.
9
Groan; I'm a big fan of Paul Krugman, but he has gone astray. He seems a shill for Hillary and has overnight become a rather pedestrian moderate. And yes I do think the power and influence of big money and income equality in general are the root causes of so many of our problems. Hillary's close connections to Wall Street and her grotesque acceptance of huge speaking fees is an indication of her lack of interest and commitment to financial reform. Let's hope Paul K returns to form soon. Go Bernie!
14
Race is expressed in denials and stereotypes, in social action; class through law and association. Both have complex patterns and power levers. Together, they are the tip of the spear: odd, asymmetrical adversaries that instruct decisions, actions and beliefs, for single cases and communities. From last night, immigration law is to be set for a whole group for fear of a single case; yet the same leaders ignore Alabama's dilemma: losing 40% of its harvest of fruits and produce when it passed the nation's harshest immigration laws, making it illegal for undocumented families to rent or attend school. The state passed voting requirements against non-existent fraud, shaving the rolls to swing districts protected by gerrymandering.
Race's main purpose has been to serve as "the problem" (the face!) of greed and corruption that the 1% and corporations hide behind. Blame those who are different. But no terrorists poisoned Flint! It was too much regulation, power says (Jeb Bush, MI officials), to deflect and demoralize those who protest the power class, its inhumane quest. Cities that depended on black labor for its factories saw corporations abandon the work force, and now Democrats are blamed.
For Republicans, this election is to defeat Obama in absentsia! His is the political name above all ideology; through him, race walked the halls of power. They hurl vitriol and shame themselves. He tried to shred the spear; they turned it into a thousand daggers.
Race's main purpose has been to serve as "the problem" (the face!) of greed and corruption that the 1% and corporations hide behind. Blame those who are different. But no terrorists poisoned Flint! It was too much regulation, power says (Jeb Bush, MI officials), to deflect and demoralize those who protest the power class, its inhumane quest. Cities that depended on black labor for its factories saw corporations abandon the work force, and now Democrats are blamed.
For Republicans, this election is to defeat Obama in absentsia! His is the political name above all ideology; through him, race walked the halls of power. They hurl vitriol and shame themselves. He tried to shred the spear; they turned it into a thousand daggers.
12
In the Friday issue of the Times there is an opinion piece by Elizabeth Warren that points to the big difference in how change might or might not happen if Clinton or Sanders were elected. The directors of the agencies that actually run the government are likely to be entirely different as will be their enforcement of the rules and ways in which corporate (moneyed) crimes will be prosecuted. I would be surprised if a Sander's appointee were a fox guarding the hen house. Wish I could say the same about Clinton.
13
Well said, Paul. Sanders supporters have no understanding of how change is made, Hillary does.
7
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Krugman, but I think he misses the point on this one. In my opinion, problems that our country face start with money and end with money. Everything else is a side show developed by Republicans to stir up the pot and divert people from the real issue: A concentration of money at the very top dictating the policies of our so-called elected leaders.
The old story of the two friends discussing their vacation plan is instructive.
Where are you going on vacation this year? asks the first;
Nowhere replies the second. I am staying home.
Why?
Oh, for a thousand reasons.
Name one.
I have no money.
Ok. No need to elaborate. You can keep the other 999 to yourself.
Mr. Sanders understands this. Mrs. Clinton doesn't - yet.
The old story of the two friends discussing their vacation plan is instructive.
Where are you going on vacation this year? asks the first;
Nowhere replies the second. I am staying home.
Why?
Oh, for a thousand reasons.
Name one.
I have no money.
Ok. No need to elaborate. You can keep the other 999 to yourself.
Mr. Sanders understands this. Mrs. Clinton doesn't - yet.
7
Love me, love me, love me, I'm a neoliberal.
apologies to Phil Ochs.
apologies to Phil Ochs.
5
Sanders himself says the biggest threat to American security is climate change, not income inequality. Just because our corporate media doesn't want to discuss climate change, doesn't mean Bernie hasn't given it a focus. Bernie has also identified other issues not directly attributable to money as the root of all evil - for example, systematic racism and militarism. Dr. Krugman takes Hillary statements about her positions as her true beliefs (.e.g, that she's against TPP) but gladly discounts Sanders statements about his positions in order to promote this simplistic (Hillary) meme that Sanders is all about income inequality.
10
I am a Boomer who just turned sixty. For me (and I suspect for others as well) there is a little voice in the back of my head whispering that I don't have that many chances left to help effect real political and economic change in this country. Assuming the next President is in office for eight years, I will be 69 when when she steps down, while the oldest Boomers will be in their late 70s. Part of the appeal of Bernie Sanders is that he, like me, is ready to have these important conversations right now.
Was Citizen's United a big mistake? Should billionaires have so much say in how our country chooses to care for all of its citizens? Does our tax policy demand too little of the wealthy? Is Wall Street still over-compensated and under-regulated?
With Bernie, at least we know he would be in Washington raising these questions every single day of his Presidency. Incrementalism is fine if you're 22. But for many of us, it's starting to feel like now or never.
Was Citizen's United a big mistake? Should billionaires have so much say in how our country chooses to care for all of its citizens? Does our tax policy demand too little of the wealthy? Is Wall Street still over-compensated and under-regulated?
With Bernie, at least we know he would be in Washington raising these questions every single day of his Presidency. Incrementalism is fine if you're 22. But for many of us, it's starting to feel like now or never.
335
"Oligarchy? Racist!"
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
5
Um,PK, please read Elizabeth Warren's op-ed today, and then you will finally get it. Imagaine, you have a Nobel, but some of us just have more common sense I guess.
12
To answer your last question Mr. Krugman: Yes!
2
Let's call a spade a spade. There is a word for someone who sees the power of the rich as the root of all evil, and believes it can only be overcome through a "revolution". Marxist.
4
My vote for Senator Sanders isn't based on the premise that money is the root of all evil, an extreme generalization. My vote for Sanders has far more to do with a democracy wherein capitalism through unsustainable consumerism does not destroy the planet through human greed and global abuse of people and resources.
The Clintons have called in the big money Kahuna of Democrat operatives, Mike Whouley, to improve their flailing campaign. At this point it is hard to see how Whouley can improve a shattered story, corrupt choices made by the Clintons, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, when Mrs. Clinton's opponent, Senator Sanders, is solid in his responsible, far thinking approaches to a more socially democratic, humane world.
Dr. Krugman, my thought is that this essay is over the emotional edge, and I wasn't in grammar school when you were writing about Oligarchy, or the one percent. I have followed the dysfunctional story of the Clintons for a long time.
Senator Sanders has invited us to participate in genuine change, change that he has consistently worked toward for years, his entire political career. He offers full-disclosure that it wont be easy and that change will require consistently sustained focus and action. My vote remains for Senator Sanders.
The Clintons have called in the big money Kahuna of Democrat operatives, Mike Whouley, to improve their flailing campaign. At this point it is hard to see how Whouley can improve a shattered story, corrupt choices made by the Clintons, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, when Mrs. Clinton's opponent, Senator Sanders, is solid in his responsible, far thinking approaches to a more socially democratic, humane world.
Dr. Krugman, my thought is that this essay is over the emotional edge, and I wasn't in grammar school when you were writing about Oligarchy, or the one percent. I have followed the dysfunctional story of the Clintons for a long time.
Senator Sanders has invited us to participate in genuine change, change that he has consistently worked toward for years, his entire political career. He offers full-disclosure that it wont be easy and that change will require consistently sustained focus and action. My vote remains for Senator Sanders.
13
While I agree with most of the points of this piece, I would caution Mr. Krugman against two things. First, do not try to paint Bernie Sanders' supporters into a box containing a bunch of dreamy teenagers. His support base is very much akin to that of one Barack Obama. Second, stop casting Bernie Sanders as impractical. While he may set seemingly unattainable goals, he has proven himself every bit as practical as Ms. Clinton, and either Democratic candidate is a paragon of good governance compared to any likely Republican nominee.
5
The difference between a liberal like you, Mr. Krugman, and a socialist like myself, is that the former sees racism and prejudice as the cause of economic inequality, but for the latter the causal direction runs in the opposite direction. To be more precise, to a socialist economic inequality legitimates and institutionalizes prejudice that is a natural part of human thinking. Stated differently, racism in the US is product of economic relations- the use of slave labor - rather than the other way around. If you want to fight racism and prejudice without addressing its root cause - economic inequality - you are wasting your precious time. This is not to say that prejudice will disappear with the disappearance of economic inequality, but rather that it will stop being a driving force of our politics and will be relegated to the realm of gossip.
5
"rise of the American hard right was the rise of a coalition, ... elite seeking low taxes and deregulation and a base of voters motivated by fears of social change" Or, the Reagan revolution, which has turned into a deep-rooted EVOLUTION!
Even Bernie Sanders, a "counter-revolutionary" against the plutocracy only wants to raise taxes to up to 52% & only over $10 million. He taunted with 90% rate of Eisenhower era! Hillary Clinton would only impose a 4% surtax over the current rate. See how much the discussion pushed to the plutocratic side.
In the first year of Ronald Reagan, 1981, top marginal rate was 70% on over $216K ($565K in 2014 dollars)! By1988, the top rate was 28% on over $30K, with just one other rate of 15% on all taxable incomes under that! That innocuous looking tax reform, gleefully supported by Democrats like Bill Bradley started the the rise of inequality, which spread, most damagingly to Third World as well. India has over 50 $billionaires, when 2/3 of the population don't have acceptable toilets & 1/3 lacks safe drinking water; most expensive private residence is in Mumbai, close to the largest slum where only 1 toilet/1000!
Readers may view this as hyperbole. But I believe it's reality, owing to the impact of Ronald Reagan's amazing personality. Some people have that power. FDR did. He moved the middle-of-the-road American public decidedly to the left (Reagan did reverse it & some more).
Even Bernie Sanders, a "counter-revolutionary" against the plutocracy only wants to raise taxes to up to 52% & only over $10 million. He taunted with 90% rate of Eisenhower era! Hillary Clinton would only impose a 4% surtax over the current rate. See how much the discussion pushed to the plutocratic side.
In the first year of Ronald Reagan, 1981, top marginal rate was 70% on over $216K ($565K in 2014 dollars)! By1988, the top rate was 28% on over $30K, with just one other rate of 15% on all taxable incomes under that! That innocuous looking tax reform, gleefully supported by Democrats like Bill Bradley started the the rise of inequality, which spread, most damagingly to Third World as well. India has over 50 $billionaires, when 2/3 of the population don't have acceptable toilets & 1/3 lacks safe drinking water; most expensive private residence is in Mumbai, close to the largest slum where only 1 toilet/1000!
Readers may view this as hyperbole. But I believe it's reality, owing to the impact of Ronald Reagan's amazing personality. Some people have that power. FDR did. He moved the middle-of-the-road American public decidedly to the left (Reagan did reverse it & some more).
6
The actual Biblical quote is "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil". Cupidity and greed, leading to corruption of the soul.
4
Prof. Krugman is certainly right that there are 'many evils' that must be countered but he leaves out public evil No. 1: perpetual war. Hillary is complicit in the Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria misadventures that profit the MIC/financiers and destroy lives and cities and threaten secular civilization.
Bernie knows better than to waste our resources on futile interventions.
Bernie knows better than to waste our resources on futile interventions.
12
I'm so sorry to disagree with my hero Krugman in his support of Hilllary over Bernie on the basis of her seeing many evils and Bernie's seeing money, the 1% and corporate elite as 'the' problem. Unfortunately, Hillary, by her actions, has made herself damaged goods. For years she has hob-nobbed with the ruling ($$) class- individuals and corporations - and raises money in private rooms with those who already have too much say in our government policy. Bernie raises funds from 'the little people'. Who will they serve if elected? Hillary will serve her donors -- and Bernie will serve his. Case closed.
12
Talk about setting up a straw man! Bernie Sanders was active in the civil rights movement when you, Dr. K, were still in grade school. To suggest that his understanding of our current problems doesn't include recognizing racial inequality simply ignores Sanders' history.
Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years. He may be many things, but dewy-eyed and naive are not among them. Idealistic? Yes, but he's been around the block, and I'll warrant he understands the complexity of our problems and the compromise involved in governing.
I agree with your analysis of our history, the GOP's Southern Strategy, and the interaction of race and economic inequality. But I cannot help but think that had the economy worked better for all of us, some of the racial rancor we experience would be less potent. Bernie has chosen to focus his platform on those issues - and frankly, those are the ones good policy can address more easily than it can change attitudes.
Maybe Bernie is the more pragmatic politician after all.
Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years. He may be many things, but dewy-eyed and naive are not among them. Idealistic? Yes, but he's been around the block, and I'll warrant he understands the complexity of our problems and the compromise involved in governing.
I agree with your analysis of our history, the GOP's Southern Strategy, and the interaction of race and economic inequality. But I cannot help but think that had the economy worked better for all of us, some of the racial rancor we experience would be less potent. Bernie has chosen to focus his platform on those issues - and frankly, those are the ones good policy can address more easily than it can change attitudes.
Maybe Bernie is the more pragmatic politician after all.
12
Wow, just WOW, Professor Don't-Rock-the-Boat Krugman! Talk about naive!
As others have here expressed, from poverty springs illness, ignorance, fear and prejudice. Senator Sanders is proposing not just equitable taxation, but Medicare for all and affordable education, just as many industrialized nations provide their citizens. Yet you seem so entrenched in the plutocracy that you, of all people, call these goals unrealistic…
You've lost focus and purpose, Paul. Afraid to upset the apple cart, your byline should now read 'The Conscience of the Status Quo'.
As others have here expressed, from poverty springs illness, ignorance, fear and prejudice. Senator Sanders is proposing not just equitable taxation, but Medicare for all and affordable education, just as many industrialized nations provide their citizens. Yet you seem so entrenched in the plutocracy that you, of all people, call these goals unrealistic…
You've lost focus and purpose, Paul. Afraid to upset the apple cart, your byline should now read 'The Conscience of the Status Quo'.
8
prior to the 3rd American Republic(1930-2000), during the 2nd American Republic(1860-1930):
The comment was "the business of government is business".
The most important task of the newly created central federal govt was to remove impediments to private business....laissez faire.
Now as the 3rd Republic smolders in its ashes and the American Empire rises.
We tell ourselves "the business of business is government".
The Political Parties are CORPORATIONS for cryin out loud.
Goldman-Sachs, Inc runs the US Treasury, not the other way around.
Most Corporate CEOs are running for political office.............and winning.
.....
the Military-Industrial-Congressional revolving door has to be destroyed.
This is not a dem vs repub issue as Paul Krugman narrowly defines it.
BOTH political parties are at the end of their useful careers.
The comment was "the business of government is business".
The most important task of the newly created central federal govt was to remove impediments to private business....laissez faire.
Now as the 3rd Republic smolders in its ashes and the American Empire rises.
We tell ourselves "the business of business is government".
The Political Parties are CORPORATIONS for cryin out loud.
Goldman-Sachs, Inc runs the US Treasury, not the other way around.
Most Corporate CEOs are running for political office.............and winning.
.....
the Military-Industrial-Congressional revolving door has to be destroyed.
This is not a dem vs repub issue as Paul Krugman narrowly defines it.
BOTH political parties are at the end of their useful careers.
7
"Paul Krugman Unironically Anoints Himself Arbiter of “Seriousness”: Only Clinton Supporters Eligible"
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/28/paul-krugman-unironically-anoints-hi...
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/28/paul-krugman-unironically-anoints-hi...
5
It is specious to try to separate issues of racial inequality, gender inequality, and economic inequality.
Racism and sexism are functions of "classism." The inequality of race and gender go hand in hand with the inequality of wealth. It's impossible to separate them. Racism and sexism are simply methods by which people are kept down financially. "Divide and conquer" (among ethnic groups, among genders) remains a successful tactic to keep the little people fighting each other so they (we) don't look around and identify the people really taking our "stuff" (to use Tim Wise's inclusive noun). Both racism and sexism are systems deeply rooted in the U.S. The powers that be don't want those systems uprooted. Ask yourself: who benefits? Take a moment to look at photos of the richest 65, 85, 100 people in the U.S.
Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke often about economic problems; he wanted those addressed. That part of his discourse is rarely emphasized, yet it was important to his political revolution. And, by the way, King used the Biblical reference correctly: "the love of money is the root of all evil" (not "money is the root....). It's a telling distinction.
Racism and sexism are functions of "classism." The inequality of race and gender go hand in hand with the inequality of wealth. It's impossible to separate them. Racism and sexism are simply methods by which people are kept down financially. "Divide and conquer" (among ethnic groups, among genders) remains a successful tactic to keep the little people fighting each other so they (we) don't look around and identify the people really taking our "stuff" (to use Tim Wise's inclusive noun). Both racism and sexism are systems deeply rooted in the U.S. The powers that be don't want those systems uprooted. Ask yourself: who benefits? Take a moment to look at photos of the richest 65, 85, 100 people in the U.S.
Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke often about economic problems; he wanted those addressed. That part of his discourse is rarely emphasized, yet it was important to his political revolution. And, by the way, King used the Biblical reference correctly: "the love of money is the root of all evil" (not "money is the root....). It's a telling distinction.
5
In a competitive, class-structured society like ours the people on the highest rungs of society and the corporate state that administers it often maintain their power by fomenting conflict among those on the lowest rungs – in the form of racism, sexism, nativism, and other prejudices.
While those prejudices, like the hatred of Jews in the past, are indeed powerful forces that can’t simply be appeased, they result directly from the exercise of the kind of economic and political power that the movement behind Senator Sanders – just like the movement behind Dr. King – is trying to change.
While those prejudices, like the hatred of Jews in the past, are indeed powerful forces that can’t simply be appeased, they result directly from the exercise of the kind of economic and political power that the movement behind Senator Sanders – just like the movement behind Dr. King – is trying to change.
4
Progressives think working class voters who vote Republican are naive. After all, how can they vote year after year for con men who are picking their pockets? Krugman explains that there is more to what moves GOP voters than money. When I read the comments about the coming Sanders' revolution I grow nostalgic, recalling the glories of the McGovern revolution and the Nader revolution, which gave us Nixon and Bush Jr., respectively. But Sanders revolution will be different! Maybe it is progressives who are naive?
4
Krugman should give up trying to convince Bernie supporters that believing Hillary will be a more effective President is not giving up on a progressive agenda, nor being a shill for Hillary and not a sell out to Wall Street. Many progressive Democrats are now convinced shaking the apple cart is the only way forward and previous compromises were sell outs and an appeasement of the oligarchy. They do not see the irony of the GOP base saying exactly the same thing but for regressive policies. Just because one is uncompromising on policies that would improve life in the US does not make it more likely that those will be implemented while there is substantial opposition to them. On the contrary, it is likely to solidify that opposition and in fact slow down any progress. Impatience with incremental progress will not make it proceed any faster, only a change in the minds opposing it will accomplish that. Bernie talks the good talk but it is not going to change the minds of people willing to support Trump, Cruz or any of the other GOP candidates. Neither will Hillary, but she is more likely to get some concessions without frightening the opposition into a solid block of ice. Incremental progress is better than no progress at all. Revolutions produce turmoil more often than the change revolutionaries are hoping for.
4
Well, at least the exhortations to give up this "silly Sanders dream" are getting a bit more nuanced.
Paul, true revolutions don't come from the right; only devolutions. Revolutions come from the left, always have.
Revolutions, by their natures, are always long hard slogs, as well. So we might as well get started. This is a moment when those who have been enabling the oligarchs to give the republican party its marching orders are finally waking up to the reality that they have been given the shaft. Thus the rise of T rump....but there is enough populism is Bernie Sanders' campaign he could siphon off some of that support from the rural south and midwest.
People taking a look at Sanders who have been voting for the abortion, gay and gun rights dog whistles might awaken to the idea it is not so bad voting your own best interests. And getting back to sanity.
Paul, true revolutions don't come from the right; only devolutions. Revolutions come from the left, always have.
Revolutions, by their natures, are always long hard slogs, as well. So we might as well get started. This is a moment when those who have been enabling the oligarchs to give the republican party its marching orders are finally waking up to the reality that they have been given the shaft. Thus the rise of T rump....but there is enough populism is Bernie Sanders' campaign he could siphon off some of that support from the rural south and midwest.
People taking a look at Sanders who have been voting for the abortion, gay and gun rights dog whistles might awaken to the idea it is not so bad voting your own best interests. And getting back to sanity.
126
We are in a de facto civil conflict, not very different from the situation the
country was in prior to the Civil War. Attempts had been made for years to come to a solution to resolve the problem of two economic systems, slave and free, in one country. There was no incremental solution then and there is none now. We cannot have laissez faire capitalism and a mixed economy at the same time. We cannot have a secular state and a Christian theocracy at the same time. We cannot have white privilege and civil rights at the same time. Sanders and whoever the Republicans choose offer will allow the electorate to chose.
Hillary Clinton will not.
country was in prior to the Civil War. Attempts had been made for years to come to a solution to resolve the problem of two economic systems, slave and free, in one country. There was no incremental solution then and there is none now. We cannot have laissez faire capitalism and a mixed economy at the same time. We cannot have a secular state and a Christian theocracy at the same time. We cannot have white privilege and civil rights at the same time. Sanders and whoever the Republicans choose offer will allow the electorate to chose.
Hillary Clinton will not.
5
Damn.
This may very well be the best column that Krugman's ever authored for the NY Times - and he's always set the bar unbelievably high. Hello, Pulitzer.
Damn.
This may very well be the best column that Krugman's ever authored for the NY Times - and he's always set the bar unbelievably high. Hello, Pulitzer.
Damn.
9
Dear Paul Krugman:
I hope you feel usefully criticized by readers' comments and change, instead of feeling hurt by your readers who "just do not really understand" what you are saying about Clinton v. Sanders.
You were courageous in showing how austerity is the wrong policy while so many other economists were calling for it. Is being honest too about Bernie Sanders a bridge too far for you? I hope it isn't because the toxic effect of this column, while countered by readers' on-line comments, is still doing damage to those who read the hard copy edition of the NY Times.
I hope you have the goodness to learn from the comments and express a regret very soon.
I hope you feel usefully criticized by readers' comments and change, instead of feeling hurt by your readers who "just do not really understand" what you are saying about Clinton v. Sanders.
You were courageous in showing how austerity is the wrong policy while so many other economists were calling for it. Is being honest too about Bernie Sanders a bridge too far for you? I hope it isn't because the toxic effect of this column, while countered by readers' on-line comments, is still doing damage to those who read the hard copy edition of the NY Times.
I hope you have the goodness to learn from the comments and express a regret very soon.
6
I understand racists...basically they don't know any better and are easily led. But think how much better the country would be now had such racists (almost all of whom favor the Republican party) rather than banning together from Day 1 of Obama's presidency to take him down at the expense of the country would simply have said with respect to anything even vaguely positive that he had achieved "Well...you know, he is half White."
3
Dr. Krugman, it seems as though the Dr. applies only when you write in your field of expertise. And you do that exceedingly well, if the comments from your readers are a good indication of the general agreement with state of economics in the world and the U.S. today. However, your immersion in economics and money matters for your entire career may make you unable to truly see the political world from the bottom--from the 50% or maybe 75% who really have nothing at all. Who cannot even imagine any person, let alone a candidate for President, getting millions of dollars from Wall Street for doing nothing.
Sorry, Dr. Krugman, you see the world from a privileged position and you seem to be unable to see around that.
Sorry, Dr. Krugman, you see the world from a privileged position and you seem to be unable to see around that.
7
You seem to be arguing that since the Oligarchs gained their power by dividing the country on social issues there is no use trying to have a revolution from the left because there is still a lot of real prejudice out there. It’s as if you think most people are anger today because of prejudice. This is a mistake.
Most people are angry today because they have been lied to, both by Republicans and by Democrats.
The Republicans tied to them when they promised that if we allowed them to cut taxes, reduced the size of government, deregulate the economy, and invaded Iraq we would all become rich and achieve world peace. When the majority of the electorate followed their advice and it led to the quagmire in Iraq and the worst financial crisis since the Crash of 1929 they turned to the Democrats.
The Democrats lied to them when they promised hope and change after the debacle in Iraq and the financial crisis, and then went about business as usual trying to make nice with the Republicans instead of investigating the corruption in the system, prosecuting those who were responsible for their crimes, and fighting for economic policies that would have eliminated the imbalances in the system and restored full employment.
That’s where the problem lies. Not in prejudice. See: http://www.rweconomics.com/Sanders1.htm ,
http://www.rweconomics.com/blame.htm , http://www.rweconomics.com/Deficit.htm , and http://www.rweconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm
Most people are angry today because they have been lied to, both by Republicans and by Democrats.
The Republicans tied to them when they promised that if we allowed them to cut taxes, reduced the size of government, deregulate the economy, and invaded Iraq we would all become rich and achieve world peace. When the majority of the electorate followed their advice and it led to the quagmire in Iraq and the worst financial crisis since the Crash of 1929 they turned to the Democrats.
The Democrats lied to them when they promised hope and change after the debacle in Iraq and the financial crisis, and then went about business as usual trying to make nice with the Republicans instead of investigating the corruption in the system, prosecuting those who were responsible for their crimes, and fighting for economic policies that would have eliminated the imbalances in the system and restored full employment.
That’s where the problem lies. Not in prejudice. See: http://www.rweconomics.com/Sanders1.htm ,
http://www.rweconomics.com/blame.htm , http://www.rweconomics.com/Deficit.htm , and http://www.rweconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm
16
i cannot discover, in this whole op article, any logic or compelling demonstration to support Krugman's contention--that
what he calls Sanders' view--"money is the ROOT of all evil"--
is not the case.
So he jumps from that note, to a Clintonist persuasion quickly. BUT :
If we speak of ROOTs (meaning origins, fundamentals) of the so-called evil, then all Paul's pretensional and sophisticated trotting-out of a verifiable, and elaborate mechanics of MONEY (i mean, power--and in a Sanderian sense, pls), calling this "history and its evidence" is but to make an end-run around the primitive naivete of my socialist friend Sanders.
With an objective of making useful analyses--for improving or overcoming our hellishly undemocratic structural state of affairs,
it would seem to want an ideologue's blindness
to primitive facts,
to ignore the fundamental or initiating energies (the controlling power of MONEY).
A blindness Sanders seems not to suffer so much. Hence his seeming popular appeal, i think.
Krugman should notice, that it does not do much good,
if the point is to advance us
beyond naivete, to an understanding of how
money IS power,
and only then, secondly, to how it works, and then onward--to how OUR system can be, and is, riven with the FEW owning the Money Machine.
It's most disappointing to see written here, the liberalist boilerplate, antiSanders, and proClinton.
but what did i expect??
he pretense to sophisticated deliberated analyses
what he calls Sanders' view--"money is the ROOT of all evil"--
is not the case.
So he jumps from that note, to a Clintonist persuasion quickly. BUT :
If we speak of ROOTs (meaning origins, fundamentals) of the so-called evil, then all Paul's pretensional and sophisticated trotting-out of a verifiable, and elaborate mechanics of MONEY (i mean, power--and in a Sanderian sense, pls), calling this "history and its evidence" is but to make an end-run around the primitive naivete of my socialist friend Sanders.
With an objective of making useful analyses--for improving or overcoming our hellishly undemocratic structural state of affairs,
it would seem to want an ideologue's blindness
to primitive facts,
to ignore the fundamental or initiating energies (the controlling power of MONEY).
A blindness Sanders seems not to suffer so much. Hence his seeming popular appeal, i think.
Krugman should notice, that it does not do much good,
if the point is to advance us
beyond naivete, to an understanding of how
money IS power,
and only then, secondly, to how it works, and then onward--to how OUR system can be, and is, riven with the FEW owning the Money Machine.
It's most disappointing to see written here, the liberalist boilerplate, antiSanders, and proClinton.
but what did i expect??
he pretense to sophisticated deliberated analyses
1
Krugman, you seem to be backpedaling on this one, or at least bedoming very defensive of your newly manifested support of the status quo. Good luc. backing that one up. I believe the curtain has been pulled away from America's ills...including racial and gender bias...the economic inequality underpins all of it.
3
Money is not the root of all evil. Money is necessary to improve life standards and generates progress and welfare. But if the same money is deployed in a gambling machine called wall street, hedge fund, CDO, derivates, etc.., then it is definitely evil. It's incredible that revenue coming from hard work and risky activities that produce useful products and services for milions of people are taxed more than "revenues" coming from the Wall Street gambling arcade!!
7
The American 2-party system has found its way to an almost mathematically inevitable place given the nature of human psychology: that the portion of the public which can't assimilate complexity or change (for reasons having to do with biology as well as education and culture) has now arrived at a place where their fear of change and their loss of power to prevent it, combined with their inability to appreciate the complexity of democratic process, has produced a paranoid mob reaction. What Democrats have been naive about is not how much reactionary thinking is out there, but rather about why it's not urgent to use all the tools that the educated elites know how to use to reform the popular culture that gives rise to it. If you take a generation of toddlers out of the home and put them into classrooms where the socialization process is positive and inclusive you innoculate the next generation of the entire country against the fears and phobias which pass for culture in the places and classes where education is left to chance generation after generation...
1
I've been a fan of yours for years, Mr. Krugman, and one of the reasons I've found you so refreshing is your ability to show us how the complicated subject of economics, real or voodoo, actually plays out in our society. What a disappointment to find out after all these years that it's not just about the money after all - you must also be devastated to realize this, since you have been writing so passionately about the "damaging rise of the 1 % back when many of today's Sander's supporters were in elementary school."
Except, hang on just one minute...how do the the elites influence the great unwashed to cling to their deep-seated prejudices so that they vote against their own interests? Oh yeah - with money. Dark money, ALEC rewriting our laws, unfettered lobbying, control of our "free" press, corrupt Wall Street almost bringing the world to its economic knees in 2008, Super pacs, false advertising on a monolithic scale, and on and on, all demonstrating the corrupting effects of vast, absolutely vast, amounts of money. Sorry, but this Sisyphean, inch by inch fight for change isnt so inspiring after all. Mostly it has allowed those with all the money to move the goal posts further and further, inch by inch to the right. This new incremental change argument of yours is only relevant if we don't have any other other choices - but this year we do have a choice, and I for one, am feeling the Bern.
Except, hang on just one minute...how do the the elites influence the great unwashed to cling to their deep-seated prejudices so that they vote against their own interests? Oh yeah - with money. Dark money, ALEC rewriting our laws, unfettered lobbying, control of our "free" press, corrupt Wall Street almost bringing the world to its economic knees in 2008, Super pacs, false advertising on a monolithic scale, and on and on, all demonstrating the corrupting effects of vast, absolutely vast, amounts of money. Sorry, but this Sisyphean, inch by inch fight for change isnt so inspiring after all. Mostly it has allowed those with all the money to move the goal posts further and further, inch by inch to the right. This new incremental change argument of yours is only relevant if we don't have any other other choices - but this year we do have a choice, and I for one, am feeling the Bern.
13
A combination individuals and special interests throwing big chunks of money at even the lowest level elections, seemingly greater gerrymandering, and increasing partisanship in the judiciary have certainly helped pull the country off balance in recent decades. However, for all its flaws - and there are many - our political system was designed to reduce the odds of a 'revolution' from the extremes of the political spectrum, and to pull back towards the middle when it tilts too far in one direction.
It may be small comfort because nothing is guaranteed: but it is still more likely than not that (a) the country and our politics will slowly return to the middle, and (b) there will not be a "revolution" from either the right (e.g. tea party) or the left (e.g. Bernie Sanders).
It may be small comfort because nothing is guaranteed: but it is still more likely than not that (a) the country and our politics will slowly return to the middle, and (b) there will not be a "revolution" from either the right (e.g. tea party) or the left (e.g. Bernie Sanders).
3
A billionaire would have to spend $10,000 a day for over 270 years to exhaust his first billion. There happens to be a sizable number of human beings living on little more than 10K a YEAR in the richest nation in the world. The oppressive economic conditions for millions of all races in this nation is a reality.
The bootstraps are now made in China & "kissing banditry" will not solve the problem.
The bootstraps are now made in China & "kissing banditry" will not solve the problem.
4
To all the Bernie fans: so if Hillary gets the nomination, you're going to vote for what ever republican is running, right?
3
Revolutions do sometimes bring actual positive change—if memory serves, something big happened back about 1776—but the less dramatic and far more common change that moves the world results from the "noble, even inspiring" daily grind of "fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better," as Mr. Krugman rightly concludes here. Pebbles in the pond, one after another and another...
5
After supporting Clinton , a little too enthusuastically i 2008, I came to the sad realization that it is important to stay out of primary politics unless you are a profesional politician. Best thing is to keep your views to yourself. Whichever side you take , it colors your attitude to the other person for a long time. Your attempts to support Clinton are resulting in harsh invective to Sanders's supporters at the expense of facts.
3
Could I say to the Bernistas that you should read Mao on war, but not follow it?
I am speaking particularly about the uses of terrorism in a revolutionary war. The rational purpose of terrorism is to polarize the populace, allow no middle or uncommitted, and specifically to encourage reprisals from your opponent, that will further polarize the populace and drive the peasants into your camp.
Terrorism does not work if you are too blatant and extensive at it, and your opponent does not rise to the bait. You are then seen by all as simple terrorists or thugs -- that may work for awhile anyway -- you become a mafia or North Korea.
Terrorism doesn't work if you are terrorizing those who would be your allies if you had more brains and patience.
Mao was tactically correct but strategically wrong. He beat the Koumintang, unified China, but could not make it work. He had to unleash a second wave of terror (The "great leap forward") to suppress the signs of failure -- and it failed.
Chinese communism died with the Great Leap Forward. Today there are almost no real communists in China -- the central party certainly is not. Only a few old men sit on park benches wearing Mao caps.
Real politics is messy, and most of all requires patience ... and the understanding that your opponent today may be an ally you need tomorrow.
It's that last reality which seems to be lost in America, particularly on the right. Don't go there on the left.
I am speaking particularly about the uses of terrorism in a revolutionary war. The rational purpose of terrorism is to polarize the populace, allow no middle or uncommitted, and specifically to encourage reprisals from your opponent, that will further polarize the populace and drive the peasants into your camp.
Terrorism does not work if you are too blatant and extensive at it, and your opponent does not rise to the bait. You are then seen by all as simple terrorists or thugs -- that may work for awhile anyway -- you become a mafia or North Korea.
Terrorism doesn't work if you are terrorizing those who would be your allies if you had more brains and patience.
Mao was tactically correct but strategically wrong. He beat the Koumintang, unified China, but could not make it work. He had to unleash a second wave of terror (The "great leap forward") to suppress the signs of failure -- and it failed.
Chinese communism died with the Great Leap Forward. Today there are almost no real communists in China -- the central party certainly is not. Only a few old men sit on park benches wearing Mao caps.
Real politics is messy, and most of all requires patience ... and the understanding that your opponent today may be an ally you need tomorrow.
It's that last reality which seems to be lost in America, particularly on the right. Don't go there on the left.
5
It's a shame, Paul, that you're now mischaractering Bernie's view. It's more than "a bit" of oversimplification. Is this what we're going to see from you so long as he's a threat to win?
7
Mr. Krugman's characterization of Bernie Sanders as over simplifying matters and only focusing on money being the root of all evil is over simplifying Sander's campaign. Sanders also focuses on raising the minimum wage, insuring all children have a right to a free higher education, improving our infrastructure, creating jobs, the unfairness of the justice system for black men, and universal health care among other things.
It is true that Sauders thinks our political system is corrupt, and that we need to over turn Citizens United, and do something about our rigged system whereby most of us pay more in taxes than GE, and Warren Buffet has a lower tax rate than his janitor.
No, the difference between Sanders and Clint-in is exemplified in their speaking engagements. Clinton demands $250,000/hour, Sanders takes $850. Clinton demands travel on a private jet at a minimal size and stays in the presidential suite of a luxury hotel. Sanders flies coach on Southwest. Clinton talks to banking and insurance executives at private conferences and insists her comments be kept secret. Sanders talks at public settings and has no fear of having his comments being distributed.
No, the difference between Clinton and Sanders is that one is a genuine champion of the poor, of the middle class, and of the workers of America while the other is an aristocrat who pretends that she understand the plight of the masses.
Mr. Krugman, with his bias for Clinton, is blind to what Sanders stands for.
It is true that Sauders thinks our political system is corrupt, and that we need to over turn Citizens United, and do something about our rigged system whereby most of us pay more in taxes than GE, and Warren Buffet has a lower tax rate than his janitor.
No, the difference between Sanders and Clint-in is exemplified in their speaking engagements. Clinton demands $250,000/hour, Sanders takes $850. Clinton demands travel on a private jet at a minimal size and stays in the presidential suite of a luxury hotel. Sanders flies coach on Southwest. Clinton talks to banking and insurance executives at private conferences and insists her comments be kept secret. Sanders talks at public settings and has no fear of having his comments being distributed.
No, the difference between Clinton and Sanders is that one is a genuine champion of the poor, of the middle class, and of the workers of America while the other is an aristocrat who pretends that she understand the plight of the masses.
Mr. Krugman, with his bias for Clinton, is blind to what Sanders stands for.
10
It's not 1968 any more. That was a long long time ago and the country has changed enormously. I know; I was a toddler than and am white haired now.
While the root of modern American identity politics lies in Nixon and the Southern Strategy, as the decades have passed the share of the blame that lies with the Democrats has steadily grown. As the party shifted toward corporate and elite interests, in order to survive as a meaningful political actor it had to focus on identity politics.
In 2016 the divisions in American society caused by identity politics are primarily driven by the elites in both parties using them to deflect attention away from inequality and corruption.
I'm happy to see this column from Professor Krugman though. I respect him enormously and I've been troubled by some of his recent writing. This column is a good explanation of where he's coming from. I disagree as to the importance of blind prejudice as a root factor, but I could certainly be wrong and he right. Regardless, the damage caused by decades of identity politics is a real factor that needs to be accounted for in any political strategy.
While the root of modern American identity politics lies in Nixon and the Southern Strategy, as the decades have passed the share of the blame that lies with the Democrats has steadily grown. As the party shifted toward corporate and elite interests, in order to survive as a meaningful political actor it had to focus on identity politics.
In 2016 the divisions in American society caused by identity politics are primarily driven by the elites in both parties using them to deflect attention away from inequality and corruption.
I'm happy to see this column from Professor Krugman though. I respect him enormously and I've been troubled by some of his recent writing. This column is a good explanation of where he's coming from. I disagree as to the importance of blind prejudice as a root factor, but I could certainly be wrong and he right. Regardless, the damage caused by decades of identity politics is a real factor that needs to be accounted for in any political strategy.
2
There is only one big issue in this campaign: Will The US LEAD THE WORLD IN COMBATTING CLIMATE CHANGE?
I believe Secretary Clinton knows that this is even more important even than getting money out of politics.
America is very much a part of the world now. We cannot lead with military "might." Neither we nor the planet (and the rest of its inhabitants) will be protected until the threat to our lives posed by the threat to the planet is squarely faced.
By electing Secretary Clinton, we gain an internationally loved and respected leader, a grandmother, who can speak to this issue more forcefully than any other candidate.
Who else can speak to Paul Ryan as his mother?
I believe Secretary Clinton knows that this is even more important even than getting money out of politics.
America is very much a part of the world now. We cannot lead with military "might." Neither we nor the planet (and the rest of its inhabitants) will be protected until the threat to our lives posed by the threat to the planet is squarely faced.
By electing Secretary Clinton, we gain an internationally loved and respected leader, a grandmother, who can speak to this issue more forcefully than any other candidate.
Who else can speak to Paul Ryan as his mother?
4
Isn't it ironic how the GOP Debates always have a strong bias toward building a strong military. That's with three Senators who should know full well that their colleagues--if not them--voted for across-the-board Sequestration--including equal cuts to the Defense Department, as well. Whenever wars wind down, there is always a "RIF" (Reduction in Force). And, in view of the rise of isis--which George W. Bush & Co. gave birth to. They have not reversed those cuts.
Marco Rubio claims that Secretary Hillary Clinton, who he accuses as responsible for losing four Americans at Benghazi, doesn't deserve to be President. So, I guess--through that misguided logic--Ronald Reagan wouldn't deserve the Office either. During one calendar year, he lost several hundred Marines at a Beirut barracks, and a number of American staffers, also at the Beirut Embassy.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Marco Rubio claims that Secretary Hillary Clinton, who he accuses as responsible for losing four Americans at Benghazi, doesn't deserve to be President. So, I guess--through that misguided logic--Ronald Reagan wouldn't deserve the Office either. During one calendar year, he lost several hundred Marines at a Beirut barracks, and a number of American staffers, also at the Beirut Embassy.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
3
Different spin on same facts: (1) Plutocracy buys votes (mostly in Congress) on economic issues (taxation, minimum wages, healthcare, etc.) to protect its interests to the detriment of the middle and lower-middle classes. (2) To divert attention from this, the rightwing seizes upon social issues and flames them to a frenzy with fear-mongering, reaching unprecedented hysteria in 2016. Basic economic desires are distorted, as if plutocrats' interests were the same as working peoples' interests. (3) Plutocrats also buy some Dems (HRC & Family for one); they give lip service to social liberalism, but essentially march to their paymasters' orders on economic issues, with talk of "practicability" and "insiders-know-best" and declaring that true economic radicals (Sanders) don't know how to get stuff done. (4) Meantime, non-politicians like Trump think this is about ratings and act accordingly: no real policies of any sort beyond outrageous personal behavior.
Social attitudes are tribal in nature. New behaviors made mandatory by legislation work only insofar as laws give people a difference experience that may lead them to discover changes aren't so hard/bad after all. It's a medium- to short-term strategy. Meantime, control of jobs, healthcare, housing, etc. is dictated by narrow private interests, thereby making a large portion of the population unhappy/angry/disillusioned--and thereby vulnerable to radical rightist social harangues (Cruz).
Social attitudes are tribal in nature. New behaviors made mandatory by legislation work only insofar as laws give people a difference experience that may lead them to discover changes aren't so hard/bad after all. It's a medium- to short-term strategy. Meantime, control of jobs, healthcare, housing, etc. is dictated by narrow private interests, thereby making a large portion of the population unhappy/angry/disillusioned--and thereby vulnerable to radical rightist social harangues (Cruz).
2
Incrementalism is fine unless you're drowning.
Incremental steps work well if you have a good health care plan, not so well when you're facing bankruptcy due to medical costs, or must forgo needed treatment due to financial stress. Slow progress works well if you have a good career and aren't buried under a mountain of student loan debt. Incremental progress doesn't help when you're in your mid thirties (like myself) and have never had a robust economy in which to find a job. Time keeps passing, the ability to build a foundation keeps getting put off. Frankly, I don't want to edge nibble into my fifties.
I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that entrenched (elite, monied) power structures often use sexism, racism, and homophobia as weapons to maintain their power privileges. It functions as a social and economic form of violence, and also acts as a "divide and conquer" strategy against the disenfranchised who can be distracted into fighting against each other over hot-button issues while ignoring the power brokers who are picking both of their pockets.
Any forward progress is better than nothing, and is superior to regressive action. But we should also remember that there was nothing incremental about the extremism of the Reagan Revolution and the damage it and the GOP have caused our nation for the past thirty five years. Sometimes to right the ship, you have to push just as hard in the other direction.
Incremental steps work well if you have a good health care plan, not so well when you're facing bankruptcy due to medical costs, or must forgo needed treatment due to financial stress. Slow progress works well if you have a good career and aren't buried under a mountain of student loan debt. Incremental progress doesn't help when you're in your mid thirties (like myself) and have never had a robust economy in which to find a job. Time keeps passing, the ability to build a foundation keeps getting put off. Frankly, I don't want to edge nibble into my fifties.
I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that entrenched (elite, monied) power structures often use sexism, racism, and homophobia as weapons to maintain their power privileges. It functions as a social and economic form of violence, and also acts as a "divide and conquer" strategy against the disenfranchised who can be distracted into fighting against each other over hot-button issues while ignoring the power brokers who are picking both of their pockets.
Any forward progress is better than nothing, and is superior to regressive action. But we should also remember that there was nothing incremental about the extremism of the Reagan Revolution and the damage it and the GOP have caused our nation for the past thirty five years. Sometimes to right the ship, you have to push just as hard in the other direction.
2
I can't see a lot of daylight between what a Clinton administration or a Sanders administration would be able to accomplish with a Republican congress. The prejudice Krugman highlights will be there no matter who is there. And don't think we won't see the latent misogyny or anti-Semitism of Middle America with either one as we did with the racism with Obama. But I believe Sanders is sincere in his desire to do what's best for everybody. I think Hillary is just like her husband in that she is purely a political animal. But, unlike her husband, she isn't a particularly good one.
Please Doctor, lay off Bernie Sanders. The magic asterisk is your version of the Scarlet letter. Hanging it on Paul Ryan makes sense. Hanging on Bernie Sanders is to say he and Paul Ryan are the same thing.
Reducing Sanders' message to homilies like money is the root of all evil is a grotesque oversimplification. Prejudice and bigotry can't be magically eliminated except by lobotomy. Why not call this another form of the magic asterisk?
Leveling the playing field by taking away money is very practical.
Reducing Sanders' message to homilies like money is the root of all evil is a grotesque oversimplification. Prejudice and bigotry can't be magically eliminated except by lobotomy. Why not call this another form of the magic asterisk?
Leveling the playing field by taking away money is very practical.
2
Just because Senator Sanders spends so much of his time and emphasis on income inequality does not mean that he is oblivious to all other problems. He is just prioritizing them. There is a well documented far right conspiracy, which most of the Republican candidates support (just read Dark Money by Mayer) which has robbed most Americans via our tax code. Ms. Clinton has to contort herself into a pretzel to explain how she can accept $200,000 speaking fees from Wall Street and then play watchdog over the financial industry. A financially strapped middle class cannot make sizeable political contributions, send many of its children to college, buy as many consumer goods or hold out the promise of a better life for generations to come. This stagnation is so unnecessary and it hurts everybody, even big business.
2
The point that critics of money politics keep ignoring is that it wasn't voters or Congress or lobbyists that gave the 1% the right to corrupt the political process with unrestricted campaign gifts and spending. It was and is the US Supreme Court, which by a 5-4 majority decreed that any spending restrictions violate the First Amendment guarantee of "free speech." Maybe we'd be a more informed electorate if the law required disclosure of the identities of the givers, but we're already assuming the worst of motives.
2
Yet a new way to try and dissuade voters from Sanders. We are told the problem is prejudice not money. This is wrong. Heightened prejudice comes when people hurt economically. Trump gains traction because of jobs and income stagnation. Germany and the US during the Great Depression show two divergent paths depending on leadership. I'd follow FDR instead of four more years of Hoover. Prosperity is not just around the corner.
128
Dear Mr. Krugman,
History tells me that the powerful have always controlled societies whether it be the biggest guy with the biggest weapon (later called a "king") or the guy in the business suit controlling "campaign contributions" and manipulating legislation, taxes and, by and large, society itself.
In the past, sometimes to avoid revolutions, the "powerful" have thrown a few crumbs off their plates to keep the masses happy (Napoleon just "drafted' them all into his armies; better having them fight others than thinking about their conditions at home) like "voting" but, of course, only for the 2, mainstream parties.
But now, the rich, due to automation, computers and just plain greed, are not so sure they have to keep the 99% "happy". The GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE has banked on the idea that if you "keep 'em scared" of something (Terrorists and immigrants being the latest "fear inducers") enough people will vote to keep the money flowing into their coffers.
It's worked pretty well in the House and Senate. Next thing on the menu, of course, the presidency and from what I've seen out there, in the real world, a lot of "white folks" are just scared enough to vote in a Trump or Cruz.
November will tell us all with a real, knock down, drag out affair in between known as 'The Presidential Race". Be sure to have a good set of waders for both the effects of "climate change" and the effects of the "effluvium" that will be spewed by both parties!
History tells me that the powerful have always controlled societies whether it be the biggest guy with the biggest weapon (later called a "king") or the guy in the business suit controlling "campaign contributions" and manipulating legislation, taxes and, by and large, society itself.
In the past, sometimes to avoid revolutions, the "powerful" have thrown a few crumbs off their plates to keep the masses happy (Napoleon just "drafted' them all into his armies; better having them fight others than thinking about their conditions at home) like "voting" but, of course, only for the 2, mainstream parties.
But now, the rich, due to automation, computers and just plain greed, are not so sure they have to keep the 99% "happy". The GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE has banked on the idea that if you "keep 'em scared" of something (Terrorists and immigrants being the latest "fear inducers") enough people will vote to keep the money flowing into their coffers.
It's worked pretty well in the House and Senate. Next thing on the menu, of course, the presidency and from what I've seen out there, in the real world, a lot of "white folks" are just scared enough to vote in a Trump or Cruz.
November will tell us all with a real, knock down, drag out affair in between known as 'The Presidential Race". Be sure to have a good set of waders for both the effects of "climate change" and the effects of the "effluvium" that will be spewed by both parties!
One of the best PK columns I've read.
This should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the current state of play in American politics and society.
This should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the current state of play in American politics and society.
7
I have to share the disappointment expressed by many of the other commentators. The focus on social wedge issues has what has enabled establishment politicians to avoid confrontation with the wealthy elite pulling the strings. Dr. Krugman even acknowledges this fact in the column, but seems to think that it only serves the race-bating fear mongers on the right. I think the notion that it only cuts one way is naive. These over-the-top, pro-wrestling style battle royales allow the parties to play a game of good cop bad cop on us all while allowing both parties to avoid confronting the fundamental economic causes of the nations problems. Furthermore, I do not accept the premise that Hillary Clinton is more socially progressive than Bernie Sanders in the first place. I think the "follow the money" argument against Hillary Clinton is appropriate and also find her glaringly inauthentic. Her tendency to come off as republican-lite when push comes to shove is what drove me from her camp to Barack Obama's back in 2008.
5
“the Sanders view is that money is the root of all evil.”
Dr. Krugman: You can't be this ignorant. To characterize the Sanders campaign this way and the Clinton campaign as including issues of race is, again coming from you, dumbfounding.
With your last few weeks of posts, I've trying to think you're not a partisan for Hillary as many are claiming but geez, maybe they're right. Good night, I expect this from Brooks and Douthat, not from my favorite columnist.
Dr. Krugman: You can't be this ignorant. To characterize the Sanders campaign this way and the Clinton campaign as including issues of race is, again coming from you, dumbfounding.
With your last few weeks of posts, I've trying to think you're not a partisan for Hillary as many are claiming but geez, maybe they're right. Good night, I expect this from Brooks and Douthat, not from my favorite columnist.
8
It is ridiculous to charge that Sanders thinks “money is the root of all evil”, although Krugman's accusation of the day will indeed scare many away. Sanders and others recognize that allowing Wall Street to continue policing itself will inevitably result in another financial collapse. So Sanders believes it is important to return to the regulations we already had on our books most of the 20th century. The regulations we made after the great depression worked well and returning to them is neither “radical” nor "idealistic". Sanders is running against a candidate financed by this industry. Unlike in our past, today financial firms comprise America’s most powerful lobby (which is why they police themselves), and the NYTimes has no stomach for this fight. I expect tomorrow we will be told how setting tax rates on these robber barons at half what they were under Eisenhower is neither grown up or serious.
The daily treatment of Sanders and his supporters by this paper reminds me of the NYTimes run up to the Iraq war. I hope the American people can see through it this time.
The daily treatment of Sanders and his supporters by this paper reminds me of the NYTimes run up to the Iraq war. I hope the American people can see through it this time.
4
Where dOes all the Ugliness come from? The easy answer is only part right. Did you watch yesterday's Republican debate? Trump was not there, but Fiorina more than made up for the absence of the Donald. She went, again, straight for Mrs. Clinton's jugular and, teeth deeply planted, started started whipping her victim from side to side, as a rottweiller does with a cat.
2
I think the article misses the key point. The popularity of Bernie and Trump reflect the voters realizing the neither party has any new ideas. Can any rational person vote for a party (GOP) that thinks reducing taxes will solve our problems? Can any rational person vote for a party (Dems) that thinks the same failed social agenda should be continued? The appeal of Trump and Bernie are not their ideas, is that they are not the status quo.
1
The English have an expression, "He took the king's shilling," the implication clear, that the recipient's integrity is of dubious value. Not of no value, but of dubious value. A question has arisen where there ought to be no question.
The Clintons took Wall Street's shilling. I want no part of anyone who took its money. She's all yours, Krugman.
The Clintons took Wall Street's shilling. I want no part of anyone who took its money. She's all yours, Krugman.
11
Hey Paul,
Carrying water for Hillary is beneath you. Income inequality and the purchase of Congress and the Presidency are THE issues...and Hill is up to her eyeballs with the limousine liberals and Wall Street. It's time for a New Deal! (Where have I heard that before?)
Carrying water for Hillary is beneath you. Income inequality and the purchase of Congress and the Presidency are THE issues...and Hill is up to her eyeballs with the limousine liberals and Wall Street. It's time for a New Deal! (Where have I heard that before?)
9
The aphorism is "LOVE of money is the root of all evil." Leaving out that first word robs the phrase of its meaning.
5
"And isn’t there something noble, even inspiring, about fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better?"
Yes, there is...and it isn't Hillary whose been fighting it, year after year--it's Sanders.
The Clintons are opportunists, who long ago sold their souls. They POSE as Progressives--especially aroun election time--but it's thin gruel the rest of the time. Why not support the candidate who genuinely embraces the values you've been arguing for all these years?
If THIS opportunity passes us by, there may not be another for many years--or a middle class left to seize it. How many more Great Recessions can we stand?
Yes, there is...and it isn't Hillary whose been fighting it, year after year--it's Sanders.
The Clintons are opportunists, who long ago sold their souls. They POSE as Progressives--especially aroun election time--but it's thin gruel the rest of the time. Why not support the candidate who genuinely embraces the values you've been arguing for all these years?
If THIS opportunity passes us by, there may not be another for many years--or a middle class left to seize it. How many more Great Recessions can we stand?
8
The Obama years have seen successful , let me repeat, successful attacks on :Women's Rights
Voting Rights
Union Rights.
The ACA sits there like a ripe fruit ready to be plucked and devoured by right wing rabid dogs. And it was their plan!
Gee, why won't somebody tell these radical insurrectionists of the right that they need to be more reasonable and incremental?
I'm sure they'll sit down rationally and respectfully with President Hillary Clinton and hash out a sensible , forward looking agenda to benefit beleaguered, insecure Americans. Geez, you "Berniebots" act as if they don't like her or something.
We know Bernie's priorities and aspirations are not going to be achieved overnight. We know how the nuts and bolts of governing work. We also know if you sit at the table ready to be reasonable and pragmatic with irrational nihilists you've already lost.
Hillary's Wall St reform ( of which I am justly skeptical) and her gun control proposals are as pie in the sky as transitioning to a real world proven, affordable, vetted single payer healthcare model. Yet her supporters haughtily call me a dreamer and delusional fantasist.
In case you havent noticed ,the leading contender for the Republican Presidential nomination is a bloated,racist self promoting reality TV host.
This ain't business as usual. This is the time Bernie has labored and prepared for his entire life.
#Feelthebern.
Voting Rights
Union Rights.
The ACA sits there like a ripe fruit ready to be plucked and devoured by right wing rabid dogs. And it was their plan!
Gee, why won't somebody tell these radical insurrectionists of the right that they need to be more reasonable and incremental?
I'm sure they'll sit down rationally and respectfully with President Hillary Clinton and hash out a sensible , forward looking agenda to benefit beleaguered, insecure Americans. Geez, you "Berniebots" act as if they don't like her or something.
We know Bernie's priorities and aspirations are not going to be achieved overnight. We know how the nuts and bolts of governing work. We also know if you sit at the table ready to be reasonable and pragmatic with irrational nihilists you've already lost.
Hillary's Wall St reform ( of which I am justly skeptical) and her gun control proposals are as pie in the sky as transitioning to a real world proven, affordable, vetted single payer healthcare model. Yet her supporters haughtily call me a dreamer and delusional fantasist.
In case you havent noticed ,the leading contender for the Republican Presidential nomination is a bloated,racist self promoting reality TV host.
This ain't business as usual. This is the time Bernie has labored and prepared for his entire life.
#Feelthebern.
7
Given the transparent hackery (for Hillary) offered by the Professor, I thought I was reading a David Brooks column. When I read the almost universal condemnation of the article in the comments, I continued to think this must be a David Brooks column. It is sooo sad to see one of the few op ed writers for the NYTimes who is usually worth reading devolve to the level of Baron Brooks. Ah, well, better late than never to find out that the Professor is a Very Serious Person after all.
6
The big difference is that reforming the economy is much easier than changing the hearts and minds of people who hate and/or fear people not sufficiently like themselves. Making the economy fairer for all will make it harder to rouse to hatred the portion of the populace who are only looking for a fair chance to prosper.
4
A huge difference between the two candidates is their degree of satisfaction with the "incomplete progressive victories." Hillary seems just fine with them; Bernie definitely not so much. We need so much more than the status quo on "health policy, taxes, financial reform, and the environment" and Bernie Sanders is the president who will work the hardest to get there.
3
Giant steps forward, such as happened during the tumultuous 60's, are always followed by several steps backward, pushed by people not quite ready for such drastic change. Progress NEEDS to come in smaller digestible bites in order to be enduring. God bless the LGBT community for showing us that. They endured centuries of discrimination and abuse as they methodically changed public perceptions at a local level, so that most people were ready for change when the SCOTUS case was decided.
Incremental progress is slower than revolution, and it can be painstaking. But in my experience, it's the only way that progress can endure.
Incremental progress is slower than revolution, and it can be painstaking. But in my experience, it's the only way that progress can endure.
3
Hillary is for the status-quo, make no mistake about that. She talks a good game but will move right of center soon as she is elected. She will take a deal from the republicans where she will cut Social Security, Medicare to get a few crumbs for the poor and republicans will get a huge increase in defense/military spending. Then the republicans will renege on the everything they said they would give her. You think the republicans chumped Obama, wait till they have a woman to kick around.
Bernie 2016.
Oh by the way, I am old, old as Paul.
Bernie 2016.
Oh by the way, I am old, old as Paul.
5
Mr. Krugman: Bernie Sanders says plainly that the use of money by the 1% as a weapon against the 99% is evil. The American people have no trouble comprehending this, but apparently a Ph.D. in economics is an impediment for you.
6
Hillary Clinton famously insisted, in her guise of a pragmatist Democrat, that you don't solve racism by changing hearts, you change laws. But which laws do you change? Her tactic, like that of all incrementalists, is to create a new law whenever some new instance of racism appears, a game in which progressives will forever fail because we are always one or more steps behind the evils of human behavior. But suppose we change economic policies, so that peoples of all races are not squeezed in a race to the bottom, seeking whatever nefarious excuse to achieve advantage and stave off economic ruin? Might that not reduce the alternative game of whack-a-mole laws to achieve social and racial justice?
You note that the movement to the hard right was caused by a concerted effort to reduce taxes and deregulate the economy? And who gave us that deregulation? Certainly Reagan and the Bushes, but also Bill Clinton. I do not trust Hillary Clinton to reverse a lifetime of favorable treatment to the 1% while she works incrementally on racial, gender, sexual orientation and other forms of justice.
It is also both unfair and disingenuous to portray Sanders as a "one-club-in-the-bag" politician. Senator Sanders has been working consistently for progressive change on race, sexual orientation, the environment, and a host of other issues while Hillary was still looking for the politically expedient position.
You note that the movement to the hard right was caused by a concerted effort to reduce taxes and deregulate the economy? And who gave us that deregulation? Certainly Reagan and the Bushes, but also Bill Clinton. I do not trust Hillary Clinton to reverse a lifetime of favorable treatment to the 1% while she works incrementally on racial, gender, sexual orientation and other forms of justice.
It is also both unfair and disingenuous to portray Sanders as a "one-club-in-the-bag" politician. Senator Sanders has been working consistently for progressive change on race, sexual orientation, the environment, and a host of other issues while Hillary was still looking for the politically expedient position.
156
and what is wrong - to be 100 percent for policies and a politician - who fights ALL of what Prof. Krugman criticizes - and thus feeling the Bern - and when (again) too many Americans vote against such good policies and such a good politician - and we all have to settle with somebody like Hillary -(who I will then - BUT only 'then' - be 100 percent for) -
Well - you understand??!
Well - you understand??!
1
A well nigh perfect summary of political and social reality. The US is deeply riven by social, economic and racial forces and given the gullibility of much of the electorate its easy to exploit them for political purposes. And this all takes place within a massively fragmented political system (probably the most fragmented in the world) which was largely designed to thwart change. To speak of revolutions in this context is totally ludicrous whether your name is Ammon Bundy, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. It simply isn't going to happen and even if it did all those on left and right demanding revolutions and tumbrils wouldn't like it if it did. There is no millennium. You cannot gain one value with losing another.
6
On the national level, especially since Citizens United, it costs so much money to run an effective campaign that only the rich or those whom the rich will support have a fighting chance of being elected. Bernie Sanders talks openly about a revolution in politics -- one that shifts the gross political and monetary imbalance between the 99% and the 1%, whose interests align with those of "corporate persons".
I've felt that way for years, but I have to agree with Krugman in this case. Poor white people are not voting the way they do because Republicans are serving their interests. It's because the Republican narrative that Democrats want to take their hard-earned money and give it to undeserving non-whites.
I've felt that way for years, but I have to agree with Krugman in this case. Poor white people are not voting the way they do because Republicans are serving their interests. It's because the Republican narrative that Democrats want to take their hard-earned money and give it to undeserving non-whites.
9
Can you imagine what could have been achieved had the Frankenpublican Party made helping America a higher priority than hurting the POTUS?
4
Economic security trumps social animosities. If the Democratic answer to Reagan would have been to champion their natural economic class constituency and resist the right's supply-side/neo-liberal economics by adopting neo-liberalism instead of cower to and be co-opted by it, then the racism and other negative societal phenomena would be neutralized. Take care of the economics; the rest will take care of itself.
But Democrats didn't do that. Money, greed is at the root of all this, and Paul Krugman is one of those Democratic economists who gave Democrats the rationalizations they wanted to stand with the the plutocrats. In so doing, they allowed the historical bigotry of the nation to be leveraged by the right for electoral successes as the Democrats alienated the dominant culture with an identity politics of the marginalized.
It was money and greed, and it isn't hard to see why Krugman wants to deny that; he's part of the reason Democrats have failed for two generations.
But Democrats didn't do that. Money, greed is at the root of all this, and Paul Krugman is one of those Democratic economists who gave Democrats the rationalizations they wanted to stand with the the plutocrats. In so doing, they allowed the historical bigotry of the nation to be leveraged by the right for electoral successes as the Democrats alienated the dominant culture with an identity politics of the marginalized.
It was money and greed, and it isn't hard to see why Krugman wants to deny that; he's part of the reason Democrats have failed for two generations.
6
Sanders view is nothing as radical as money is the root of all evil, which is Krugman's accusation of the day. Sanders does thinks allowing wall street to continue to policy itself will inevitably result in another financial collapse. Thus Sanders advocates returning to the same regulations we already had on our books most of the 20th century. These regulations put on the books after the great depression worked well and returning to them is neither "radical" or "idealistic". I expect tomorrow we will be told how setting the tax rate on the rich at half of what is was under Eisenhower is not grown up or serious, but just an idea for childish dreamers. The daily treatment of Sanders and his supported in this paper reminds me of the NYTimes run up to the Iraq war.
8
Krugman you are not a progressive nor is your candidate Hillary Clinton. You are beholden, as is she, to the very oligarchs that you descry. Sanders is the only candidate independent of Wall Street, and therefore capable of reigning it in. The liberalism of which you pretend to be the consciousness is dead. And you have no claim on being progressive, a position far to the left of liberalism.
7
I could not agree with Mr. Krugman more. He is exactly right about the role that prejudice is playing out right now. Instiutionalized racism and bigotry is back with a vengeance on the right, and governors in the South have been quick to execute policies that harm minorities, immigrants, women, and others.
Perhaps the Bernie supporters are truly not aware of it, and perhaps some of the supposed Bernie supporters are in reality Koch trolls who know he will never win a general election.
But living in the South as I do, institutionalized racism and bigotry is back with a vengeance. Gutting the Voting Rights Act was only one part of it. Few states in this region have full abortion rights anymore; the working poor are not able to take advantage of the ACA or an expanded Medicaid system; and there are many other institutionalized inequities. There are two worlds usually existing side by side - one black and one white; with immigrants and others lost on the edges.
Fervor against Wall Street bankers is remote to much of the country, but the lack of health care, the lack of equal rights, the lack of basic voting rights have all been denied.
Hillary, perhaps because she is from the South, is much more familiar with these problems. Republican politicians act like their constituents are only white, wealthy or ignorant.
My core voting reasons this election will be women's rights and gun control: Bernie is simply not as strong or even as concerned with these as Hillary.
Perhaps the Bernie supporters are truly not aware of it, and perhaps some of the supposed Bernie supporters are in reality Koch trolls who know he will never win a general election.
But living in the South as I do, institutionalized racism and bigotry is back with a vengeance. Gutting the Voting Rights Act was only one part of it. Few states in this region have full abortion rights anymore; the working poor are not able to take advantage of the ACA or an expanded Medicaid system; and there are many other institutionalized inequities. There are two worlds usually existing side by side - one black and one white; with immigrants and others lost on the edges.
Fervor against Wall Street bankers is remote to much of the country, but the lack of health care, the lack of equal rights, the lack of basic voting rights have all been denied.
Hillary, perhaps because she is from the South, is much more familiar with these problems. Republican politicians act like their constituents are only white, wealthy or ignorant.
My core voting reasons this election will be women's rights and gun control: Bernie is simply not as strong or even as concerned with these as Hillary.
150
Krugman correctly identifies the problem - which is rare in economic commentary - but goes nowhere useful with this knowledge. Does Hillary have some master plan to overcome the racism and religious zealotry which cause working-class whites to vote against their material interests? Why should working-class whites give up their "social" values to vote for someone who clearly represents the big-money establishment? Krugman is effectively counseling for keeping things on the same course they have been on for 30+ years. Can't the US have a party which actually stands for the 99% against the 1%?
111
The republican oligarchs have just as much control over their social reactionary conservatives as the Saudis have had over their Wahhabist inspired terrorists.
Whenever politicians have thought they could control their more radical elements, they have not. Think the Germans who tolerated the rise of the nazis. Again, think of the Islamic theocracies who encouraged the rise of the fundamentalists.
The republicans are no different, just at a different place on the scale of using political power to enforce ideological dogma conformity.
Whenever politicians have thought they could control their more radical elements, they have not. Think the Germans who tolerated the rise of the nazis. Again, think of the Islamic theocracies who encouraged the rise of the fundamentalists.
The republicans are no different, just at a different place on the scale of using political power to enforce ideological dogma conformity.
3
Bernie is absolutely right, "money is the root of all evil. Or more specifically, the corrupting influence of big money, of the 1 percent and the corporate elite, is the overarching source of the political ugliness we see all around us."
According to Bernie, "I think everyone believes in God in their own ways. To me, it means that all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together." Growing up, "Bernie Sanders did many of the things that other Jewish children did growing up, learning Hebrew, and traveling to Israel to spend time on a kibbutz -- a Jewish communal settlement." But he is clear, he will not climb into the organized religion's bandwagon.
"Sanders often presents his support for curbing Wall Street banks and ending economic inequality in values-laden terms. He recently described it as “immoral and wrong” that the highest earners in the country own the vast majority of the nation’s wealth." "His upbringing as the son of an immigrant father and first-generation American mother in Brooklyn instilled in him a sense of morality found in Judaism and many other faiths. “I want to be treated with dignity and respect, and I want other people to be treated with dignity and respect." He is in good company, right up there with the Dalai Lama, who advocates secular and universal ethics and has been bringing attention to inequailty as the biggest challenge in 21st century..
According to Bernie, "I think everyone believes in God in their own ways. To me, it means that all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together." Growing up, "Bernie Sanders did many of the things that other Jewish children did growing up, learning Hebrew, and traveling to Israel to spend time on a kibbutz -- a Jewish communal settlement." But he is clear, he will not climb into the organized religion's bandwagon.
"Sanders often presents his support for curbing Wall Street banks and ending economic inequality in values-laden terms. He recently described it as “immoral and wrong” that the highest earners in the country own the vast majority of the nation’s wealth." "His upbringing as the son of an immigrant father and first-generation American mother in Brooklyn instilled in him a sense of morality found in Judaism and many other faiths. “I want to be treated with dignity and respect, and I want other people to be treated with dignity and respect." He is in good company, right up there with the Dalai Lama, who advocates secular and universal ethics and has been bringing attention to inequailty as the biggest challenge in 21st century..
5
The main reason money in politics is a problem is that people are so gullible; uninformed, quick to passion, easily manipulated. Big money behind someone who is not a demagogue (like Jeb Bush) doesn't accomplish much. The solution is a rational, informed electorate. Gook luck with that!
4
Prof. Krugman's outline of the situation mirror my misgivings about Bernie. whomI greatly admire. Also, there is one aspect of the situation which I never really see discussed:
We are used to reading that the middle class stopped growing about the time Reagan came to power, and has lately been shrinking. No one seems to remark however that the middle class is still considerably larger than at any time prior to WWII.
No one seems to want to admit that the post WWII economy in the US was unique in our history, what with us essentially rebuilding the Industrial World.
More than that, although I think we were right in doing so, we were rebuilding our competitors. What did we think would be the consequences?
We are used to reading that the middle class stopped growing about the time Reagan came to power, and has lately been shrinking. No one seems to remark however that the middle class is still considerably larger than at any time prior to WWII.
No one seems to want to admit that the post WWII economy in the US was unique in our history, what with us essentially rebuilding the Industrial World.
More than that, although I think we were right in doing so, we were rebuilding our competitors. What did we think would be the consequences?
3
Inequality is not a limit we've reached, and from which we can wisely choose to retreat. It may be just the beginning of the remaking of the financial system in such a way that it becomes possible for a relatively few people to take away the federal government's right to redistribute wealth and, in effect, to be able to corner the money supply in a way not possible since FDR was elected. To make an analogy, billionaires want the private sale of public land not so that millions of people can have a farm--which is how they sell it--but so that a billionaire can buy millions of acres. They want a world in which no president can announce that he's overnighting a check for $80 million to a bankrupt city like Flint, Michigan, as Obama did. To many people, that world may sound reasonable. Krugman's column seemed to strike a new key of humility and concern, revealing that the Nobel Prize winner and (Pundit from Hell, to some) is also just a guy from New Jersey who grew up hearing progressive ideas around the dinner table and took them permanently to heart.
5
"Crucially, the rise of the American hard right was the rise of a coalition, an alliance between an elite seeking low taxes and deregulation and a base of voters motivated by fears of social change and, above all, by hostility toward you-know-who." FDR? JFK? LBJ? Carter? Bill? on and on . . .
4
I agree Professor and I think it's time for you to move on. Just accept that the Berniebots are going to consider you a tool of the moneyed establishment, you might as well be explaining yourself to a wall. I am shocked that many of the regular commenters here have become so vicious. I agree with Bernie's positions but in the best possible political world, he may be able to get 50% approval amongst Democrats.
You have made a difference though. Your now infamous column last week had an effect on the rhetoric I see on social media. Now all of a sudden the Sanders supporters are saying they weren't expecting any of Bernie's vision to be put into action, they are just looking for a starting point for negotiations much further to the left than Hillary. By golly I actually read one of the militants talking about incremental change last night. That is a big change from early last week when Bernie's revolution was going to win back Congress on his coattails and the Force would be equalized with puppies for all.
It could be the realistic polling numbers are making them temper their views of an automatic utopian conclusion to this election but your thoughts have made a difference. Keep up the good work.
You have made a difference though. Your now infamous column last week had an effect on the rhetoric I see on social media. Now all of a sudden the Sanders supporters are saying they weren't expecting any of Bernie's vision to be put into action, they are just looking for a starting point for negotiations much further to the left than Hillary. By golly I actually read one of the militants talking about incremental change last night. That is a big change from early last week when Bernie's revolution was going to win back Congress on his coattails and the Force would be equalized with puppies for all.
It could be the realistic polling numbers are making them temper their views of an automatic utopian conclusion to this election but your thoughts have made a difference. Keep up the good work.
126
If PK and others like him were in chargethru history:
"No, Mr Columbus, it is too risky.
No, President Kennedy, we can't possibly land a man on the moon within the next couple years.
No, FDR, that social security plan will cost too much.
No, Mr King, you can't walk all that way to Selma
No no no."
Think small, be small.
Think big, vote Sanders.
"No, Mr Columbus, it is too risky.
No, President Kennedy, we can't possibly land a man on the moon within the next couple years.
No, FDR, that social security plan will cost too much.
No, Mr King, you can't walk all that way to Selma
No no no."
Think small, be small.
Think big, vote Sanders.
116
It's not that complicated and it has almost nothing to do with the political parties, which aside from talk are not that different. The way I see it, if you like what you've been getting from your government for the past thirty years - wars abroad, a rigged economy at home and the destruction of the ecosphere - then vote for the people who have been giving it to you - the Clintons, Bushes and Obamas. If you don't like what you've been getting from your government for the past thirty years then vote for somebody else.
4
When Mr. Krugman writes about things he KNOWS about (Economics) he's a worthy read. When he gets into his opinions about politics his writings echo the worst of the very things he complains about from other economists-like citing unproven books and theories to demonstrate that his unproven theories are now proven because someone else said so.
His musings on change remind me of the worst of the John Kennedy ideas-that social change (civil rights) had to go slowly because that was what was "acceptable and achievable" . MLK then, and Bernie Sanders now, refused to accept a permanent underclass driven by the interests of a wealthy minority.
His musings on change remind me of the worst of the John Kennedy ideas-that social change (civil rights) had to go slowly because that was what was "acceptable and achievable" . MLK then, and Bernie Sanders now, refused to accept a permanent underclass driven by the interests of a wealthy minority.
5
Some of us remember Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers working with Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan to pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act.
We also remember how they steam rolled Brooksley Born and Shelia Bair.
We worry that Hillary has those roots and ties to Wall St.
We hope not.
Or we hope that at this last phase in her career, she will put the good of the whole above Wall St.
We also remember how they steam rolled Brooksley Born and Shelia Bair.
We worry that Hillary has those roots and ties to Wall St.
We hope not.
Or we hope that at this last phase in her career, she will put the good of the whole above Wall St.
5
This is really hard but I have to concede Krugman is a liar. I know he's really smart. He has to know that Sanders is aware of racism and sexism and that Sanders has been consistent in expressing his views since Clinton was a Goldwater Girl. But Krugman lies about it. For all these years he fooled us into thinking he is a liberal but only to sell books to suckers like me. The funny thing is, I still believe what he said before this election even if he didn't.
The commenters should have written this column. They articulate much more clearly the differences between Hillary and Bernie.
6
Krugman is so off the mark it makes one wonder about the motivation. Sanders has never said vote for me and I'll set you free, as suggested here by Paul. Sanders says I cannot do it without you the people. Sanders knows political reality and the pace of change. All of ills Krugman enumerates are not unknown to Sanders and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous! As to this republican argument that the pace needs to be slow, remember that justice delayed is justice denied.
6
Weirdly sanders has a much better and longer record of supporting the very isms he uses to justify supporting Hilary. So the question has to be: Either he does not in fact knows the Sanders record, or he is in fact being purposely deceitful. Is the Clinton campaign attempting to feed the columnist it's talking points? Methinks (based upon the editorial content) as of late a name change for the nytimes is in order: "The clinton Tijmes". It also shows the NYtimes isn't above adopting fox news tactics when it suits their interest to do so
6
It's amazing people find you so wonderful. You are dealing in a non-scientific theory zone.
Mr. Sanders is unlike Hillary because he wants to spotlight areas where money is damaging life and repair the wrong plus stop its happening again. It's not that difficult for the people to do. WWII was tougher.
But you need to leave Bernie alone. With Bernie in the White House chances of winning the House of Representatives for Democrats is real. Hillary not so. We will prove to the Bubba's and single issue voters they are voting themselves in the hole.
Mr. Sanders is unlike Hillary because he wants to spotlight areas where money is damaging life and repair the wrong plus stop its happening again. It's not that difficult for the people to do. WWII was tougher.
But you need to leave Bernie alone. With Bernie in the White House chances of winning the House of Representatives for Democrats is real. Hillary not so. We will prove to the Bubba's and single issue voters they are voting themselves in the hole.
4
I think the way money buys politics has to be fixed first, and then all the other problems can actually be fixed. Maybe what worries those of us supporting Sen. Sanders for POTUS is that the campaign finance system is now organized corruption, and while HRC would be far, far better than any Republican, she doesn't seem to want to go right at the heart of the problems we face. She wants to start on the fringe and work towards the middle.
1
Reading these comments, it strikes me that Sanders is the Ron Paul of the left. The minute any criticism of him, however small, is uttered online, a shrill army comes forward. And they both have a base that is more similar than not, in fact from what I am reading here, Sanders supporters have a lot in common with Paul supporters. It's interesting to watch. Oh and anyone who just can't see this "ugliness" Mr. Krugman mentions, just sign onto twitter with a female avatar and say something positive about Hillary. I dare you.
8
When Steve Israel tells us (NYT) that members of Congress are on a treadmill spending four hours a day raising campaign cash, we need to believe him. Please don't be so naive as to think those hours and that cash are not corrupting our political system.
Second, prejudice cannot be talked or wished away. It is ingrained in the culture, particularly in certain areas of the country. The same people who endorse those prejudices LOATHE Hillary. The rest of us just don't like her. They don't loathe Bernie. In fact, when they listen to him, they like him. He speaks to their concerns as well as ours.
Finally, don't tell us that money is not what is tying everything together. Fix the money problem and a ton of corruption and - yes - personal misery will also recede. This country has become one giant sucking money machine with every human interaction being reduced to an economic exchange. It is disgusting! It destroys and demeans our humanity. Bernie sees it for what it is. He is deeply human and sincere. He is real in a way Hillary can never be. Let the whole country get to know him and see what happens.
Second, prejudice cannot be talked or wished away. It is ingrained in the culture, particularly in certain areas of the country. The same people who endorse those prejudices LOATHE Hillary. The rest of us just don't like her. They don't loathe Bernie. In fact, when they listen to him, they like him. He speaks to their concerns as well as ours.
Finally, don't tell us that money is not what is tying everything together. Fix the money problem and a ton of corruption and - yes - personal misery will also recede. This country has become one giant sucking money machine with every human interaction being reduced to an economic exchange. It is disgusting! It destroys and demeans our humanity. Bernie sees it for what it is. He is deeply human and sincere. He is real in a way Hillary can never be. Let the whole country get to know him and see what happens.
5
Since Prof. Krugman has come out in support of HRC over Sanders, I've been a lone Sanders supporter who's defended what Krugman has had to say about Sanders. I actually agree with Krugman's assertion that since Sanders has the more aggressive plan, the onus is on him to be honest with us about how difficult and/or expensive it will be to implement his proposed ideas. Krugman's latest blog post about Sanders raises good points about how the cost of his Medicare-for-all plan is probably underestimated.
However, in this column, I think the Professor goes too far. Sanders, in my view, is just as capable as Clinton in dealing with the issues that aren't immediately about money. The notion that Sanders is one-dimensional while Clinton can play 8-dimensional chess in her head is a false one. Should Sanders become president, he will have to negotiate, deliberate, renegotiate, and so on just as a President HRC would have to.
Lastly, Dr. Krugman, if you were to stop writing about politics tomorrow, no one would weep. It's not that I don't enjoy reading your political musings. It's just that I can get that from any of the other op-ed columnists. You won the Nobel-prize in economics; how about returning to the topic to which you are best-suited? There are incredible developments happening in economics. Take the TPP for instance. That's been public for some time now, but you've written about it perhaps twice.
However, in this column, I think the Professor goes too far. Sanders, in my view, is just as capable as Clinton in dealing with the issues that aren't immediately about money. The notion that Sanders is one-dimensional while Clinton can play 8-dimensional chess in her head is a false one. Should Sanders become president, he will have to negotiate, deliberate, renegotiate, and so on just as a President HRC would have to.
Lastly, Dr. Krugman, if you were to stop writing about politics tomorrow, no one would weep. It's not that I don't enjoy reading your political musings. It's just that I can get that from any of the other op-ed columnists. You won the Nobel-prize in economics; how about returning to the topic to which you are best-suited? There are incredible developments happening in economics. Take the TPP for instance. That's been public for some time now, but you've written about it perhaps twice.
4
I'm perplexed at this column. Normally I follow Krugman pretty well, and most of the time I agree with, or at least am stimulated by, him. I always know what the point of his column is on any given day.
Not today, however. I read this and wondered just what issue he's trying to raise, and all I can figure out is that he wants to convince me, in a very subtle way, is that Ms. Clinton's belief about our country today is superior to that of Mr. Sanders. If that's what he's trying to convince me of, he's failed miserably.
Ms. Clinton's only core belief, as far as I can tell, is that she wants to be president. On her path to the White House, she is touching all the progressive bases, while later in the day attending fund-raisers given by billionaires. She commands massive speaking fees, and gives those speeches to audiences made up of some of the people who have turned our country into an oligarchy.
I live in California, and have the luxury of saying that I absolutely will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic candidate. If we were a direct democracy, I'd actually have to consider voting for her, but we're not, and I don't.
Not today, however. I read this and wondered just what issue he's trying to raise, and all I can figure out is that he wants to convince me, in a very subtle way, is that Ms. Clinton's belief about our country today is superior to that of Mr. Sanders. If that's what he's trying to convince me of, he's failed miserably.
Ms. Clinton's only core belief, as far as I can tell, is that she wants to be president. On her path to the White House, she is touching all the progressive bases, while later in the day attending fund-raisers given by billionaires. She commands massive speaking fees, and gives those speeches to audiences made up of some of the people who have turned our country into an oligarchy.
I live in California, and have the luxury of saying that I absolutely will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic candidate. If we were a direct democracy, I'd actually have to consider voting for her, but we're not, and I don't.
3
Halfway through Krugman's latest piece, I knew that it would drive the Berniacs in the the NY Times comments pages absolutely bonkers, and it clearly has. The trouble, however, is that Krugman is absolutely right and in good "bipartisan" company that includes reliable progressives like Jon Chait, center-right adherents like the Washington Post editorial board and conservatives like Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks, who have argued that Sanders' "theory of change" -- based on the people's "revolution" -- amounts to no more than pie-in-the-sky, a pipe dream.
Here's a question for the very smart Sanders supporters who comment here:
Is Sanders going to also depend on his so-called "revolution" to craft his foreign policy, whatever it may be, since we know nothing about what a Sanders' presidency will be about other than fighting Wall Street to achieve equality, fighting for single-payer insurance, fighting for free college tuition, all paid for with tax increases even on the middle class, but with nil chance of passage in a GOP- controlled congress?
At the moment, Sanders seems like he'd be a one-dimensional president, with no foreign policy agenda and a domestic socioeconomic agenda that will be DOA in a Republican congress. So, the question, again, is: with Sanders relying on his so-called "revolution" to become the multidimensional POTUS that the job requires, what happens if his "revolution" -- an extremely rare occurrence in history -- does not happen?
Here's a question for the very smart Sanders supporters who comment here:
Is Sanders going to also depend on his so-called "revolution" to craft his foreign policy, whatever it may be, since we know nothing about what a Sanders' presidency will be about other than fighting Wall Street to achieve equality, fighting for single-payer insurance, fighting for free college tuition, all paid for with tax increases even on the middle class, but with nil chance of passage in a GOP- controlled congress?
At the moment, Sanders seems like he'd be a one-dimensional president, with no foreign policy agenda and a domestic socioeconomic agenda that will be DOA in a Republican congress. So, the question, again, is: with Sanders relying on his so-called "revolution" to become the multidimensional POTUS that the job requires, what happens if his "revolution" -- an extremely rare occurrence in history -- does not happen?
116
Nice analogy. Rugs. And a nice choice of colors. Pink, as in "unelectable radical commie pinko" for Mr. Sanders, and "true blue" for Ms. Clinton, the softer, gentler, more refined choice, for those who prefer insignificant, incremental fiddling with a broken system. I think, Dr. Krugman, that the reason you would pick the blue rug is because, as you say, it matches the furniture, the lamps, the room colors, and the window dressings so beautifully. What Mr. Sanders is suggesting, and what has captured the imagination of so many who are sick and tired of the fiddling (to say nothing of stonewalling and obstruction) is that it's time for new furniture, new lamps, new room colors. It's time for a political makeover, not just a new rug. This new rug will serve as the key piece in the room, as the designers set about the huge task of replacing all that outdated furniture.
64
Agreed Paul, the good fight is one worth fighting. And happy to fight it sans the white southern voters who flipped their way out of the Democratic Party back when. If they want back in at some point, they will have to leave behind the Trumps and Palins and other glitterati that have dumbed down their brand to a second coming of the Pet Rock. I don't say that with much glee because if we're gong to be a two party system, we need two parties. Not one party and a reality show for twelve year olds.
7
This Clinton agitprop is getting tiresome, Prof. Krugman. You and I--and everyone else reading--knows that Sanders is not a class essentialist. In other words, he doesn't think that easing economic inequality between certain groups of the American electorate will magically solve all of our problems. He does, however, realize that there is one issue that touches nearly everyone in our republic: the corrupting influence of money in political life. This is why he has been dubbed a populist.
Finally, let's not forget that Sanders has had a storied history of supporting civil rights for African Americans and for those in the LGBTQ community. When Clinton was a self-described "Goldwater Girl," Sanders was a staunch white ally in the struggle for black equality. When Clinton was "evolving" in her opinion on gay marriage, Sanders was championing the rights of all those who love each other.
Just because Clinton comports with your vision of capitalist progress, doesn't mean that you can forget--or erase--history.
Finally, let's not forget that Sanders has had a storied history of supporting civil rights for African Americans and for those in the LGBTQ community. When Clinton was a self-described "Goldwater Girl," Sanders was a staunch white ally in the struggle for black equality. When Clinton was "evolving" in her opinion on gay marriage, Sanders was championing the rights of all those who love each other.
Just because Clinton comports with your vision of capitalist progress, doesn't mean that you can forget--or erase--history.
14
Professor Krugman, where is the progress you write about over the last eight years? I see incremental declines in incomes, infrastructure, education, and increasing consumer debt. The "Affordable Care Act" is smoke and mirrors for consumers and big payoffs to insurance and drug companies. Yes, incremental change, sliding backwards.
4
I agree with Mr. Krugman across the board. However, at the risk of stereotyping many of Bernie Sanders' younger supporters I would comment that as a group, this is not a cohort known for it's patience. That's part of why I suspect Mr. Sanders' call for a revolution is resonating with the so-called passionate part of the demographic. Further, I suspect their impatience is also fueled by disgust with the spectacle of Congress in full obstructionist mode during most of the past six years as their own economic prospects have become more uncertain. Congress's behavior has made a lot of us muse about whether some kind of revolution isn't called for. Finally, Bernies Sanders has a very short and simple message. It would almost fit on a bumper sticker. I don't disagree with it, as far as it goes, but as Mr. Krugman points out there is quite likely more to the problem than that. One of Hillary's challenges is how to distill the breadth of issues she wants to tackle into a simple message approximately the length of a tweet. Then she needs to be able to keep a straight face when she implies she can get it all done in short order. I believe America is and always will be a work in progress - but to a lot of would be voters that is way too short of a call to man the barricades. It's just a boring, adult rationalization about why you probably won't get everything you want the morning after your candidate prevails in an election. Ask a rapidly graying President Obama.
90
Paul, you wrote: "... hostility toward you-know-who."
It's "you-know-whom,", Paul, it's "you-know-whom".
We really are heading for the cliff as fast as we possibly can!
It's "you-know-whom,", Paul, it's "you-know-whom".
We really are heading for the cliff as fast as we possibly can!
The recent political discourse is very much about what irks americans and therein lies the problem of both democrats and republicans. Both Trump and Sanders have identified the same problem and are using different vocabularies but putting it to the same use.
Trump says China and he means job losses and fears of stagnating wages along with economic retirement fears. Trump says mexicans and he means jobs supposedly stolen from hard working americans. Sanders says income inequality and he means persistent stresses that are still keeping collage students living with there parents and/or sharing incredibly expensive rental housing with several room mates into there thirties. when he says Wall street he means people nearing or at retirement age who see no hope in actually retiring and are very angry over what they believe to be the cause…wall street.
Both Saunders and Trump are addressing the anxiety of our times and have abandoned the nuancing and indirect allusions …americans are not happy and they don't seem in the in the mood for theories of hoping and praying …they want concrete and so far Trump and Sanders seem to have understood this !
Trump says China and he means job losses and fears of stagnating wages along with economic retirement fears. Trump says mexicans and he means jobs supposedly stolen from hard working americans. Sanders says income inequality and he means persistent stresses that are still keeping collage students living with there parents and/or sharing incredibly expensive rental housing with several room mates into there thirties. when he says Wall street he means people nearing or at retirement age who see no hope in actually retiring and are very angry over what they believe to be the cause…wall street.
Both Saunders and Trump are addressing the anxiety of our times and have abandoned the nuancing and indirect allusions …americans are not happy and they don't seem in the in the mood for theories of hoping and praying …they want concrete and so far Trump and Sanders seem to have understood this !
44
"...the Obama years have in fact been marked by significant if incomplete progressive victories, on health policy, taxes, financial reform and the environment"
The Obama years will be eight of the worst years in the history of this country. Obama is a failure as President, and he's done nothing for "the people". He is a slave to the Wall Street bankers who own him. He's a great talker, I'll give him that, at least he doesn't always read from cue cards as does Hillary Clinton.
The Obama years will be eight of the worst years in the history of this country. Obama is a failure as President, and he's done nothing for "the people". He is a slave to the Wall Street bankers who own him. He's a great talker, I'll give him that, at least he doesn't always read from cue cards as does Hillary Clinton.
2
Paul, I am disappointed that you did not include the right wing propaganda machine that has fueled the growth of the GOP. This is something real that the Dems can tackle if they win the whitehouse. Not by sending in the JV MSNBC (which I like) to weakly counter this, but to promise real reform of the FCC and every other agency and regulation that has allowed this propaganda to flourish. Without exaggeration we must compare the success and relentlessness of Fox, WSJ, and talk radio to that of Hitler's machine. Allowing it to go on will not lead to a pretty ending.
7
Still trying to understand the infatuation blue-collar, once middle class workers, have with candidates whose sole goal is to make them poorer.
8
Bernie Sanders represents a dire threat to establishment liberals and Professor Krugman seriously misunderstands and distorts the record of Bernie Sanders. Sanders is not a one-issue candidate. He, alone among the presidential contenders, recognizes the interrelatedness of economic inequality, racial inequality, gender inequality, and other forms of prejudice. Sanders is well aware of the horrors of racism. He marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963 while Hillary Clinton was a Young Republican who worked to re-elect Senator Barry Goldwater. Goldwater wanted to eliminate the Civil Rights Act. Bernie Sanders came out for gay marriage at the same time that Hillary Clinton supported the "traditional" view of marriage. Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq war, probably the most destructive event in recent American history. Hillary Clinton supported that war. The narrative that Professor Krugman and other Clinton apologists have been creating about Bernie Sanders is a false one and needs to be corrected with a dose of historical reality.
9
Yes there are influences at play here other than the big money interests described in Dark Money. I am on the side of Bernie Sanders and I don't go along with the argument that he can't change things even with a GOP Congress. Whoever wins, Hillary or Bernie, will have a very difficult time getting anything through a bought and paid for majority of Congress. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
"But there’s still a lot of real prejudice out there, and probably enough so that political revolution from the left is off the table. Instead, it’s going to be a hard slog at best."
No, the political revolution from the left is not off the table, not to me. Yes fighting the good fight year after year is what we must do if we are to survive as a democratic nation. But I firmly believe that Bernie should lead that charge.
"But there’s still a lot of real prejudice out there, and probably enough so that political revolution from the left is off the table. Instead, it’s going to be a hard slog at best."
No, the political revolution from the left is not off the table, not to me. Yes fighting the good fight year after year is what we must do if we are to survive as a democratic nation. But I firmly believe that Bernie should lead that charge.
9
Krugman disparages many Sanders supporters because he has been writing about economics since they were in elementary school, that is, they are young, and hopelessly naive. I bet he also had to walk to school through the driving snow, uphill both ways. Spare us the condescension. I am older than Krugman so perhaps by that definition I must know more than he. At the several Sanders rallies I have attended there was a broad cross section of all age groups, many considerably older than I. And the young people who attended and are energized to participate in the political process are altogether inspiring and also well informed, contrary to Krugman's dismissive views.
11
Yes, the Tea Partiers have moved from being used by main stream Republicans for their vote only to becoming the users of those Republicans. The wealthy supply-siders controlling the GOP seem to have forgotten in this political mess that we live in a consumer society not a market economy. If the Tea Partiers don't have money to spend for the goods being produced because of income inequality they will revolt and take over the GOP--which, in fact, they appear to be on the road to doing and accomplishing.
Support of the Republicans by southerners is simply a matter of racism. A Republican President freed the slaves and the south voted Democratic for a hundred years. Then a Democratic President signed the Civil Rights Act and they all switched to the Republicans. Now we have the ridiculous situation of even the most ragtag southerners voting en masse with the oligarchs.
11
What did it benefit the children of Chicago to have a black President? Or the lead-poisoned children of Flint, Michigan? Who were the folks in New Orleans stuck in that hell-hole of a coliseum? They may have been mostly black, but I guarantee you they were all poor. The poor can't leave. They are bound by poverty's chains to the worst places in America, and when they have something that looks good, their homes are subject to takeover, so-called "gentrification" of their neighborhood. When the real estate market crashed due to the speculation of "investors," who lost their homes? Not the bankers. The bankers got bailed out by their favorite relative, Uncle Sam.
Now, we get to decide between a woman who rings the bell of the investment firm's door in the dark to gain access to her "friends" paying a minimum of $1,000 ("family photos" $2,700 and "bundlers" $27,000) and a man who has walked the talk of respect for human dignity his whole political life, a mensch. (Look it up.) Sanders understands the system is stacked against the poor. He wants to change that system, not tinker with it until he can shut them up, and elites can continue to pluck the fruit from the tree while " the folk" live in their refuse. While a vote in America is still free and each person has one, we have to decide if we will go "all in" or throw the poor once more away.
Now, we get to decide between a woman who rings the bell of the investment firm's door in the dark to gain access to her "friends" paying a minimum of $1,000 ("family photos" $2,700 and "bundlers" $27,000) and a man who has walked the talk of respect for human dignity his whole political life, a mensch. (Look it up.) Sanders understands the system is stacked against the poor. He wants to change that system, not tinker with it until he can shut them up, and elites can continue to pluck the fruit from the tree while " the folk" live in their refuse. While a vote in America is still free and each person has one, we have to decide if we will go "all in" or throw the poor once more away.
12
The intelligent old plutocratic elitists understood that their wealth was generated by selling high margin goods at affordable prices created by industrial production in vast quantities to mass markets made up mostly of middle income working people. If they wanted to remain prosperous and to see their fortunes grow over time, they had to share some of the wealth with everybody else. They hated paying higher wages to labor but they understood that they had to sell a lot of stuff to somebody or their businesses would eventually become unprofitable. That point of view went away with the passing of moderate Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and was replaced with the notions of Ronald Reagan and the magical thinking conservatives who believed that wealth created wealth and that those who were not rich were parasites on society. It's the mentality that seems to take over amongst the most powerful and influential when great nations are in decline.
10
"The Clinton view, on the other hand, seems to be that money is the root of some evil, maybe a lot of evil, but it isn’t the whole story. Instead, racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice are powerful forces in their own right."
Racism in particular as well as sexism have been used for millennia to justify, rationalize, and promote the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few. While not as sophisticated or historically ingrained and documented as India's this has resulted in de facto caste systems such as in other developed countries like Australia with the Aborigines. Groups that have been anointed as "superior" are then leveraged to perpetuate this wealth inequality in the interest of their own group status or "privilege". But at the very root of all of these caste systems is the institutionalized objective of keeping the working class divided by any means necessary in the interest of wealth accumulation by the plutocrats. That is why Bernie's contention that money is at the very root is absolutely the case historically and in the present day. The rest are social constructs that are always used as smoke and mirrors to distract us while the theft continues.
Racism in particular as well as sexism have been used for millennia to justify, rationalize, and promote the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few. While not as sophisticated or historically ingrained and documented as India's this has resulted in de facto caste systems such as in other developed countries like Australia with the Aborigines. Groups that have been anointed as "superior" are then leveraged to perpetuate this wealth inequality in the interest of their own group status or "privilege". But at the very root of all of these caste systems is the institutionalized objective of keeping the working class divided by any means necessary in the interest of wealth accumulation by the plutocrats. That is why Bernie's contention that money is at the very root is absolutely the case historically and in the present day. The rest are social constructs that are always used as smoke and mirrors to distract us while the theft continues.
9
Krugman's argument is lame, and a failed attempt to simplify or even falsify the difference between Sanders and the political thrust of two generations of Democrats. Democrats alienated their natural economic constituency -- the lower and middle economic sectors -- by being co-opted by the right's damaging economic ideology and embracing neo-liberalism, adopting an impotent, stupid, weak champion persona of identity politics of the marginalized that hasn't paid off electorally. This allowed the right to drive the wedges of racism and bigotry that couldn't have succeeded had there been a true economic champion of the lower and middle classes. You can't get more politically stupid than establishment Democrats. You just can't.
Take care of the economic security of people and the social issues take care of themselves. Human decency, when people are not threatened by life's anxieties, will dominate over hate. But establishment Democrats -- like Clinton, like Krugman ... -- stupidly allowed the economic anxieties of right-wing economic ideology to exacerbate the economic insecurities of the lower and middle classes by only pretending to champion the little guy. The little guy saw and sees through the pretense.
Krugman desperately wants to ignore this. Why is clear.
Take care of the economic security of people and the social issues take care of themselves. Human decency, when people are not threatened by life's anxieties, will dominate over hate. But establishment Democrats -- like Clinton, like Krugman ... -- stupidly allowed the economic anxieties of right-wing economic ideology to exacerbate the economic insecurities of the lower and middle classes by only pretending to champion the little guy. The little guy saw and sees through the pretense.
Krugman desperately wants to ignore this. Why is clear.
11
Well, first of all, Bernie started out in the civil rights movement, so I don't think it's possible to claim he doesn't think racial prejudice is an important issue. Second, I think Krugman is wrong about where prejudice comes from, especially racial prejudice. It comes from money. Southern whites were taught to continue to hate blacks because they were worried they would lose what little they had after the Civil War. And this continues up to the present day, the money has always used race, and various other issues, to divide and conquer. Take the money away, and the problem will largely vanish on it's own. It's a reason the gay marriage thing went so fast. There was no money involved, really. Didn't take long for that prejudice to collapse now, did it? And it seemed to be so deep rooted, but hey, now almost everyone is cool.
18
"But there’s still a lot of real prejudice out there, and probably enough so that political revolution from the left is off the table. Instead, it’s going to be a hard slog at best."
This starkly illustrates why the nation's political and pundit class has moved the political center strongly to the right. You don't see conservatives embracing gradualism. Bernie Sanders knows the obstacles as well as anyone, but at least he's willing to put goals before the people.
Bernie is quite right to emphasize his economic message. You can say what you want about the social issues, but stagnant wages, the export of jobs and the neglect of our material and social infrastructure cut across all ethnic and social groups.
If you start out aiming to get a whole loaf, you may get half of it. If you set out asking for a quarter of the loaf, you'll end up with maybe a slice or two, or maybe just a few crumbs. The Democratic hierarchy has played defense for too long.
This starkly illustrates why the nation's political and pundit class has moved the political center strongly to the right. You don't see conservatives embracing gradualism. Bernie Sanders knows the obstacles as well as anyone, but at least he's willing to put goals before the people.
Bernie is quite right to emphasize his economic message. You can say what you want about the social issues, but stagnant wages, the export of jobs and the neglect of our material and social infrastructure cut across all ethnic and social groups.
If you start out aiming to get a whole loaf, you may get half of it. If you set out asking for a quarter of the loaf, you'll end up with maybe a slice or two, or maybe just a few crumbs. The Democratic hierarchy has played defense for too long.
23
My sense is the problems with Hillary go far beyond the a few policies realms and into that place where feelings and impressions matter most. Just about every article or commentary I read about her ability to be authentic shows her failing - and failing badly. And these views are not restricted to her body language or the personal story of the Clintons. Her policy positions taken - Iraq war being at the top of the list - and her judgements - taking big speaking fees from Wall Street banks in the past 18 months - reinforce the doubts.
Every time she has the chance to be real she blows it and comes across as calculating. And that leads to doubt as to who exactly is this person. Her husband got away with it with "I feel your pain" empathy. She, apparently, has no such crutch. And that leaves us with who is this person?
Every time she has the chance to be real she blows it and comes across as calculating. And that leads to doubt as to who exactly is this person. Her husband got away with it with "I feel your pain" empathy. She, apparently, has no such crutch. And that leaves us with who is this person?
13
The difference between Bernie and Hillary is not merely that of competing theories of change. It is the difference between sincere commitment to the significant, disruptive change that is required, and a pandering to poll-tested talking points about change that will be abandoned in favor of the status-quo as soon as the office is gained. We voted for change that we never got with Obama. This time around we are supporting the real deal, not another shifty corporate Democrat. I'm liberal enough to believe we are long overdue for a female president, but it would need to be someone like Elizabeth Warren, not Hillary.
21
So are going to not vote/vote GOP if Hillary gets the nod? Don't get me wrong, I like Bernie the best, but I will vote against the GOP no matter what. To me it is more important the the GOP loses in 2016 than it is which Democrat wins.
2
Sounds just like 2000. How's that principled Ralph Nader vote working out for you these days?
4
Dr Krugman and Readers: I) A previous period of concentrated national income in the top 1% of the population occurred in the late 1920s. During this period leading up to the Great Recession, union membership was driven to low levels in part by anti-union governmental policies and their support of a very tough organizing environment. II) Partially as a result of this reallocation of national income (NI) composed of wages and salary to dividends and other capital rent payments; aggregate demand lagged.
III) Unions were not able to generate sufficient "countervailing power" (developed by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith) to oppose this reallocation of NI. Also, since this top 1% spends and pays income taxes proportionately at lower rates than most workers, then declines in aggregate demand due to this NI reallocation contributed to and helped sustain the Great Depression, and its aftermath. IV) Today, automation and offshore production have similarly weakened unions, ultimately resulting in fewer manufacturing jobs and reduced membership. So, real GDP growth has slowed in recent years to only about a 2.0%, or slightly higher rate. Perhaps, as in the late 1920s, with the current decline in union membership, workers lack a source of "countervailing power," to help maintain their wage bargaining leverage. As a result, workers have seen stagnant wages correlated with this membership decline. A lack of demand once again seems to beset the US economy.
[01/29/2016 F 10:43a]
III) Unions were not able to generate sufficient "countervailing power" (developed by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith) to oppose this reallocation of NI. Also, since this top 1% spends and pays income taxes proportionately at lower rates than most workers, then declines in aggregate demand due to this NI reallocation contributed to and helped sustain the Great Depression, and its aftermath. IV) Today, automation and offshore production have similarly weakened unions, ultimately resulting in fewer manufacturing jobs and reduced membership. So, real GDP growth has slowed in recent years to only about a 2.0%, or slightly higher rate. Perhaps, as in the late 1920s, with the current decline in union membership, workers lack a source of "countervailing power," to help maintain their wage bargaining leverage. As a result, workers have seen stagnant wages correlated with this membership decline. A lack of demand once again seems to beset the US economy.
[01/29/2016 F 10:43a]
13
I usually find myself in general agreement w/ Paul, not this time. While I'll support Hillary if she's the nominee it is with reservations. My main concern comes down to her judgment. (voting for the Iraq war, putting State Dept emails on a personal server, etc.)
But back to the argument at hand. I agree with Paul that the "divisions in American politics aren’t just about money" that they "reflect deep-seated prejudices that progressives simply can’t appease." My belief is that these cultural issues will take generations to eliminate and that in the mean time the economic and social justice agenda of Bernie Sanders is the most effective way to ameliorate the bad effects of issues.
In addition even though Bernie Sanders embraces the socialist label I believe Hillary Clinton as President would create more of the mental vapor-lock on the right that Obama did which is leaving us without a functioning opposition party.
But back to the argument at hand. I agree with Paul that the "divisions in American politics aren’t just about money" that they "reflect deep-seated prejudices that progressives simply can’t appease." My belief is that these cultural issues will take generations to eliminate and that in the mean time the economic and social justice agenda of Bernie Sanders is the most effective way to ameliorate the bad effects of issues.
In addition even though Bernie Sanders embraces the socialist label I believe Hillary Clinton as President would create more of the mental vapor-lock on the right that Obama did which is leaving us without a functioning opposition party.
17
Both Sanders and Clinton are correct. The oligarchs and plutocrats used god, guns, gynecology, fear, and prejudice in order to attract voters to their cause, but they've lost control of those folks and trashed their own party as a result.
They've given too much sway to the hucksters and con men and televangelists and carnival barkers, and now it's all spun out of their control.
Unfortunately, they appear to be taking the rest of the country down with them.
They've given too much sway to the hucksters and con men and televangelists and carnival barkers, and now it's all spun out of their control.
Unfortunately, they appear to be taking the rest of the country down with them.
13
For many of us, the difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is much starker and simpler: we look at Mrs. Clinton's history and don't believe she has any intention or wish to reduce the power of the plutocracy. It's not as if Democrats have no experience of candidates who run liberal campaigns and promptly forget it all the day after, in favor of programs hated by the base. The office is currently occupied by one such president.
Meanwhile, there's no evidence Hillary Clinton is any better than Sanders at affecting social change.
Can Dr., Krugman put the strawman aside and finally contend with the real discontent among liberals?
Meanwhile, there's no evidence Hillary Clinton is any better than Sanders at affecting social change.
Can Dr., Krugman put the strawman aside and finally contend with the real discontent among liberals?
19
In an election year when the Koch brothers and a handful of their friends will spend more than the Republican Party -- nearly a billion dollars of their own money -- to elect candidates who will manipulate the prejudices of people on the right to allow billionaire like themselves to buy the American democracy, I believe the one thing that can be achieved now -- and that will be the catalyst to solving other problems -- is to weaken the power of the rich. Tax them, make them bring their money back from the tax havens, prevent them from buying politicians. That's why I'm voting for Bernie and why I don't trust a candidate who takes $200,000 for giving speeches to Wall Street bankers.
167
Let's think about this. Hillary Clinton has received millions of dollars in speaking fees from Wall Street. In counterpoint, Bernie Sanders' core argument is that the financial-economic system is "rigged." Bernie Sanders has an outstanding voting record on the key issues of race and gender justice. But Clinton's backers are becoming more and more vociferous in criticizing Sanders on (unfortunately) identity grounds. We've been through 20+ years where the Democrats' "base" has revolved around affluent urbanites who are socially liberal but unsympathetic with rural America and the middle class in general. Sanders' contribution is to put the "class" back into the "race/class/gender" that is essential to bring America together again.
17
I thoroughly agree that problems show themselves in different guises. "Differentism" is a big part of it--attitudes to people of different color, sex, age, accent. It's an inherited trait, one that conferred an evolutionary advantage. (Imagine all those Neanderthals who didn't make it, the ones who liked to stroke the big cats and offer them food...)
Plus greed. Maybe we all were greedy, but some were bigger, stronger, and/or luckier than others, and got the best land etc.
However it happened, we do have a class, a sub-species maybe, that is deficient in empathy. It's just beyond their ken that it might be good for them and their families if they were a bit more understanding of the rest of us mortals. Treat us badly enough, and we might be singing something from Les Miz: to the barricades... Before that come the angry who don't have a compass, and just lash out at the nearest problem--immigrants, Muslims, Wall Streeters....
Plus greed. Maybe we all were greedy, but some were bigger, stronger, and/or luckier than others, and got the best land etc.
However it happened, we do have a class, a sub-species maybe, that is deficient in empathy. It's just beyond their ken that it might be good for them and their families if they were a bit more understanding of the rest of us mortals. Treat us badly enough, and we might be singing something from Les Miz: to the barricades... Before that come the angry who don't have a compass, and just lash out at the nearest problem--immigrants, Muslims, Wall Streeters....
5
I'm really surprised at Paul Krugman's dismissal of Bernie Sanders, who advocates for the same things Krugman has advocated for for years. Suddenly when electing someone who actually intends to try to get these things done, Krugman chickens out and goes for Hillary, the establishment, corporate Democrat who has "changed her mind" on his issues, not to mention Iraq, a hundred times and wouldn't be even saying half the things she's saying now if not for Sanders bringing up the issues 100 times. Sure, I'll be ok with her over the Repugs, but Sanders is the real deal. He recognizes that there's prejudice out there but there's not much he can do about that. He focuses on what he can influence, which is income inequality and universal healthcare. Wake up Paul Krugman and practice what you've been preaching all these years.
25
I would completely disagree that Sanders "recognizes that there's prejudice out there but there's not much he can do about that." Sanders is very clear in his speeches in calling out racism, sexism, homophobia and Islamophobia and calling for a politics of solidarity rather than a politics of division.
1
Unfortunate that Krugman has become a hack for the Hillary campaign. He is probably angling for an administration position. True, exploited racial animus has allowed the plutocrats to divide and conquer. What does that have to do with voting for war in Iraq? What does that have to do with voting to bail out Wall Street but not underwater mortgage owners? Krugman's point may be true but its a red herring and non-sequiter when it comes to the choice between Sanders and Clinton.
12
Paul,
During the Clinton era a little-noticed singularity took occurred that has placed the oligarchs in the driver's seat ever since. It was a ruling handed down by the US Senate Select Committee on Ethics (Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Chair):
"... Nor does any Senate rule prohibit any individual or organization outside of the Senate from voluntarily providing to a Senator ... legislative language, or draft report language for the Senator’s or staff’s consideration....or proposals about legislative or other matters of public policy or interest being considered by the Senate." (INTERPRETATIVE RULING NO. 443, Date Issued: June 22, 1995)
You see, the collusion of the Gingrich's crowd with industry was seen as so shocking that it was brought before the committee. How quaint that all seems now. Sadly, McConnell et al. simply normalized that behavior through their ruling.
Since that point in time, our legislators defer the drafting of legislation to the lawyers of the oligarchs. They don't legislate so much as hold votes for external legislation.
From the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that deregulated the banks in 1999 (signed by Clinton, and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, this pattern has only accelerated.
As a Bernie Sanders supporter, I hold these facts as the paramount issue. Clinton is at the heart of it.
During the Clinton era a little-noticed singularity took occurred that has placed the oligarchs in the driver's seat ever since. It was a ruling handed down by the US Senate Select Committee on Ethics (Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Chair):
"... Nor does any Senate rule prohibit any individual or organization outside of the Senate from voluntarily providing to a Senator ... legislative language, or draft report language for the Senator’s or staff’s consideration....or proposals about legislative or other matters of public policy or interest being considered by the Senate." (INTERPRETATIVE RULING NO. 443, Date Issued: June 22, 1995)
You see, the collusion of the Gingrich's crowd with industry was seen as so shocking that it was brought before the committee. How quaint that all seems now. Sadly, McConnell et al. simply normalized that behavior through their ruling.
Since that point in time, our legislators defer the drafting of legislation to the lawyers of the oligarchs. They don't legislate so much as hold votes for external legislation.
From the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that deregulated the banks in 1999 (signed by Clinton, and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, this pattern has only accelerated.
As a Bernie Sanders supporter, I hold these facts as the paramount issue. Clinton is at the heart of it.
22
I admire and applaud Dr. Krugman for his tenacity in the face of true believers irritated by his refusal to suspend disbelief and join their idol's magical mystery tour. And I appreciate his articulation of what troubles me and many of my Asian, Black and Hispanic neighbors about Sander's campaign and his supporters.
They're angry and frustrated by income inequality and those responsible for it. They feel victimized by economic decline and disaffected by their loss of status and inattentive leaders. Income inequality is their code for a myriad of cultural, economic and demographic shifts that were unexpected and adverse.
For Americans who aren't white and male, income inequality is redundant. Reminds us that equality is our fight alone except when disaffected white males shove us aside to launch an ad hoc campaign that's more smug than smart supporting a candidate who's more Pied Piper than electable. The vitriolic posts against Krugman mirrors the simpleminded faith of Trump fans who believe a slur slinging superhero will make it right.
Obama was a promise fulfilled. We non-white Americans no longer felt like aliens in our own nation. Then a raw sewage pipe of racist hate and supremacist contempt demeaned our President and soiled America for 8 years. Black -- all nonwhite -- lives don't matter after all.
Krugman says It's not just billionaires. It's the sewer pipe they control. Need a good plumber. This isn't a do-it-yourself project.
They're angry and frustrated by income inequality and those responsible for it. They feel victimized by economic decline and disaffected by their loss of status and inattentive leaders. Income inequality is their code for a myriad of cultural, economic and demographic shifts that were unexpected and adverse.
For Americans who aren't white and male, income inequality is redundant. Reminds us that equality is our fight alone except when disaffected white males shove us aside to launch an ad hoc campaign that's more smug than smart supporting a candidate who's more Pied Piper than electable. The vitriolic posts against Krugman mirrors the simpleminded faith of Trump fans who believe a slur slinging superhero will make it right.
Obama was a promise fulfilled. We non-white Americans no longer felt like aliens in our own nation. Then a raw sewage pipe of racist hate and supremacist contempt demeaned our President and soiled America for 8 years. Black -- all nonwhite -- lives don't matter after all.
Krugman says It's not just billionaires. It's the sewer pipe they control. Need a good plumber. This isn't a do-it-yourself project.
155
The larger significant min raise wage Sanders proposes will do more to help minorities than any equality program clinton pushes while at the same time lowering real median wages. Have you taken a look at the race adjust wages figures since the great recession and noticed how poorly minorities have done? All you are saying is that to you sound matters more than substance. Take a look at detriot, and the loss of manufacturing jobs abroad. That's killed minorities and have been the policies advocated by the very people espousing all the feel good racial rhetoric. You were the victim of a scam, but aren't willing to see it.
4
I agree that money is not the root of all evil, but it is probably the life blood for It. Givin that the best path forward is to feel the bern!
4
The malaise that pervades western “liberal” societies manifests itself in two patently observable ways. Concerned, aware “do gooders” join an untold multitude of organizations that attempt to ameliorate failures of society by legal methods of persuasion and voluntary aid programs. Those who are directly affected resort to protest, at times violent. Fringe elements are driven to terrorist solutions. In either case, the effects are newsworthy but fall far short of the avowed objectives. The futility of their efforts further polarizes society, and the ranks of the disenchanted grow.
The old ideas are dying or dead. New ideas have yet to be born. America needs to be reinspired by a vision of the future which is tune with the vast changes that material progress has made in our lives. We are in dire need of a new prophet, neither liberal nor conservative, unencumbered by knee jerk responses that served in the past.
The old ideas are dying or dead. New ideas have yet to be born. America needs to be reinspired by a vision of the future which is tune with the vast changes that material progress has made in our lives. We are in dire need of a new prophet, neither liberal nor conservative, unencumbered by knee jerk responses that served in the past.
1
Sad you've jumped into that tank of kool-aid; it negates everything you've seemed to stand for, for years, and replaced it with opportunism and mush.
10
And a very nasty attempt to discredit criticism of our economic system.
Once again, more misdirection by Prof. Krugman. The implication—somewhat more explicit than a dog whistle—is that Bernie Sanders is uninterested in racism, sexism and homophobia. Krugman writes, "Some activists go further and call on Democrats to stop talking about social issues other than income inequality, although Mr. Sanders hasn’t gone there." No, he hasn't. Quite the contrary.
And yet, Sanders' record on those issues is at least as good as Hillary Clinton, if not better. Sanders opposed DOMA in the 1990s. He has a long and strong record on issues of race and has never been implicated in the kind of political use of the race issue that the Clintons were in 2008 and in the 1990s (Sister Souljah, Ricky Ray Rector, "superpredators").
Is the kind of money that the Clintons have gotten from the 1%—money that has fueled their campaigns and made them wealthy beyond most of our imaginings—corrupting or not? If Mr. Krugman is making the argument that it's not corrupting, then he should just say so, and add that there is no problem with Citizens United.
But many of us look at the Clintons and the policies they have supported—bank deregulation, NAFTA, etc.—and see a link between the money they take and the law that they make.
And we're supporting a candidate who doesn't take the money. We don't have to twist ourselves into knots of cognitive dissonance to support Bernie Sanders.
And yet, Sanders' record on those issues is at least as good as Hillary Clinton, if not better. Sanders opposed DOMA in the 1990s. He has a long and strong record on issues of race and has never been implicated in the kind of political use of the race issue that the Clintons were in 2008 and in the 1990s (Sister Souljah, Ricky Ray Rector, "superpredators").
Is the kind of money that the Clintons have gotten from the 1%—money that has fueled their campaigns and made them wealthy beyond most of our imaginings—corrupting or not? If Mr. Krugman is making the argument that it's not corrupting, then he should just say so, and add that there is no problem with Citizens United.
But many of us look at the Clintons and the policies they have supported—bank deregulation, NAFTA, etc.—and see a link between the money they take and the law that they make.
And we're supporting a candidate who doesn't take the money. We don't have to twist ourselves into knots of cognitive dissonance to support Bernie Sanders.
17
After praising Clinton once again, explaining why she is the better candidate than Sanders Krugman ends with the comment: "isn’t there something noble, even inspiring, about fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better?" Given the Times' blatant support of Clinton for the past year, none of what he says is surprising, but it is disappointing. When Obama first came into office Krugman said that the one problem with the Obama's stimulus package was that it was too meager. He thought that Obama should have for more money. Krugman has repeated this sentiment as recently as a couple of months ago. Krugman in the past also argued for single payer healthcare. In an article in Physician's For National Health he said, "The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs. Canada’s government-run insurance system has much less bureaucracy and much lower administrative costs than our largely private system.
But now, in an effort to toe the line and support the Times anointed candidate, Hillary Clinton, Krugman is changing his tune. Instead of trying to achieve what he has claimed to be the best health system, single payer, and also to start out asking for more, so there is some leverage in bargaining with a reluctant Congress, all of a sudden he says we should just settle for small steps. What changed Mr Krugman and should I believe anything anymore that you say?
But now, in an effort to toe the line and support the Times anointed candidate, Hillary Clinton, Krugman is changing his tune. Instead of trying to achieve what he has claimed to be the best health system, single payer, and also to start out asking for more, so there is some leverage in bargaining with a reluctant Congress, all of a sudden he says we should just settle for small steps. What changed Mr Krugman and should I believe anything anymore that you say?
16
What I find most interesting are the comments. It would appear many have read the article with a predetermined conclusion based not on what PK wrote but but on their particular view of PK.
4
Citizen United has been criticized on the left, as they feel it would give the GOP an advantage of unlimited big money. I find it ironic that unlimited SuperPAC money may destroy the GOP. Money in politics may be evil, but it may be just as toxic to those with money as it is a disadvantage to those without.
In the GOP right now, unlimited money props up too many establishment candidates, preventing any of them from achieving critical mass and allows anti-establishment candidates (Cruz and Trump) to take over. Citizens United may just be the un-doing of the GOP. I bet no-one saw that coming!
In the GOP right now, unlimited money props up too many establishment candidates, preventing any of them from achieving critical mass and allows anti-establishment candidates (Cruz and Trump) to take over. Citizens United may just be the un-doing of the GOP. I bet no-one saw that coming!
3
Hi Paul,
I'm a Bernie supporter and I was in elementary school when you were in elementary school. I am not politically naive as all that. I received some very good political education from the Sanderistas in Burlington. Peter Clavelle, Director of Community and Economic Development in Burlington under Mayor Sanders and subsequently Mayor for seven terms himself, and I grew up working for the same summer camp together. Terry Bouricius, Burlington City Councilman and a founder with Bernie of the The Progressive Party (following the end of the Liberty Union Party) used to date a good friend of mine in medical school - when going to dinner at Terry's house one had to bring one's own plate and fork - he wouldn't own more than needed. I was arrested at the polls in 1982, during Bernie's second mayoral election, when traditional Democratic polling officials were trying to suppress the Bernie vote and we young kids "from away" were considered the enemy.
The Paul of the Bible says it is the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10). Bernie is not anti-money, he is anti-Mammon, and that is a significant difference. I also think you underestimate Senator Sanders commitment to equal rights and a just foreign policy.
The Progressive Party in Burlington never controlled more than 6 seats of 13 on the Burlington City Council, he faced intense obstructing forces throughout his Administration there, but accomplished much. He would accomplish much if President.
I'm a Bernie supporter and I was in elementary school when you were in elementary school. I am not politically naive as all that. I received some very good political education from the Sanderistas in Burlington. Peter Clavelle, Director of Community and Economic Development in Burlington under Mayor Sanders and subsequently Mayor for seven terms himself, and I grew up working for the same summer camp together. Terry Bouricius, Burlington City Councilman and a founder with Bernie of the The Progressive Party (following the end of the Liberty Union Party) used to date a good friend of mine in medical school - when going to dinner at Terry's house one had to bring one's own plate and fork - he wouldn't own more than needed. I was arrested at the polls in 1982, during Bernie's second mayoral election, when traditional Democratic polling officials were trying to suppress the Bernie vote and we young kids "from away" were considered the enemy.
The Paul of the Bible says it is the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10). Bernie is not anti-money, he is anti-Mammon, and that is a significant difference. I also think you underestimate Senator Sanders commitment to equal rights and a just foreign policy.
The Progressive Party in Burlington never controlled more than 6 seats of 13 on the Burlington City Council, he faced intense obstructing forces throughout his Administration there, but accomplished much. He would accomplish much if President.
33
I disagree.
This election is about power and who wants to keep it in the hands who have it now (Wall Street, Clinton, and their supporters) and those who want to spread the economic and social benefits of that power more equitably throughout the country (Sanders and his supporters).
It's clear which side of that debate you are on Dr. Krugman. What is encouraging is how many of your NY Times readers are on the other.
This election is about power and who wants to keep it in the hands who have it now (Wall Street, Clinton, and their supporters) and those who want to spread the economic and social benefits of that power more equitably throughout the country (Sanders and his supporters).
It's clear which side of that debate you are on Dr. Krugman. What is encouraging is how many of your NY Times readers are on the other.
16
Politics at the poles, where the politically blind lead the rest of us off a cliff. To the right economic, environmental, social justice and foreign policy prescriptions are our certain doom and on the left unicorn policy and fairy tale revolutions feed dreams of a new utopia where everyone has a good paying job, global climate change is reversed and universal health care is granted with the stroke of a pen. Neither will draw much enthusiasm from the vast middle and in the environment of fear and uncertainty that real life is imposing on a traditionally conservative culture the likelihood that unicorns will ultimately prevail seems remote. I do love Bernie Sanders, I agree with just about everything he says and I am convinced he is sincere. I am equally sure he will lose in a one on one national race. He could win the popular vote by landslide victories in key states and lose the electoral college. That is not to say Hillary will win, just that she has, as a practical matter a better chance. I will take my chances on the better chance rather than risk 4 seats on the Supreme Court for a fantasy.
10
You are assuming, of course, that Hillary's appointees to the court would be nominally equivalent to Bernie's appointees. Her close association with banking interests suggests that she has a conflict between the health of the bankers and the health of the democracy.
Perhaps you have been enchanted by her iconic smile. Bernie has been working for social justice and economic well being while Bill and Hillary have been working the financial fields with high placed friends in the industry.
Perhaps you have been enchanted by her iconic smile. Bernie has been working for social justice and economic well being while Bill and Hillary have been working the financial fields with high placed friends in the industry.
2
In order to understand what is going on, you have to look at what the Democrats have been emphasizing.
Look at gay marriage, environmental radicalism, light rail, gun control, opposition to religious expression, support for dubious immigrants - whose policies are these? They are the policies of the 10%, the affluent suburban professionals who pay the bills for the Democrats, and supply the candidates and staffs. These policies have hurt, not helped, the bottom half of the population.
What is the result? People who are not in the top 10% see the elite as enemies. It is not just the Washington establishment, is the local establishment in many blue states. Their answer? Vote for Donald Trump. Is voting for Donald Trump against their interests? I would say it is not.
Look at gay marriage, environmental radicalism, light rail, gun control, opposition to religious expression, support for dubious immigrants - whose policies are these? They are the policies of the 10%, the affluent suburban professionals who pay the bills for the Democrats, and supply the candidates and staffs. These policies have hurt, not helped, the bottom half of the population.
What is the result? People who are not in the top 10% see the elite as enemies. It is not just the Washington establishment, is the local establishment in many blue states. Their answer? Vote for Donald Trump. Is voting for Donald Trump against their interests? I would say it is not.
5
In last week's article, Paul attempted to portray Hillary Clinton as the pragmatic successor to President Obama, who would succeed through moderation and compromise, while attempting to portray Bernie Sanders as an uncompromising extremist dreamer who would shoot for the moon and accomplish nothing... ignoring his entire political career of accomplishment in the process.
The subtext in today's article is Hillary Clinton understands and cares about the problems facing people of color in America, but Bernie Sanders doesn't... Yet there is absolutely no evidence presented in the article to support that notion.... In fact, to make the point, Sander's entire lifetime of evidence to the contrary had to be deliberately ignored.
I love Paul Krugman, but it seems he may have taken a page out of Karl Rove's playbook the last couple of weeks...
Note to PK: We expect better from you. You are one of the best columnists on the planet... And if you're planning on voting for Hillary, why not just come right out and say so?
But it seems most of your readers believe Bernie Sanders is the only honest candidate running this time around, and we believe THAT will resonate with the more voters than Hillary's "Finger in the Wind" politics... Why else would DNC Chairwoman and Hillary Surrogate, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, try so hard to limit Bernie's exposure to the people, if she didn't believe the same?
The subtext in today's article is Hillary Clinton understands and cares about the problems facing people of color in America, but Bernie Sanders doesn't... Yet there is absolutely no evidence presented in the article to support that notion.... In fact, to make the point, Sander's entire lifetime of evidence to the contrary had to be deliberately ignored.
I love Paul Krugman, but it seems he may have taken a page out of Karl Rove's playbook the last couple of weeks...
Note to PK: We expect better from you. You are one of the best columnists on the planet... And if you're planning on voting for Hillary, why not just come right out and say so?
But it seems most of your readers believe Bernie Sanders is the only honest candidate running this time around, and we believe THAT will resonate with the more voters than Hillary's "Finger in the Wind" politics... Why else would DNC Chairwoman and Hillary Surrogate, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, try so hard to limit Bernie's exposure to the people, if she didn't believe the same?
16
Pragmatist/idealist, money is/is not the root of evil... these bromides have become PK's categories. He's slipping into the Tom Friedman syndrome: oversimplify, pick a couple analogies and Viola, trenchant analysis.
'Fraid it doesn't work that way. Bernie's a serious contender on the merit of his positions, not to be reduced to a once-over slap-dash evaluation.
'Fraid it doesn't work that way. Bernie's a serious contender on the merit of his positions, not to be reduced to a once-over slap-dash evaluation.
2
I live in Quebec a diminutive chain smoking, journalist, from the hinterland took on the Plutocracy and the Church and started a revolution. He won.
I remember him taking on William F Buckley in a debate and cleaning the floor with Buckley because Buckley couldn't use words found only in the dictionary to prove his superior intellect. Perhaps Mr Buckley should have insisted the debate be held in French Mr Buckley's and Mr Levesque's first language.
Call me a cockeyed optimist but I think America can still be turned around. I don't however think there is enough time for slow incremental movement or a series of neo-liberal Presidents. I believe in social democracy and I believe Bernie is a step in the right direction.
When the US election is over Canada will have a Prime lending rate of close to zero. That for me will mark the beginning of a new 21st century democratic economy. We need to rebuild and all this talk of debt and deficit must stop.The costs of not educating, not rebuilding and not providing universal healthcare are far greater than borrowing at zero percent or negative interest. It is time to invest in the future if we want one.
To everything there is a season.
I remember him taking on William F Buckley in a debate and cleaning the floor with Buckley because Buckley couldn't use words found only in the dictionary to prove his superior intellect. Perhaps Mr Buckley should have insisted the debate be held in French Mr Buckley's and Mr Levesque's first language.
Call me a cockeyed optimist but I think America can still be turned around. I don't however think there is enough time for slow incremental movement or a series of neo-liberal Presidents. I believe in social democracy and I believe Bernie is a step in the right direction.
When the US election is over Canada will have a Prime lending rate of close to zero. That for me will mark the beginning of a new 21st century democratic economy. We need to rebuild and all this talk of debt and deficit must stop.The costs of not educating, not rebuilding and not providing universal healthcare are far greater than borrowing at zero percent or negative interest. It is time to invest in the future if we want one.
To everything there is a season.
9
You might overestimate the extent of those prejudices, and the power of your candidate (Clinton).
Yes, our country has prejudice. But the loudest voice of prejudice--Congress-- has a 15% approval rating. A lot of people disapprove. Most Americans favor higher minimum wage; reducing domestic violence and foreign war; recognizing climate change; etc. Sheer demographics speak against electing those who alienate minorities and women. That makes a lot of people, to vote against prejudice.
Also, it "might be possible for a candidate preaching economic populism to break through." But which candidate appeals more to those voters? So far, the overall polls of Democrats vs Republicans, show Sanders winning by 10 points more than Clinton. She beats Rubio and Cruz by only one point (scary?), while Sanders wins by 11 and 12 points. Why?
Polls show that most Americans consider HRC to be untrustworthy. Folks might remember that she voted for the Iraq invasion, helped create the mess in Syria, and spoke about "annihilatIng" Iran. Voters who believe that "money is the root of all evil," look twice at a candidate rolling in it. Bill raised $250 million largely from foreign corporations and countries, including Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. Leading up to the campaign, in 2014 HRC earned $10 million in speaking fees; $4.6 million was from corporations and advocates in finance and healthcare.
Sanders has the values, the record, and so far, the enthusiasm. We'll see who can get out the vote.
Yes, our country has prejudice. But the loudest voice of prejudice--Congress-- has a 15% approval rating. A lot of people disapprove. Most Americans favor higher minimum wage; reducing domestic violence and foreign war; recognizing climate change; etc. Sheer demographics speak against electing those who alienate minorities and women. That makes a lot of people, to vote against prejudice.
Also, it "might be possible for a candidate preaching economic populism to break through." But which candidate appeals more to those voters? So far, the overall polls of Democrats vs Republicans, show Sanders winning by 10 points more than Clinton. She beats Rubio and Cruz by only one point (scary?), while Sanders wins by 11 and 12 points. Why?
Polls show that most Americans consider HRC to be untrustworthy. Folks might remember that she voted for the Iraq invasion, helped create the mess in Syria, and spoke about "annihilatIng" Iran. Voters who believe that "money is the root of all evil," look twice at a candidate rolling in it. Bill raised $250 million largely from foreign corporations and countries, including Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. Leading up to the campaign, in 2014 HRC earned $10 million in speaking fees; $4.6 million was from corporations and advocates in finance and healthcare.
Sanders has the values, the record, and so far, the enthusiasm. We'll see who can get out the vote.
10
I'm surprised that Paul Krugman--in his support of Hillary Clinton--sets up such a simplistic Straw Man argument against Bernie Sanders.
10
Bernie has been "fighting the good fight, year after year" for the middle class, while HRC has been fighting the good fight year after year to get elected.
Clinton's platform is the one that draws less voter turnout each election cycle, and doesn't begin to address the fundamental problems in our political and economic system. There's nothing noble in that
Clinton's platform is the one that draws less voter turnout each election cycle, and doesn't begin to address the fundamental problems in our political and economic system. There's nothing noble in that
12
Correct. I read the Tea Party blogs regularly. The posts which invariably draw the largest numbers of (to my mind outrageous) comments are on: immigration, GLBT, race (they hate 'Black Lives Matter') and Muslims (hate them, too - all of them). Although they do talk about about the economy (Obama has destroyed it), it takes a back seat to the need to do away with the government and to 'make America great again' (whether they support Trump or not), which seems to mean making it an English-only, Christian country mainly run by whites (though people of color can be friends and co-workers; other religions will be "tolerated" as long as they acknowledge that "this is a Christian country.")
Since they broadly distrust anyone who does not espouse the same positions on this whole range of social issues, anyone to the left of center on social issues would never, ever be seen as being their side no matter how much he/she spoke about income inequality.
Since they broadly distrust anyone who does not espouse the same positions on this whole range of social issues, anyone to the left of center on social issues would never, ever be seen as being their side no matter how much he/she spoke about income inequality.
106
So those types are loud and offensive. But how many are we really talking about who really wants such people in their camp? I live in a neighborhood where "those people" live meaning the ones Trump insults. The talk there, black, white or immigrant aligns with issues of inequality which also happens to include inequality of race, gender, age, citizenship, health status, but more important having fallen with no help to get back up.
It's a question of how important the Trump followers really are. My bet is they don't really matter, never have. Even the right would love to dump them now that they have them squarely in their camp.
This election is not about them. It's about going toward better for everyone, not just those who pay, pay their way from having to deal with "those people". Sanders gets that this is about making it impossible for the wealthy to buy the government, buy into schools where their kids don't have to associate with "those people", and keep immigrants and minorities down with low pay and jobs that are more like dog collars than earning a living.
Every minority knows the feeling of a dog collar.
It's a question of how important the Trump followers really are. My bet is they don't really matter, never have. Even the right would love to dump them now that they have them squarely in their camp.
This election is not about them. It's about going toward better for everyone, not just those who pay, pay their way from having to deal with "those people". Sanders gets that this is about making it impossible for the wealthy to buy the government, buy into schools where their kids don't have to associate with "those people", and keep immigrants and minorities down with low pay and jobs that are more like dog collars than earning a living.
Every minority knows the feeling of a dog collar.
2
Perhaps, when one has a regular column in the NY Times, it becomes an obligation to speak as though someone like Hillary Clinton represents change. But can Mr. Krugman seriously think for more than a delusional moment that Ms. Clinton is anything other than a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street and others of the oligarchic class? Incrementalism is merely smoke and mirrors covering stagnation in a world of massive injustice and theft.
Is money the sole problem we face? Of course not. But to entertain for a moment that Ms. Clinton will support anything other that that which favors her rich patrons is simply silly. A serious problem is that neither Mr. Sanders nor Ms. Clinton are committed to facing the depth of our problems, and both are incrementalists in the face of a crisis. But to entertain the notion that Ms. Clinton might have an interest in anything other than maintaining the riches of the rich is pathetically deluded.
Is money the sole problem we face? Of course not. But to entertain for a moment that Ms. Clinton will support anything other that that which favors her rich patrons is simply silly. A serious problem is that neither Mr. Sanders nor Ms. Clinton are committed to facing the depth of our problems, and both are incrementalists in the face of a crisis. But to entertain the notion that Ms. Clinton might have an interest in anything other than maintaining the riches of the rich is pathetically deluded.
8
I guess there are people who hate Hillary but I don't see it. People, yes, are not supporting her but because she delivers no message that appeals to them. She is a neo-liberal and so she does not believe in regulating industry very much, just touchy feely regulation. She does support most of the liberal social agenda that is great but it won't put food on my table and it won't get my son a job.
The reality of society is that with greater economic equality and with a greater middle class comes a more liberal society, that is why the message that the 1% has been saturating the right wing media with is a message of how the left is going to let diseased gays, immoral sons of Ham (Blacks), Papist foreigners (Hispanics), and atheists run the nation. They were appealing to those that did not have fancy houses, office jobs, or college educations. Then they forced economic policies on the nation to grow the ranks of the disenfranchised while blaming it on regulations that did not even exist any longer. Trump proves it worked all too well.
The millennials promised a better life and not finding it, suffering under high debt, education degradation and lower paying or no jobs don't see economic change coming with Hillary. Hillary does not fire them up and they may not vote in November. Sanders does, and If he can get them to the polls, we might see a Democratic President and a new Congress.
The reality of society is that with greater economic equality and with a greater middle class comes a more liberal society, that is why the message that the 1% has been saturating the right wing media with is a message of how the left is going to let diseased gays, immoral sons of Ham (Blacks), Papist foreigners (Hispanics), and atheists run the nation. They were appealing to those that did not have fancy houses, office jobs, or college educations. Then they forced economic policies on the nation to grow the ranks of the disenfranchised while blaming it on regulations that did not even exist any longer. Trump proves it worked all too well.
The millennials promised a better life and not finding it, suffering under high debt, education degradation and lower paying or no jobs don't see economic change coming with Hillary. Hillary does not fire them up and they may not vote in November. Sanders does, and If he can get them to the polls, we might see a Democratic President and a new Congress.
12
I don't see Hillary Clinton's attitude towards "Black Lives Matter" as a harbinger of addressing these prejudices. I don't see the way an approach like building up a Clinton Foundation is a harbinger of that either. To me, the Clintons look like part of a system that is part of the problem and seem to share too many of the values that perpetuate it.
17
Paul, you like to cast aspersions about peoples lack of diversity yet you yourself are an elitist. You live in an area that's filled with rich white people.
5
@a: Talk about non sequiturs.
1
Paul says: Bring on Venezuela! The wisdom of the Enlightened Progressive.
This is a great article, "Let Them Eat Diversity", https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/01/let-them-eat-diversity/ It goes on to explain who the oligqrchs PK complains about want us to focus in the isms mentioned here and not on the structural problems in a rigged economy. It's the things the elites allow us to debate about, and give us some semblance of choice. As long as we don't touch the structural rules rigging the system for them. What is truly strange is Krugman has cited Gilens work showing we are an oligarchy, he's cited better polices we could have done after the great recession. But now that a candidate (Sanders) come along he advocates going with the person who is about maintain the rigged system. He's saying one thing before and advocating the complete opposite in pushing Clinton. The oligarchy get a veto on policy even before it is put out. In truth the public doesn't even know other policy options existed in the fist place. A president who is at least open about what it going on would be an improvement over our current system.
A president willing to expose the lobbyists and corporations are in fact writing our legislation. A president who doesn't appoint industry stooges who write regulations in secret. We we lied into Iraq, and no bankers went to jail. In two administrations crimes/criminals worse than Watergate were brushed over because it suited the oligarchs. This is how bad things really are. Clinton thinks that is business as usual and it's OK. It's criminal
A president willing to expose the lobbyists and corporations are in fact writing our legislation. A president who doesn't appoint industry stooges who write regulations in secret. We we lied into Iraq, and no bankers went to jail. In two administrations crimes/criminals worse than Watergate were brushed over because it suited the oligarchs. This is how bad things really are. Clinton thinks that is business as usual and it's OK. It's criminal
9
I agree with Krugman's analysis but that won't stop me from picking nits. He cites the Civil Rights Act as the catalyst for flipping Southern whites to the GOP. That may have accelerated change but even without a Civil Rights Act they'd be Republicans in this era of political litmus tests. It was already a conservative culture and the only thing binding them to the Democrats was a 100 year grudge with Lincoln. That wasn't going to last forever....
5
@JoeDog: Especially since the party of Lincoln has become the party of Jefferson Davis, as a commenter observed a couple of weeks ago.
1
It is not so much the extent that candidates focus on income inequality. Almost all even some Republicans realize it is a large problem. It is the cause of the income inequality that should be focused on.
Tax policy, namely the shift in the tax burden away from the rich is not only the major cause of income inequality, for all practical purposes it is the only cause.
To determine if someone is an adherent of the regulatory fallacy ask this question: Do you believe that given the degree that the tax burden was shifted from the rich to the middle class, was there any type of regulatory policy which would have prevented the financial crisis? If they answer yes, they are adherents to the regulatory fallacy..
..Equally unhelpful in terms of addressing the income and wealth inequality which results in the overinvestment cycle that caused the depression are those who emphasize various non-tax factors. Issues such a globalization, free trade, unionization, minimum wage laws, single parents, problems with our education system and infrastructure can increase the income and wealth inequality. However, these are extremely minor when compared to the shift of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. It is the compounding year after year of the effect of the shift away from taxes on capital income such as dividends over time as the rich get proverbially richer which is the prime generator of inequality..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
Tax policy, namely the shift in the tax burden away from the rich is not only the major cause of income inequality, for all practical purposes it is the only cause.
To determine if someone is an adherent of the regulatory fallacy ask this question: Do you believe that given the degree that the tax burden was shifted from the rich to the middle class, was there any type of regulatory policy which would have prevented the financial crisis? If they answer yes, they are adherents to the regulatory fallacy..
..Equally unhelpful in terms of addressing the income and wealth inequality which results in the overinvestment cycle that caused the depression are those who emphasize various non-tax factors. Issues such a globalization, free trade, unionization, minimum wage laws, single parents, problems with our education system and infrastructure can increase the income and wealth inequality. However, these are extremely minor when compared to the shift of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. It is the compounding year after year of the effect of the shift away from taxes on capital income such as dividends over time as the rich get proverbially richer which is the prime generator of inequality..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
3
Your explanation for the role of big money in politics is a tad too facile: (1) How does it explain the rise of the Trump supporter? (2) How does it explain the rise of the Sanders supporter? (3) Are you suggesting that Democratic candidates are less susceptible to big money? Really?
2
David, money IS the root of all evil. Or, more accurately, the acquisition and control of resources. The slavers didn't bring black Africans to the colonies because they hated people with brown skin, they did so because there was profit to be made. The fact that " racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice are powerful forces in their own right" may be so, however, you are redefining the meaning of "root cause", that is, you are not drilling down far enough.
Do a thought experiment and ask yourself if the acquisition and control of resources had nothing to do with it, would personal prejudices have any real meaning to society at large.
Do a thought experiment and ask yourself if the acquisition and control of resources had nothing to do with it, would personal prejudices have any real meaning to society at large.
5
Not to be splitting hairs here ........., but, in the last para -
'inspiring, even noble' would make more sense!!!
And, yes, yes, yes ............. it is ok to associate Obama with 'noble'!!!!!
'inspiring, even noble' would make more sense!!!
And, yes, yes, yes ............. it is ok to associate Obama with 'noble'!!!!!
4
The real danger for America this year is to elect a Republican president and potentially give him a GOP Senate and the potential to appoint one or two justices to the Supreme Court.
I can support Clinton, Sanders or O'Malley and do it with confidence that our country will move forward but none of them will win if Democrats don't unite to wage a general election battle equal to that of two brilliant Obama campaigns.
I can support Clinton, Sanders or O'Malley and do it with confidence that our country will move forward but none of them will win if Democrats don't unite to wage a general election battle equal to that of two brilliant Obama campaigns.
5
And show up at mid-term and state elections no matter how average the Democrat running.
1
@Stuart
Re "She antagonizes the bigots and the fundamentalists and has little chance of winning over voters on the right"
A favorite campaign trick the GOP pulls (really the brain-child of Karl Rove) is to highlight an apparent GOP weakness and through misinformation, out-and-out blatant lies, and code-words make it the weakness of the opponent. We have been seeing this gimmick play out for some time now with the GOP assault on Hillary Clinton's character being coded "untrustworthy" (or "untrustable" as McCarthy so succinctly put it) and "dishonest" and brazenly being attributed to Clinton gratuitously at every turn without qualification. So persistent is this character assassination effort that I see this theme embraced in comments like this one here. Even in debate analyses, conservative pundits keep trying to make it an issue peculiar to Clinton where it could just as well or even more appropriately be applied to most of the GOP candidates, especially Trump and Cruz.
Re "She antagonizes the bigots and the fundamentalists and has little chance of winning over voters on the right"
A favorite campaign trick the GOP pulls (really the brain-child of Karl Rove) is to highlight an apparent GOP weakness and through misinformation, out-and-out blatant lies, and code-words make it the weakness of the opponent. We have been seeing this gimmick play out for some time now with the GOP assault on Hillary Clinton's character being coded "untrustworthy" (or "untrustable" as McCarthy so succinctly put it) and "dishonest" and brazenly being attributed to Clinton gratuitously at every turn without qualification. So persistent is this character assassination effort that I see this theme embraced in comments like this one here. Even in debate analyses, conservative pundits keep trying to make it an issue peculiar to Clinton where it could just as well or even more appropriately be applied to most of the GOP candidates, especially Trump and Cruz.
9
I believe this statement is one of the best reasons to vote for Bernie: "the Obama years have in fact been marked by significant if incomplete progressive victories, on health policy, taxes, financial reform and the environment. And isn’t there something noble, even inspiring, about fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better?"
The significant changes needed in this country cannot, and does not happen in one or two presidential terms. We know that. It's about evolution. Hilary will 1) stick with the status quo, stalling any change/progress needed, or 2) take us back a few steps. She is the typical politician who isn't trusted.
The majority of people supporting Bernie are educated, well-read and have been politically active much of their lives, unlike those supporting Trump. So Mr. Krugman, please give us some credit for having the brains, heart, and determination to "be the change we want to see in the world." We know this will take a long time. Some of us are old enough to realize we might not be around to see it to fruition, but at least our children/grandchildren will, and shouldn't it be about building a better future for them?
The significant changes needed in this country cannot, and does not happen in one or two presidential terms. We know that. It's about evolution. Hilary will 1) stick with the status quo, stalling any change/progress needed, or 2) take us back a few steps. She is the typical politician who isn't trusted.
The majority of people supporting Bernie are educated, well-read and have been politically active much of their lives, unlike those supporting Trump. So Mr. Krugman, please give us some credit for having the brains, heart, and determination to "be the change we want to see in the world." We know this will take a long time. Some of us are old enough to realize we might not be around to see it to fruition, but at least our children/grandchildren will, and shouldn't it be about building a better future for them?
9
A Danish friend who has also lived here explained to me why the Danish model will never work in the USA: We Danes he said believe that what we do for one Dane we do for all Danes. We trust - - - correctly for the most part - - - that government resources will be administered intelligently and honestly for the benefit of us all. We give up a lot in taxes and we get back even more. The wellbeing of the Danish citizen is the focus of society. That is possible because Danes are for the most part one culture, one people. We trust that it works, and so it does.
The United States is many cultures, speaks many languages, and has many different traditions, histories, beliefs. The USA is one political and economic state but it is not "one nation under God", a phrase that begs the questions, whose nation, and whose God? Each citizen suspects that whatever he gives to government will go to someone else, instead of to himself or those like him. That suspicion eliminates the trust needed for the Danish model.
My Danish friend is now concerned that massive immigration of Middle Eastern peoples will blow the Danish model sky high. We will see.
The United States is many cultures, speaks many languages, and has many different traditions, histories, beliefs. The USA is one political and economic state but it is not "one nation under God", a phrase that begs the questions, whose nation, and whose God? Each citizen suspects that whatever he gives to government will go to someone else, instead of to himself or those like him. That suspicion eliminates the trust needed for the Danish model.
My Danish friend is now concerned that massive immigration of Middle Eastern peoples will blow the Danish model sky high. We will see.
6
The one trick pony in this race is not BS. The real clash is between those set in their ways, and those who strongly believe in bold change in our political system and economy. The former requires too much money from a few to set the direction of the country. The latter says the will of the people is paramount. Entrenched wisdom means you get money from wherever you can even it causes undue influence from a few. The other says that regular citizens need skin in the game to express their will through participation with their votes and small contributions in our democracy.
Prof Krugman gives short shrift to BS's agenda that is broader than HRC's in every respect. Madam Secretary knows it, and has to attack BS with false or flimsy attacks.
One, in particular, annoys me. Her staff calls the Nurses's Union a super pac comparable to the financial industry. Wow an important part of our work force who overwhelming support Bernie says so, and Clinton staff goes wild. Another kerfluffle is Bernie's staff puts on culinary union buttons, but were charged with not identifying themselves as BS supporters. Turns out it is a false charge, and the union and Bernie's campaign came to a truce. Bernie has always been the stronger union supporter, and HRC backers tried to make hay.
It looks like HRC is using nasty Mark Penn tactics to win., again
Voters please note who covers the most ground of addressing citizens's issues, and who is just window dressing.
Prof Krugman gives short shrift to BS's agenda that is broader than HRC's in every respect. Madam Secretary knows it, and has to attack BS with false or flimsy attacks.
One, in particular, annoys me. Her staff calls the Nurses's Union a super pac comparable to the financial industry. Wow an important part of our work force who overwhelming support Bernie says so, and Clinton staff goes wild. Another kerfluffle is Bernie's staff puts on culinary union buttons, but were charged with not identifying themselves as BS supporters. Turns out it is a false charge, and the union and Bernie's campaign came to a truce. Bernie has always been the stronger union supporter, and HRC backers tried to make hay.
It looks like HRC is using nasty Mark Penn tactics to win., again
Voters please note who covers the most ground of addressing citizens's issues, and who is just window dressing.
7
According to Krugman, the greed of the 1% and the innate nastiness of the great unwashed working class are the causes of the country's present state. Not so simple...global competition, technological change and diminished work place skills seem to me to be more to blame.
2
If I were a US Oligarch I suspect I would lend support, quietly, to the Sanders campaign. I would also encourage the GOP attack machine to avoid Sanders and focus on Hillary. The attacks are effective as many who slobber over Sanders repeat the GOP talking points. My wife is now having doubts about Hillary.
No doubt, to me, that Sanders is a good man. Many of my thoughts regarding our economy and politics would be considered radical as well. But, if he is our candidate in the general election, we will lose thereby handing the prize to Trump or whatever white bread candidate makes it to that stage.
Looking at the sheer whiteness of the GOP/conservative stable I recall the little old lady in the commercial who asks, loudly, "WHERE IS THE BEEF?" Actually there ain't none as we will have Pres and VP candidates who will be like two pieces of Wonder Bread missing anything in the middle.
Hillary is basically a good, capable woman who is struggling mainly due to her gender and her history of foolish positions. The question is - Who will pull the most effective government together and keep us from falling into the fascist like Oligarchy we will be faced with? I think we have one choice. And, I don't consider my position as "condescending" to Sanders at all.
No doubt, to me, that Sanders is a good man. Many of my thoughts regarding our economy and politics would be considered radical as well. But, if he is our candidate in the general election, we will lose thereby handing the prize to Trump or whatever white bread candidate makes it to that stage.
Looking at the sheer whiteness of the GOP/conservative stable I recall the little old lady in the commercial who asks, loudly, "WHERE IS THE BEEF?" Actually there ain't none as we will have Pres and VP candidates who will be like two pieces of Wonder Bread missing anything in the middle.
Hillary is basically a good, capable woman who is struggling mainly due to her gender and her history of foolish positions. The question is - Who will pull the most effective government together and keep us from falling into the fascist like Oligarchy we will be faced with? I think we have one choice. And, I don't consider my position as "condescending" to Sanders at all.
3
Oh, no, this is becoming tedious. Paul seeks any avenue of analysis that leads back to Hillary as his choice for incremental change. Paul, you are devoted to Hillary, heart and soul. I get it. I don't think she's the right choice, aside from your caution about change. I acknowledge your fear of, variously, fascistic American intolerance, and of plutocratic ire. Perhaps, unmentioned, is a fear of a rise in anti-semitism. The thing is, Hillary and Bill and Chelsea have accepted millions from G&S, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, et. al. in variously, employment, speaking fees, soft money, hard money, money money, money, money. We know that Clinton's positions are malleable. We have in Bernie someone who's isn't alloyed by that corruption. I don't fear making him President, as you do. And I don't suppose that the hardcore prejudicial portion of the Right will be more forgiving of Hillary than of Bernie.
110
Sanders' position is "money is the ROOT of all evil", says PK. where, in the article tho, is it shown NOT to be the case?
If we speak of ROOTs (meaning origins, fundamentals) of a so-called evil, then trotting-out some verifiable, and elaborate mechanics, of how MONEY works,
then using this--history and its evidence--looks like K's subtle end-run, dismissing the principal initiating elements of The Problem--
a problem is the more obscured, not illuminated, via HC' rhetoric, viz, i.e., her broad expertise and experience--qualities as "best choice to fix things, as next Prex", liberal-flavor'd content.
The objective of useful analyses (that want to improve OUR hellishly undemocratic structural state of affairs) cannot stand on Paul's (yes! ideological) basis--that disregards the very 'roots'.
Wilfully ignoring fundamental forces, or initiating energies (i.e., the controlling power of MONEY) is not a blindness Sanders suffers too much. His position on these points isn't so much "rhetorical"
perhaps, as that of the candidate who's packing, in her expertise, her times on the board of Walmart, e.g.
pecuniam radix omnia malorum est. har har!
If we speak of ROOTs (meaning origins, fundamentals) of a so-called evil, then trotting-out some verifiable, and elaborate mechanics, of how MONEY works,
then using this--history and its evidence--looks like K's subtle end-run, dismissing the principal initiating elements of The Problem--
a problem is the more obscured, not illuminated, via HC' rhetoric, viz, i.e., her broad expertise and experience--qualities as "best choice to fix things, as next Prex", liberal-flavor'd content.
The objective of useful analyses (that want to improve OUR hellishly undemocratic structural state of affairs) cannot stand on Paul's (yes! ideological) basis--that disregards the very 'roots'.
Wilfully ignoring fundamental forces, or initiating energies (i.e., the controlling power of MONEY) is not a blindness Sanders suffers too much. His position on these points isn't so much "rhetorical"
perhaps, as that of the candidate who's packing, in her expertise, her times on the board of Walmart, e.g.
pecuniam radix omnia malorum est. har har!
I disagree with your column today. It is not that easy to draw a line between one party and the other. Plus, plutocrats are on both sides of the aisles. Just look at the main owner of this paper (Carlos Slim) or George Soros. We all know they are far off the right and lean much more towards Democrat Left. And I can´t say there is some sort of conspiration of the right. Why don´t you mention how plutocrats form the Left finance abortion clinics and gay marriage? Or legalisation of drugs, that kill the brains of our youth and dumb up even more a dumb America. If a plutocrat like Slim wanted to better up the literacy level of readers of this paper, I am sure he would demand articles, columns with more gravitas, research and force. Not nice, light, superficial journalism. Language reflects the soul of a nation, and I only see an evermore impovirished use of language here and on Main Street , which simply reflects what mass media "produces"!
1
Krugman has turned into a Clinton propagandist.
The difference between Clinton and Sanders is that Clinton is what used to be called a Limousine Liberal, and Sanders is not.
Hilary, when she carpetbagged it to NY, to be a do-nothing Senator, moved to Chappaqua, to live with the 1%. That is exactly who Clinton is. That is exactly the people she identifies with and cares about and wants to live with.
The difference between Clinton and Sanders is that Clinton is what used to be called a Limousine Liberal, and Sanders is not.
Hilary, when she carpetbagged it to NY, to be a do-nothing Senator, moved to Chappaqua, to live with the 1%. That is exactly who Clinton is. That is exactly the people she identifies with and cares about and wants to live with.
114
Yet her husband, who's policies she supports no doubt, and Obama have done the left much good. Not perfect but good. My main worry is Senator Sanders can not be elected. His positioning as a "socialist democrat" is read by those who will determine this election as COMMUNIST. I applaud much of what Sanders represents, but the disaster that will ensue if he is our nominee truly scares me. I would remind you that much of what you say was said about Al Gore when people supported Ralph Nader. We lost florida.. We got George, a right wing supreme court and the rest is history. Yes I'll vote for Hillary
3
Sorry Paul I know you're a Clinton backer but this is shameless. That Bernie has made inequality, Wall Street influence and corruption the focal point of his campaign is as it should be, but to suggest he doesn't care or have a position or for that matter a long history in the struggle for civil rights is disingenuous at best; on the other hand Hillary has a long history of pandering to and taking money from Wall Street as well as a history of voting for illegal wars and from her rhetoric and pandering to the A.I.P.A.C. crowd there is every reason to believe she would continue her pattern of sending other people's children to die in Wars of Choice in the Middle East while her own well connected offspring and husband are busy raking in mega millions resulting from world wide connections to the job destroying parasites who have destroyed the middle class, Marc's tenure at Goldman Sachs was bad enough but to hook up with take over artist, job destroying, Brazilian Billionaire Jorge Lemann from 3 G Capital is really spitting in the face of Americas working class and to think that a junior banker without Hillary and Bill for inlaws would have the connections to become an associate of one of the top deal makers in the world is denying gravity. Bernie is correct to emphasize Wall Street corruption, the take over of our government and foreign policy by big money and the resulting inequality it has produced. America is being destroyed from within, we need Bernie!
.
.
18
Boy, I hate to see all this vilifying of motives and character. Seems to me, progressives are all about the common good - "we're all in this together." Anything that divides people is bad for us, and for our goals.
Dr. Krugman, Sen. Sanders, and Sec. Clinton all have long records of broadly supporting progressive goals -- goals lightyears away from what the current Republican aims for. They differ on details, on emphasis, on priorities among those goals, on what the best way is to reach those goals, on what accommodations must be made with existing power to move ahead. So do their supporters.
But please, let's not start name-calling and demonizing each other. Please, let's accept that smart people of good faith can disagree, and respectfully argue our positions -- without the ad hominem attacks.
Dr. Krugman, Sen. Sanders, and Sec. Clinton all have long records of broadly supporting progressive goals -- goals lightyears away from what the current Republican aims for. They differ on details, on emphasis, on priorities among those goals, on what the best way is to reach those goals, on what accommodations must be made with existing power to move ahead. So do their supporters.
But please, let's not start name-calling and demonizing each other. Please, let's accept that smart people of good faith can disagree, and respectfully argue our positions -- without the ad hominem attacks.
11
"Gradually making things better"? That might be possible in an alternate universe without Citizens United. The Koch Brothers and their merry band of billionaries have unleashed a tsunami of money, 501c4s and ALEC into the political process. Gradual won't work in this climate. Let's ask the residents of Flint how living in a state "run like a business" has worked out for them. And they are still paying for their water:it's "Kochtopia" made manifest. You can't make nice with these forces, and Bernie Sanders won't .I am not so sure about SOS Clinton's willingness to do the same.
8
The claim that Bernie is only against income inequality while Hillary is also against prejudice is an attempt by Krugman to justify his choice of more-of- the-same over progressive change.
What justifies Krugman's claim that Sanders is less against racism than Clinton? Sanders had already been arrested during the 1960s' civil rights movement when Ms Clinton was still campaigning for Goldwater. And if we look closely at the current positions of the two candidates, there is little doubt that Sanders' views and behavior are more supportive of the rights and interests of minorities than are Clinton's. Sanders supports a $15 minimum wage, while Ms Clinton used to favor a $10 minimum which recently (perhaps after Walmart already reached that) she raised to $12. The difference between $15 and $12 is 20%-25%. Does Krugman think Sanders is aiming too high? Is the question of lifting the living standards of the poor an issue separate from reducing the effects of racism?
What was Ms Clinton's position on the "three strikes and you're out for life" law which her husband helped pass in the 1990s? Has she clearly ever reneged her own support? Further, what is her view on for-profit corporations running the prison system? Hasn't she accepted contributions from such companies? Might Clinton's position here negate her claims of being in favor of restoring the black male's role in the family and community?
Justifying choosing Clinton over Sanders on "progressive" grounds is ridiculous.
What justifies Krugman's claim that Sanders is less against racism than Clinton? Sanders had already been arrested during the 1960s' civil rights movement when Ms Clinton was still campaigning for Goldwater. And if we look closely at the current positions of the two candidates, there is little doubt that Sanders' views and behavior are more supportive of the rights and interests of minorities than are Clinton's. Sanders supports a $15 minimum wage, while Ms Clinton used to favor a $10 minimum which recently (perhaps after Walmart already reached that) she raised to $12. The difference between $15 and $12 is 20%-25%. Does Krugman think Sanders is aiming too high? Is the question of lifting the living standards of the poor an issue separate from reducing the effects of racism?
What was Ms Clinton's position on the "three strikes and you're out for life" law which her husband helped pass in the 1990s? Has she clearly ever reneged her own support? Further, what is her view on for-profit corporations running the prison system? Hasn't she accepted contributions from such companies? Might Clinton's position here negate her claims of being in favor of restoring the black male's role in the family and community?
Justifying choosing Clinton over Sanders on "progressive" grounds is ridiculous.
13
Why did Hillary go to Philly two nights ago to raise money from Franklin Square Capital, a major investor in fracking and fossil fuels? For the money. Where was she supposed to go the next day? To see Cheryl Mills and her colleagues at BlackRock, the largest NYC fund group. Why? For the money. In the middle of a campaign increasingly about income inequality and the soul of the Democratic Party, she runs out for a payday from the 1% of the 1%. How about covering that?
14
Yes, if only Trump were a Democrat.
1
Gee, I'm not an economist, I can't remember… Who was it really let the banks loose, back in 1999 or so? Wasn't it… Bill Clinton and Mr Goldman Sachs, his treasury secretary?
16
Look up Phil Gramm. Shoot from your hip but at least know who you're trying to hit.
1
Dr. K., at least you had the grace to admit to your simplification. Simplifications like stereotypes have a certain heuristic value, especially for an OP-ED columnist, but they are just a simplistic representation of a much more complex reality. Binary views of the world rarely work well for long if they work at all.
1
Too many commentators have blamed Hillary for all of America's ills- inequality & racism plus residual opposition to same sex marriage. Hillary can make progress on inequality; her $12/hour minimum wage with encouragement to cities & states for a higher amounts if they can afford it.
Racism against black & brown people has increased in reaction to Obama Presidency. Restricting voting rights in the South and in some midwest states is designed to keep Republicans in power by spreading 'southern attitudes' to the white male working class Their goal is to win the next 2 elections and control reapportionment after 2020 census.
If elected, Bernie would be more frustrated than Obama as Republican control of Congress continues. Also, many of Bernie's supporters could not bother to vote in the 2010 & 2014 elections that gave us gerrymandered districts for the thru 2020 & a Republican Senate in 2014.
Hillary may bring in a Democratic Senate & a few more House members.
Bernie would a clean sweep for the Republicans, which would be a disaster for our country on every issue he & Hillary champion.
Racism against black & brown people has increased in reaction to Obama Presidency. Restricting voting rights in the South and in some midwest states is designed to keep Republicans in power by spreading 'southern attitudes' to the white male working class Their goal is to win the next 2 elections and control reapportionment after 2020 census.
If elected, Bernie would be more frustrated than Obama as Republican control of Congress continues. Also, many of Bernie's supporters could not bother to vote in the 2010 & 2014 elections that gave us gerrymandered districts for the thru 2020 & a Republican Senate in 2014.
Hillary may bring in a Democratic Senate & a few more House members.
Bernie would a clean sweep for the Republicans, which would be a disaster for our country on every issue he & Hillary champion.
8
This is astoundingly thoughtless. Because prejudice is real Sanders is wrong????
This is what happens when a hack works to spec.
Here Krugman works to dismiss Sanders.
Why bother? Because Sanders has become a threat to Hillary. Why? Because Hillary is a lousy campaigner and has done it again and needs her gang.
So, make a sweeping off the cuff declaration about what is and isn't possible in american politics when the point is simply to protect Hillary. Krugman's conclusion is NOT Sanders specific. This is what happens when a hack works to spec.
Shameful. Anti intellectual. Cochrane must be proud of the company.
And, false consciousness. Krugman has no warrant or training to talk about false consciousness. It is absolutely, positively, irreconcilable with his neoorthodox economics and if he accepted its premises he would have to abandon his economics. It is not an intellectual play toy(well it is, but only for those who buy its premises.) False consciousness is for the one in a million actual american leftist out there. And even for them false consciousness is a false construct.
Personally, have no position on Sanders. I defend not Sanders but intellectual honesty.
This is what happens when a hack works to spec.
Here Krugman works to dismiss Sanders.
Why bother? Because Sanders has become a threat to Hillary. Why? Because Hillary is a lousy campaigner and has done it again and needs her gang.
So, make a sweeping off the cuff declaration about what is and isn't possible in american politics when the point is simply to protect Hillary. Krugman's conclusion is NOT Sanders specific. This is what happens when a hack works to spec.
Shameful. Anti intellectual. Cochrane must be proud of the company.
And, false consciousness. Krugman has no warrant or training to talk about false consciousness. It is absolutely, positively, irreconcilable with his neoorthodox economics and if he accepted its premises he would have to abandon his economics. It is not an intellectual play toy(well it is, but only for those who buy its premises.) False consciousness is for the one in a million actual american leftist out there. And even for them false consciousness is a false construct.
Personally, have no position on Sanders. I defend not Sanders but intellectual honesty.
4
Looking at the differences between Bernie's and Hillary's views through the lens of Maslow's hierarchy of needs in which survival is the base, followed next up by safety and security, followed by social needs, we can see that Bernie focuses on rebuilding at the base with lesser priorities further up the scale. This is the correct approach for today, given the multiple decades of decline of wages relative to productivity. People would be willing to fight harder for social reforms if they felt more financially secure. It's an all-of-the-above scenario for sure, but having a focus that looks like economics-is-everything is the right approach for today. We need a corporate tax system that rewards companies that improve compensation across the wage scale and pressures those that make money and do not distribute enough through the wage scale. Companies should report the quintile performance of their wage scales and have a portion of their taxes based on how that changes year over year. That will help the rising tide lift the small boats.
6
I have disagreed with the professor's last few columns regarding Sanders vs. Clinton, but this one takes it to a new level. It is ludicrous to reduce the differences between the two campaigns to "Bernie is focused on one problem while Clinton is focused on many."
This seems to be an emerging talking point with HRC and her surrogates (the good professor included). Of course, it in no way reflects reality. The truth is that money in politics is the root cause for many of these other problems, or at least the reason the problems aren't addressed. Progressive taxation, financial reform, pollution, climate change, healthcare reform -- the big money is against solving all of these issues, which is why they aren't being addressed.
Campaign finance reform and bank regulation will go a long way in enabling solutions for the other problems, which is why Sanders is focused on them. And for all of the hue and cry about Clinton's approach being more "pragmatic" (i.e. more likely to succeed), Sanders' approach would ironically be the more effective in actually getting things done, by removing the obstacle of a bought-and-paid-for Congress.
Finally, for Krugman to argue that Clinton is the better choice because of issues like racism and equal rights is shameful and beneath him. Sanders has a long track record of being on the right side of these and many other issues, where Clinton was on the wrong side until political expediency forced her to change.
This seems to be an emerging talking point with HRC and her surrogates (the good professor included). Of course, it in no way reflects reality. The truth is that money in politics is the root cause for many of these other problems, or at least the reason the problems aren't addressed. Progressive taxation, financial reform, pollution, climate change, healthcare reform -- the big money is against solving all of these issues, which is why they aren't being addressed.
Campaign finance reform and bank regulation will go a long way in enabling solutions for the other problems, which is why Sanders is focused on them. And for all of the hue and cry about Clinton's approach being more "pragmatic" (i.e. more likely to succeed), Sanders' approach would ironically be the more effective in actually getting things done, by removing the obstacle of a bought-and-paid-for Congress.
Finally, for Krugman to argue that Clinton is the better choice because of issues like racism and equal rights is shameful and beneath him. Sanders has a long track record of being on the right side of these and many other issues, where Clinton was on the wrong side until political expediency forced her to change.
158
And on Bank Regulation Hiliary Clinton has the superior plan. As has been discussed elsewhere in the left leaning econ blog world. Sanders is pushing the Brown Kaufman amendment which would 'break up the big banks'. Which is a nice slogan except it wouldn't really do that much and it would not prevent another crisis since it does virtually nothing to address shadow banking.
3
Yes! Before you govern, you have to win elections! Am I the last Kennedy Democrat?
9
Well, as they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words." Google "Clinton at Trump golf course," and you will have the perfect image of the Clintons, in a 12/29/2015 issue of the NYT. Bill is beaming with great pleasure to be in the company of The Donald and Michael Bloomberg. The social-climbing Clintons aspire to be among the 1%, as does PK, with his Park Avenue digs and second home in St. Croix. Crimes against the lower 99% are to be swept under the rug, as Elizabeth Warren points out in today's op-ed. So are W's war criminality; Chris Wallace was booed at last night GOP debate asking Jeb what lessons he took away from his brother's criminal Iraq invasion. The short answer is that Jeb learned absolutely nothing, and his brother escaped hanging, just as Jamie Dimon has received a 35% raise. Feel the Bern!
I'm done with PK. He clearly aspires to be in the 1%. He wouldn't be in that country club group. Instead, he'd be back in the club house, offering Nobel-Prize-winning advice on country club economic governance.
It's time the title of his blog, "Conscience of a Conservative," was re-tooled. Put quotes around the word "Conscience," and use any of the following three times;
"Conscience" of an Ambitious "Liberal";
"Conscience" of a Clintonista"; or
"Conscience" of a Corporatist Democrat."
I'm done with PK. He clearly aspires to be in the 1%. He wouldn't be in that country club group. Instead, he'd be back in the club house, offering Nobel-Prize-winning advice on country club economic governance.
It's time the title of his blog, "Conscience of a Conservative," was re-tooled. Put quotes around the word "Conscience," and use any of the following three times;
"Conscience" of an Ambitious "Liberal";
"Conscience" of a Clintonista"; or
"Conscience" of a Corporatist Democrat."
7
Krugman's analysis here is accurate but, as is the norm in the opinion-column format, it leaves out alternative possibilities.
For example, the very wealthy might be simultaneously encouraging old-fashioned prejudicial attitudes, on the one hand, AND doctrinaire social "liberalism" on the other in order to divide the lower classes and distract from their own nonstop economic predation.
The fact that so many people devote time to the so-called "culture wars" when they are patently nonsensical and unwinnable, suggests that this might be just the yawning time-and-attention sink that the "powers that be" need to keep their subjects occupied.
For example, the very wealthy might be simultaneously encouraging old-fashioned prejudicial attitudes, on the one hand, AND doctrinaire social "liberalism" on the other in order to divide the lower classes and distract from their own nonstop economic predation.
The fact that so many people devote time to the so-called "culture wars" when they are patently nonsensical and unwinnable, suggests that this might be just the yawning time-and-attention sink that the "powers that be" need to keep their subjects occupied.
1
Every time you think that our political discourse can’t get any worse, it does
excellent way to begin this column today hehehe
excellent way to begin this column today hehehe
2
I find it very ironic that Bill Clinton captured the Presidency by single=mindedly hewing to one issue, drummed into his campaign foot-soldiers via the mantra, "It's the economy, stupid."
In the wake of Citizen United and Super PACs and banking bubbles burst and re=inflated, that statement is truer now than it was then. Pick your own ruinous, jaw-dropping statistic on economic inequality occurring in this country and around the world.
And yet now the Pulitzer Prize-winning economist, with "the conscience of a liberal," is telling us that Bernie Sanders is naive and that the wife of former President Clinton, whose most notable achievements in her own long and storied political career have come from bolstering the "military-industrial complex" Ike warned us about so many decades ago, is the better politician for the moment.
Wall Street and the Pentagon couldn't agree with Dr. Krugman more.
But his readers--or at least this reader--who applauded his prize and felt we were sustaining each other's conscience, we are appalled.
In the wake of Citizen United and Super PACs and banking bubbles burst and re=inflated, that statement is truer now than it was then. Pick your own ruinous, jaw-dropping statistic on economic inequality occurring in this country and around the world.
And yet now the Pulitzer Prize-winning economist, with "the conscience of a liberal," is telling us that Bernie Sanders is naive and that the wife of former President Clinton, whose most notable achievements in her own long and storied political career have come from bolstering the "military-industrial complex" Ike warned us about so many decades ago, is the better politician for the moment.
Wall Street and the Pentagon couldn't agree with Dr. Krugman more.
But his readers--or at least this reader--who applauded his prize and felt we were sustaining each other's conscience, we are appalled.
10
Any issue not centered on money is a complete distraction in this election. Don't be fooled with hot air about gender, race, etc. We will all stop fighting about these other things when we have more of the money our productivity earns.
8
I think Mr. Krugman misstates the nature of the disagreement between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders. Mr. Sanders' view is NOT that money is the root of all evil. Mr. Krugman continues to create straw men so as to make Ms. Clinton look more 'realistic' than Mr. Sanders. A desperate ploy by a 'liberal' who, obviously, believes that the stranglehold of Corporate power is so complete that real change in America is no longer possible. That is a counsel of despair wrapped in a fig leaf of 'pragmatism'
Mr. Sanders position is not that money is the root of all evil (Mr. Krugman's caricature) but that the misuse of POWER by an OLIGARCHY that uses money to prevent the just and equitable use of resources is the cause of our current political and economic crises. Mr. Sanders does not attribute any powerful independent 'magic' to money as Mr. Krugman suggests.
Mr. Sanders also points out something that Mr. Krugman does not credit him for--the misuse of POWER by American OLIGARCHS leads to the waste and inefficient application of resources, including human resources. This is the real enduring damage done by Corporate hegemony over the American political landscape and economy. M
Mr. Sanders correctly points out that Americans have faced the threat of Corporate Fascism before and successfully checked it in the Progressive era and the New Deal. His OPTIMISM says we can do that NOW! I prefer that to Mr. Krugman's despairing 'pragmatism'.
Mr. Sanders position is not that money is the root of all evil (Mr. Krugman's caricature) but that the misuse of POWER by an OLIGARCHY that uses money to prevent the just and equitable use of resources is the cause of our current political and economic crises. Mr. Sanders does not attribute any powerful independent 'magic' to money as Mr. Krugman suggests.
Mr. Sanders also points out something that Mr. Krugman does not credit him for--the misuse of POWER by American OLIGARCHS leads to the waste and inefficient application of resources, including human resources. This is the real enduring damage done by Corporate hegemony over the American political landscape and economy. M
Mr. Sanders correctly points out that Americans have faced the threat of Corporate Fascism before and successfully checked it in the Progressive era and the New Deal. His OPTIMISM says we can do that NOW! I prefer that to Mr. Krugman's despairing 'pragmatism'.
141
"On the other hand, if the divisions in American politics aren’t just about money, if they reflect deep-seated prejudices that progressives simply can’t appease, such visions of radical change are naïve. And I believe that they are."
This Sanders voter went door-to-door for McGovern and stood on a subzero sidewalk to listen to Hubert Humphrey's funeral service over a loudspeaker hung from a tree, because there wasn't room in the church for the thousands who gathered. I wrote Bernie's name on the 2012 ballot.
I'm not "naive." I'm HOPING for a structure-shattering outcome from this election. I'm THROUGH with the modern Democratic party and its slimy dealings with big money behind the wizard's curtain. The Clintons' involvement with Russian money in exchange for access to American uranium assets is beyond reprehensible. I WANT a progressive third party to emerge from the Senator's far from quixotic, and extremely well-organized, campaign.
This Sanders voter went door-to-door for McGovern and stood on a subzero sidewalk to listen to Hubert Humphrey's funeral service over a loudspeaker hung from a tree, because there wasn't room in the church for the thousands who gathered. I wrote Bernie's name on the 2012 ballot.
I'm not "naive." I'm HOPING for a structure-shattering outcome from this election. I'm THROUGH with the modern Democratic party and its slimy dealings with big money behind the wizard's curtain. The Clintons' involvement with Russian money in exchange for access to American uranium assets is beyond reprehensible. I WANT a progressive third party to emerge from the Senator's far from quixotic, and extremely well-organized, campaign.
5
If you are hoping for a Progressive win....then I would argue you are naïve. But it will take an election to perhaps convince you. All the evidence is there--you just won't look at it.
Americans still oppose Obamacare--always have.
Americans are still a center right nation, probably won't change.
The House and senate are firmly in control of Republicans--in reaction to Obama's far-left agenda. All of "your people" have been summarily broomed.
The majority of state legislatures and governorships are firmly under republican control--and this has been increasing in recent elections.
Keep your fingers crossed for a Progressive title wave, but thinking it could happen is more than naïve.
Americans still oppose Obamacare--always have.
Americans are still a center right nation, probably won't change.
The House and senate are firmly in control of Republicans--in reaction to Obama's far-left agenda. All of "your people" have been summarily broomed.
The majority of state legislatures and governorships are firmly under republican control--and this has been increasing in recent elections.
Keep your fingers crossed for a Progressive title wave, but thinking it could happen is more than naïve.
The large swathe of people who feel like they are getting screwed by the system in both an economic (wage stagnation, higher hours if lucky and unemployment if not) and cultural (abortion, immigration, others winning) sense have been playthings of the right for a generation or two. Their plight is genuine from a participation in progress perspective. The people they have aligned themselves to (Republicans) have pursued an agenda that cuts taxes on the wealthy and public investment and makes it much harder for them to succeed. Unfortunately they (mostly) cant see that and convincing someone of deeply held beliefs to cross the aisle and throw their lot in with people who are their cultural antithesis in the hope of economic gain is futile. Sanders is the dream that cant happen as Obama learned. His bet is there are enough young naïve 'hope' voters left who can push him over the line. Fighting for progress against a determined opposition is the reality, and it is a noble cause. We'd all benefit if more voters understood this rather than live in dreams.
I'm confused by Mr. Krugman's stance toward Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton... and his oversimplification of their positions is especially muddled.
There is a link to a nine minute video of Bernie Sanders' speeches from the mid 1980s onward at the end of this comment... speeches where he talks about the emerging oligarchy and the devastating impact of poverty on our nation. There are countless videos of him speaking out against racism, sexism, and prejudice. Indeed, a few years before Ms. Clinton was a Young Republican in college Mr. Sanders was leading sit-ins for fair housing at the University of Chicago. Oversimplifying Mr. Sanders' view as "...the corrupting influence of big money, of the 1 percent and the corporate elite, is the overarching source of the political ugliness we see all around us." is overlooking his life's work-- which is standing up for the average citizen against the oligarchs who he saw emerging during the Reagan years. After 30 years of oratory he is finally being heard.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=bernie%20sanders%20speeches
There is a link to a nine minute video of Bernie Sanders' speeches from the mid 1980s onward at the end of this comment... speeches where he talks about the emerging oligarchy and the devastating impact of poverty on our nation. There are countless videos of him speaking out against racism, sexism, and prejudice. Indeed, a few years before Ms. Clinton was a Young Republican in college Mr. Sanders was leading sit-ins for fair housing at the University of Chicago. Oversimplifying Mr. Sanders' view as "...the corrupting influence of big money, of the 1 percent and the corporate elite, is the overarching source of the political ugliness we see all around us." is overlooking his life's work-- which is standing up for the average citizen against the oligarchs who he saw emerging during the Reagan years. After 30 years of oratory he is finally being heard.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=bernie%20sanders%20speeches
10
On the one hand we can't have radical change but we should fight the good fight?
Sorry Paul but I am all in.
We voted for change with Obama.
Lets finish or at least continue the job.
Sorry Paul but I am all in.
We voted for change with Obama.
Lets finish or at least continue the job.
3
Krugman, who I generally appreciate, has committed a classic error here in his analysis. It's called the Cohort Fallacy. He thinks that Millennials, raised in a very different cultural setting with starkly different attitudes than their seniors, are no different from the Boomers to which he belongs. His argument holds true for Boomers. But Boomers are soon to take supporting roles in US politics as Millennials take center-stage.
3
What has happened to the NYTimes re poltics??? Everything we read, news, analysis, opinion (across the entire political spectrum) either blatantly or somewhat masked says Bernie won't be as good for America as Hillary
But national polls all show that Bernie does far better than Hillary agains all the republicans in the clown car.
Tell me has Rupert Murdoch secretly bought the NYtimes? Or maybe Adelson?
You all seem to have lost your objectivity or maybe you just parked it on the way to the bank
.
To say I find all this disappointing is gross understatement, kind of like your coverage of Bernie Sanders.
But national polls all show that Bernie does far better than Hillary agains all the republicans in the clown car.
Tell me has Rupert Murdoch secretly bought the NYtimes? Or maybe Adelson?
You all seem to have lost your objectivity or maybe you just parked it on the way to the bank
.
To say I find all this disappointing is gross understatement, kind of like your coverage of Bernie Sanders.
14
Your argument hinges on whether Sec. Clinton will actually "fight the good fight" or pretend to "fight the good fight." Reasonable people have doubts on this one.
6
Professor, fighting "the good fight" is one thing. Wanting to fight EVERY fight is what troubles me about the rabid interventionists. It also troubles me that hawkish Hillary could have severely understated her own interventionist tendencies during the recent town hall. Another military misadventure in the Middle East would not be gradual improvement, but more of the same.
4
If I understand your argument Dr. Krugman, you are saying that Sanders focus on money as the key element in our national dysfunction is too narrow, that there are additional forces at work that need to be addressed as well.
That may well be true, but I think your argument that the progressive agenda Sanders is calling for needs to be put on the back burner while those issues are dealt with is mistaken. The Plutocrats have made government the enemy, and as long as that holds, government is not going to be a player in efforts to address those issues.
No one expects the Republican Party to address them - because it's using them to energize its base. As long as the plutocrats want the economic policies the Republicans will give them, they'll ignore the rest of the package. And there's more than a little evidence that some of those plutocrats are just as prejudiced and extreme as the worst bigots out there. But it doesn't really matter as long as they continue to fund politicians who do cultivate the dark side.
You are right about one thing - it's going to be a long, hard slog. And as long as we do not aggressively attack inequality, the other problems you allude to will only get worse. It's not a coincidence that they seem to be rising in parallel with the economic stress too many of us are under.
Follow the money.
That may well be true, but I think your argument that the progressive agenda Sanders is calling for needs to be put on the back burner while those issues are dealt with is mistaken. The Plutocrats have made government the enemy, and as long as that holds, government is not going to be a player in efforts to address those issues.
No one expects the Republican Party to address them - because it's using them to energize its base. As long as the plutocrats want the economic policies the Republicans will give them, they'll ignore the rest of the package. And there's more than a little evidence that some of those plutocrats are just as prejudiced and extreme as the worst bigots out there. But it doesn't really matter as long as they continue to fund politicians who do cultivate the dark side.
You are right about one thing - it's going to be a long, hard slog. And as long as we do not aggressively attack inequality, the other problems you allude to will only get worse. It's not a coincidence that they seem to be rising in parallel with the economic stress too many of us are under.
Follow the money.
3
Dr K is right when he argues that money and prejudice are real problems. He's also right when he acknowledges that both Bernie and Hillary want to fight both.
Except that prejudice is much harder to defeat because it is deeply ingrained, it has the status of values to those who are affected. Takes time. Takes Politicians with the will to change things and chalenge long held views that feed prejudice. And big money likes things as they are and are paying politicians to make sure they don't rock the boat too much.
That's why Senator Sanders is right. If you don't tackle big money right off the bat, you won't be able to accomplish anything significant against prejudice.
Except that prejudice is much harder to defeat because it is deeply ingrained, it has the status of values to those who are affected. Takes time. Takes Politicians with the will to change things and chalenge long held views that feed prejudice. And big money likes things as they are and are paying politicians to make sure they don't rock the boat too much.
That's why Senator Sanders is right. If you don't tackle big money right off the bat, you won't be able to accomplish anything significant against prejudice.
5
Professor Krugman, I usually find your messages inspiring and hopeful, but you now sound like a political operative.
I hope you are charged a fee by NYT for stumping for Hillary.
I hope you are charged a fee by NYT for stumping for Hillary.
8
GDP numbers are just out. 4th Quarter GDP is seven tenths of one percent (.7). This is what it means for GDP to diverge from the monetary aggregates. Trillions of dollars have been shaved from GDP since 2010 by Quantitative easing for the simple reason that the bankers decided to enrich themselves rather than to engage in depository lending. This is why small business formation has not led this so called recovery for the first time in history, and an entire generation has been shut out of the housing market. This number reflects what is meant by the rich riding the wave of QE to substantially vaster riches. Why Americans are willing to tolerate this result I have no idea. Naturally nothing of this will be mentioned in any of the debates sponsored by the RNC or the DNC...not even by Bernie.
2
“the Sanders view is that money is the root of all evil.”
In a country where the more money you have the more freedom of speech you have then this is correct.
In a country where the more money you have the more freedom of speech you have then this is correct.
5
Working class voters vote for people promising to preserve their jobs, that are being destroyed by immigration, both legal and illegal and trade agreements giving low wage countries unlimited access to the US such as NAFTA and TPP.
They know that Trump is a narcissist and they don't believe he will build a border wall but the do believe he will reduce illegal immigration and not sign agreements such as the TPP.
They know that Trump is a narcissist and they don't believe he will build a border wall but the do believe he will reduce illegal immigration and not sign agreements such as the TPP.
2
This article seems based on doubtful assumptions. I find it hard to see how the claim that Clinton is more concerned about racism and sexism than Sanders is either a warranted claim about what both believe or a plausible reconstruction of what they might believe on the basis of their past actions. And I find it hard to see how that characterizes the political movements that have rallied around both candidates: Sanders represents the younger and more activist wing of the party, which includes a lot of people who care about a lot of things other than income inequality.
6
Oh the irony, a 74 year old man "representing" the young.
1
False consciousness is term needing definition. Organized political movements in this country have been built around backlash reactions for the reasons you cite, but there is money behind the organizing and there are strategic reasons for choosing tactical issues. Prejudices, in other words, are harnessed tactically to achieve strategic political ends. Think of the use of gay marriage as an organizing tactic by Rove/Bush. It was a successful tactic at the time with long-term political consequences that have little or no relation to the progress made since that time on that issue. The right works strategically, while the left makes progress issue by issue, "gradually," as you say, increasing awareness and addressing injustice.
Few would argue with you about the importance of making incremental progress. What many of us experience however, even if just as a general feeling, is that the game is being played at a higher level by the opposition. We see Clinton as a soldier who has been in the field a long time and knows the drill. But she is tied to institutions and protocols that are hidden from view and that are clearly corruptible. Sanders appears to have the qualities of a strategic thinker—a general. It may be far from true, but his message gives structure to the very real economic anxieties felt by working class people whose paths to economic security seem to be closing off with each subsequent election cycle.
Few would argue with you about the importance of making incremental progress. What many of us experience however, even if just as a general feeling, is that the game is being played at a higher level by the opposition. We see Clinton as a soldier who has been in the field a long time and knows the drill. But she is tied to institutions and protocols that are hidden from view and that are clearly corruptible. Sanders appears to have the qualities of a strategic thinker—a general. It may be far from true, but his message gives structure to the very real economic anxieties felt by working class people whose paths to economic security seem to be closing off with each subsequent election cycle.
4
Broadly based economic growth and prosperity are the best antidotes to prejudice, and both Democratic candidates offer policies that would strive for that (in contrast with Republican fiscal policies). Sure, I would like to see a broader campaign from Mr. Sanders, and I'd like a balance between his tough calls for accountability and redistributive tax policies, and some acknowledgement (a call to conscience and solidarity) of the important part that entrepreneurship places in our economy. At the same time, Dr. Krugman, even an incrementalist progressive policy succeeds only if you know where you're going. I don't see any rousing call to such ideals from the Clintons, and I am less impressed than others with the first Clinton years or with Secretary Clinton's subsequent career. Suspicion of the Clintons is not based only on decades of smears as you would have us believe. The one quotation I best remember from Mr. Clinton's term was "The era of big government is over." I don't want "big" government for its own sake, but that declaration from the bully pulpit proclaimed forever the president's expediency and the willingness of new Democrats to turn their back on the reforms, from the New Deal to the Great Society, that transformed America and delivered prosperity and security. In my view, that rightward lurch --- to which the Clintons have been critical --- has itself pushed the Republicans and the country dangerously to the right.
4
The columnist will get much flack from the extreme left for simply telling the truth.
I still support Sanders; however, I am a realist.
Those who doubt me should read (or re-read) Robert Frost's classic poem "Fire and Ice".
Please do not underestimate the amount of hatred out there in America.
I still support Sanders; however, I am a realist.
Those who doubt me should read (or re-read) Robert Frost's classic poem "Fire and Ice".
Please do not underestimate the amount of hatred out there in America.
7
As you said, Mr. Krugman, it is both economic and social/cultural. So where should a balanced attack focus? One way of looking at this is to ask where the prejudices come from, especially the prejudices that matter. This is a hard question that you avoid -- but that makes sense, you are an economist not a social/cultural historian. The rise of, especially Southern, attitudes about race and class and religion have to go back to pre-Civil War. The whole process of dismantling its economic system, of its place in an industrializing world, and its losing a civil war are not just "ancient history." They have influenced every stage of their social/cultural world. Economic change will be as important a factor as any direct attempt to manipulate its social/cultural nature, if not a more important one. Families able to feel good about their children, their sick, and their elderly will be more vulnerable to relaxing and changing their views on "the other". Bernie may not be electable (I don;t know how to measure that), but he may be right about how to get things on the right track. You see the difficulty in the economic change, and that is your prerogative. Maybe you should stick to that a bit more. We appreciate your enlightening explanations about the economy.
2
Capitalism is systematically destroying democracy. This destruction has permeated every facet of the lives of Americans. Call it austerity, oligarchy, it does not matter what name we call it. It is here, and it will not be going away any time soon.
4
Unlike most commenters here, I agree with Mr. Krugman that the Sanders candidacy is almost pure symbolism. The type of efficiency and power that Sanders invests in the federal government would indeed be revolutionary--and it's also somewhat frightening. Humans, prone to perfecting ideas, spelling out all their logical implications, are historically best advised to keep their feet on the ground. Sanders is quite good when he keeps his feet on the ground, but too often he and his fellow idealists are walking on air (note: there's a big difference between being an idealist and having ideals).
2
Obama has really been great considering all of the obstacles in his way. Hillary has so much varied experience and knows so many leaders of foreign countries she will be great. Listen to the republicans and what they project as important today and think if you know anybody who really cares about their issues: immigration, planned parenthood, a woman's right to choose, building up our military and continuing to invade middle-eastern countries (we have our own oil now folks), and of course cutting taxes for the rich and cutting benefits for the poor. I have not been able to decipher anything other than those issues that seem important to any of the republican candidates - except of course the big one: repeal (not replace) everything Obama has managed to push through to help the American people.
6
Hillary has been very consistent. She leans in the direction of the political winds. She supported the invasion of Iraq before it was an obvious failure. Bernie, on the other hand, opposed the Iraqi debacle on principle, unpopular at the time. This the most obvious expression of their differences, but I'd bet all of their past differences can be explained by the flow of political tides. Hillary goes with the flow, not with any truly principled position.
Principles matter to those of us who are increasingly dismayed by the resistance to change that the Right offers. Do we want change, or would ti be okay to just dilly dally around some more?
We want change, and we want it NOW! Principles can not be bought. I refuse to sell the future to anyone, least of all the oligarchs, with out a fight.
Principles matter to those of us who are increasingly dismayed by the resistance to change that the Right offers. Do we want change, or would ti be okay to just dilly dally around some more?
We want change, and we want it NOW! Principles can not be bought. I refuse to sell the future to anyone, least of all the oligarchs, with out a fight.
6
Your strained argument that Hillary Clinton is able to comprehend a multitude of societal ills while Bernie Sanders can see only one calls to mind Saul Bellow’s observation: “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”
Economists aren't historians, but do you really believe that Sanders, who as a student at the University of Chicago was active in both SNCC and CORE, was arrested when protesting segregation in Chicago’s schools, and who took part in the March on Washington, is blind to the problem of race in the US? While Bill Clinton was eliminating “welfare as we know it,” Sanders was calling it out for the crass political move that it was, writing that welfare reform, "which combines an assault on the poor, women and children, minorities, and immigrants is the grand slam of scapegoating legislation”
While Clinton performed one of the more chilling and calculated moves in the history of American politics, leaving the campaign trail during the 1992 primaries to fly back to Arkansas so he could be televised personally overseeing the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally handicapped African American man with an IQ of 70, Sanders has always opposed the death penalty. And, while Clinton's crime bill instituted 3-strike life sentences and longer terms, Sanders opposed mass incarceration.
One candidate knows that money is at the root of what ails American politics. The other rakes in millions from her pals on Wall Street.
Economists aren't historians, but do you really believe that Sanders, who as a student at the University of Chicago was active in both SNCC and CORE, was arrested when protesting segregation in Chicago’s schools, and who took part in the March on Washington, is blind to the problem of race in the US? While Bill Clinton was eliminating “welfare as we know it,” Sanders was calling it out for the crass political move that it was, writing that welfare reform, "which combines an assault on the poor, women and children, minorities, and immigrants is the grand slam of scapegoating legislation”
While Clinton performed one of the more chilling and calculated moves in the history of American politics, leaving the campaign trail during the 1992 primaries to fly back to Arkansas so he could be televised personally overseeing the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally handicapped African American man with an IQ of 70, Sanders has always opposed the death penalty. And, while Clinton's crime bill instituted 3-strike life sentences and longer terms, Sanders opposed mass incarceration.
One candidate knows that money is at the root of what ails American politics. The other rakes in millions from her pals on Wall Street.
12
"And isn’t there something noble, even inspiring, about fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better?"
Only if you believe that print-the-money and throw it out the window schemes by government are the answer to all of our problems.
Only if you believe that print-the-money and throw it out the window schemes by government are the answer to all of our problems.
2
Pretty weak argument, Paul. It's weak because it's based on an obvious straw man. You have to pretend Sanders doesn't know that there's real racism out there. You have to pretend Sanders thinks inequality the only real problem in the world. And that's obviously not true.
And what's with your sudden desire for incremental change? I bet if you couldn't afford healthcare, you wouldn't want incremental change.
The reason people like Sanders more than Hillary is that Hillary just wants to be president because that's on her bucket list. She wants it for herself.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, wants it because he sees massive injustice in America, and he wants to put an end to it. He sees how America could be such a better country, and he wants to make that happen.
People can feel this difference, because you can't fake it.
That's why Bernie Sanders will win in 2016!!
And what's with your sudden desire for incremental change? I bet if you couldn't afford healthcare, you wouldn't want incremental change.
The reason people like Sanders more than Hillary is that Hillary just wants to be president because that's on her bucket list. She wants it for herself.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, wants it because he sees massive injustice in America, and he wants to put an end to it. He sees how America could be such a better country, and he wants to make that happen.
People can feel this difference, because you can't fake it.
That's why Bernie Sanders will win in 2016!!
11
Krugmans' premise that wealth equals hard right is absolutely false. The wealthy of today are mostly liberal, otherwise Clinton would not have spent yesterday in Philly and NY raising money from investment bankers.
Go down the list of the wealthiest Americans, liberal, liberal, liberal....you have to go way down the pay scale to find the hard right.
But alas, this is the typical rant of a true liberal, stereotype everyone. All people fits into a certain role, and we are going to tell you what to think, there is no room for independent thought. And by the way, you just might be a racist.
On the other hand conservatives don't care who you are, or where you came from, as long as you got here the right way. The others, they just disagree with. There is no point in demonizing them because they are just people too.
Go down the list of the wealthiest Americans, liberal, liberal, liberal....you have to go way down the pay scale to find the hard right.
But alas, this is the typical rant of a true liberal, stereotype everyone. All people fits into a certain role, and we are going to tell you what to think, there is no room for independent thought. And by the way, you just might be a racist.
On the other hand conservatives don't care who you are, or where you came from, as long as you got here the right way. The others, they just disagree with. There is no point in demonizing them because they are just people too.
2
The competition between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is not only “an argument between competing theories of change,” where “Sanders view is that money is the root of all evil,” while the Clinton view is that money is “the root of some evil,” the competition is between competing applications to these “theories of change.”
Senator Sanders condemns the role big money plays in corrupting the political process, and refuses to accept such money. Mrs. Clinton denounces the excesses of big money on the political process, while at the same time she continues to accept and stash such money from various powerful financial institutions.
The competition between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders therefore may be one between two competing characters.
As Professor Krugman writes, both Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton strive to reduce economic inequality, and both oppose “racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice.
Yet the political differences between these two candidates may affect the capacity of attaining these desired objectives.
Senator Sanders promotes free education, promotes a new Internal Revenue Code that would increase revenue for vital domestic needs, and promotes a foreign policy that averts involvement in costly foreign wars.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, has a less ambitious domestic program and a more hawkish foreign policy.
Senator Sanders may therefore be more poised to attain these reforms and reduce economic inequality.
Senator Sanders condemns the role big money plays in corrupting the political process, and refuses to accept such money. Mrs. Clinton denounces the excesses of big money on the political process, while at the same time she continues to accept and stash such money from various powerful financial institutions.
The competition between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders therefore may be one between two competing characters.
As Professor Krugman writes, both Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton strive to reduce economic inequality, and both oppose “racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice.
Yet the political differences between these two candidates may affect the capacity of attaining these desired objectives.
Senator Sanders promotes free education, promotes a new Internal Revenue Code that would increase revenue for vital domestic needs, and promotes a foreign policy that averts involvement in costly foreign wars.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, has a less ambitious domestic program and a more hawkish foreign policy.
Senator Sanders may therefore be more poised to attain these reforms and reduce economic inequality.
100
C'mon Paul, you are not oversimplifying. You are outright distorting. Please search and rediscover your better nature. I miss it.
12
Big money, Paul Krugman, means a lot of power. The disenfranchised knows this. So does Bernie Sanders. Hiliary Clinton is the status quo. Bernie Sanders represents real change to Americans. Guess what the voters want!
103
None of the real change most of us want will come through Bernie Sanders. Democrats have almost no hope of retaking congress. So essentially all the infighting among us boils down to who is more likely to have their policies rejected by a republican congress.
3
Many of the readers leaving comments here seem to be ignoring some obvious realities.
1) Both Clinton and Sanders are exaggerating their policy differences in order to differentiate themselves from one another. Once in office, those differences would all but disappear.
2) Both candidates would face fierce headwinds in getting even a small portion of their agendas passed into law.
3) Neither candidate seems to be familiar with macroeconomics as informed by Modern Money Theory, and their economic pronouncements or policies should not be deemed fully informed. http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-...
4) Neither candidate would nominate someone to the supreme court who subscribed to the judicial philosophy of a Justice Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts.
The differences between the two, in other words, is fairly trivial compared to the differences between them and their Republican counterparts.
1) Both Clinton and Sanders are exaggerating their policy differences in order to differentiate themselves from one another. Once in office, those differences would all but disappear.
2) Both candidates would face fierce headwinds in getting even a small portion of their agendas passed into law.
3) Neither candidate seems to be familiar with macroeconomics as informed by Modern Money Theory, and their economic pronouncements or policies should not be deemed fully informed. http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-...
4) Neither candidate would nominate someone to the supreme court who subscribed to the judicial philosophy of a Justice Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts.
The differences between the two, in other words, is fairly trivial compared to the differences between them and their Republican counterparts.
4
I like both leading candidates for the Democratic nomination. But a little history. When Hillary was a fervent Goldwater supporter (and in high school), Bernie was actually marching with Dr. King.
I don't think Prof. K. needs to lecture Bernie Sanders on the pervasive evil of racism.
I don't think Prof. K. needs to lecture Bernie Sanders on the pervasive evil of racism.
9
NO, Dr. Krugman, you can't mean this! Reconsider please.
The sinister Dark Tower of Republican deeply held belief in hatred and compassionate hypocrisy can't go dark or deep enough to make George W. Bush look like "a beacon of tolerance and statesmanship", ever, not even after hell freezes over him, Cheney and the rest in their gated communities and think tanks.
What Bush and his supporters wrought in corrupting the US intelligence community and congress, leading 5,000 service men and women to their deaths and countless thousands to life long disability and misery, along with millions of civilians in Iraq, is a crime to far to forgive. Not here on earth.
It was too obscene and calculated for strictly Machiavellian purpose, purely to sanctify a weak appointed president and advance a selfish oligarchic agenda to the exclusion of the vast majority of Americans.
All the machinations of every Republican candidate today combined can't yet overcome the debacle of a Bush presidency.
In time, maybe you could be right.
The sinister Dark Tower of Republican deeply held belief in hatred and compassionate hypocrisy can't go dark or deep enough to make George W. Bush look like "a beacon of tolerance and statesmanship", ever, not even after hell freezes over him, Cheney and the rest in their gated communities and think tanks.
What Bush and his supporters wrought in corrupting the US intelligence community and congress, leading 5,000 service men and women to their deaths and countless thousands to life long disability and misery, along with millions of civilians in Iraq, is a crime to far to forgive. Not here on earth.
It was too obscene and calculated for strictly Machiavellian purpose, purely to sanctify a weak appointed president and advance a selfish oligarchic agenda to the exclusion of the vast majority of Americans.
All the machinations of every Republican candidate today combined can't yet overcome the debacle of a Bush presidency.
In time, maybe you could be right.
1
this column is beyond intellectually lazy.
if Prof. Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner, posits the question, "But where is all the nastiness coming from?" as the last sentence of the first paragraph (a/k/a, a hypothesis), a NYT reader should expect the question to be answered. Instead, Prof. Krugman pats his back ("in elementary school"), plugs a book and makes facetious comments re: appeasement & naietivity. without explaining the tacit "whys" & "wherefores" of his beliefs.
and if "real prejudice" is a reason NOT to support a Sanders campaign for the White House ("a political revolution from the left is off the table"), then how is a campaign of incrementally fighting "the good fight" (a/k/a Hillary C.) the the way to go?
This column smells like nothing so much as yet another audition by Prof. Krugman for a position in Hillary Clinton Cabinet.
if Prof. Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner, posits the question, "But where is all the nastiness coming from?" as the last sentence of the first paragraph (a/k/a, a hypothesis), a NYT reader should expect the question to be answered. Instead, Prof. Krugman pats his back ("in elementary school"), plugs a book and makes facetious comments re: appeasement & naietivity. without explaining the tacit "whys" & "wherefores" of his beliefs.
and if "real prejudice" is a reason NOT to support a Sanders campaign for the White House ("a political revolution from the left is off the table"), then how is a campaign of incrementally fighting "the good fight" (a/k/a Hillary C.) the the way to go?
This column smells like nothing so much as yet another audition by Prof. Krugman for a position in Hillary Clinton Cabinet.
11
Sorry, there is no Nobel prize in economics. There's a prize issued by Swedish banks in memory of Alfred Nobel.
And no, despite his protestations to the contrary, Krugman is not a Keynesian. He touts as Keynesian, Hicks' IS/LM model, but Hicks himself eventually repudiated even his own claim that it was.
Nope, Krugman is not who he claims to be.
And no, despite his protestations to the contrary, Krugman is not a Keynesian. He touts as Keynesian, Hicks' IS/LM model, but Hicks himself eventually repudiated even his own claim that it was.
Nope, Krugman is not who he claims to be.
2
Well you know, never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by the telepathic martian conspiracy.
Either Krugman's brain is being remote controlled, or it could be that he's a stubborn, thick-skinned fellow with a high-regard for his own intelligence, and has difficulty facing the possibility that he's become one of those Very Serious Persons who never seem to learn from their mistakes.
Either Krugman's brain is being remote controlled, or it could be that he's a stubborn, thick-skinned fellow with a high-regard for his own intelligence, and has difficulty facing the possibility that he's become one of those Very Serious Persons who never seem to learn from their mistakes.
1
If Sanders is elected, I think we all understand his agenda will have to pass through the meat grinder of Congress. We are not blind to the difficulties Obama has faced over the past 7 years with the party of "No." Change, even under a Sanders administration, is likely to be maddeningly slow and gradual. But I trust Bernie to stay focused year after year on reform and to increase the pace where possible; perhaps even along the way, inspire the young to take up the mantle and engage in civic life. He has a record to stand on.
I don't trust HRC to hold steady when the winds shift against her or if Wall Street comes calling, and I certainly don't trust the GOP. They also have records --- or should.
I don't trust HRC to hold steady when the winds shift against her or if Wall Street comes calling, and I certainly don't trust the GOP. They also have records --- or should.
5
Hillary Clinton does indeed stand for many things, much more than Bernie Sanders. However, some would argue that less is more. Hillary Clinton has campaigned for war in Iraq and against it. She has campaigned for marriage equality and against it. Hillary Clinton has campaigned for single payer health care and against. She has campaigned for financial regulation and against it.
Which Hillary Clinton will govern the United States should she win the presidency?
Which Hillary Clinton will govern the United States should she win the presidency?
9
Dr. Krugman, with the greatest of respect, you should stick to economics.
This is so oversimplified and incorrect. You assume that because Sanders focuses on the economic argument that he isn't as passionate about the "whole story." That's demonstrably wrong.
Do you really think that Hillary Clinton is the agent to bring about fairness in the economic system? She IS part of the economic system.
This is so oversimplified and incorrect. You assume that because Sanders focuses on the economic argument that he isn't as passionate about the "whole story." That's demonstrably wrong.
Do you really think that Hillary Clinton is the agent to bring about fairness in the economic system? She IS part of the economic system.
9
The implication here is that Hillary Clinton is better suited than Bernie Sanders to handle the "long slog" of progressive change. And that may be, in fact, the case: One of the bets on Sanders for a Democratic voter is that the presumed popular demand for revolution accompanying his election will materialize. There is, of course, no guarantee that it will, and indeed, it's worth wondering what would happen if Sanders couldn't deliver on his message. (See the backlash sparked by Obama's own shortcomings on this score.) Meanwhile, Clinton remains wedded to a wing of the Democratic Party that is quite comfortable being in bed with the 1 percent—which means whichever parts of the progressive agenda are enacted on her watch will only be those allowed by the status quo. Is that better than nothing? Of course. But as the rise of Trump demonstrates, people are susceptible to authoritarian solutions when change is perceived as coming too slowly, or not at all. What I don't believe the average Times reader comfortable in his or her own world view grasps is that America is at a dangerous crossroad between revolution and reaction. If a Clinton administration settles for a window-dressing form of progressive policy because of who she's beholden to, or Sanders administration falls short of its promise to deliver systemic change, a Generalissimo Trump in our future becomes far more likely.
2
Oligarchs, Plutocrats, the One Percent--OH MY! Millionaires to the left of me, billionaires to the right--Koch Brothers at the fore--all the bogeymen of the far Left!
Progressives love talking about racial dog whistles--code words and phrases which indirectly disparage people of color, without being overt. And in this column, Krugman trots out his version--the Class Warfare Whistle.
But it is important to understand what Progressives mean, when blowing the whistle--when invoking the specter of Plutocrats, Oligarchs and Kochs. Those of us who detect it, hear this: "American Voters are Stupid". The message is veiled but unmistakable. Liberals believe voters are so stupid, they can be swayed by political messaging--can be convinced to believe things which go against their best interests. In a word--they can be convinced to vote for Republicans! Gasp!
So the left is angry. After decades of wielding a monopoly in political messaging, they are losing their grip. They are accustomed to having the TV networks, newspapers and radio pressing their agenda--teachers and professors brainwashing our children--Hollywood's influence in sculpting popular culture, the funding of unions.
Citizens United has changed all that. Now, Conservative philosophy has an equal perch with Liberalism--and is winning the debate. And thus the source of left-wing panic: fully informed Americans, walking into polling booths and pulling the "wrong levers". Quick! Blow the whistle!
Progressives love talking about racial dog whistles--code words and phrases which indirectly disparage people of color, without being overt. And in this column, Krugman trots out his version--the Class Warfare Whistle.
But it is important to understand what Progressives mean, when blowing the whistle--when invoking the specter of Plutocrats, Oligarchs and Kochs. Those of us who detect it, hear this: "American Voters are Stupid". The message is veiled but unmistakable. Liberals believe voters are so stupid, they can be swayed by political messaging--can be convinced to believe things which go against their best interests. In a word--they can be convinced to vote for Republicans! Gasp!
So the left is angry. After decades of wielding a monopoly in political messaging, they are losing their grip. They are accustomed to having the TV networks, newspapers and radio pressing their agenda--teachers and professors brainwashing our children--Hollywood's influence in sculpting popular culture, the funding of unions.
Citizens United has changed all that. Now, Conservative philosophy has an equal perch with Liberalism--and is winning the debate. And thus the source of left-wing panic: fully informed Americans, walking into polling booths and pulling the "wrong levers". Quick! Blow the whistle!
2
"the Class Warfare Whistle"
was first blown by people interested in accumulating cash in the 1980's and it's gone from being a dog whistle to becoming the 180 decibel shriek that dominates today's political discourse. It's blown loudest in a bought media by people who think that unbridled economic competition is the ultimate engine of our nation's prosperity.
It's not the engine of our prosperity when competition is stripped of it's moral center and human life is depersonalized, quantified and deemed disposable. When the easy dollar numbers become the sole measure of the value of work, our society degrades into a sociopathic sewer and a livable high ground can only be reached by walking on the backs of the people around us.
We've been in this sewer for most of our human history and this country was founded on the revelation that we don't have to live this way - that we can balance the right to act with ambition and the right to a decent life for all of us.
This isn't a "bleeding heart liberal" or a "compassionate conservative" stance - it's the foundation of our democracy, and you can be damn sure it will be defended..
was first blown by people interested in accumulating cash in the 1980's and it's gone from being a dog whistle to becoming the 180 decibel shriek that dominates today's political discourse. It's blown loudest in a bought media by people who think that unbridled economic competition is the ultimate engine of our nation's prosperity.
It's not the engine of our prosperity when competition is stripped of it's moral center and human life is depersonalized, quantified and deemed disposable. When the easy dollar numbers become the sole measure of the value of work, our society degrades into a sociopathic sewer and a livable high ground can only be reached by walking on the backs of the people around us.
We've been in this sewer for most of our human history and this country was founded on the revelation that we don't have to live this way - that we can balance the right to act with ambition and the right to a decent life for all of us.
This isn't a "bleeding heart liberal" or a "compassionate conservative" stance - it's the foundation of our democracy, and you can be damn sure it will be defended..
1
Dr. Krugman's column today has the correct analysis of the Democratic candidates. The goals of Bernie's "Revolution" while noble have yet to be paid for, whether as another goal to shift budget monies, or as new revenue from raising Taxes across all income groups.
Hillary's plan seems far more accomplished in continuing President Obama's trajectory of fruitful changes, the realities of dealing with politics as they are, not how we'd like it to be. The difficulty of achieving success is certainly not going to be a matter of just electing a "progressive candidate". That was the reality of Mr. Obama that left him weaker and more vulnerable to the forces on both the left & the right. The result was Democrats losing both Houses of Congress.
What appears to have the best chance is not another big set of changes, rather following the very tough work of dealing with the political system for what it is: an obstructionist conservative opposition that has proved time and again its inability to present any useful ideas in dealing with the 21st Century.
Hillary's plan seems far more accomplished in continuing President Obama's trajectory of fruitful changes, the realities of dealing with politics as they are, not how we'd like it to be. The difficulty of achieving success is certainly not going to be a matter of just electing a "progressive candidate". That was the reality of Mr. Obama that left him weaker and more vulnerable to the forces on both the left & the right. The result was Democrats losing both Houses of Congress.
What appears to have the best chance is not another big set of changes, rather following the very tough work of dealing with the political system for what it is: an obstructionist conservative opposition that has proved time and again its inability to present any useful ideas in dealing with the 21st Century.
3
I am a huge fan of yours Mr. Krugman, but as a Bernie supporter I need to ask why are establishment liberals so afraid of a revolution. I think we were all hoping for that with President Obama and we did get some great incremental changes. Why do we assume that Bernie Sanders can't do the same? Of course he knows that he can't do it alone and that he needs to get more Americans to the polls to elect Representatives and Senators who are more closely aligned with the American people. It may be a pipe dream, but why wouldn't we want to strive for it.
I think the Democratic establishment also underestimates the younger generation. I believe they are much more engaged politically and that we should encourage that rather than throw cold water on their dreams.
As to money and prejudice, which I agree are both factors In our dysfunctional political system, I often wonder if the big money in politics is greatly responsible for the increased prejudices. Propaganda works much better when people don't have much money or education. To me Bernie is the one who will work the hardest to reverse the obnoxious role that money in playing in our political system. Citizens United must be reversed, 501c(4)'s need to be eliminated and people need a living wage.
I think the Democratic establishment also underestimates the younger generation. I believe they are much more engaged politically and that we should encourage that rather than throw cold water on their dreams.
As to money and prejudice, which I agree are both factors In our dysfunctional political system, I often wonder if the big money in politics is greatly responsible for the increased prejudices. Propaganda works much better when people don't have much money or education. To me Bernie is the one who will work the hardest to reverse the obnoxious role that money in playing in our political system. Citizens United must be reversed, 501c(4)'s need to be eliminated and people need a living wage.
8
I feel like we're splitting hairs. Sure there are social issues at play, but our biggest problem right now is gross wealth disparity and an economic elite who take the vast majority of the rewards for themselves while squeezing the majority of the people into poverty. As a Sanders supporter, I'm convinced that Clinton does not give this issue the proper weight. I get the feeling that she's only paying lip service.
25
Do you think that if we were all poor we'd have a more just society? No racism? No sexism? No ageism? I think you're missing the point by pinning social justice and harmony to the economy. Of course disparities in distribution are important, but they are symptoms of our problems as well as the enablers of them. But the problems come first, then the symptoms appear. Man's inhumanity to man doesn't depend on the number of zeros in someone's income. Bernie is out of touch, having lived his life in the glorious shelter of Vermont.
th top 1 % already have more wealth than th bottom 90 %
th top 10% earn more income than th bottom half - by 2030, it will be th bottom 60 %
extrapolating, in a few more decades th top 10 % will earn 99 % of th income, and th top 1 % will own more wealth than th bottom 99 %
in days of yore, this was called slavery
in america, its called free market capitalism
th top 10% earn more income than th bottom half - by 2030, it will be th bottom 60 %
extrapolating, in a few more decades th top 10 % will earn 99 % of th income, and th top 1 % will own more wealth than th bottom 99 %
in days of yore, this was called slavery
in america, its called free market capitalism
But social issues cause gross wealth disparity for some of us. Women are much more likely to be poor than men, for example. Most of the oligarchy are men. We could have a socialist revolution, and there would still be harassment and violence against women, and there would still be men who were uncomfortable with women leaders, and men who beat and raped women. I'm not interested in a socialist movement that does not consider the problems of more than half of the population.
2
The Gruesome Odious Pontificators decided to make President Obama a one term president as soon as he was elected. They didn't wait until he'd been in office, taken the oath of office, or even done anything. They declared their war prior to his taking office and have carried it on through his second term. The ugliness started with them, continued with them, and has been encouraged by the media, namely talk radio.
23
I don't think it boils down to Sanders being a tilterr at windmills and Clinton being an efficient executive that can affect progressive change as opportunities arise.
Sanders has much more political experience the Clinton, and is plenty smart enough to know what the obstacles are to advancing his progressive agenda. But I think he can bring about changes in attitudes that in the long run will enable progressive legislation.
Clinton Is a talking picture that has bee hanging on the wall too long. I don't think she would be able to influence the public or the politicians.
Sanders has much more political experience the Clinton, and is plenty smart enough to know what the obstacles are to advancing his progressive agenda. But I think he can bring about changes in attitudes that in the long run will enable progressive legislation.
Clinton Is a talking picture that has bee hanging on the wall too long. I don't think she would be able to influence the public or the politicians.
24
And all that experience and smarts and all those years as the powerful single Representative of Vermont and as junior Senator why hasn't he moved his agenda to wrestle control from the oligarchs or tame the banks? Easy to pontificate but he doesn't have much of a track record, does he?
1
As with everything, it's not 'either/or' -- it's both.
Yes, there is deep-seated prejudice and xenophobia in the nation, There are is also (probably a larger percentage of the population) that have a "schizoid" worldview. They detest blatant racism, have relatives who are gay -- and, so get the need for respect and tolerance, see the need for birth control, etc. -- yet, are concerned (and politically exploited for that concern) over terrorist threats, and, shrinking decent jobs for the working and middle classes.
This group of people-- that cuts across income, education, race and religiosity demographics -- are the ones who show the signs of "getting it". The ones that will go to a better level of conscience (indeed, they already demonstrate their capacity for that). These are the ones who matter for the future -- not die-hard racists/bigots who can't change. The key is to cleave the two elements away from each other. Bernie is doing this -- and, can effect more of this, in spite of conservative demagoguery.
As far as Krugman's promotion of liberal/progressive incrementalism goes, history has shown that change comes from -- once again -- 'both' not 'either/or'. Major changes happen because incrementalism sets things up so that major changes can occur. We saw that with the end of both slavery and the civil rights movement. Not either one of those are complete done deal -- but, where would we be now without both incremental *and major changes in that realm? A lot worse off.
Yes, there is deep-seated prejudice and xenophobia in the nation, There are is also (probably a larger percentage of the population) that have a "schizoid" worldview. They detest blatant racism, have relatives who are gay -- and, so get the need for respect and tolerance, see the need for birth control, etc. -- yet, are concerned (and politically exploited for that concern) over terrorist threats, and, shrinking decent jobs for the working and middle classes.
This group of people-- that cuts across income, education, race and religiosity demographics -- are the ones who show the signs of "getting it". The ones that will go to a better level of conscience (indeed, they already demonstrate their capacity for that). These are the ones who matter for the future -- not die-hard racists/bigots who can't change. The key is to cleave the two elements away from each other. Bernie is doing this -- and, can effect more of this, in spite of conservative demagoguery.
As far as Krugman's promotion of liberal/progressive incrementalism goes, history has shown that change comes from -- once again -- 'both' not 'either/or'. Major changes happen because incrementalism sets things up so that major changes can occur. We saw that with the end of both slavery and the civil rights movement. Not either one of those are complete done deal -- but, where would we be now without both incremental *and major changes in that realm? A lot worse off.
18
Our kids are way ahead of us. They are color blind, gender blind and are so tired of that albatross of racism and other isms that's hanging down their parents'necks, they want to run with Bernie.
It's no mystery why Paul Krugman totally miss characterizes the Bernie Sander's campaign. Mr. Krugman has been a paddy of the banking bailouts since the beginning. He receives huge salaries from institutions with deep ties to banking and the democratic establishment. The guy has been the de facto apologist for the failed banking reforms which brought the public no where. Arguing, time and time again, that republicans are the one's to blame for a political crimp in an otherwise perfect system which makes bankers billions. It's time to change the rules of the game, and pundits blatant denial of even the question of resentment only illustrates how entwined their views are.
26
Why so many personal attacks against the columnist who is a highly respected and Nobel Prize winning economist? I used to rely on the comment board for Mr. Krugman's columns to be among the most reasonable and thoughtful of those at the New York Times. But lately it has degenerated into a series of personal attacks on Mr. Krugman. This is so different from before that I wonder if the Kochs or some other lobbying group put a target on him. I'm not sure what you mean about the salaries that Mr. Krugman receives: they are from academic institutions and reflect his level of distinction, and he has also written more than 20 books from which he derives income. Weird slurs here.
3
Are we reading the same Paul Krugman?
3
I agree with Bernie Sanders in principle that money can be seen as the root of all evil. Greed and gluttony have long been on the seven deadly sins list. But none of this is new.
It may be that becoming an image based society is a greater evil. This has led to pictures and sound bites as the means for communicating ideas. It can lead voters to vote against their interests as their emotions are manipulated.
America is still a democracy, and the people ultimately have the power. But that power is significantly reduced if the country is divided into two competing ideologies.
It may be that becoming an image based society is a greater evil. This has led to pictures and sound bites as the means for communicating ideas. It can lead voters to vote against their interests as their emotions are manipulated.
America is still a democracy, and the people ultimately have the power. But that power is significantly reduced if the country is divided into two competing ideologies.
6
Don't forget sloth and envy.
1
It is ridiculous to charge Sanders thinks money is the root of all evil. That is what Marx said, not Bernie Sanders. Krugman says things like in his columns each day becasue he wants to frighten you into supporting the idea its OK for Goldman Sachs to continue to regulate itself.
The Sanders supporters all rush in to insist they are absolutely correct in their view that the revolution is near. My life experience tells me change happens oh so slowly and very frequently, not at all. Time will tell. And this too shall pass.
30
I visited Beirut in 1974--a prosperous, thriving multicultural city enjoying high levels of education. It never occurred to me that civil order could dissolve into chaos--and so quickly. Change CAN happen oh so quickly.
1
So you really think Bernie Sanders thinks "money is the root of all evil"? Thats Karl Marx, not Senator Sanders. Do you really support Wall Street regulating itself, that is what this is about. Are you not at least slightly annoyed by the daily efforts in these columns so subtly manipulate your thinking about what is serious policy and all grown up?
Sure, change is usually rather slow; however, small disruptions can create great change quickly. Both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War had a slow lead-in that reached a tipping point. This is shaping up to be a disruptive election. In this climate, great change may result.
You have a choice: a great disruption where we become completely democracy-in-name-only or a great disruption where we the people assert our right to be a democracy in fact. We will wake you when it is over.
You have a choice: a great disruption where we become completely democracy-in-name-only or a great disruption where we the people assert our right to be a democracy in fact. We will wake you when it is over.
1
This is a great column, Mr. Krugman, clear and cogent about complex matters. Thank you for the bigger picture.
21
"Instead, racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice are powerful forces in their own right. "
And why, I wonder, does Dr. Krugman, think the other forms of prejudice have so durable in U.S. politics? Perhaps because they have been very useful rhetorical tools to distract Americans from a frank discussion on class and the power of money.
And why, I wonder, does Dr. Krugman, think the other forms of prejudice have so durable in U.S. politics? Perhaps because they have been very useful rhetorical tools to distract Americans from a frank discussion on class and the power of money.
43
Sexism and discrimination against people who are different were going on long before capitalism. They occur in communes and in socialist countries. They don't distract from discussions of class and money -- they are an integral part of that discussion.
they wouldn't distract if people were not pre-disposed to be prejudiced; the oligarchs could only succeed in getting people to vote against their economic interests because there were such psychological tendencies to exploit
The working-class right-winger has always been a puzzle to some. As was the working-class Tory across the pond. Archie Bunker! But Archie was a nice guy really. His forerunner in Blighty was Alf Garnett, a thorough going racist, misogynist, and foul-mouth. 'Twas the study of Alf opened my eyes. His values were different from mine. He liked being on the winning team, Team Empire (Team USA USA USA...)
Alf's other values were those of the Victorian age, and were badges of the greatness of that age. Here, white supremacy, order in the streets, first in line for jobs, the Bible, and Guns.
That's the shell we lefties need to penetrate if we're to convince white voters of all ages to join a struggle rather than to cling to relics of Ould Dacency.
Alf's other values were those of the Victorian age, and were badges of the greatness of that age. Here, white supremacy, order in the streets, first in line for jobs, the Bible, and Guns.
That's the shell we lefties need to penetrate if we're to convince white voters of all ages to join a struggle rather than to cling to relics of Ould Dacency.
10
I can't put our problems into separate buckets like that. They're all in the same bucket, and the name on that bucket is Plutocracy. The U.S. was founded to protect the fortunes of wealthy, white, male, landowners from being plundered by the English Crown and its designees. And wealthy, white, male landowners is what they meant when they wrote "We the People." Over the last two centuries, the meaning of "We the People" has been expanded to include people of color, women, and the not-so-wealthy, but it's a never-ending struggle, with much ground being lost just recently at the state level with the suppression of voting rights. I think the vast majority of citizens in this country still believe that "We the People" includes everyone, not just the wealthy 1%, but until we rein in the disproportionate influence of the 1%, not everyone will have a voice. When you work 50 or 60 hours a week, or are looking for work, you don't have a lot of spare time to devote to your civic duties.
36
Indeed! Like you, I take issue with Dr. Krugman's central premise:
"On the other hand, if the divisions in American politics aren’t just about money, if they reflect deep-seated prejudices that progressives simply can’t appease, such visions of radical change are naïve. And I believe that they are."
Of COURSE money is not the only issue that needs to be addressed...but I'd argue that it is certainly the most basic one--whose remedy must precede all others.
There is a central truth underlying all this that has been widely accepted by psychologists since Dr. Abraham Maslow articulated it, as the "Hierarchy of Needs." His argument, accepted as self-evident in the field, is that physical needs (food, clothing, shelter, security, survival) trump all others, and must be satisfied before psychological, spiritual, "higher" needs can be addressed. It's not coincidence that, through out history, despotic leaders like Hitler arise in times of widespread deprivation and insecurity.
I'm incredulous that Dr. Krugman, who has been arguing against massive income inequality for years, has--in the presence of the first real opportunity to right these wrongs in years, thanks to Sanders--perversely chosen to support someone (Hillary) who will NOT do so. The Clintons have become multimillionaires from "public service," and are not going to suddenly start biting the hands that have enriched them all these years.
Dr. K, wake up--this is not the time to abandon your values!
"On the other hand, if the divisions in American politics aren’t just about money, if they reflect deep-seated prejudices that progressives simply can’t appease, such visions of radical change are naïve. And I believe that they are."
Of COURSE money is not the only issue that needs to be addressed...but I'd argue that it is certainly the most basic one--whose remedy must precede all others.
There is a central truth underlying all this that has been widely accepted by psychologists since Dr. Abraham Maslow articulated it, as the "Hierarchy of Needs." His argument, accepted as self-evident in the field, is that physical needs (food, clothing, shelter, security, survival) trump all others, and must be satisfied before psychological, spiritual, "higher" needs can be addressed. It's not coincidence that, through out history, despotic leaders like Hitler arise in times of widespread deprivation and insecurity.
I'm incredulous that Dr. Krugman, who has been arguing against massive income inequality for years, has--in the presence of the first real opportunity to right these wrongs in years, thanks to Sanders--perversely chosen to support someone (Hillary) who will NOT do so. The Clintons have become multimillionaires from "public service," and are not going to suddenly start biting the hands that have enriched them all these years.
Dr. K, wake up--this is not the time to abandon your values!
2
Should we be too pure to welcome the votes of the prejudiced, if those votes result in a Democratic wave behind Bernie's election? Should we assume the prejudiced cannot put aside their prejudice to vote for common goals - that for them their racial or social animus trumps all other concerns? If Prof. Krugman believes that, he does not live in the real America. Even the most bigoted people out here do not deserve to be reduced to the caricature of their prejudices, and will often transcend them in the course of a day, or a life.
14
False consciousness? From an economist? Lost me at the bend there doc. Had to go brush up on my Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky. Everyone has a bad day at the keyboard. Great stuff in general. Onward!
6
Make that a Nobel Laureate, not just any old economist.
1
He wasn't saying that false consciousness is at work. He gave other ideas about why voters vote the way they do.
1
The recent American Experience episode titled "Mine Wars" about the history of coal country on PPS provided a great example of how money, power and race intersect. In short, the suffering derived form the economic slavery imposed on Black and White coal miners by their employers, despite their best efforts to divide the races to keep wages low, brought them together to fight a common foe so they could live in dignity. The still pictures of the era showed Black and White miners arm and arm and sometimes armed, ready to lay down their lives for each other. Especially poignant were their children holding hands. The mothers living in side by side tents after their families were evicted also worked together to help their families endure. The remedy for a better future for all Americans couldn't have been more succinctly portrayed.
57
I'll say it again - the SCOTUS-5 knew that speech is not money, and that corporations are not people, yet ruled that this reality is not real. Ergo, they are corrupt, and responsible for a major portion of our current political dysfunction.
Which party would exacerbate this pathology? The answer is clear.
Which party would exacerbate this pathology? The answer is clear.
67
Answer: The same party who appointed the five corrupt SCOTUS "Justices" who made that (and many other) abhorrent ruling(s).
16
Ann, I agree with you. but if this is such a GOP problem only, then why have democrats not acted (as they could have back in 2009-10); why is this not a huge campaign issue?; why is " Down With Citizens United" not used as a rallying cry? I think the answer is sadly, that they are ALL part of the evil system that SCOTUS did not create, but certainly institutionalized and legitimized. When my former congressperson, reliable left-wing George Miler retired, I thought perhaps he would take a leadership role on this. Nope-- he has started yet another foundation for single moms, and so it goes.
2
At this point, Bernie Sanders is possibly the biggest beneficiary of dark money of all the presidential wannabes. Dark money often works as described in the Bloomberg Business Week article about Robert Mercer, who runs independent smear campaigns against the opponents of favored Congressional candidates.
The US political farce is stuffed to the gills with irony.
The US political farce is stuffed to the gills with irony.
12
Absolutely right. Many of the new commenters here, viciously tearing at Krugman & Clinton, are GOP dark money-paid fake Bernie supporters.
The GOP would LOVE to run against Bernie - they'd win the White House & pick up more seats in the House & Senate.
The GOP would LOVE to run against Bernie - they'd win the White House & pick up more seats in the House & Senate.
2
Paul Krugman is a member of the oligarchy. He may be a dissenting voice at times, but his entire life depends on power being maintained by a narrow ruling elite.
No, it is not just money. The elite has a virtual monopoly on money, but it also has an intellectual monopoly with solutions limited to those that are informed by a very narrow range of experiences and fenced by their own self-interest.
How many times have you heard that "education is the solution?" Does it actually make any sense at all that a better educated server at Wendy's will get paid more?
We hear lengthy discussions of the complex problem of poverty, when the obvious problem is that people don't have enough money. And since most poor people are working, often full time, the problem is that they don't get paid enough. In short, poor people are poor because they are servants and those they serve don't pay them very well.
Do some people poor have drug, alcohol or mental health problems? Are some lazy? Sure, but that is true of many people that aren't poor. And there are plenty of poor people that don't suffer from any of those. What makes people poor is lack of money. And the reason they lack money is that they lack the power to demand more.
And none of the ruling elite, whether Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Paul Krugman, are willing to give up their power. So they are looking for ways to calm down their growing class servants.
No, it is not just money. The elite has a virtual monopoly on money, but it also has an intellectual monopoly with solutions limited to those that are informed by a very narrow range of experiences and fenced by their own self-interest.
How many times have you heard that "education is the solution?" Does it actually make any sense at all that a better educated server at Wendy's will get paid more?
We hear lengthy discussions of the complex problem of poverty, when the obvious problem is that people don't have enough money. And since most poor people are working, often full time, the problem is that they don't get paid enough. In short, poor people are poor because they are servants and those they serve don't pay them very well.
Do some people poor have drug, alcohol or mental health problems? Are some lazy? Sure, but that is true of many people that aren't poor. And there are plenty of poor people that don't suffer from any of those. What makes people poor is lack of money. And the reason they lack money is that they lack the power to demand more.
And none of the ruling elite, whether Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Paul Krugman, are willing to give up their power. So they are looking for ways to calm down their growing class servants.
26
Ross,
If you are a long time reader of Dr. Krugman you know that he is not one of those economists who say education is the solution to poverty, unemployment or inequality. Quite the contrary in that he has often written against the idea that education, as necessary as it is, can solve the plight of the workers of the nation. You can't believe that the solution is for them to demand more money.
I suspect that your recommendations would not differ much from his, or mine, or Senator Sanders' or Secretary Clinton's save in details and methods.
Of course all of the above, save myself and probably you, are members of an elite. Their accomplishments beggar my own for sure. Tlhat people whose values so closely resemble my own are in the positions they are is frankly reassuring to me when I look at the propensities of most of the people in similar positions in this land.
If you are a long time reader of Dr. Krugman you know that he is not one of those economists who say education is the solution to poverty, unemployment or inequality. Quite the contrary in that he has often written against the idea that education, as necessary as it is, can solve the plight of the workers of the nation. You can't believe that the solution is for them to demand more money.
I suspect that your recommendations would not differ much from his, or mine, or Senator Sanders' or Secretary Clinton's save in details and methods.
Of course all of the above, save myself and probably you, are members of an elite. Their accomplishments beggar my own for sure. Tlhat people whose values so closely resemble my own are in the positions they are is frankly reassuring to me when I look at the propensities of most of the people in similar positions in this land.
1
Obviously you like to keep things real simple. People are poor because they lack money and lack the power to demand more. So if we buy them all guns and they all rob banks, they won't be poor anymore? Bet the NRA would sign on. Maybe all the GOP candidates too. Nasty oligarchists won't like growing class servants with guns and the money they robbed from banks. Hard to keep them calm.
@ Ross
"but it also has an intellectual monopoly with solutions limited to those that are informed"
An interesting demonstration of the fact that anti intellectualism and anti professionalism is just as entrenched on the left as the right. No doubt Ross would refuse to have say major surgery performed by a qualified surgeon who after all is "informed by a very narrow range of experiences" and would prefer to travel in planes piloted by bus drivers or bank clerks.
"but it also has an intellectual monopoly with solutions limited to those that are informed"
An interesting demonstration of the fact that anti intellectualism and anti professionalism is just as entrenched on the left as the right. No doubt Ross would refuse to have say major surgery performed by a qualified surgeon who after all is "informed by a very narrow range of experiences" and would prefer to travel in planes piloted by bus drivers or bank clerks.
1
Politics is about building a winning coalition forming a union of groups with a wide range of disparate interests but with a large intersection of common political goals. No group in a coalition will ever be completely satisfied but that's the secret of success: to recognize that the various groups need a unifying set of objectives and respect that there will always be differences among the groups, even differences that might be offensive to individual members.
11
Read the column in the link below, written by someone who works on Wall Street. He explains in detail how Bill helped Wall Street during his presidency and how the Clintons have been rewarded handsomely after. They expect no less compliance from Hillary and welcome her nomination and election. That is why they have funneled tens of millions to them the past decade.
Don't listen to me (or Krugman). Take it from a guy who worked on the Street.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/hillary-clinton-wal...
Don't listen to me (or Krugman). Take it from a guy who worked on the Street.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/hillary-clinton-wal...
44
Read it. Thanks for the enlightening link.
1
Reality check. The Kochs, Adelsons, and other plutocrats support the Republicans far more. Smearing Hillary Clinton is something that the Kochs are spending close to a billion dollars on this election cycle.
1
All of you who decry the excesses of Wall St., take my challenge--remove your pensions and pension funds from Wall St. Put up or shut up.
The George McGovern-era fear that Democrats are so left-wing that they're scaring the silent majority away is still with us, as this column proves. Go easy, Americans fighting for real change are told, or you'll scare away the privileged and the fragile among us. Sorry, but change, even gradual change, is never won without a fight, and those who try to clap us on the shoulder and ask, "Be sensitive," want only the continuation of the status quo. Not this time.
32
Krugman is not making this argument. He's saying that Republicans in Congress are going to block Bernie's grand plans. By the way, electing a woman as president would be real change.
1
It seems that the memo has gone out on Bernie Sanders, Jonathan Chait has a similar piece right now disqualifying Sanders because of his "single-issue focus". The funny thing is, Bill Clinton used to to use phrases like "I want to focus like a laser on the economy", apparently not sharing Paul Krugman or Jonathan Chait's opinion that focusing on one issue meant that you were unfit to govern.
Even worse is this, I'll let Glenn Greenwald make the case since he does so in a thorough manner:
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/28/paul-krugman-unironically-anoints-hi...
I've mentioned before that some people seem to miss the fact that "Very Serious People" wasn't just a way to sarcastically say "Oh yes these people are soo serious". It was a response to people, particularly during the invasion of Iraq, claiming that "all *serious* commentators are on board with the invasion", or "well there are some people in the political sphere who actually oppose the invasion, but no one serious does".
So Paul Krugman using the Very Serious People meme without really understanding it, which we can see from the fact that he then engages in it when trying to dismiss and diminsh those he disagrees with -- well I'll just say it's highly disappointing when someone who you generally admire turns out to also have sides that are just like the other Very Serious People. Too bad.
Even worse is this, I'll let Glenn Greenwald make the case since he does so in a thorough manner:
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/28/paul-krugman-unironically-anoints-hi...
I've mentioned before that some people seem to miss the fact that "Very Serious People" wasn't just a way to sarcastically say "Oh yes these people are soo serious". It was a response to people, particularly during the invasion of Iraq, claiming that "all *serious* commentators are on board with the invasion", or "well there are some people in the political sphere who actually oppose the invasion, but no one serious does".
So Paul Krugman using the Very Serious People meme without really understanding it, which we can see from the fact that he then engages in it when trying to dismiss and diminsh those he disagrees with -- well I'll just say it's highly disappointing when someone who you generally admire turns out to also have sides that are just like the other Very Serious People. Too bad.
43
This column makes a powerful point about American politics; you ignore racial prejudice and sexism at your peril (or the peril of your candidate).
For decades, many of us on the left side of the spectrum (and I, like many, have been deeply involved in progressive politics before most of the Sanders commenters on this column were born)(you're welcome), have long wondered how to get the poor whites across the Bible belt to start voting their own economic interest. It's danged hard, because (a) humans are very tribal, (b) most of that demographic are viciously racist, and (c) unlike Northerners, they basically are afraid that if they irritate the "job providers" (the rich), those "job providers" will leave. (Krugman describes this reaction by the 1% as "Ma, he's looking at me funny!").
So - there's not going to be a Sanders revolution; he's from Vermont (a Yankee!). Only Bill Clinton and Al Gore, two Southern good ol' boys, were able to make inroads with this tribe - because they were born to it. There's going to be a continuation of the long, hard battle for each voter in the South.
For decades, many of us on the left side of the spectrum (and I, like many, have been deeply involved in progressive politics before most of the Sanders commenters on this column were born)(you're welcome), have long wondered how to get the poor whites across the Bible belt to start voting their own economic interest. It's danged hard, because (a) humans are very tribal, (b) most of that demographic are viciously racist, and (c) unlike Northerners, they basically are afraid that if they irritate the "job providers" (the rich), those "job providers" will leave. (Krugman describes this reaction by the 1% as "Ma, he's looking at me funny!").
So - there's not going to be a Sanders revolution; he's from Vermont (a Yankee!). Only Bill Clinton and Al Gore, two Southern good ol' boys, were able to make inroads with this tribe - because they were born to it. There's going to be a continuation of the long, hard battle for each voter in the South.
31
To Carol in Northern CA: too true. As a southerner, I know this in my bones. And Paul Krugman is right as usual. Add to that, Hillary is well schooled in politics as the art of the possible.
9
There has been a game-changing redistribution of wealth in America during my lifetime. Every other event pales in comparison.
In 1970 the 1% accounted for 7% of all gross reported income, per the IRS. That number is now over 24%. It is a shift in wealth of Titanic proportions.
The take from the country's economy is more or less a zero sum game. So where did the .1%'s money come from? The formerly thriving post WWII American middle class. Their jobs were sent overseas to slave wage labor countries and the companies and the people that owned them pocketed the labor cost savings. Management salaries skyrocketed, and a new class of professional was born - the Washington lobbyist. Companies knew that shedding American jobs was a political act and wanted to make sure there was no blowback, so they sent former elected officials as their emissaries to make sure that things went their way.
They did.
It cost them in political "donations" and other favours, but the price was relatively cheap. Along the way the .1% realized they could control whole parties, to say nothing of candidates at the federal and state level.
This political landscape simply did not exist in the early 1970's.
Now, billionaires openly audition presidential candidates.
The corruption is complete. Ask yourself how many investment bankers went to jail after the mortgage-backed securities fraud. Not a single one. If that doesn't bring into question the rule of law I don't know what does.
In 1970 the 1% accounted for 7% of all gross reported income, per the IRS. That number is now over 24%. It is a shift in wealth of Titanic proportions.
The take from the country's economy is more or less a zero sum game. So where did the .1%'s money come from? The formerly thriving post WWII American middle class. Their jobs were sent overseas to slave wage labor countries and the companies and the people that owned them pocketed the labor cost savings. Management salaries skyrocketed, and a new class of professional was born - the Washington lobbyist. Companies knew that shedding American jobs was a political act and wanted to make sure there was no blowback, so they sent former elected officials as their emissaries to make sure that things went their way.
They did.
It cost them in political "donations" and other favours, but the price was relatively cheap. Along the way the .1% realized they could control whole parties, to say nothing of candidates at the federal and state level.
This political landscape simply did not exist in the early 1970's.
Now, billionaires openly audition presidential candidates.
The corruption is complete. Ask yourself how many investment bankers went to jail after the mortgage-backed securities fraud. Not a single one. If that doesn't bring into question the rule of law I don't know what does.
224
What it brings into question is your ignorance of the "rule of law." Very glib and vigilante of you to ignore due process, the Fifth Amendment, standards for criminal indictment, cases brought against Hedge Fund managers and traders that didn't result in conviction, along with Republican cuts in SEC, Federal Reserve and Treasury enforcement capacity. The laws that protect billionaires from lynching you are the same laws that protect you from being lynched by them. Political rage informed by your sense of victimization and misunderstanding of how justice works just plays into the hands of those who own you.
1
Imagine a debate stage with Trump, Bloomberg, and Bernie Sanders: oligarch, oligarch, and Everyman. It that doesn't just reinforce everything he has been saying, what does?
Multi-billionaires are not compatible with democracy.
1
The commentators on public issues, in the media and among office holders often lament the failures, the weaknesses, and the injustice in society. They are wont to analyze the causes and propose sometimes illogical, fanciful solutions. They denigrate past and present political administrations in an effort to shape public opinion. The debate is frequently degraded into partisanship.
In a majority of cases, this is merely an exercise in futility. So many of the ills of society have roots in historical processes that are impervious to current control. Major trends in social change have a momentum of their own. The direction and pace are the integral of infinite individual forces over time. Count Leo Tolstoy expounds this scenario in his epic, “War and Peace”. Our pundits would be wise to heed his words.
In a majority of cases, this is merely an exercise in futility. So many of the ills of society have roots in historical processes that are impervious to current control. Major trends in social change have a momentum of their own. The direction and pace are the integral of infinite individual forces over time. Count Leo Tolstoy expounds this scenario in his epic, “War and Peace”. Our pundits would be wise to heed his words.
3
On my 18th birthday, I could not wait to cast my first vote. I registered with the Independent Party in New York as I truly felt I was "middle of the road" at that time.
My first vote was for Mario Cuomo's failed 1994 bid for reelection.
I cast my second vote for Bill Clinton. I thought he was the answer. Then after the election of 2000 and the legal coup d'etat I switched my registration over to the Democrats as the country seemed to veer off to the right. After 9/11, that veer to the right became even more pronounced.
As I became older (and I like to think wiser), I realized that out of the dozens of votes that I cast, the worst choice that I made was that second vote for Bill Clinton. The reason why I feel it was my worst choice can be summed up in five letters - NAFTA. I was twenty years old when I cast that vote and even then, free trade didn't seem like a great idea but I trusted Bill Clinton. I thought he would fight for the middle class.
Now I understand what type of Democrat Bill Clinton is which is the same kind that Hillary is and yes, even sadly it also seems that President Obama is as well (although perhaps not as much). A Democrat that is to the right, that cares about the elite and the status quo. The kind that doesn't rock the boat and is interested in self gain.
As I rapidly approach the milestone in every ones life of forty years old, I will cast my vote with Bernie Sanders but my politics have not changed, just my understanding of what goes on in politics.
My first vote was for Mario Cuomo's failed 1994 bid for reelection.
I cast my second vote for Bill Clinton. I thought he was the answer. Then after the election of 2000 and the legal coup d'etat I switched my registration over to the Democrats as the country seemed to veer off to the right. After 9/11, that veer to the right became even more pronounced.
As I became older (and I like to think wiser), I realized that out of the dozens of votes that I cast, the worst choice that I made was that second vote for Bill Clinton. The reason why I feel it was my worst choice can be summed up in five letters - NAFTA. I was twenty years old when I cast that vote and even then, free trade didn't seem like a great idea but I trusted Bill Clinton. I thought he would fight for the middle class.
Now I understand what type of Democrat Bill Clinton is which is the same kind that Hillary is and yes, even sadly it also seems that President Obama is as well (although perhaps not as much). A Democrat that is to the right, that cares about the elite and the status quo. The kind that doesn't rock the boat and is interested in self gain.
As I rapidly approach the milestone in every ones life of forty years old, I will cast my vote with Bernie Sanders but my politics have not changed, just my understanding of what goes on in politics.
82
I will accept your analysis of the Clintons only if you can admit that Obama is exactly their type of democrat. I will be voting for Hillary, reluctantly I guess, because I think she can win. And heaven help us all if the GOP wins the presidency. But there is no distinction between our current president and the Clintons.
2
Well said, Michael.
We need another Roosevelt. A Democrat FDR, or a Republican TR.
2
If you believe money is not the ultimate corrupting force in politics I've got some swamp land to sell you. Krugman's rationalization of the candidates taking millions from Wall Street who can be expected to regulate them falls flat on its face. Oh---he is only talking about Hillary not being corrupted by tens of millions from Wall Street and the oligarchs. As for the corruption of money on Republicans--the argument still holds.
This same "expert" wrote the following back in '08 about Obama:
"I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again."
Keep writing about Sanders Krugman. Every column just reinforces why we support him.
Money is not the reason our politics are so corrupt. That's rich Paul.
This same "expert" wrote the following back in '08 about Obama:
"I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again."
Keep writing about Sanders Krugman. Every column just reinforces why we support him.
Money is not the reason our politics are so corrupt. That's rich Paul.
152
What we got from Obama is a health care model developed by Republican Mitt Romney and a "middle class" tax cut that gave an $8000 tax break to someone making $500,000 and a $600 tax break to those earning $50,000. I actually think Bernie Sanders will be a much better bet than Obama to create "real change", but Hillary is more progressive by disposition than Obama ever was.
6
Paul is right. People were vicious long before money was invented. Why did Cain kill Abel? Find the answer, and that will be rich.
1
Dashing a polemic off first thing in the morning must feel cathartic. Accuracy isn't the first priority before that second cup of coffee but I'd point out that Krugman doesn't say money isn't the reason our politics are so corrupt. He says it's not the only reason. Maybe if you contemplate how oligarchies make you feel diminished, powerless, even subhuman, you'd get a sense how it feels to be nonwhite or a woman in America. Oligarchies elect their agents to protect their interests by dividing voters by race, fear, religious views, etc. Racism and wacko ideologies corrupt politics as well. So does hysteria about national security. Personally, I don't worry much about Sanders. It's the myopic intensity of many of his followers that disappoints me. And too many willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. They may not care but it's the rest of us who have to look at them.
2
Perhaps I am oversimplifying the problem in seeing that the force of government today is far more sensitive to the problems of the wealthy and the p0werful in finance and corporate business than to the fundamental problems of being housed and paid a decent wage and properly cared for in health and education. This boils down to money being spent for these basic necessities rather than for idiotic brutal military adventures and dumping national wealth in the pockets of those who have too much of it already. Sanders is right that money for influence and corruption is destroying the ideals and hopes of the country. I wish he were more concerned with the gross stupidity of rewarding a consistent policy of destroying nations with brutality and totally failing in fulfilling stated objectives. Whether Sanders is genuine or a sham like Obama is a real concern but Clinton is a proved disaster. To bring up other social problems is a distraction from a deadly political disease.
23
I strongly disagree with the good professor on this one. He thinks that we need to take a broader view of the cause of the problems in our politics. In response I would paraphrase the signature slogan of the great Vince Lombardi:
"Money isn't everything, but it's the first thing." That is to say that, while other harmful forces in addition to money influence, that influence is sufficient by itself to stymie all efforts to resolve any of the other bad influences. My advice is to man up and first fight to eliminate money politics, the rest will then fall in line.
"Money isn't everything, but it's the first thing." That is to say that, while other harmful forces in addition to money influence, that influence is sufficient by itself to stymie all efforts to resolve any of the other bad influences. My advice is to man up and first fight to eliminate money politics, the rest will then fall in line.
33
OK. I recommend a parallel effort to civilize the wealthy, They'll not be checked by laws--they can afford the best legislators and lawyers. They may be checked by culture, and after that, we might need to take a shot at another approach.
3
The presumption is that the wealthy would respond to sensible methods of civilization. The daily revelations of major corporations evading civil sensibilities committing illegalities that impoverish innocents and deprive needy people of basics necessary to remain alive, not to mention have a decent existence, indicates the probability that the wealthy have no human motivations but to become even wealthier. Perhaps only brutality will tame them.
1
One bad consequence of a Republican win in this election is that a winning party is supposed to have a mandate to pursue policies advocated in the campaign. And the policies advocated by the Republican candidates are - by a wide margin - the worst I have seen in my long lifetime.
40
Well, maybe Senate Dems have learned a lesson on filibusters. On the other hand, the clear and imminent danger is to the SCOTUS. More Scalias, more Alitos...
7
I totally agree - of course, the mandate is not a given. The Republican's never accepted the fact President Obama was elected, and the Democrats were never granted a mandate - the reverse actually happened.
2
I really don't understand this argument that seems to be based on the false premise that the silent revolution on the right that has put us in the hands of conservative "plutocrats" who've successfully used "prejudice" to gain power is OK, but a countervailing revolution from the left is not. Our entire democracy is based on the principle of countervailing forces from the three branches of government embedded in our Constitution to a similar set of social forces between Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor that I learned decades ago in high school civics. Those forces, like our government, are entirely out of balance today. Congress is now nearly an entirely corporate entity controlled by the political payola (aka "dark money") flowing from Big Business with some also from a greatly diminished Big Labor. And, our Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has also gone completely corporate. The imbalance we've reached as a society is huge manifesting itself in the greatest amount of "income inequality" since just before our economic collapse into the Great Depression. The question facing all Americans is who is best able to restore the balance? I'm a progressive Democrat who believes that Bernie Sanders is the person to do this. Only Sen. Sanders has the passionate, populist, progressive message that might even persuade Southerners blinded and conned by prejudice to vote for him.
65
Where did you get the idea that Krugman thought that this was "OK"? His point is that it isn't all about money, which is why the idea of getting Southern whites to vote Democrat in large numbers is a fantasy. To them, government social programs are programs for undeserving minorities.
3
Congratulations, you've defined what the USA has now become, an oligarchy slithering toward a formal plutocracy.
1
"that might even persuade Southerners blinded and conned by prejudice to vote for him."
Paul, I have thought the same. Bernie has won over many hardcore Republicans in Vermont who vote for him because he fought for them when they had problems with their Social Security, Medicare or prescription drug costs. A few of these folks telling their stories in a series of well-crafted commercials during the general campaign might help persuade some of the aforementioned Southerns to vote FOR their self-interest.
But then, that might be too wishful.
Paul, I have thought the same. Bernie has won over many hardcore Republicans in Vermont who vote for him because he fought for them when they had problems with their Social Security, Medicare or prescription drug costs. A few of these folks telling their stories in a series of well-crafted commercials during the general campaign might help persuade some of the aforementioned Southerns to vote FOR their self-interest.
But then, that might be too wishful.
Overall, I agree with Mr. Krugman's analysis but I'm voting for Bernie because he is indeed focused on one aspect of the problems: income inequality and the power of big money. No president can solve or even meaningfully address the many ills Mr. Krugman notes. Neither 4 nor 8 years is time enough. However, a strong President might well be able to do something about one of those issues and right now, the big money problem heads my list. The only concern I presently have about Senator Sanders is who will be his running mate? With a president of Sander's age, that question is crucial. A Bernie/Hillary or Hillary/Bernie ticket might well be unbeatable at election time but might be difficult in office. Somehow I don't see either one of them willing to be Vicepresidentially silent and toeing the President's policy line. However, I'd surely take that chance rather than see any of the present members of the Republican clown college in office.
15
There has never been a successful thriving socialist state in the history of the world because of one simple reason. Government is inefficient, corrupt and power hungry destroying individual drive and creativeness at every step. Human nature cannot be changed and Socialism advocates assume human traits that simply do not exist. America grew from a nation of immigrants who risked their lives to get here driven by freedom and the desire to get ahead. Krugman now wants to motivate people by government programs and bureaucrats? A race to the bottom for sure.
3
There are plenty of thriving Socialist states, including (if you listen to the most strident voices on the right) the United States of America. And what you say about American success being driven by immigrants with the desire to get ahead, is only partial true. The United States also achieved greatness based on the conquest of land from Mexico, the elimination of the Native American peoples and the forced labor of millions of slaves. It was also made great by progressive reforms including "Social" Security, child labor laws, environmental regulation, organized labor and public spending on universities, primary schools, roads, highways, bridges and by people acting in concert for the greater good. To deny the better angels of human nature is to deny the very foundations of Democracy, and frankly I'm a little tired of people doing that.
33
The difference between Mexico and the U.S. is we had Roosevelt.
The difference between Canada and the U.S. is we had Reagan.
Process that.
The difference between Canada and the U.S. is we had Reagan.
Process that.
3
Germany
1
I seldom disagree with Dr. Krugman, but today I do. This overly-simplistic and frankly grossly inaccurate distinction of the differences between Sen. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton is a disservice to the progressive cause. Sanders' focus on economic inequality is not to the exclusion of other issues like racial prejudice, sexism, homophobia, and the rest; those ills are part and parcel of the economic disparities in society. It could just as easily be argued that Clinton's "broad" view and her scatter-shot addressing of these issues is a way to deflect attention from her own cozy relationship with Wall Street, her own membership in economic elite. Such an argument would be as wrong as Krugman's argument in this essay.
Note this: the only truly excited and enthusiastic segment of the Left is that which is championing Sen. Sanders. Quash that enthusiasm with appeals to the alleged nobility of "fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better" (in other words, to Clinton's' vaunted "pragmatism") and things won't get better. They will get worse because the GOP will continue to get its way and do its damage.
Note this: the only truly excited and enthusiastic segment of the Left is that which is championing Sen. Sanders. Quash that enthusiasm with appeals to the alleged nobility of "fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better" (in other words, to Clinton's' vaunted "pragmatism") and things won't get better. They will get worse because the GOP will continue to get its way and do its damage.
74
To refute this will need more than one page. 1) I am a high end professional who has spent more time in graduate school that PK. My field is based upon a real science that isn't proven with non real world assumptions in order to make a model work. There is both a straw man in this piece and a logical fallacy. It's a technique PK uses over and over despite knowing it does not make a position valid. I'm very logical and no pie in the sky idealist. Note he paints all sanders supporters as pie in the sky types (an assumption) made in order to make his argument "true". This is the central fallacy of the entire economics profession. Then a straw man. A fake position set up in order to knock down. Sander's supporters are too stupid to think Bernie will not get all he wants. You mean we don't realize that elected officials make promises they ain't deliver on. Wow that is a surprise esp right after Obama (see middle east, Guantanamo) Yet PK reacts with alarm each time the right says something radical So, there is a dichotomy there in your own logic. I'm liberal and the times is guilty of white washing the Obama administration. It's legacy for me will always be too big to jail, and the selling of our justice system to an entire class of criminals. Sanders wold not appoint a Holder. I don't expect magic. If you think the choice in appointments won't make a difference you are the delusional person. Labor at the TPP talks for example would have been nice.
46
Based on the writing - not enough time in graduate school.
2
Bravo.
Whichever Democrat wins the presidency in 2016, do not expect any more accomplishments than we have seen in the past six years of the Obama administration.
Until progressives commit to the work of electing a majority in the House and a 60+ vote super majority in the Senate, our federal government will be strongly biased against any kind of progressive change. Republicans took control of the House, the Senate and a majority of statehouses, and they will maintain their out of proportion power until Democrats/progressives do a more effective job.
A long slog, indeed.
Until progressives commit to the work of electing a majority in the House and a 60+ vote super majority in the Senate, our federal government will be strongly biased against any kind of progressive change. Republicans took control of the House, the Senate and a majority of statehouses, and they will maintain their out of proportion power until Democrats/progressives do a more effective job.
A long slog, indeed.
107
Well, there have been plenty of accomplishments in the Obama administration, so that would be great!!
3
You have hit the nail on the head, now hit it again and again until you drive it home. The architect may set the vision of the structure but the choice of who will be the head contractor and the selection of the sub-contractors is just as if not more important. Also important is who gets the contract for the building materials. You can`t build a sturdy structure with sub standard materials.
1
@Cleareye, Your comment is the first one I read this morning that seems to be "clear-eyed". I normally enjoy all the comments from gemli, rima, and the many other thoughtful commenters. However, as soon as Dr. Krugman started writing editorials that discussed the positions of Bernie Sanders as being unworkable in our current political environment, all of these commenters closed their eyes and minds. How soon we have forgotten Mr. McGovern.
2
When you have citizens over 65 receiving Medicare and Social Security joining Tea Party rallies you must accept that there is a vast number of uninformed voters. These people, as an example, vote for the party that wants to decrease or disassemble these very programs on which they depend. If they actually were informed there might be cognitive dissonance, but they are such blind, uninformed voters that they vote against their own interests because they only listen to the part legitimizing their hatred of the "other." They believe when they're told over and over that the country is failing. They actually believe there is a war on Christianity, the most common religion in the country. They believe that their guns will be taken away. The GOP has been very effective making voters frightened about social issues so the poor suckers vote for the group who's real interest is about taxes on the rich and deregulation. How can you be considered informed when you vote for a party that is against clean water and air rules? Who could be against protecting water and air quality? I have given up on the notion that the American electorate will ever become informed in my lifetime.
43
You might add that hate and resentment are a very powerful emotional motivators and the Republican party has the market cornered on these fronts .
4
It is most perplexing to behold this spectacle of a persistently intransigent congress well into Obama's second term when after four years of battering by Fox News and Limbaugh and the Tea Party and Mitch McConnell, he was re-elected with a higher percentage of the popular vote than John Kennedy in 1960, Richard Nixon in 1968, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996 or George Bush in 2000 or 2004. The grave tragedy here is that years of concerted gerrymandering has ensured a prevailing GOP-dominated congress precipitating a deliberate paralysis of government, where a rump is holding the whole place to ransom. It doesn't really jibe with the notion of the US as a global leader with a bunch of gleeful stalwart obstructionists holding court whose sole aim is to thwart Obama's governance with political impunity because their seats are safe. This is an insidious form of plutocracy. It's a sinister development where elements of a ruinous anarchy are now emerging.
69
You left out of your analysis the fact that the people have both houses of Congress to Obama is 2008, coattails. They took that congress away from Obama in 2010 and 2014. Are you saying that gerrymandering started in 2010.
1
Race - the ethnic not the political kind - is what we fall back on when times are hard and we need a scapegoat. Not being racist has now become considered being politically correct, whether moderate or conservative, and even some liberals. (I consider the one-time payoff of reparations rather than institutionalizing truly equal treatment - according to the need - to be a dangerous form of inadvertent racism.) Selfishness is the source of our evils.
7
This is an astute analysis. Bringing the oligarchs to heel is only part of the solution. Conservatives have used race, religion, sexism and an appeal to low-information voters' worst instincts to sustain economic and political power.
Astute and a tacit endorsement of Hillary Clinton, which I believe is a mistake.
Let's stipulate that Krugman's analysis is right and then look at the two candidates:
In this oversimplified summary, Krugman suggests that Sanders is the anti-oligarch with insufficient attention to the underlying social issues Krugman identifies. Clinton is the multi-faceted candidate with a sophisticated approach to the broader issues and an awareness of the dangers of oligarchy.
I think Krugman is wrong.
Sanders neither says nor believes that "money is the root of all evil," but it's a good place to start. But his long record demonstrates more consistent commitment to the other powerful forces as well. Clinton, I'll stipulate, cares about racism, sexism and "other forms of prejudice," but she is so deeply intertwined with the oligarchs that her "many-evils" philosophy is insufficient.
As Krugman notes, sexism, racism and other "evils" have enabled the oligarchs. But it is far more important to recognize that the oligarchs enable and profit from social evils. Reign them in, as Sanders proposes, and we will be well on our way to addressing the other issues.
Feelin' the Bern!
Astute and a tacit endorsement of Hillary Clinton, which I believe is a mistake.
Let's stipulate that Krugman's analysis is right and then look at the two candidates:
In this oversimplified summary, Krugman suggests that Sanders is the anti-oligarch with insufficient attention to the underlying social issues Krugman identifies. Clinton is the multi-faceted candidate with a sophisticated approach to the broader issues and an awareness of the dangers of oligarchy.
I think Krugman is wrong.
Sanders neither says nor believes that "money is the root of all evil," but it's a good place to start. But his long record demonstrates more consistent commitment to the other powerful forces as well. Clinton, I'll stipulate, cares about racism, sexism and "other forms of prejudice," but she is so deeply intertwined with the oligarchs that her "many-evils" philosophy is insufficient.
As Krugman notes, sexism, racism and other "evils" have enabled the oligarchs. But it is far more important to recognize that the oligarchs enable and profit from social evils. Reign them in, as Sanders proposes, and we will be well on our way to addressing the other issues.
Feelin' the Bern!
37
Paul misses the real dispute badly. That dispute places two worldviews in stark contrast.
One view holds that the purpose of society is to create ease for the greatest number at whatever damage is required to independence and individuality. This view places little importance on self-reliance and individual liberty, because they don’t contribute to the essential goal. It’s not money that is “the root of all evil”, but production that remains in the hands of those who generate it and not in the hands of a central authority that uses it for collective purposes.
The other view holds that a central American conviction is that more than any other society we have embraced the importance of the individual as the engine for social evolution, not a supreme collective will that is hijacked at regular intervals by elitist interests. That necessarily means that while collective will must be expressed in order to bind society together, it mustn’t become so overbearing that individual will and liberty become secondary. It also means that focusing all of society’s resources on creating maximum ease of the greatest number at any cost makes our people excessively dependent on separating bad choices from consequences.
Bernie and Hillary BOTH subscribe to the first view, to differing extents; while Republicans embrace the second, to differing extents. THAT is the central dispute we seek to settle with our elections, not merely whose flavor is the one to be preferred on any given day.
One view holds that the purpose of society is to create ease for the greatest number at whatever damage is required to independence and individuality. This view places little importance on self-reliance and individual liberty, because they don’t contribute to the essential goal. It’s not money that is “the root of all evil”, but production that remains in the hands of those who generate it and not in the hands of a central authority that uses it for collective purposes.
The other view holds that a central American conviction is that more than any other society we have embraced the importance of the individual as the engine for social evolution, not a supreme collective will that is hijacked at regular intervals by elitist interests. That necessarily means that while collective will must be expressed in order to bind society together, it mustn’t become so overbearing that individual will and liberty become secondary. It also means that focusing all of society’s resources on creating maximum ease of the greatest number at any cost makes our people excessively dependent on separating bad choices from consequences.
Bernie and Hillary BOTH subscribe to the first view, to differing extents; while Republicans embrace the second, to differing extents. THAT is the central dispute we seek to settle with our elections, not merely whose flavor is the one to be preferred on any given day.
5
The number of implicit assumptions in that framing of the debate are mind-blowing. E.g., "production that remains in the hands of those who generate it" - it takes a village. For whatever reason - whether it be trade agreements or trade unions -- the American village has not been able to sustain manufacturing production. "... not a supreme collective will that is hijacked at regular intervals by elitist interests" - Citizens' United anyone? "It also means that focusing all of society’s resources on creating maximum ease of the greatest number at any cost" - actually, never more that 25%, "at any cost" really?
1
So Richard, was IKE a Democrat? was Nixon? I don't think so yet many ideas and policies both of them supported don't fit in with Republican orthodoxy today. You need to look at outcomes and what has happened since Reagan and not some theory that is absolutely meaningless. You can make a case that there are lazy people, that there are people who do drugs and drink themselves into problems of their own making but what percentage of the population is that? If the outcomes of hard right ideology are that 90% have NOT gotten real wage growth as the economy has expanded then is that the outcome you want - is it the society we all want? Do we define success as a system that 9 out of 10 are no longer succeeding with? In New Jersey do you think you can raise a family, save for college, save for retirement on 50K a year? 100K? You know it's not possible is it. And why is that, are 90% of the population lazy, do 90% not want a better life and aren't willing to work for it? Republicans said give tax breaks to the job creators and things would be better - what happened? how many new manufacturing jobs were added in the U.S.? Got the data, I do, next to nothing. When you look at the facts and look at outcomes you will or should agree, that old remedies are not working in a globalized economy and we need new remedies. When Clinton raised taxes in the 90's and Obama raised then did the sky fall? No. Raising taxes on those who didn't deliver the outcomes promised is only reducing the deficit.
6
Richard, where do you get this stuff? "One view holds that the purpose of society is to create ease for the greatest number at whatever damage is required to independence and individuality. This view places little importance on self-reliance and individual liberty, because they don’t contribute to the essential goal. . . ."
I'm probably about as left as Bernie, but I sure don't believe that society's purpose is to create ease for anybody, large numbers or small. Ease? Really?
The people whose ease is most guaranteed in our society is the hedge fund, Wall Street, and corporate elite types. And their view seems to be that society owes them their ease. Pay up or we're crashing your economy, suckers!
Nice straw man you got there; he's no fun, he fell right over.
I'm probably about as left as Bernie, but I sure don't believe that society's purpose is to create ease for anybody, large numbers or small. Ease? Really?
The people whose ease is most guaranteed in our society is the hedge fund, Wall Street, and corporate elite types. And their view seems to be that society owes them their ease. Pay up or we're crashing your economy, suckers!
Nice straw man you got there; he's no fun, he fell right over.
2
Gay marriage is the best recent example demonstrating that Sanders as President COULD actually lead a grass roots movement to bring about radical change. Gay marriage happened because people just demanded it, pure and simple. If Sanders is elected his supporters will be energized to a level that America hasn't seen since the Civil Rights Movement. In that kind of environment, politicians will start to shake in their boots for not being on the correct side of health care, family leave, minimum wage et al. If it happens, I predict it will look much easier to accomplish in retrospect than it appears to be now.
22
I believe that is quite wrong. Many - most - families have a gay member or two born to them. I believe this is what has changed hearts and minds on gay marriage - full equality for family members (members of your tribe, your closest tribe) is much easier to support than equality for people who don't look like you.
These breezy assertions that Sanders - an old white male - will sweep away the entrenched racism and sexism in our politics? Sure. And a pile of gold will appear on my deck this morning, with a leprechaun dancing on top of it.
These breezy assertions that Sanders - an old white male - will sweep away the entrenched racism and sexism in our politics? Sure. And a pile of gold will appear on my deck this morning, with a leprechaun dancing on top of it.
3
It's a fact that a lot of poor whites vote against their best interests for the sake of hook issues: abortion, welfare, gun ownership, etc.
Hillary's case is the one Democrats have been making for some time.
It has been a brilliantly ineffective one, right?
Finding common ground is the only way to change this paradigm.
By staying on point, the Vermont senator appears to be reaching some in this disenfranchised group, enabling them to see that their biggest problem is the same as their democratic brethren: they don't pay too much in taxes, rather, their employers don't pay them enough.
Sanders is giving these people an invitation to his table. Commonality is the main course. Dialogue is dessert. If you want to get to know someone, have supper with them...
Hillary's case is the one Democrats have been making for some time.
It has been a brilliantly ineffective one, right?
Finding common ground is the only way to change this paradigm.
By staying on point, the Vermont senator appears to be reaching some in this disenfranchised group, enabling them to see that their biggest problem is the same as their democratic brethren: they don't pay too much in taxes, rather, their employers don't pay them enough.
Sanders is giving these people an invitation to his table. Commonality is the main course. Dialogue is dessert. If you want to get to know someone, have supper with them...
24
It's not so much that they vote against their own best interests. It's more that they just don't vote at all.
"Some activists go further and call on Democrats to stop talking about social issues other than income inequality, although Mr. Sanders hasn’t gone there." Isn't income inequality at the base of all the discontent of the 99%? Health care for all and education for all: What else matters?
11
Polls show that the economy is issue #1 for voters.
70% favor a higher minimum wage. Even more support keeping or enhancing SS. The public correctly sees a future where *their* economic prospects are in a decline with no sign of leveling out, let alone reversing.
Bernie Sanders polls 10% higher vs Trump than Sanders. That is reality, and assumptions to the contrary are based on personal bias and rationalization rather than data.
The heads of the banks have gone before congress and clearly stated their beliefs that wages must stay low, that SS and Medicare must be cut. Their representatives have been appointed to cabinet positions in the Bill Clinton and Obama administrations, whi have used those positions to fight against stimulus, for corruption-enabling deregulation, and for wage-cutting trade agreements.
PK is telling us that a candidate who appears certain to appoint these very people into cabinet positions (just like Bill Clinton and Obama have done), is serious about reversing economic inequality.
And that by being nice to VSP's who have fought fiercely for policies which benefit themselves at the expense of the American worker, those VSP's will suddenly reverse course - if a president appoints their representatives to positions of power and tells them to "cut it out".
Even our poorly informed electorate knows better than that.
70% favor a higher minimum wage. Even more support keeping or enhancing SS. The public correctly sees a future where *their* economic prospects are in a decline with no sign of leveling out, let alone reversing.
Bernie Sanders polls 10% higher vs Trump than Sanders. That is reality, and assumptions to the contrary are based on personal bias and rationalization rather than data.
The heads of the banks have gone before congress and clearly stated their beliefs that wages must stay low, that SS and Medicare must be cut. Their representatives have been appointed to cabinet positions in the Bill Clinton and Obama administrations, whi have used those positions to fight against stimulus, for corruption-enabling deregulation, and for wage-cutting trade agreements.
PK is telling us that a candidate who appears certain to appoint these very people into cabinet positions (just like Bill Clinton and Obama have done), is serious about reversing economic inequality.
And that by being nice to VSP's who have fought fiercely for policies which benefit themselves at the expense of the American worker, those VSP's will suddenly reverse course - if a president appoints their representatives to positions of power and tells them to "cut it out".
Even our poorly informed electorate knows better than that.
23
Dr. Krugman provides a thoughtful rational analysis but what is driving this election is fear and anger. W was the decider who went with his gut. Trump makes W look cerebral. Sanders is riding the wave of anger against corporate domination.
This election is defined by Orwell's bellyfeel.
"bellyfeel - Full emotional understanding. Blind, enthusiastic acceptance of a concept."
This election is defined by Orwell's bellyfeel.
"bellyfeel - Full emotional understanding. Blind, enthusiastic acceptance of a concept."
3
I think Mr. Krugman has some very good and fair points, both regarding the base, and regarding Mr. Sanders!
It is true that Bernie Sanders has his focus on the money and the political power that has brought. It is also a fair assesment that Hillary is about everything but the money... And truth be tolled in a broad contens Hillary would cover more... If she really did fight for it.
One of the big problems for Hillary is that she is not seen as a honest fighter for anyone other than Clinton... Another is that Money is the biggest problem right now!
If Hillary had started by saying that her main priority was to get rid of money in politic (or plainly said, get rid of corruption) she would have had a better case today than she has!
The best point Mr. Krugman comes with, is that the base no longer react to the political elite, the way had used to do... One of the major reasons to that is simply that the base is crumbling into smaller peices, and it will take a lot of work to pull something together again... Mr. Sanders has showen that he is able to do just that, in a construtiv way. Mr. Trump has showed that it is possible (not that we didn't knew that already) to lead through terrorspeach.
Hillary has yet to do anything on that point.
The biggest challenge for Hillary is to show that she cares for the people, and will work with the people... Something that Bernie did with brillians with "black lives matters" and on numerus occations.
It is true that Bernie Sanders has his focus on the money and the political power that has brought. It is also a fair assesment that Hillary is about everything but the money... And truth be tolled in a broad contens Hillary would cover more... If she really did fight for it.
One of the big problems for Hillary is that she is not seen as a honest fighter for anyone other than Clinton... Another is that Money is the biggest problem right now!
If Hillary had started by saying that her main priority was to get rid of money in politic (or plainly said, get rid of corruption) she would have had a better case today than she has!
The best point Mr. Krugman comes with, is that the base no longer react to the political elite, the way had used to do... One of the major reasons to that is simply that the base is crumbling into smaller peices, and it will take a lot of work to pull something together again... Mr. Sanders has showen that he is able to do just that, in a construtiv way. Mr. Trump has showed that it is possible (not that we didn't knew that already) to lead through terrorspeach.
Hillary has yet to do anything on that point.
The biggest challenge for Hillary is to show that she cares for the people, and will work with the people... Something that Bernie did with brillians with "black lives matters" and on numerus occations.
3
Prof. Krugman, I have read every one of your books over last 20 years, and followed your NYT column religiously ever since it began. But you’re either politically naïve or a useful fool in your characterization of Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton, and corporate democrats in general, don’t believe “money is the root of some evil.” Rather, the Clintons are promoting “Inclusive Capitalism,” which is a deceptive practice that we can all get in on the game of exploiting labor.
Clinton concentrates her messaging on “racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice” to deflect the public discussion AWAY from economic issues. Guns, “Black Lives Matter,” and Gay Marriage are used to get voters to rely on a prejudice rather than their economic interests.
Clinton uses this bait and switch strategy for a very simple reason – it allows corporate democrats to keep raising millions, while not threatening the financial elite. And Bill and Hill can continue to give 45 minute speeches for half-a-million bucks.
I’ve been involved in politics and campaigning for 33 years. Yes, Mr. Krugman, it is all about the money. Everything else is for show and the chumps.
Hillary Clinton, and corporate democrats in general, don’t believe “money is the root of some evil.” Rather, the Clintons are promoting “Inclusive Capitalism,” which is a deceptive practice that we can all get in on the game of exploiting labor.
Clinton concentrates her messaging on “racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice” to deflect the public discussion AWAY from economic issues. Guns, “Black Lives Matter,” and Gay Marriage are used to get voters to rely on a prejudice rather than their economic interests.
Clinton uses this bait and switch strategy for a very simple reason – it allows corporate democrats to keep raising millions, while not threatening the financial elite. And Bill and Hill can continue to give 45 minute speeches for half-a-million bucks.
I’ve been involved in politics and campaigning for 33 years. Yes, Mr. Krugman, it is all about the money. Everything else is for show and the chumps.
837
Thank you.
2
"Clinton concentrates her messaging on “racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice” to deflect the public discussion AWAY from economic issues." Bullseye. She will always play at the edges in order to maintain the privileged core. Great comment.
3
Plutocrats have been strongly on the side of immigration and multiculturalism. Diversity is just another word for the billionaires' divide-and-conquer strategy: make America into a tower of babel where the citizens can't unite to drive up wages.
8
"And isn’t there something noble, even inspiring, about fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better?"
This is basically the same argument:
- Women heard for decades before getting the vote.
- The LGBT community heard for decades before getting marriage equality.
- The black community has heard and is still hearing for over 150 years.
"Just wait a bit longer. It'll get better if you just hang in there and don't buck the system too much."
You know whats better than "fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better?" Sanders winning the nomination and the presidency this year, and president Sanders, with our help, starting the turnaround from oligarchy in 2017.
The 1% will not give up power willingly. It will take Sanders' political revolution to take it away. First in the voting booth. Then in the White House and the legislature. Then in the courts, including SCOTUS.
This is basically the same argument:
- Women heard for decades before getting the vote.
- The LGBT community heard for decades before getting marriage equality.
- The black community has heard and is still hearing for over 150 years.
"Just wait a bit longer. It'll get better if you just hang in there and don't buck the system too much."
You know whats better than "fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better?" Sanders winning the nomination and the presidency this year, and president Sanders, with our help, starting the turnaround from oligarchy in 2017.
The 1% will not give up power willingly. It will take Sanders' political revolution to take it away. First in the voting booth. Then in the White House and the legislature. Then in the courts, including SCOTUS.
45
Again - what?? Women didn't WAIT for the vote - they fought fiercely for it. LGBT people have fought hard for every single victory they've achieved, most recently marriage equality. Black Americans have fought hard, smart and long for every victory. And there's ground still to cover for all of those groups - as Hillary knows well.
No one has been waiting. We're just not dumb enough to buy this "political revolution" - by an old white male Yankee - BS.
The GOP fears Hillary more than any other opponent, with reason.
No one has been waiting. We're just not dumb enough to buy this "political revolution" - by an old white male Yankee - BS.
The GOP fears Hillary more than any other opponent, with reason.
1
Dr. Krugman is right.
The Democratic left is rooting for Sanders the same way it did for McGovern, Mondale and Ted Kennedy. All thoroughly decent men that were utterly unelectable outside their local state redoubts.
Sanders will do very badly in swing districts in OH, FL, CO, AZ, NM, VA, NC, MI - states that will decide the general election.
Do not be mislead by aggregate voter polls that do not separate out swing districts and swing states (unstratified sampling). The GOP does not need swift boats, wind surfing and climate change to take Sanders down. His record and past pronouncements are enough.
Wen they do the numbers on his policies - and his policies are feather light in numbers and devoid of estimates now - it will emerge that a big tax increase on the middle class will be needed to make them work. Even the most liberal of economists estimate that he will need a substantial tax increase on families making more than 90,000 dollars a year.
All of his radical policies will need the support of 60 senators and 218 congressmen. There is ZERO chance of this happening any time soon.
Sanders will do to the Democratic party what Nader with his 60,000 odd votes did in FL. He will put a GOP monster in the White house and take many Democrats in marginal congressional and senate seats down. This is a train wreck waiting to happen to progressives.
It is not an accident that the President has all but endorsed HRC. Sanders is the last best hope of the GOP in 2016.
-SK
The Democratic left is rooting for Sanders the same way it did for McGovern, Mondale and Ted Kennedy. All thoroughly decent men that were utterly unelectable outside their local state redoubts.
Sanders will do very badly in swing districts in OH, FL, CO, AZ, NM, VA, NC, MI - states that will decide the general election.
Do not be mislead by aggregate voter polls that do not separate out swing districts and swing states (unstratified sampling). The GOP does not need swift boats, wind surfing and climate change to take Sanders down. His record and past pronouncements are enough.
Wen they do the numbers on his policies - and his policies are feather light in numbers and devoid of estimates now - it will emerge that a big tax increase on the middle class will be needed to make them work. Even the most liberal of economists estimate that he will need a substantial tax increase on families making more than 90,000 dollars a year.
All of his radical policies will need the support of 60 senators and 218 congressmen. There is ZERO chance of this happening any time soon.
Sanders will do to the Democratic party what Nader with his 60,000 odd votes did in FL. He will put a GOP monster in the White house and take many Democrats in marginal congressional and senate seats down. This is a train wreck waiting to happen to progressives.
It is not an accident that the President has all but endorsed HRC. Sanders is the last best hope of the GOP in 2016.
-SK
14
"Crucially, the rise of the American hard right was the rise of a coalition, an alliance between an elite seeking low taxes and deregulation and a base of voters motivated by fears of social change and, above all, by hostility toward you-know-who."
The above says it all. The great scam perpetuated on the average GOP voter consists of distracting him with ideas and policies aimed at justifying his or her prejudice, while plutocrats--very quietly--reshape the country to their benefit and liking.
I plan to read "Dark Money," particularly after reading here that Jane Mayer has already been attacked, and could be sued, by henchmen of the Kochs. I need to know more about how 200-300 families have taken over our politicians and ensured their own enrichment for years go come by local and state battles plotted as carefully as a major presidential campaign. This "shadow" fight, running parallel to an seemingly functioning government is the scariest thing I've heard of as we move forward (or backward, as the case may be) into this 21st century.
The above says it all. The great scam perpetuated on the average GOP voter consists of distracting him with ideas and policies aimed at justifying his or her prejudice, while plutocrats--very quietly--reshape the country to their benefit and liking.
I plan to read "Dark Money," particularly after reading here that Jane Mayer has already been attacked, and could be sued, by henchmen of the Kochs. I need to know more about how 200-300 families have taken over our politicians and ensured their own enrichment for years go come by local and state battles plotted as carefully as a major presidential campaign. This "shadow" fight, running parallel to an seemingly functioning government is the scariest thing I've heard of as we move forward (or backward, as the case may be) into this 21st century.
24
The GOP has sown the seeds of social division and economic nihilism for many years - now, the issues have once again become those for the Dems to solve due to the GOP blindness - taxes and the financial sector, as well as make peace amongst the various social groups in the country. Practically, the long term effects of tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate tax dodging, and income inequality are apparent. Emotionally, the attacks on immigrants, Planned Parenthood and women's reproductive rights, gays, blacks, and other minority groups are not what this country is supposed to be about, but it is clear that a lot of education is needed in that area.
The cumulative effect on people of the practical squeeze economically, as well as betrayal of freedom due to the lack of social fairness, is that the Dems now have to untie a Gordian knot of anger before they can approach things calmly with solutions. That's hard to do when large numbers are feeling the pinch economically, and being persecuted for their race, religion, and sexual orientation. Reining in Wall Street is one aspect of the problem, but has to be included in the solutions proposed, HRC or Bernie. People can blame HRC all they want about her ties with Wall Street, but she wasn't the villain in 2008.
HRC actually supported allow people to refi their homes for 2% back in 2009 - that, or Krugman's proposal to allow the government to buy preferred stock in the big banks would have been preferable to buying their bad MBS's.
The cumulative effect on people of the practical squeeze economically, as well as betrayal of freedom due to the lack of social fairness, is that the Dems now have to untie a Gordian knot of anger before they can approach things calmly with solutions. That's hard to do when large numbers are feeling the pinch economically, and being persecuted for their race, religion, and sexual orientation. Reining in Wall Street is one aspect of the problem, but has to be included in the solutions proposed, HRC or Bernie. People can blame HRC all they want about her ties with Wall Street, but she wasn't the villain in 2008.
HRC actually supported allow people to refi their homes for 2% back in 2009 - that, or Krugman's proposal to allow the government to buy preferred stock in the big banks would have been preferable to buying their bad MBS's.
7
Yes, John. To give credit where due, I thought the "mortgage moratorium" (on home foreclosures) was one of HRC's more prescient domestic policy proposals.
1
Professor Krugman has set up a false distinction between Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton. Mr. Sanders's supposed exclusive focus on income inequality will fail, we are told, because the nation must also make progress eradicating prejudice, which will take awhile. Thus we need to embrace the incremental change offered by Ms. Clinton rather than the revolutionary change promised by Mr. Sanders.
Professor, this is weak. We cannot legislate away prejudice over any timeframe. Prejudice will exist as long as humans have resentments that can be directed at the evil "other" and as long as we have politicians who will leverage that resentment for personal gains and gains for their tribes. The only solution, which will never be complete, is to attack the sources of the resentment and attempt to reduce the incentives for the political behaviors that fuel them.
Mr Sanders rightly implies that economic insecurity is the largest root cause of these resentments and that money in politics leads to a government that demonstrably pursues policies that benefit only society's elites. Attacking these two self-reinforcing problems is the only way to create the gradual change Professor Krugman wants and our society needs.
Mr. Sanders may or may not spend less time than Ms. Clinton talking about prejudice. I am not sure. But he is spending a lot more time talking about the structural problems that ensure prejudice remains such a large part of our national character.
Professor, this is weak. We cannot legislate away prejudice over any timeframe. Prejudice will exist as long as humans have resentments that can be directed at the evil "other" and as long as we have politicians who will leverage that resentment for personal gains and gains for their tribes. The only solution, which will never be complete, is to attack the sources of the resentment and attempt to reduce the incentives for the political behaviors that fuel them.
Mr Sanders rightly implies that economic insecurity is the largest root cause of these resentments and that money in politics leads to a government that demonstrably pursues policies that benefit only society's elites. Attacking these two self-reinforcing problems is the only way to create the gradual change Professor Krugman wants and our society needs.
Mr. Sanders may or may not spend less time than Ms. Clinton talking about prejudice. I am not sure. But he is spending a lot more time talking about the structural problems that ensure prejudice remains such a large part of our national character.
54
In view of the electorates' distrust of government, his argument that the tax increases he advocates will help the middle class because they will be balanced by savings on health care premiums will not sell. Many moderates (myself included) are frightened by him. Beware "true believers."
I greatly fear that Bernie will turn out to be the Ralph Nadir of 2016, tipping the election to the GOP.
I greatly fear that Bernie will turn out to be the Ralph Nadir of 2016, tipping the election to the GOP.
2
Professor, what is this article, don't want to aim too high liberalism. Always respect your opinion Professor, but Senator Sanders is not tilting at windmills. It's the obstructions placed in front of the welfare of the citizen's as you have ably described. The Purpose of the citizen in a democracy is to elect representatives to a government of the public good, which inherently means keeping an eye through regulation on Business. It can be done. In Canada we just replaced an American want a be trained in neocon dissembling and austerity wealth shifting, Steven Harper. We now have a liberal (Social Democrat) tending the citizens. Not perfect but not George W. Bush or Ted Cruz.
14
Krugman, never the master of suasion, opens with his own epitaph: "Every time you think that our political discourse can’t get any worse, it does." His plan is to belittle the only sector of the Democratic electorate that has shown enthusiasm in the current cycle. He's the serious adult, they are children still not out of elementary school intellectually. Shut up or I'll condescend to you! And don't forget to vote.
12
It seems it is the task of mainstream media to put Sanders' supporters in their place. Every major media outlet now has HRC surrogates to spin his message as one that is too liberal. Higher taxes that the middle class could not afford, endangering the ACA via his demand for universal care, threatening the structural basis of our economy via corporate tax reform and draconian tax increases - this is what I hear everyday by her surrogates. And now PK is chiming in. How surprising is that?
1
“But in this age of Trump, not so much. The 1 percent has no problems with immigration that brings in cheap labor; it doesn’t want a confrontation over Planned Parenthood; but the base isn’t taking guidance the way it used to.”
-The 1 percent likes cheap labor because they wish to starve the government. Higher wages generate more tax revenue and besides immigrants may not qualify for govt. benefits or even know their rights.
The 1 percent doesn’t have a problem with Planned Parenthood it is Obamacare and single payer that they fear because their goal is to starve the government. With Single Payer we wouldn’t need Planned Parenthood so that’s why PP supports Clinton over Sanders.
As long as we have PP the abortion and contraception debate can remain a political football instead of leaving it as a healthcare decision between a woman and her doctor. Being pregnant is a major healthcare issue and it should be understood and respected as such in education for teens, for maternity leave, and for all women to have access to quality medical care.
Eliminating the IRS, EPA, Social Security, etc. is the goal of the 1 percent, and the Republican base needs to wake up to that fact.
Whether it’s the Republicans promoting racism, sexism, or it’s Democrats objecting, it still altogether functions as a distraction from the issue of how money in politics is destroying democracy. Yet we need a strong democracy if we wish to protect civil rights and gain equal rights.
-The 1 percent likes cheap labor because they wish to starve the government. Higher wages generate more tax revenue and besides immigrants may not qualify for govt. benefits or even know their rights.
The 1 percent doesn’t have a problem with Planned Parenthood it is Obamacare and single payer that they fear because their goal is to starve the government. With Single Payer we wouldn’t need Planned Parenthood so that’s why PP supports Clinton over Sanders.
As long as we have PP the abortion and contraception debate can remain a political football instead of leaving it as a healthcare decision between a woman and her doctor. Being pregnant is a major healthcare issue and it should be understood and respected as such in education for teens, for maternity leave, and for all women to have access to quality medical care.
Eliminating the IRS, EPA, Social Security, etc. is the goal of the 1 percent, and the Republican base needs to wake up to that fact.
Whether it’s the Republicans promoting racism, sexism, or it’s Democrats objecting, it still altogether functions as a distraction from the issue of how money in politics is destroying democracy. Yet we need a strong democracy if we wish to protect civil rights and gain equal rights.
12
A mis-characterization of the Sanders campaign and another subtle hit job.
Obama was "idealistic" as well. This is one of dr Krugman's weaker columns.
Obama was "idealistic" as well. This is one of dr Krugman's weaker columns.
14
and about 'fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better?'
Prof Krugman has been fighting this fight year after year - and it has been noticed far and wide - that's why it is not understandable how he could pick a bad fight with one of his own?
Prof Krugman has been fighting this fight year after year - and it has been noticed far and wide - that's why it is not understandable how he could pick a bad fight with one of his own?
12
One Democratic candidate is genuine. The the other is not. Based on your experience you're suggesting that to win, democrats should support the candidate that is not genuine. Because genuine people can't win elections. Then that's not Democracy. It's more of the same. We had a Democracy and the political revolution is to take it back.
We're lighting the torches.
Circling the Subarus
Sharpening the pitchforks
Sending $20 to Sanders
For Democracy!
We're lighting the torches.
Circling the Subarus
Sharpening the pitchforks
Sending $20 to Sanders
For Democracy!
22
Let's keep it simple: Clinton voted for the Iraq war, Sanders didn't. Cruz wants to expand it. Jeb would do it again.
What have we spent on these wars? What did we gain?
I think we found the problem.
It's the wars, stupid.
What have we spent on these wars? What did we gain?
I think we found the problem.
It's the wars, stupid.
21
'The Sanders view is that money is the root of all evil...The Clinton view, on the other hand, seems to be that money is the root of some evil, maybe a lot of evil, but it isn’t the whole story.'
It could be considered a fact - that it isn't the whole story - but as long as the Finance Industry in the US is calling most of the shots - and they are all about money Sanders has the facts and the Data more on his side!
It could be considered a fact - that it isn't the whole story - but as long as the Finance Industry in the US is calling most of the shots - and they are all about money Sanders has the facts and the Data more on his side!
14
There is a well-known and wide-spread technique used by pick pockets to prey on tourists in some countries. It is very simple. It requires 3 people, one to distract the victim somehow by staging a manufactured event, so that the victim pays exclusive attention to that event. Meanwhile, the second person steals the victim's wallet. In the remote case the victim realizes what happens, not to worry. The second man has handed over the wallet to a third man surreptitiously and the third man has vanished with the wallet. The victim has no chance and feels so helpless in the face of such a well-executed theft.
In our political system, the first person is the extreme wing politicians/policies distracting the public from their pocket book issues, so they vote against their own ECONOMIC self interest. The second person is represented by the bought-out politicians, who harm the people's economic welfare by unfair tax and fiscal policies. The third person is of course the billionaires and corporations that benefit from those policies! They are also the one calling the shots and are the main beneficiary of ill-gotten gains. How do you think the transfer of trillions in wealth from middle class to the 0.1% happened in broad daylight?
Fight the cause, aka the corrupt political system and change it structurally. Do not just fight the symptoms by making cosmetic changes to health care, campaign finance etc. The only way to defeat plutocrats is by voting out their bought-out politicians.
In our political system, the first person is the extreme wing politicians/policies distracting the public from their pocket book issues, so they vote against their own ECONOMIC self interest. The second person is represented by the bought-out politicians, who harm the people's economic welfare by unfair tax and fiscal policies. The third person is of course the billionaires and corporations that benefit from those policies! They are also the one calling the shots and are the main beneficiary of ill-gotten gains. How do you think the transfer of trillions in wealth from middle class to the 0.1% happened in broad daylight?
Fight the cause, aka the corrupt political system and change it structurally. Do not just fight the symptoms by making cosmetic changes to health care, campaign finance etc. The only way to defeat plutocrats is by voting out their bought-out politicians.
15
It it really racism that is driving the white working class hatred of Latinos and other immigrants of color? Yes, there has always been a tiny minority in America that is racist - think KKK. But the vast resentment over people of color and immigrants is fueled by high unemployment and low wages caused by globalization (free trade), loss manufacturing jobs to automation, and a minimum wage that is so low that no one can live on it. These people wouldn't be angry at foreigners if they were secure in their jobs and had the ability to make ends meet and save for retirement and not worry about getting sick and going into bankruptcy from the shoddy health insurance policies that are full of holes so big you can drive a truck through. It all about economics and you should know that Paul.
23
"Tiny minority that is racist"?? Uh - no, there is a majority that is racist. Ever study the American Civil War, Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movement - or just step outside your door? Were you alive and sentient in Boston in the 1970's during the busing riots??
1
Another not-even-veiled endorsement of Hillary Clinton, one that seems to second Ta-Nehisi Coates's charge that Bernie Sanders's single-minded fixation on economic inequality blinds him to the problem of racism and other forms of prejudice. Krugman is correct that not all of our political problems stem from economic inequality, but naïve, and wrong, to believe that Clinton will solve them. Her devotion to Wall Street, big donors, Super PACS, and obscene speaker's fees will ensure that the economic inequality festers, and likely even worsens, if she is elected. Until we tackle excessive inequality and our just plain corrupt political system, most of the problems confronting the U.S. will persist.
27
Addressing economic inequality is easier than social inequality today. Much can accomplished by changes in tax policy and changes in regulations on corporations. Yes there are significant, motivated forces working against these changes, but the game is definable and winnable.
If these changes are made and folks around the country see progress in their own lives, they will be more tolerant of the progress of others. Then addressing the deep seated social injustice will happen. On its own based on changes made over the last 50 years, or more rapidly with addional changes.
If these changes are made and folks around the country see progress in their own lives, they will be more tolerant of the progress of others. Then addressing the deep seated social injustice will happen. On its own based on changes made over the last 50 years, or more rapidly with addional changes.
5
This op ed is way off base -- the difference between Sanders and Clinton is that Sanders thinks the basic pattern of power in the country is off -- our ruling class is not serving the interests of the society as a whole. Clinton believes changes at the margin will be sufficient, without changing the basic outlines of who has power. The charge Sanders levels at Clinton is true -- she and Bill are very much part of the existing power structure -- they are progressive players within that structure, but they are part of the structure.
I assume Clinton will get the nomination. Although I will vote for Bernie in the primary, I will campaign enthusiastically for Hillary in the general election -- but Bernie will have made an enormous contribution by shifting the discourse to recognize that there is something seriously wrong with the country's ruling class in a fundamental way. He opens space for Clinton to actually achieve something meaningful -- not just to mouth nice words about the middle class, but do very little.
I assume Clinton will get the nomination. Although I will vote for Bernie in the primary, I will campaign enthusiastically for Hillary in the general election -- but Bernie will have made an enormous contribution by shifting the discourse to recognize that there is something seriously wrong with the country's ruling class in a fundamental way. He opens space for Clinton to actually achieve something meaningful -- not just to mouth nice words about the middle class, but do very little.
17
So Hilary Clinton is against big money and racism, but Bernie Sanders is only against big money? That is totally untrue. What is one of the main reason Sanders wants to remove marijuana from the federal goverment's list of controlled substances? The reason is that even though roughly the same proportion of whites and blacks smoke marijuana, black people are 4 times more likely to be arrested for possession. We have a broken criminal justice system that targets blacks, from discrimination by police to insanely high incarceration rates which exist in large part because of privately owned for profit prisons. Hillary Clinton accepts money from for profit prison and is against decriminalizing marijuana. Why did Senator Nina Turner switch her support from Clinton To Sanders? Because Sanders is the one fighting for social justice and not just paying it lip service. Mr. Krugman, if you are not familiar with Bernie Sanders' platform then please stop writing about it.
52
There are some liberals that are liberals in name only. These are people that have well paying jobs, great health care, tax advantages, beautiful homes or condos or apartments, plenty of time off and really don't want change. They pay liberal ideas lip service, but the last thing they want is a candidate that actually threaten the status quo. Their conscience disavows conservatism, but their comfort level is so enviable that they just don't want anybody to rock their boat. Those people find Hillary Clinton the ideal Democratic candidate.
Hillary Clinton - despite what Dr. Krugman says - adopted extremely sexist language in attacking the women her philandering husband abused. Sanders marched with Martin Luther King while Clinton wrote papers. Sanders voted against the Iraq War; Clinton voted for it. Clinton's son in law is a hedge fund manager; she takes millions from Wall Street. Sanders takes no Wall Street money. Clinton wanted a no fly zone in Syria despite America's exhaustion about war. Sanders didn't propose it or support it.
Clinton is the ideal candidate for those that have it made. But for the majority of Americans who are struggling, she couldn't be a more inadequate presidential choice. She's all white collar and all about keeping things just the way they are, with all the inequities and the slow dissolution of the middle class as it inches toward powerlessness and poverty.
Hillary Clinton - despite what Dr. Krugman says - adopted extremely sexist language in attacking the women her philandering husband abused. Sanders marched with Martin Luther King while Clinton wrote papers. Sanders voted against the Iraq War; Clinton voted for it. Clinton's son in law is a hedge fund manager; she takes millions from Wall Street. Sanders takes no Wall Street money. Clinton wanted a no fly zone in Syria despite America's exhaustion about war. Sanders didn't propose it or support it.
Clinton is the ideal candidate for those that have it made. But for the majority of Americans who are struggling, she couldn't be a more inadequate presidential choice. She's all white collar and all about keeping things just the way they are, with all the inequities and the slow dissolution of the middle class as it inches toward powerlessness and poverty.
142
Hillary is by any definition an oligarch herself, crediting Hillary with change, other than just talk of it, is laughable. Bernie is seeking power by promising free stuff - college education, healthcare, mortgages and retirement. To keep it free he cites the evil billionaire, the 1%, as the source of money to pay for it. Certainly an economist of Mr. Krugman’s standing understands that if the government were to confiscated the entire wealth, not just the income as Bernie promises, of the 1% the Sanders administration would still be broke in a year. That said, Bernie has been consistent in his 50 years of public life and is changing the conversation and where government should go.
5
I believe we are once again starting to live in interesting time. The center quite literally is not holding, and the elite (those who have been buffered from the new economy) are stunningly unable to grasp it. All the bets are off. The ruling class no longer rules the discourse because the disconnect between their words and our reality have become too great. From where I sit, as an educated middle class person with two (real, sit-in-the-classroom) advanced degrees, white, intelligent, healthy, ie what used to be privileged, Obama may well have made significant achievements, but they are not helping me. Affordable health care is not affordable. It's expensive and will go up with my income and has high deductibles. That is nit congruent with the American Dream. If Krugman sees environmental improvements, I see poisoned tap water. If Krugman sees economic improvement, I see working all the time and yet staring down the pit into parent-plus loans to pay, credit card debt, no fixed retirement pension and slim opportunities for my adult children. I will emphasize that I am one of the lucky ones too--married to a working spouse, have a 401-K, have work, a house ... if I am feeling frightened, what of other people? It scares me when even Krugman starts sounding like David Brooks.
26
People are not one-dimensional and they are not the same everywhere and at all times. So, even though racism may be one animating factor for a section of the electorate, I don't think it is the defining factor. By calling out racism again and again, the other concerns of voters are being minimized or ignored.
Why won't Krugman talk about pocketbook anxieties of voters? Difficulty of finding a job, having it pay a living wage, being unable to afford the high premiums of Obamacare, the unaffordability of college for one's children are legitimate concerns. The "dog whistle" of the left (harping on racism) ignores these concerns.
At the same time, no one wants to talk about the issues - illegal immigration and outsourcing to China (and India for tech) - that has caused and is causing stresses to ordinary Americans.
The only two candidates who are even acknowledging these issues are Trump and Sanders. Why is anyone surprised that these two candidates are surging in polls?
Why won't Krugman talk about pocketbook anxieties of voters? Difficulty of finding a job, having it pay a living wage, being unable to afford the high premiums of Obamacare, the unaffordability of college for one's children are legitimate concerns. The "dog whistle" of the left (harping on racism) ignores these concerns.
At the same time, no one wants to talk about the issues - illegal immigration and outsourcing to China (and India for tech) - that has caused and is causing stresses to ordinary Americans.
The only two candidates who are even acknowledging these issues are Trump and Sanders. Why is anyone surprised that these two candidates are surging in polls?
11
Exactly! In an ideal world, Sanders would easily win the Presidency and have the coattails to flip the Senate and the House to the Dems. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world so I am backing Hillary since she is the more electable of the two Dem candidates on a national level and will probably also flip the Senate to the Dems.
11
> The Clinton view, on the other hand, seems to be that money is the root of some evil, maybe a lot of evil, but it isn’t the whole story. Instead, racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice are powerful forces in their own right.
You are deeply mistaken if you believe that Sanders doesn't care deeply about those issues. Painting with a broad brush, Sanders supporters believe that he will do everything he can to rid us of the corrupting influence of money. He/we may not be entirely success - we almost certainly won't - but he'll give it everything he's got. In contrast, Sanders supporters are skeptical that Clinton will do anything significant to minimize the influence of money in politics - a little around the edges, sure, but not major actions that she'd spend her political capital on. (There's also her rather bellicose foreign policy outlook, her hedging on the TPP, Keystone XL, and lots of other things, but that's a subject for another day.)
> Some activists go further and call on Democrats to stop talking about social issues other than income inequality...
Which Democrats are those? I haven't met them.
You are deeply mistaken if you believe that Sanders doesn't care deeply about those issues. Painting with a broad brush, Sanders supporters believe that he will do everything he can to rid us of the corrupting influence of money. He/we may not be entirely success - we almost certainly won't - but he'll give it everything he's got. In contrast, Sanders supporters are skeptical that Clinton will do anything significant to minimize the influence of money in politics - a little around the edges, sure, but not major actions that she'd spend her political capital on. (There's also her rather bellicose foreign policy outlook, her hedging on the TPP, Keystone XL, and lots of other things, but that's a subject for another day.)
> Some activists go further and call on Democrats to stop talking about social issues other than income inequality...
Which Democrats are those? I haven't met them.
10
I see two things missing here. First, it's true people aren't taking guidance like before. There is a great deal of free-floating anger, but how it is formed into supposed movements has much to do with the daily media (no doubt the Tea Party existed in embryo before CNN got ahold of it), which has vast amounts of time it needs to fill and thrives on round-the-clock tele-drama. Second, liberal Democrats almost always rebel when the party establishment pre-nominates a moderate, legacy candidate (VP, spouse, relative, etc.), and rightly so. (Of course they may be former liberals like Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale who have simply spent too much time in Washington.) The idea is to put a good scare into the establishment even though you know you will probably come around in the end. I suggest an intervention earlier in the process.
Racism is what drives much of the evil behaviors of present day America. Northern Michigan thrives on hating people of color, particularly Black Americans, with the full support of local, and state government officials and employees, including Governor Snyder.
The campaign against civility by the right is increasing successful in this state, and the Democratic Party has participated in these behaviors of maligning and divisiveness, because in their own gut(s), they too feel and look down on many people as low lives.
So here we are in the year 2016, building a country of Orchs, slash, and burn, and kill, and poison, whatever it takes to create and maintain a nation of uncertain, depressed, hateful, crime ridden, hopeless peoples. But there are sparks of strong unrelenting truths, such are most of the peoples of Flint, Michigan.
The campaign against civility by the right is increasing successful in this state, and the Democratic Party has participated in these behaviors of maligning and divisiveness, because in their own gut(s), they too feel and look down on many people as low lives.
So here we are in the year 2016, building a country of Orchs, slash, and burn, and kill, and poison, whatever it takes to create and maintain a nation of uncertain, depressed, hateful, crime ridden, hopeless peoples. But there are sparks of strong unrelenting truths, such are most of the peoples of Flint, Michigan.
5
How does Mr Krugman think the Clintons made $139 million just in the last seven years ?
Yes, there’s a lot of influence-buying out there.
Yes, there’s a lot of influence-buying out there.
26
No doubt that prejudice, discrimination in any form, are ferocious forces in our society that we must fight against all the live long day, and we do, but we have a very long way to go before these forces are expired. The single most important thing that we could do, however, is to build a better, safer, and more healthy environment for all through making an informed and concerted effort to rebuild our country's infrastructure. I don't see how we can make progress on the poor, when they remain immured in the inner cities or out of the way back washed places without any real means to obtain a decent job. Realizing that neither Clinton or Sanders could deliver on a single promise if the House and Senate does not change over, or there is some kind of miraculous conversion on the part of Republicans there that makes them willing to compromise, we will just have more of the same, but if Congress turns over, we will make more progress with someone like Mr. Sanders than we would with Ms. Clinton, who seems to be looking back and not forward. She is a remarkably intelligent and resourceful person, who no doubt would make a good leader, but appears to have too many connections that would restrict her. She could manage a stagnant society better than Bernie, though, so I am watching what is going on in the House and Senate more than I am watching the Presidency.
3
In the 60's during the height of the anti-war Movement (in which I was active), I knew guys (they were almost always guys) like Bernie Sanders: Manichean, self-righteous and contemptuous all those who were not part of the solution as opposed to the problem. Cocksure of themselves and their "correct" politics these guys strutted on the stage convinced that everyone but themselves and their uncritical disciples were afflicted with False Consciousness (Marcuse was read back then). I disliked guys like Bernie back then and I dislike Bernie, now. In Bernie's political pogrom against the "1 percenters" he has stigmatized a large group of human beings to which he has falsely attributed all the world's problems. To do so is factually wrong and morally repugnant. I didn't drink the kool-aid in 1969, and I won't in 2016.
7
So are you saying that the Vietnam War was something that everyone should have supported or just that you didn't care for the anti-war movement?
1
Bernie is so contemptuous of everyone who doesn't agree with him that he went to conservative Liberty University to dialogue with youthful religious fundamentalists on possible common ground based on their expressed values. Also, he's so Manichaen that he worked with John McCain to craft a veterans' benefits bill.
Hillary, when asked if she had any enemies stated simply, "Republicans!" Sanders actually gets a significant percentage of registered Republicans in his state to vote for him.
Sorry, I'm not drinking your self-righteous Sanders-demonization Kool Aid.
Hillary, when asked if she had any enemies stated simply, "Republicans!" Sanders actually gets a significant percentage of registered Republicans in his state to vote for him.
Sorry, I'm not drinking your self-righteous Sanders-demonization Kool Aid.
3
Thank you. Those of us who have a longer perspective recognize Mr Sanders all too well.
1
I am glad Ms. Warren's Op Ed was printed at the same time as this.
Thank Goodness our political leaders are painting a far-more visionary path than I read from some commentators.
Thank Goodness our political leaders are painting a far-more visionary path than I read from some commentators.
17
It would be a sad commentary on the best country in the world, founded on the best principles humans could conceive, if what you are saying is true.
If indeed it is true then America can no longer claim the mantle of being the defender of Freedom everywhere in the world. They would in fact be the defenders of the American way of life, which is mostly unattainable to the rest of the world.
I would like to believe that is not true. Not because I have an irrational weakness for America, but because the principles have everything you need to build the beacon that everyone else looks to, to do the right thing ( after they have tried everything else ). And you _have_ tried nearly everything else.
The argument is not about politics any more, but about the values that define your country.
If the Republican base is alienated and "sticking to their religion and their guns and antipathy to people who aren't like them", then it is only their bitterness/xenophobia that needs an answer. There is nothing wrong with their religion or their affinity for guns (to defend their freedom, and not kill their colleagues or kids).
Candidate Obama was supposed to be such a person. He should have (and still has time to) give them a path out of hatred/fear/phobia of people who aren't like them. The threat to the American way of life is what he said he had the answer to.
He should be focussing again on building American skill, strength, hope and ingenuity.
The rest of the work is done.
If indeed it is true then America can no longer claim the mantle of being the defender of Freedom everywhere in the world. They would in fact be the defenders of the American way of life, which is mostly unattainable to the rest of the world.
I would like to believe that is not true. Not because I have an irrational weakness for America, but because the principles have everything you need to build the beacon that everyone else looks to, to do the right thing ( after they have tried everything else ). And you _have_ tried nearly everything else.
The argument is not about politics any more, but about the values that define your country.
If the Republican base is alienated and "sticking to their religion and their guns and antipathy to people who aren't like them", then it is only their bitterness/xenophobia that needs an answer. There is nothing wrong with their religion or their affinity for guns (to defend their freedom, and not kill their colleagues or kids).
Candidate Obama was supposed to be such a person. He should have (and still has time to) give them a path out of hatred/fear/phobia of people who aren't like them. The threat to the American way of life is what he said he had the answer to.
He should be focussing again on building American skill, strength, hope and ingenuity.
The rest of the work is done.
You can't change the minds of people who live to hate you.
This was obvious in the Washington Posts editorial page, with their hit piece on Bernie Sanders. Amazon's Jeff Bezos bought the WaPo and will probably use ot the same way as Rupert Murdoch. The billionaire class is afraid of folks like Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
13
“The Clinton view, on the other hand, seems to be that money is the root of some evil, maybe a lot of evil, but it isn’t the whole story. Instead, racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice are powerful forces in their own right. This may not seem like a very big difference — both candidates oppose prejudice, both want to reduce economic inequality. But it matters for political strategy.”
-Correct. But why?
Obviously it’s not in Hillary Clinton’s or the Clinton Foundation’s interest to debate money in politics so she must talk about other issues. I for one would love to hear what she has to say about Monsanto, fracking, and what she thinks she can accomplish as president with the current Congress.
-Correct. But why?
Obviously it’s not in Hillary Clinton’s or the Clinton Foundation’s interest to debate money in politics so she must talk about other issues. I for one would love to hear what she has to say about Monsanto, fracking, and what she thinks she can accomplish as president with the current Congress.
4
Mayer wrote a great book and should be praised. In an environment where resources for living an adequate life are scarce, humans hoard and the easiest approach is to hoard within kinship groups hence the bias and racism you see. Turning the situation around doesn't start with economics though. It starts with civics and reminding all about the duties of a free people toward one another.
5
The pace of most change in politics is glacial.
There's usually decades of dogged work before the seeming 'sudden.'
Dearest John Lewis D-GA reminds us, "You can't get weary. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Be happy in the struggle.'
He & Hillary keep their eye on the Beloved Community, the Beloved Village. They love & admire each other. They're my heroes.
There's usually decades of dogged work before the seeming 'sudden.'
Dearest John Lewis D-GA reminds us, "You can't get weary. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Be happy in the struggle.'
He & Hillary keep their eye on the Beloved Community, the Beloved Village. They love & admire each other. They're my heroes.
7
Mine, too.
1
Indeed, Mr. Sanders is right in regard big money because big money is the main tool of control (1% vs. 99%). He is the best of this presidential race because he is straight forward.
On the other hand, the Clintons are the masters of "triangulation" and with all due respect to Mrs. Clinton she lacks character and judgment to be POTUS.
On the other hand, the Clintons are the masters of "triangulation" and with all due respect to Mrs. Clinton she lacks character and judgment to be POTUS.
4
Hillary Clinton is a Democratic Leadership Council, Third Way, "centrist" kind of candidate. She was on the board of Wal-Mart, she supported the Iraq War in speeches, repeating Bush Administration talking points -- it wasn't just one mistaken vote. She works for Goldman Sachs -- very high pay for little work -- and many other Wall Street companies, as does her husband. She is strongly supported by the military corporations and she helped them sell their weapons as Secretary of State. She also promoted fracking. She was late to accept same-sex marriage. She was for TPP and Keystone XL before she was against them. Without exception, Sanders has been more progressive than Clinton on all of these issues.
Where is the political ugliness you're talking about? I'm not seeing it and you give no examples. Would my previous paragraph be an example. Is it ugly to list facts about a candidate?
Clinton supporters like yourself, and you have long been one, are telling us that she is the pragmatic candidate who can get things done. Billionaires are very concerned about the Sanders candidacy for the same reason -- they don't think Sanders can get things done. Sanders wants to treat capital gains exceeding $250,000/year the same as other income, and he wants a top marginal rate of 52% for income exceeding $10 million/year. But you and the billionaires aren't concerned about that, you're concerned that our dreams will be crushed when he fails. Thanks for caring!
Where is the political ugliness you're talking about? I'm not seeing it and you give no examples. Would my previous paragraph be an example. Is it ugly to list facts about a candidate?
Clinton supporters like yourself, and you have long been one, are telling us that she is the pragmatic candidate who can get things done. Billionaires are very concerned about the Sanders candidacy for the same reason -- they don't think Sanders can get things done. Sanders wants to treat capital gains exceeding $250,000/year the same as other income, and he wants a top marginal rate of 52% for income exceeding $10 million/year. But you and the billionaires aren't concerned about that, you're concerned that our dreams will be crushed when he fails. Thanks for caring!
580
The ugliness of a Clinton presidency begins on the first week of the next ugly Congress. Special committee hearings to investigate anything they can dream up-- years more of gotcha politics. (And of course, an already announced impeachment call.)
The opposition to a Sanders administration will be strongly political. So, perhaps real deliberation will return to Congress even without a so-called "revolution." More to change in the elections of 2018 and 2020 than this year.
The narrowing vision of the Republicans, evidenced in so many of its presidential candidates, cannot sustain itself.
The opposition to a Sanders administration will be strongly political. So, perhaps real deliberation will return to Congress even without a so-called "revolution." More to change in the elections of 2018 and 2020 than this year.
The narrowing vision of the Republicans, evidenced in so many of its presidential candidates, cannot sustain itself.
5
If the billionaires were as concerned about Mr. Sanders as they are about Mrs. Clinton then they would not be donating money to Karl Rove's Crossroads which is helping Mr. Sanders campaign in Iowa. As well Elizabeth Warren - often seen as closely aligned with Mr. Sanders - endorsed Mrs. Clinton's policies for Wall Street which kind of negates the "HRC is in their pockets" claim. One sort of prejudice not mentioned in this article that I think is in evidence in this campaign is misogyny which has held so many talented woman back from doing their best and created losses for the USA because they haven't been able to do the best for our Country. It's a shame realism has gone out of fashion - creating and keeping liberty is a hard won slog - hard though that may be to hear.
2
I read the rhetoric about HRC's accomplishments, but they are devoid of any specifics. Either there are none, or they are unidentifiable. Which is it?
1
The paradox facing the Democrats is that the opposition is an alliance of the plutocracy and a number of "issue" groups, but that the Democrats cannot give up their principles with respect to these issues. They cannot, for example, decide that a woman's right to choose must be sacrificed for single payer, or that LGBT rights must fall so they can increase taxes on the super-rich.
To revise the famous saying, politics is war by different means. That means that the Democrats must fight on three levels: Strategic, a long range plan to advance the progressive agenda; operational, picking those goals that can be achieved now and that can serve as the basis for further progress in the future (i.e., Obamacare now, single payer later); and tactical, getting candidates who, although not ideologically pure have the ability to win.
Bernie Sanders represents what most Democrats believe in; Hillary Clinton probably has a better chance of being elected (certainly if the opponent is not Cruz or Trump). We fully understand that we can't have everything, and we know what is required - winning the Presidency in 2016, getting rid of the Citizens United Supreme Court, winning the Senate in 2016, 2018, or at least in 2020, winning back the House in 2022 or 2024, after reapportionment, and finally winning the States by 2028.
This will be a long, hard slog - and we need both Bernie and Hillary to do it.
To revise the famous saying, politics is war by different means. That means that the Democrats must fight on three levels: Strategic, a long range plan to advance the progressive agenda; operational, picking those goals that can be achieved now and that can serve as the basis for further progress in the future (i.e., Obamacare now, single payer later); and tactical, getting candidates who, although not ideologically pure have the ability to win.
Bernie Sanders represents what most Democrats believe in; Hillary Clinton probably has a better chance of being elected (certainly if the opponent is not Cruz or Trump). We fully understand that we can't have everything, and we know what is required - winning the Presidency in 2016, getting rid of the Citizens United Supreme Court, winning the Senate in 2016, 2018, or at least in 2020, winning back the House in 2022 or 2024, after reapportionment, and finally winning the States by 2028.
This will be a long, hard slog - and we need both Bernie and Hillary to do it.
9
This is the second pro-Clinton piece from Paul Krugman in recent memory, and it's not a good thing.
16
Third, you lost count. And many many more in his blogs.
2
I think the deepest split in America is still the civil war frontline. Advances, such as those on gay marriage, don't really help a lot to overcome this split. One dog whistle less, yes. Yet the dynamic of us vs. them is unchanged. On a tactical level, Democrats could profit from convincing southeners, that evil yankees are more about big money than social issues. But that's riding the wave, not calming the waters.
2
Why does Paul Krugman insist on ignoring those two 800 pound gorillas following in Hillary Clinton's footsteps? Namely, (1) her die-hard militarism and (2) her uncompromising loyalty to Wall Street. Doesn't he think voters remember her supporting role in the disastrous invasion of Iraq? Or the similarly disastrous regime-change operation in Libya? Doesn't he think we are aware of the legalized bribery of her $200,000 speaking fees, eagerly paid by the likes of Goldman Sachs -- so eagerly that she and Bill have been paid some $125 million in such feels since 2001?
15
This article lacks critical evaluation of préjudices,political oligarchy,progressive and conservative divide challenging the 'American Dream'.Not only that ongoing political and economic reality is repugnant to the 'Founding Fathers' vision for the 'land of the brave'. Equality- economic,faith,one person one vote is very fabric of American democracy.
Since the advent of Ronald Reagan the foundation of American equality and justice for all as enunciated in the 'New Deal' has been systematically eroded both by the Republican and Democrat alike.
The last nail of 'New Deal' demise was hammered by Bill Clinton,a Democrate repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.
President Obama, though in his campaign promised not to prolong Bush Tax cut for corporates,acted just contrary to his promises.These two are just most blatant onslaught on haves- not by American political establishment rendered subservient to big money,wealthy and wealth accumulation.
In the ongoing election cycle campaigning for poor and poverty and continuing with hidden agenda for working for corporates and bankers are on display both among Republicans and Democrats with a single exception of what Bernie Sanders is speaking and highlighting.
If America is to keep 'American Dream' ,economic and social justice for ,haves and haves-not,the money power be rooted out of election.
Mr Krugmann is short of this signal reality which Hilary Clinton has no intention to execute being a beneficiary of money power boosting her campaign.
Since the advent of Ronald Reagan the foundation of American equality and justice for all as enunciated in the 'New Deal' has been systematically eroded both by the Republican and Democrat alike.
The last nail of 'New Deal' demise was hammered by Bill Clinton,a Democrate repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.
President Obama, though in his campaign promised not to prolong Bush Tax cut for corporates,acted just contrary to his promises.These two are just most blatant onslaught on haves- not by American political establishment rendered subservient to big money,wealthy and wealth accumulation.
In the ongoing election cycle campaigning for poor and poverty and continuing with hidden agenda for working for corporates and bankers are on display both among Republicans and Democrats with a single exception of what Bernie Sanders is speaking and highlighting.
If America is to keep 'American Dream' ,economic and social justice for ,haves and haves-not,the money power be rooted out of election.
Mr Krugmann is short of this signal reality which Hilary Clinton has no intention to execute being a beneficiary of money power boosting her campaign.
7
Dr. Krugman obviously is a Hillary Clinton supporter. In this column he again asserts that Bernie Sanders's platform is unachievable. He also implies that Hillary cares more than Bernie about racism, sexism, and inequality other than economic inequality. This is patently false. What is so scary about Bernie's political revolution to you? It remains to be seen whether it will come about, true, but why consign it to the category of pie in the sky ab initio? Why disseminate false information masquerading as opinion? Bernie has fought for human rights, women's rights, racial equality for decades, and he hasn't gotten rich doing it. If elected he will face no more difficulty getting his agenda passed than Hillary would, and he has shown himself adept at advancing his agenda in the past. And finally, what is wrong with addressing the economic disparities that are an obvious and quantifiable effect of prejudice and discrimination? It's a good place to start.
13
Taking us back to pre-1980s tax rates on the wealthiest citizens wouldn't have that much of an effect on the wealthy or the economy and would dampen a political and cultural flash point. But what would happen the day after? The gap that matters is the one between the poorest in society and the middle class because bridging it relieves misery and brings sustainable prosperity. And that gap would not change with a return to the old rates. Therein lies the problem. The single-minded focus on the 1% diverts us from a discussion of the failed experiment in a "global economy" or the government's use of monetary policy to incentivize investments in stocks over other more stable financial instruments. Those who constantly discuss the 1% may be giving us a common enemy (or attempting to) but what aren't do is offering any solutions to intractable poverty.
The day economists decided that the market was purely about commodities abstracting from the social relations embodied in them, the dichotomy between the manifestation of wealth (money) and the social forces that create it deepened. So now, people are waking up to the reality that those ideologies shape their "false consciousness". Racism, gender discrimination, and all the other historical baggage from the social division of labor have served as means to reproduce the worst of them all: class domination. It is about time that identity politics yields to the determinant factor in our life. 30 years of identity politics has not helped clarify that miasma of false consciousness.
1
Fabius and Minucius.
What you don't address is why the coalition between the elite & the base has worked. The confederation is all about power; sure, money is power, but so is tribal hegemony. The entire right-wing apparatus is about preserving white, male “Christian” dominance. The elites have not hoodwinked the rubes; the two believe they have a consuming mutual interest in preserving inequality of wealth, race, religion and gender. The progressive movement began chipping away at the ruler class more than 100 years ago, but it wasn't until the civil rights & women's movements upended the average white guy's special position that the alliance formed, and the Republican party cemented itself as the party of greed & grievance.
Immigration foes are desperate to save our whitey-whiteness. Antipathy to gays, Muslims, etc., is about preserving a “Christian nation.” The anti-abortion/anti-contraception movement isn't about right-to-life; it's about keeping women barefoot & pregnant. The abhorrence of government is a hatred of regulations that limit white tribal dominance.
Barack Obama was right in 2004 to envision one nation. But as long as most of us see ourselves as part of some special interest group – sometimes a group of one – we will be a nation divided. If you watch Bernie Sanders' closing Iowa ad "America," you'll see he gets that, too.
The Constant Weader @http://www.realitychex.com
Immigration foes are desperate to save our whitey-whiteness. Antipathy to gays, Muslims, etc., is about preserving a “Christian nation.” The anti-abortion/anti-contraception movement isn't about right-to-life; it's about keeping women barefoot & pregnant. The abhorrence of government is a hatred of regulations that limit white tribal dominance.
Barack Obama was right in 2004 to envision one nation. But as long as most of us see ourselves as part of some special interest group – sometimes a group of one – we will be a nation divided. If you watch Bernie Sanders' closing Iowa ad "America," you'll see he gets that, too.
The Constant Weader @http://www.realitychex.com
7
marie - So nice to see you in this section again :)
3
The real difference between Sanders and Clinton is that only one has an inner Goldwater Girl with whom she must still pre-negotiate every policy stance. We don't need a president who's still struggling with her 50 year old demons and who cannot clearly articulate a message that will attract the economically marginalized who are most susceptible to the manipulations Krugman decries in today's piece. We need a candidate who gives us a pure vision, but one who also has 50 years of practical political experience at all levels guided by that vision.
12
Shortly after the end of WWI, Henrik Van Loon wrote "Tolerance," a book about the history of intolerance over the previous 2,000 years, in which he described the dark side of human nature as being driven by fear, ignorance, and greed.
2
You're losing me.
Your analysis is pallid.
Obama set up the dynamic from the start when he let the war criminals go free, let the financial criminals go free, let the Democrats pass a Republican health care plan, and let the middle class take the fall.
Your analysis is pallid.
Obama set up the dynamic from the start when he let the war criminals go free, let the financial criminals go free, let the Democrats pass a Republican health care plan, and let the middle class take the fall.
9
Our bought Scotus okays a Gay wedding
But no ground on Unions they'll be shedding,
For the Koch Boys et al
Wealth is the femme fatal,
Bernie's way is where I'd be heading!
But no ground on Unions they'll be shedding,
For the Koch Boys et al
Wealth is the femme fatal,
Bernie's way is where I'd be heading!
12
Thanks, it means a lot to us.
The difference between Sanders and Clinton is: Who will steal more of your earnings faster? The craziness is: If both believe money is the root of any evil, why would anyone think that either Sanders or Clinton will be less evil spending your money than you will be?
Politicians corrupt money, not the other way around. But that's because politicians are corrupt, and money isn't.
The President - and that includes Obama, and will include whoever gets there next - creates the 1% by engaging in Crapitalism, handing money out to their favorites in the 1%. Read the book of the same name by Jason Mattera if you want to know more.
Politicians corrupt money, not the other way around. But that's because politicians are corrupt, and money isn't.
The President - and that includes Obama, and will include whoever gets there next - creates the 1% by engaging in Crapitalism, handing money out to their favorites in the 1%. Read the book of the same name by Jason Mattera if you want to know more.
2
I'll stick with Senator Sanders' view that money is the root of all evil but ask Dr. Krugman to tell me what he means by "a fair share" when it come to income inequality.
4
"Don't tax you, don't tax me...tax the fellow behind the tree."
We all know that the Sanders/Clinton programs will require massive tax increases on the bare majority of households currently paying income taxes (the notorious 53% that shall never be mentioned). You could take all the assets...not just the income...of the detested 1% and not begin to cover just one year's cost of what Bernie wants to do. Maybe it's worth it?
We all know that the Sanders/Clinton programs will require massive tax increases on the bare majority of households currently paying income taxes (the notorious 53% that shall never be mentioned). You could take all the assets...not just the income...of the detested 1% and not begin to cover just one year's cost of what Bernie wants to do. Maybe it's worth it?
So, American racism is more a factor now than during the New Deal? Huh?
3
"both candidates oppose prejudice, both want to reduce economic inequality.". how naive Professor Krugman is. while Bernie has clearly stated heart-felt beliefs, even though his knowledge of either economics or american politics (not to mention foreign policy of which he understands virtually nothing) are not in accordance with reality. Hillary simply wants power. she will take ANY position, support ANY program that will enable her to get that power.
5
"And isn't there something noble, even inspiring, about fighting the good fight, year after year, and gradually making things better?"
Sure! And that is exactly what you'd get with Bernie Sanders. Unrelenting opposition to Republican attempts to undo liberal policies in the first two years, gradual change with a small Democratic majority in the second two years, and much greater change with a larger majority in his second term.
You would not get that under Hillary Clinton. Based upon the first two Clinton administrations, the very best you could hope for under her would be two years of hard resistance to Republican rollbacks, followed by a near total capitulation to neoconservative policy goals with the retention of a few token "liberal" programs which she harps on as proof of her credentials as she finally moves with the Republicans to stab Democratic voters in the back.
That is exactly how it played out when Bill Clinton enacted NAFTA. And the Three Strikes laws. and repealed Glass-Steagal. And replaced welfare with "workfare".
And let us not forget foreign policy! Want another war in the Middle East? Then vote Clinton. She helped bring us Iraq. She is directly responsible for the disintegration of Libya as a nation-state. Syria? Yeah, that happened on her watch. Endless support for Israeli misconduct in the Palestinian Territories (FYI: I am Jewish- I do NOT support the Israeli government's conduct). No support for the Arab Spring. What credentials!
Sure! And that is exactly what you'd get with Bernie Sanders. Unrelenting opposition to Republican attempts to undo liberal policies in the first two years, gradual change with a small Democratic majority in the second two years, and much greater change with a larger majority in his second term.
You would not get that under Hillary Clinton. Based upon the first two Clinton administrations, the very best you could hope for under her would be two years of hard resistance to Republican rollbacks, followed by a near total capitulation to neoconservative policy goals with the retention of a few token "liberal" programs which she harps on as proof of her credentials as she finally moves with the Republicans to stab Democratic voters in the back.
That is exactly how it played out when Bill Clinton enacted NAFTA. And the Three Strikes laws. and repealed Glass-Steagal. And replaced welfare with "workfare".
And let us not forget foreign policy! Want another war in the Middle East? Then vote Clinton. She helped bring us Iraq. She is directly responsible for the disintegration of Libya as a nation-state. Syria? Yeah, that happened on her watch. Endless support for Israeli misconduct in the Palestinian Territories (FYI: I am Jewish- I do NOT support the Israeli government's conduct). No support for the Arab Spring. What credentials!
7
The influence of big money has definitely ratcheted up the nastiness. There was a time when republicans made a veiled attempt to disguise it, but no more. But I think the change that Mr Krugman is doubtful of may have already started with this election cycle. Republican voters are finally coming to the realization that all of the previous candidates and repub presidents have not delivered. All of the so called promises made continuously over the last 35 years by the GOP have not materialized, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, minorities, etc. Trump supporters are not just the typical far right but also others that have had enough of the old promises after voting as directed for presidents, congressmen and at the state level too. The irony here is Trump can't and won't deliver either. But maybe that will spur the change needed in the republican party if they can come to this realization on their own.
1
It is completely disingenuous to suggest that Sanders is somehow not up to Hilary Clinton in the social justice arena.
Clinton's supporters love to point to her commitment to families and women and children. Well let's look at the record. She supported Bill's efforts to "reform" welfare, and made it even harder for poor, working women. She voted to invade Iraq. And she vilified women who came forward about sexual harassment, when it concerned her husband.
I'm pretty sure all of these documented behaviors were inimical to families, women and children. And it is a complete hypocrisy to deny them.
Clinton's supporters love to point to her commitment to families and women and children. Well let's look at the record. She supported Bill's efforts to "reform" welfare, and made it even harder for poor, working women. She voted to invade Iraq. And she vilified women who came forward about sexual harassment, when it concerned her husband.
I'm pretty sure all of these documented behaviors were inimical to families, women and children. And it is a complete hypocrisy to deny them.
14
Two columns today, one by Elizabeth Warren and the other by Paul Krugman. Both well written.
Warren's column addresses the first duty of the President we are about to elect -- enforcement of our laws. She makes a great point. "Enforcement isn’t about big government or small government. It’s about whether government works and who it works for."
That, Mr. Krugman is the central question. Sure, a large segment of voters may be prejudiced and responsive to the oligarch's dog whistles. They probably don't even like the single malt Scotch you prefer. But they do believe in enforcing our laws. And more than anything else, they want their children and grandchildren to enjoy a better life and greater opportunity. And, yes, everyday Americans do firmly believe that traditional values affect their lives and the lives of their children.
Elizabeth Warren is right. “Corporate criminals routinely escape meaningful prosecution for their misconduct.” Many, if not most, have escaped meaningful prosecution under the Obama administration. Bernie Sanders is not the poster child for evading responsibility for misconduct.
No Republican candidate can stand up in debate and say that the enforcement of our laws should be lenient. The Democratic candidate needs to include the position Ms. Warren advocates in her or his platform -- using enforcement to make government work for everyday Americans.
Bernie Sanders can do that. Hillary Clinton not so much.
Warren's column addresses the first duty of the President we are about to elect -- enforcement of our laws. She makes a great point. "Enforcement isn’t about big government or small government. It’s about whether government works and who it works for."
That, Mr. Krugman is the central question. Sure, a large segment of voters may be prejudiced and responsive to the oligarch's dog whistles. They probably don't even like the single malt Scotch you prefer. But they do believe in enforcing our laws. And more than anything else, they want their children and grandchildren to enjoy a better life and greater opportunity. And, yes, everyday Americans do firmly believe that traditional values affect their lives and the lives of their children.
Elizabeth Warren is right. “Corporate criminals routinely escape meaningful prosecution for their misconduct.” Many, if not most, have escaped meaningful prosecution under the Obama administration. Bernie Sanders is not the poster child for evading responsibility for misconduct.
No Republican candidate can stand up in debate and say that the enforcement of our laws should be lenient. The Democratic candidate needs to include the position Ms. Warren advocates in her or his platform -- using enforcement to make government work for everyday Americans.
Bernie Sanders can do that. Hillary Clinton not so much.
14
"visions of radical change are naïve"
As long as congress is dominated by GOP reactionaries, this is absolutely true.
Beware Democrats! A GOP president will choose a new Supreme Court, then will attempt to end taxation for the 1%. Other horrors will follow.
As long as congress is dominated by GOP reactionaries, this is absolutely true.
Beware Democrats! A GOP president will choose a new Supreme Court, then will attempt to end taxation for the 1%. Other horrors will follow.
7
"then will attempt to end taxation for the 1%" - you're funny! End, end do you really mean end.
We believe that the "a lot of real prejudice out there" is impotent without the huge money on their side.
6
Your polarization of the Bernie vs. Hillary platforms rings false. It is true that Bernie has a focus on evils of extreme income inequality (much like yourself, Elizabeth Warren and Thomas Piketty, previously) but the very things you highlight for Clinton are all messages that Bernie championed prior to Clinton banging the drums for in her campaign. There are some concerns about Bernie Sanders being too idealistic, but wasn't Obama before election to office too idealistic about changing America, and didn't he pragmatically evolve into a pretty good POTUS?
The GOP has shown that drawing an extreme stance "line in the sand" as a position to start from can be effective for energizing the base to get into office and setting a tone that has largely drawn us on the whole much toward the right of center in most policies in the 21st century. Maybe Bernie's extreme position can jockey us back toward the ideals of the great social contract of the last century.
The GOP has shown that drawing an extreme stance "line in the sand" as a position to start from can be effective for energizing the base to get into office and setting a tone that has largely drawn us on the whole much toward the right of center in most policies in the 21st century. Maybe Bernie's extreme position can jockey us back toward the ideals of the great social contract of the last century.
19
(Pay no attention to that candidate behind the current accepting money from Banksters)
The canned motto in Bernies early speeches in his campaign was a message to the Billionare class "They can't have it all."
Now on the eve of the Iowa caucus, with Bernie pulling even there with Hillary and far ahaed in New Hampshire, Hillary's entire campaign appears as if it is in jeopardy if she looses in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Meanwhile Trump, a billionaire, appears to be leading the GOP. And so with a rogue Trump ascending and a conflicted Hillary descending, another Multi-Billionaire, one with solid Wall Street credentials, former Mayor Bloomberg appears to be mulling over entering the race - as a sort of stand in for the fading Hillary.
So, in one corner you have Bernie telling the billionaires that his campaign is all about "you can't have it all" and in two other corners you have Billionaires lining up in hopes that they can.
And this election is not all about money.
The canned motto in Bernies early speeches in his campaign was a message to the Billionare class "They can't have it all."
Now on the eve of the Iowa caucus, with Bernie pulling even there with Hillary and far ahaed in New Hampshire, Hillary's entire campaign appears as if it is in jeopardy if she looses in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Meanwhile Trump, a billionaire, appears to be leading the GOP. And so with a rogue Trump ascending and a conflicted Hillary descending, another Multi-Billionaire, one with solid Wall Street credentials, former Mayor Bloomberg appears to be mulling over entering the race - as a sort of stand in for the fading Hillary.
So, in one corner you have Bernie telling the billionaires that his campaign is all about "you can't have it all" and in two other corners you have Billionaires lining up in hopes that they can.
And this election is not all about money.
8
Yes, there were concerns about Barack Obama being too idealistic--and in the end, those concerns were proven true. He revealed himself as a Progressive zealot, unable to compromise--whose only legislative accomplishment, the ACA, had not a single Republican supporter, and to this day does not have the support of the majority of Americans.
And as for his "evolving into the pretty goo POTUS"? He hasn't evolved at all. I can't think of a single U.S. president who has learned less than Obama. He's still dogmatic, intractable, unwilling to compromise, still believes in Soclialism--and thus has been marginalized--stymied by the American people, and their elected representatives. Obama is solely responsible for the huge Republican majorities in the House, Senate and state legislatures, and governorships.
If Obama deserves credit for anything, it's that he has galvanized the American Right, and revealed the silliness of Liberalism to American voters.
And as for his "evolving into the pretty goo POTUS"? He hasn't evolved at all. I can't think of a single U.S. president who has learned less than Obama. He's still dogmatic, intractable, unwilling to compromise, still believes in Soclialism--and thus has been marginalized--stymied by the American people, and their elected representatives. Obama is solely responsible for the huge Republican majorities in the House, Senate and state legislatures, and governorships.
If Obama deserves credit for anything, it's that he has galvanized the American Right, and revealed the silliness of Liberalism to American voters.
1
In 8 years Trump and Clinton will be both be 77. Bernie will be 83. Just think about that for awhile.......
In Anglo-Saxon civics the primary purpose of politics is to effect economics & works best when everyone pursues their own interest.
This is due to ideological issues being settled in the legal system where judges made law by answering narrow questions w/ narrow answers pulled pragmatically from the pantheon of ideologies that worked best. Since ideological issues were settled in the law system the political system was left to effect economics.
The governing princple is free contract which means bargaining power determines the distribution of resources.
Of that the prime directive of the GOP is the pursuit of ever greater concentration of wealth & power. They've been successful at this by systematically attacking the agency of other groups bargaining power at macro (legislative) & micro (employee/employer) levels. To do that they had to get voters of other groups to think that politics was about ideology or otherwise.
When there's plenty to go around we all live peacefully even if we don't like each other.
Since 1972 the economy has grown 150% while wages have remained flat. http://goo.gl/PYLKxy
Under stress the psychological effect is artificial scarcity. While the gods bath in ever deepening pools the beasts crowding around a shrinking watering hole will sooner or later feel forced to turn on each other. The result is vulger & the identity politics of Trump. It ripples globally.
Much of todays angst is the result of greed: coddling billionaires. At oh, such a price!
This is due to ideological issues being settled in the legal system where judges made law by answering narrow questions w/ narrow answers pulled pragmatically from the pantheon of ideologies that worked best. Since ideological issues were settled in the law system the political system was left to effect economics.
The governing princple is free contract which means bargaining power determines the distribution of resources.
Of that the prime directive of the GOP is the pursuit of ever greater concentration of wealth & power. They've been successful at this by systematically attacking the agency of other groups bargaining power at macro (legislative) & micro (employee/employer) levels. To do that they had to get voters of other groups to think that politics was about ideology or otherwise.
When there's plenty to go around we all live peacefully even if we don't like each other.
Since 1972 the economy has grown 150% while wages have remained flat. http://goo.gl/PYLKxy
Under stress the psychological effect is artificial scarcity. While the gods bath in ever deepening pools the beasts crowding around a shrinking watering hole will sooner or later feel forced to turn on each other. The result is vulger & the identity politics of Trump. It ripples globally.
Much of todays angst is the result of greed: coddling billionaires. At oh, such a price!
14
"But there’s still a lot of real prejudice out there ..."
Of course. The "demos" -- the people -- are naturally endowed with prejudice, so wha else is new.
The daunting task of democracies is to work with the tendency to pre-judge and engender a healthy "judicious" -- one that chooses leadership that moves the nation in a moral and practical direction.
The task has been the same since the ancient Athens government -- the first Western democracy -- first conceived of the system. And even then there were serious countervailing forces: the corruptive power of wealth; manipulative power of trained orators; and the inherent susceptibility of the demos to both.
As a result gridlock ensued, governments were pillaged, and then floundered Tyrants assumed power and were welcomed at first as a breath of fresh air. More recently Napoleon filled a power and legitimacy vacuum.
American democracy has done better than most if not all, but being people we fall victim to our faults.
However, PK should give Bernie credit for eschewing the really big money from the oligarchs. He's the only one out their from either party hewing to democracy in its most ideal form.
We the people need to exercise judiciousness.
Of course. The "demos" -- the people -- are naturally endowed with prejudice, so wha else is new.
The daunting task of democracies is to work with the tendency to pre-judge and engender a healthy "judicious" -- one that chooses leadership that moves the nation in a moral and practical direction.
The task has been the same since the ancient Athens government -- the first Western democracy -- first conceived of the system. And even then there were serious countervailing forces: the corruptive power of wealth; manipulative power of trained orators; and the inherent susceptibility of the demos to both.
As a result gridlock ensued, governments were pillaged, and then floundered Tyrants assumed power and were welcomed at first as a breath of fresh air. More recently Napoleon filled a power and legitimacy vacuum.
American democracy has done better than most if not all, but being people we fall victim to our faults.
However, PK should give Bernie credit for eschewing the really big money from the oligarchs. He's the only one out their from either party hewing to democracy in its most ideal form.
We the people need to exercise judiciousness.
7
I am impressed by the degree that otherness being exploited in every possible way. Imagine demanding the Right to discriminate on Religious grounds. I am reminded of James Patrick Kinney's “The Cold Within” where six men of different races, religions and positions in life freeze to death because each used their own prejudice as a spiteful reason not to contribute their log to a dying fire.
Money, like fire and water, can be of tremendous value and benefit or they can be devastating. We wouldn't tolerate using a flamethrower or water cannon to further a political agenda but it's a given that torrents of money will be unleashed to promote a candidate or agenda. Today money is the weapon of choice in suppressing "them" only now there are a lot of different "thems."
"Inequality" is an all encompassing theme, because once you have overcome racial, ethnic, religious, gender, and LGBT bias and create equality of opportunity, income equality will follow. Those prejudices hinder advancement in education & employment, the opportunities to get into not just the right schools but also the fraternities and organizations which leave a "Legacy," a blazed trail, a network for your offspring and proteges to avail themselves. That's where the influence of money percolates.
Paying someone more to flip burgers doesn't advance their position in life. Ensuring a good education on an equal playing field is the difference between that being a part time job in school or a dead end full time job.
Money, like fire and water, can be of tremendous value and benefit or they can be devastating. We wouldn't tolerate using a flamethrower or water cannon to further a political agenda but it's a given that torrents of money will be unleashed to promote a candidate or agenda. Today money is the weapon of choice in suppressing "them" only now there are a lot of different "thems."
"Inequality" is an all encompassing theme, because once you have overcome racial, ethnic, religious, gender, and LGBT bias and create equality of opportunity, income equality will follow. Those prejudices hinder advancement in education & employment, the opportunities to get into not just the right schools but also the fraternities and organizations which leave a "Legacy," a blazed trail, a network for your offspring and proteges to avail themselves. That's where the influence of money percolates.
Paying someone more to flip burgers doesn't advance their position in life. Ensuring a good education on an equal playing field is the difference between that being a part time job in school or a dead end full time job.
4
Both parties have left the average working American's economic security in the dust for the last 35 years. The Democrats' attitude was one of benign neglect and the Republicans deliberately and systematically destroyed the economic security of much of the nation. The result is support for Bernie Sanders on the left and Trump on the right.
As another commenter said, of course racism and sexism matter. But if you look behind the fear exhibited by the hard-right's supporters, at least part of that fear is rooted in economic insecurity.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs has physiological needs at its base. It takes money to meet those needs these days; few of us are hunter/gatherers. Next is safety. Again I'd argue that safety in today's world can be defined much more as economic security than as safety from marauding bands of Mongol hordes. Candidates from both sides who ignore that will do so at their peril. The natives are restless.
I almost always agree with Dr. Krugman, but today I cannot. The worship of money and those who have lots of it really is the root of all evil and much of our other societal problems are either caused by or exacerbated by those who deliberately fan the flames of prejudice in order to get us to look away while they pick our pockets. Only one of our Democratic candidates is willing to admit that.
As another commenter said, of course racism and sexism matter. But if you look behind the fear exhibited by the hard-right's supporters, at least part of that fear is rooted in economic insecurity.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs has physiological needs at its base. It takes money to meet those needs these days; few of us are hunter/gatherers. Next is safety. Again I'd argue that safety in today's world can be defined much more as economic security than as safety from marauding bands of Mongol hordes. Candidates from both sides who ignore that will do so at their peril. The natives are restless.
I almost always agree with Dr. Krugman, but today I cannot. The worship of money and those who have lots of it really is the root of all evil and much of our other societal problems are either caused by or exacerbated by those who deliberately fan the flames of prejudice in order to get us to look away while they pick our pockets. Only one of our Democratic candidates is willing to admit that.
47
Today David Brooks and Paul Krugman have pieces that are talking about the same problem. Both are decrying the tendency of people who are politically involved to over simplify. In the Republican Party and the right in general, they have their "Free Market Good, Income Redistribution Bad" mindset. A fair number of people in Democratic Party and the left in general have a "Income Redistribution Good, Free Market Bad" mindset. As Brooks and Krugman are both saying, our problems are about more than just money. It is about bad circumstances, not being concerned about each other and treating each other unfairly. These slogan oriented mindsets are easier to understand than these deep social issues. Also, focusing on economics allows us as individuals to ignore any personal responsibility. You don't need to think all that hard abcout them to choose the economic path you would prefer our country to take. Those economic issues are important but unfortunately, neither economic philosophy will ever solve the social ills of this country. That will take a little more thought.
3
For purposes of the identity politics-driven Clinton campaign, Krugman tries to separate capitalism ("plutocrats") from sexism and racism.
Without capitalism. there could be no racism. Without white male-run capitalism, there could be no legalized misogyny. Bernie Sanders knows this as well as any honest historian.
The African slave trade fueled capitalism, and invented racism as an institution which survives to this very day. Just as modern plutocrats justify Jim Crow, so too did their greedy capitalist forebears justify slavery by declaring dark-skinned people to be an "inferior race." Racism is the tool of plutocratic greed and inhumanity to man. Racism is what allowed obscenely rich sadists to own human beings, yet still show their faces in church on Sundays.
It's shocking, but Hillary Clinton herself used prison slave labor in the Arkansas governor's mansion. It's all right there in her book "It Takes a Village." Instead of trying to end the practice of using black convicts as free help, Clinton relates that she decided to give it a try, even though those guys scared her at first. "It was a longstanding tradition which kept down costs," she blithely relates. She was pleasantly surprised when the black prison labor obeyed her house rules, and she only had to send few of them back to prison.
http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/2016/01/hillary-clintons-house-slaves.html
Sorry, PK. Your attempt to be a kinder, gentler David Brock has fallen flat on its face.
Without capitalism. there could be no racism. Without white male-run capitalism, there could be no legalized misogyny. Bernie Sanders knows this as well as any honest historian.
The African slave trade fueled capitalism, and invented racism as an institution which survives to this very day. Just as modern plutocrats justify Jim Crow, so too did their greedy capitalist forebears justify slavery by declaring dark-skinned people to be an "inferior race." Racism is the tool of plutocratic greed and inhumanity to man. Racism is what allowed obscenely rich sadists to own human beings, yet still show their faces in church on Sundays.
It's shocking, but Hillary Clinton herself used prison slave labor in the Arkansas governor's mansion. It's all right there in her book "It Takes a Village." Instead of trying to end the practice of using black convicts as free help, Clinton relates that she decided to give it a try, even though those guys scared her at first. "It was a longstanding tradition which kept down costs," she blithely relates. She was pleasantly surprised when the black prison labor obeyed her house rules, and she only had to send few of them back to prison.
http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/2016/01/hillary-clintons-house-slaves.html
Sorry, PK. Your attempt to be a kinder, gentler David Brock has fallen flat on its face.
38
This column reminds me of the question: "are you having an affair?" and the answer that come back: "it's complicated."
Which means: "yes, I've some how have stumbled across a moral line in the sand, but I'm still the same person I was on the other side, maybe I can find my way back."
Here the question is: "Is greed the source of all our ills?"
And Prof. Krugman saying "It's complicated."
Yes it is, or so it always seems with the Clintons.
From 1933-1980, per the Roosevelt revolution we had demand side bias economics.
From 1981-Present, per the Reagan revolution we've had supply side bias economics.
However we hit the supply side saturation point in 1998 with the dot com bubble. That means supply side policies are no longer efficacious. In the face of that, the Bushies pored the coals on supply side, leading directly to the 2008 implossion: the catalist being unsatiable greed on Wall Street.
Wall street was restored and made whole, even stronger than before. Main Street is only partially restored.
The only true elexer is a Demand Side revolution, albeit 18 years late. That revolution is the Bernie revolution.
Hillar represents kicking the supply side can down the road another decade hoping the few crumbs from the table dropped to the masses will keep things copesetic while the fabulously rich get fabulously richer.
What we need is:
From 2017 - Indefinite future, per the Bernie revolution, demand side bias economic policy era.
Which means: "yes, I've some how have stumbled across a moral line in the sand, but I'm still the same person I was on the other side, maybe I can find my way back."
Here the question is: "Is greed the source of all our ills?"
And Prof. Krugman saying "It's complicated."
Yes it is, or so it always seems with the Clintons.
From 1933-1980, per the Roosevelt revolution we had demand side bias economics.
From 1981-Present, per the Reagan revolution we've had supply side bias economics.
However we hit the supply side saturation point in 1998 with the dot com bubble. That means supply side policies are no longer efficacious. In the face of that, the Bushies pored the coals on supply side, leading directly to the 2008 implossion: the catalist being unsatiable greed on Wall Street.
Wall street was restored and made whole, even stronger than before. Main Street is only partially restored.
The only true elexer is a Demand Side revolution, albeit 18 years late. That revolution is the Bernie revolution.
Hillar represents kicking the supply side can down the road another decade hoping the few crumbs from the table dropped to the masses will keep things copesetic while the fabulously rich get fabulously richer.
What we need is:
From 2017 - Indefinite future, per the Bernie revolution, demand side bias economic policy era.
4
Uh-HUH. Racism, religious prejudice and sexism DON'T exist under Islam? Anti-Semitism DIDN'T exist under Soviet communist rule, or DOESN'T exist in Russia today? Homophobic regimes AREN'T entrenched in societies that are anything but capitalist?
Your unreasoning hatred of capitalism is showing; but your arguments usually offer more reason, even if not more balance.
Your unreasoning hatred of capitalism is showing; but your arguments usually offer more reason, even if not more balance.
2
The American Revolution of 1776 was primarily a revolt against the hereditary aristocracy.
We were sick and tired of being told what to do by idiots who had inherited their power.
There were some elements of egalitarianism and fairness in people's minds. Jefferson
outlawed excessive inheritances, and religious freedom and freedom of the press were added.
But Jefferson's reason was that huge inheritance gives a person undemocratic political power,
and religious freedom was largely meant as opposition to the establishment of the church
favored by the rich.
The job is not finished. Today, the distortion of House districts by both conscious
gerrymandering and by the concentration of Democrats in big cities effectively eliminates
elections. Yes, big money supports it but it is not the same as money power. And of course
when elections turn out badly for the Oligarchs, their Supreme Court invalidates them and
appoints their candidate.
Changing anything basically involves taking the power of inherited fortunes out of the mix.
Political action takes focus and intelligence. Bernie seems to understand this where Hillary Clinton apparently wants to do
as little as possible to upset any apple carts.
Watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube (2 min 9 sec) and maybe Comedy2 (3 min 43 sec). Thanks.
We were sick and tired of being told what to do by idiots who had inherited their power.
There were some elements of egalitarianism and fairness in people's minds. Jefferson
outlawed excessive inheritances, and religious freedom and freedom of the press were added.
But Jefferson's reason was that huge inheritance gives a person undemocratic political power,
and religious freedom was largely meant as opposition to the establishment of the church
favored by the rich.
The job is not finished. Today, the distortion of House districts by both conscious
gerrymandering and by the concentration of Democrats in big cities effectively eliminates
elections. Yes, big money supports it but it is not the same as money power. And of course
when elections turn out badly for the Oligarchs, their Supreme Court invalidates them and
appoints their candidate.
Changing anything basically involves taking the power of inherited fortunes out of the mix.
Political action takes focus and intelligence. Bernie seems to understand this where Hillary Clinton apparently wants to do
as little as possible to upset any apple carts.
Watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube (2 min 9 sec) and maybe Comedy2 (3 min 43 sec). Thanks.
12
"The American Revolution of 1776 was primarily a revolt against the hereditary aristocracy." Your Wrong, the American Revolution was about self determination and the inherent freedom of man. Hereditary Aristocracy was symptom of the absence of those freedoms.
1
The root cause of our political dysfunction is the corrupting influence of money.
By focusing on campaign finance reform and the repeal of Citizens United, Bernie shows that he gets it.
There is a choice. Feel the Bern!
By focusing on campaign finance reform and the repeal of Citizens United, Bernie shows that he gets it.
There is a choice. Feel the Bern!
19
The great lie in the politics of the last several decades is that the 99% are involved in a zero sum game against each other. That the reason a poor white man can't find a decent job or manage to get ahead is because a poor black or poor Hispanic or poor woman has taken it from him.
Finally it is becoming clear to a great number of people exactly what damage (mostly) unbridled capitalism and devotion to the "free market" has done to the vast majority of people both in this country and around the world.
Our truest allies are other poor and middle class people. Skin color, ethnicity, and gender are irrelevant in the struggle against the oligarchs who have destroyed the hopes and dreams of so many. The plutocrats have played the "divide and conquer" game very well, but we are approaching a critical mass of those who have realized the lie for what it is.
Yes there are other social issues that we need to address. But solving the income equality problem will fix a good number of those issues, and lead to solutions for many more.
Finally it is becoming clear to a great number of people exactly what damage (mostly) unbridled capitalism and devotion to the "free market" has done to the vast majority of people both in this country and around the world.
Our truest allies are other poor and middle class people. Skin color, ethnicity, and gender are irrelevant in the struggle against the oligarchs who have destroyed the hopes and dreams of so many. The plutocrats have played the "divide and conquer" game very well, but we are approaching a critical mass of those who have realized the lie for what it is.
Yes there are other social issues that we need to address. But solving the income equality problem will fix a good number of those issues, and lead to solutions for many more.
65
The answer is yes there is something inspiring about fighting the good fight. Only thing better, winning the good fight. That is where the long slog comes into play.Via con dios, que tenga buenas suerte and win one for us, not the Gipper, especially the fake one.
4
So, Dr. Krugman tries his hand at 'intersectional analysis' (google it, it's all the rage in academia! But it's pretty much identity politics run through a social science framework. As a disclaimer I am very sympathetic with the aim of combining a variety of explanations for social problems. Race, class, gender, etc.).
However, the picture he paints of Bernie Sanders is , how do I say it, kind of cheesy and transparent. While it is refreshing for an economist to marshal arguments about the importance of factors besides economic ones in order to explain political phenomena, he leaves out one huge economic factor that is , to my mind, the most important. It also happens to be the result of right wing mobilization starting at the very top and moving through our nations judiciary system as well as our legislative bodies.
I submit that the destruction of unions, while itself requiring a multi-causal analysis, is the single most important factor in creating our current predicament.
The weakening and almost complete removal of this bloc of political agents in American life cleared the way for elite capital to run riot with its agenda. The Clintons, as New Democrats, embraced this and ran with it. Whatever your take on that compromise, and I voted for Clinton twice, its complicity in moving the country in a direction in which capital rules is undeniable (Dr. Krugman went one further and supported NAFTA!)
I love Dr. K, but his caricature of Sanders is a low point.
However, the picture he paints of Bernie Sanders is , how do I say it, kind of cheesy and transparent. While it is refreshing for an economist to marshal arguments about the importance of factors besides economic ones in order to explain political phenomena, he leaves out one huge economic factor that is , to my mind, the most important. It also happens to be the result of right wing mobilization starting at the very top and moving through our nations judiciary system as well as our legislative bodies.
I submit that the destruction of unions, while itself requiring a multi-causal analysis, is the single most important factor in creating our current predicament.
The weakening and almost complete removal of this bloc of political agents in American life cleared the way for elite capital to run riot with its agenda. The Clintons, as New Democrats, embraced this and ran with it. Whatever your take on that compromise, and I voted for Clinton twice, its complicity in moving the country in a direction in which capital rules is undeniable (Dr. Krugman went one further and supported NAFTA!)
I love Dr. K, but his caricature of Sanders is a low point.
176
The bromide that people elect the government they deserve must be repeated...and the self-serving utterances such as Billary's purported disdain of money while simultaneously holding an outstretched hand behind their backs for ever more contributions is the paradigm of this election. Plutocrats already rule the USA, since they discovered long ago how to get their line-item legislative demands promulgated into law, which I may read in every new Federal Register. The multinationals who owe no allegiance to this or any other flag will continue to game the system to perfection, tweaking it with each new elected president, until they own it and us completely. Already we can see how the middle class in America has begun to vanish in consequence, and this concentration of wealth will only accelerate, as if governed by some physical equation or ancient integral calculus.
10
Paul, you're confusing means and ends here. As you pointed out in The Conscience of a Liberal, compelled production during World War II combined with the redistributionist GI Bill were major factors in a widely-shared prosperity in the US during a Great Moderation that lasted, for one reason or another, until the Great Dismantling begun by President Reagan.
We need the equivalent of an all-out war, you've argued; perhaps if we were invaded by microbes from Mars ....
I agree. Wealth will funnel ever upward unless it is captured and redistributed for the common good. Were I a candidate, I would point out that some among us would be happy to live in gated communities reachable only by helicopter in a country whose infrastructure and internal security have crumbled and whose labor structure resembles something like that represented on the Duke of Burgundy's wall chart that kept track of the esnes and serfs and included a helpful legend explaining the distinction between the two.
Is this an economic argument? Is it a racial argument? Officer Reese's, I'm really not sure. However, as Piketty points out, the only way that inherited plutocracy has been combated in the last 150 years is by world war and global depression. Talk about the cure being worse than the disease!
So, we need another approach, one that you have advocated: A common purpose to make America more congenial to all its citizens, not just those who get invites to Charles Koch's barbecues in the California desert.
We need the equivalent of an all-out war, you've argued; perhaps if we were invaded by microbes from Mars ....
I agree. Wealth will funnel ever upward unless it is captured and redistributed for the common good. Were I a candidate, I would point out that some among us would be happy to live in gated communities reachable only by helicopter in a country whose infrastructure and internal security have crumbled and whose labor structure resembles something like that represented on the Duke of Burgundy's wall chart that kept track of the esnes and serfs and included a helpful legend explaining the distinction between the two.
Is this an economic argument? Is it a racial argument? Officer Reese's, I'm really not sure. However, as Piketty points out, the only way that inherited plutocracy has been combated in the last 150 years is by world war and global depression. Talk about the cure being worse than the disease!
So, we need another approach, one that you have advocated: A common purpose to make America more congenial to all its citizens, not just those who get invites to Charles Koch's barbecues in the California desert.
11
I think a lot of the nastiness is manufactured by the right because it helps them to hold on to political power. Dividing America into good, hard working Christian conservatives and lazy degenerate atheist liberals helps talk radio to maintain influence over their followers. Liberals help this with their thinly disguised contempt for Christianity and traditional values. Liberals also ooze contempt for rural people, the non college educated and anybody who lives in fly over country.
Talk radio attacks mainstream media because they don't want their followers to listen to alternative points of view. Loyalty is a great virtue, and independent thought is punished by exile from the movement. Competence is not highly valued relative to loyalty. Believing that Obama is the worst president ever and that he is out to destroy the American way of life helps to motivate people to work for conservative candidates. This suits professional conservatives just fine.
Talk radio attacks mainstream media because they don't want their followers to listen to alternative points of view. Loyalty is a great virtue, and independent thought is punished by exile from the movement. Competence is not highly valued relative to loyalty. Believing that Obama is the worst president ever and that he is out to destroy the American way of life helps to motivate people to work for conservative candidates. This suits professional conservatives just fine.
9
Even though winning conservative votes, white votes and the votes of the elderly and religious would put liberals over the top -- they would rather LOSE than miss out on (yet another) opportunity to make fun of people who have a different world-view than they do.
1
Krugman's argument boils down to a call for continued identity politics on the left, based on race and gender. This is deeply divisive, but useful to the 1%, who use those divisions to obtain the white, working class votes they need to control Congress and a majority of Statehouses. One can hardly decry "false consciousness" when that falsity is propped up by the left's endless return to a vicious, even demonizing, identity politics in which average and below-average white people, men, married couples, and church goers can do no good. A majority of children are now born to single mothers, which all evidence shows put those kids at serious disadvantage. Government caseworkers are a poor substitute for two committed parents. Death rates among the white working class, led by suicide and drug overdoses, have reached epidemic proportions. These bad outcomes are a direct consequence of preferring identity politics over economic reform.
As for the progressive victories? Obama has made permanent many of the Bush tax cuts. He opted for financial regulation open to game playing, while failing to break up the big banks. He supports more free trade agreements that benefit the 1%.
As for the progressive victories? Obama has made permanent many of the Bush tax cuts. He opted for financial regulation open to game playing, while failing to break up the big banks. He supports more free trade agreements that benefit the 1%.
8
Obama filled his cabinet with Goldman Sachs alums, and relies on them for guidance to this day. And you folks seriously wonder "why he didn't prosecute the banksters"? or "why didn't he break up the big banks"? Seriously?
1
Do not be disingenuous: Hillary is to about change. Hillary is about the status Quo.
About a week before the first Democratic Debate Hillary wholesale changed out her "core values" in typical Clinton fashion to mitigate the stark contrast between the ultimate insider, Ms Clinton, & the only Senator that truly qualifies as an outside in our political system, Mr Sanders.
If Bernie Sanders were not running Ms Clinton would still be describing the Trans-Pacific Partnership as the "Gold Standard" of so-called free trade deals, would have no problem with Keystone XL & the entire Corporate Democrat laundry list with a healthy dose of National Security State policy thrown in for good measure.
There is a change coming, Mr Krugman, and the numbers show under 45 voters breaking 2:1 against Ms Clinton. The generation of nominal Democrats exemplified by Ms Clinton who have gone under the Democratic Leadership Council, Third Way, ConservaDem, Blue Dog & other labels are out of step with the generations coming to power and rather than embrace them, are fighting them.
Bernie supporters mostly are not registered Democrats because they see no need & have no desire to align with a Party that is fighting the only candidate that stands for the values of Roosevelt & Truman. Ms Clinton will try to punk them by playing Progressive with a wink and a nod long enough to dupe some into voting for her.
Disruptive change has come to politics and Ms Clinton and her supporters are Dinosaurs.
About a week before the first Democratic Debate Hillary wholesale changed out her "core values" in typical Clinton fashion to mitigate the stark contrast between the ultimate insider, Ms Clinton, & the only Senator that truly qualifies as an outside in our political system, Mr Sanders.
If Bernie Sanders were not running Ms Clinton would still be describing the Trans-Pacific Partnership as the "Gold Standard" of so-called free trade deals, would have no problem with Keystone XL & the entire Corporate Democrat laundry list with a healthy dose of National Security State policy thrown in for good measure.
There is a change coming, Mr Krugman, and the numbers show under 45 voters breaking 2:1 against Ms Clinton. The generation of nominal Democrats exemplified by Ms Clinton who have gone under the Democratic Leadership Council, Third Way, ConservaDem, Blue Dog & other labels are out of step with the generations coming to power and rather than embrace them, are fighting them.
Bernie supporters mostly are not registered Democrats because they see no need & have no desire to align with a Party that is fighting the only candidate that stands for the values of Roosevelt & Truman. Ms Clinton will try to punk them by playing Progressive with a wink and a nod long enough to dupe some into voting for her.
Disruptive change has come to politics and Ms Clinton and her supporters are Dinosaurs.
193
Here from the New York Times of November 1, 1936 is coverage of FDRs closing speech before the election. Does it sound more like Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton?
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9501E6DD153DE33BBC4953...
"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred"
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9501E6DD153DE33BBC4953...
"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred"
3
Of course racism and sexism matter.
But right now, we're the frogs in the heating water. And it doesn't matter what color or gender you are, the water is heating up for you just like the frog next to you.
Sanders is calling for the heat to be turned off.
If you think a key part of that is persuading the people in charge of the heat to work with you, then you'll believe that slowly lowering the heat is the way to go.
Sanders is saying the heat never should have been turned on in the first place.
Dr. Krugman says we have an oligarchy. So does Bernie Sanders. That was the first revolution, and it took place over a couple of decades.
What is needed now is what Sanders advocates--demanding that we return to a democracy. That will work for everyone, regardless of race or gender.
But right now, we're the frogs in the heating water. And it doesn't matter what color or gender you are, the water is heating up for you just like the frog next to you.
Sanders is calling for the heat to be turned off.
If you think a key part of that is persuading the people in charge of the heat to work with you, then you'll believe that slowly lowering the heat is the way to go.
Sanders is saying the heat never should have been turned on in the first place.
Dr. Krugman says we have an oligarchy. So does Bernie Sanders. That was the first revolution, and it took place over a couple of decades.
What is needed now is what Sanders advocates--demanding that we return to a democracy. That will work for everyone, regardless of race or gender.
254
Agreed: this ongoing dance between race and class, sometimes between the extreme forms of racism and capitalism, the ideas of freedom and equality have shadowed the struggle of the shining force of America's promise to build democracy and opportunity. More than statistics, these twin social forces are subjects that shape our political economy!
7
Race is expressed in denials and stereotypes, in social action; class through law and association. Both have patterns and power levers more complex than assumed. Race and class are the tip of the spear: odd, asymmetrical adversaries that instruct decisions, actions and beliefs, in single cases and for communities. From last night, immigration law is to be set for a whole group for fear of a single case; yet the same leaders ignore Alabama's dilemma: losing 40% of its harvest of fruits and produce when it passed the nation's harshest immigration laws, making it illegal for undocumented families to rent or attend school. The state passed voting requirements against non-existent fraud, shaving the rolls to swing districts protected by gerrymandering.
Race's main purpose has been to serve as "the problem" (the face!) of greed and corruption that the 1% and corporations hide behind. Blame those who are different. But no terrorists poisoned Flint! Over blown, too much regulation, power speaks (Jeb Bush, MI officials) to deflect and demoralize those who protest the power class, its inhumane quest. Cities that depended on black labor for its factories saw corporations abandon the work force, and now Democrats are blamed.
For Republicans, this election is to defeat Obama in absentsia! His is the political name above all ideology; through him, race walked the halls of power. They hurl vitriol and shame themselves. He tried to shred the spear; they turned it into a thousand daggers.
Race's main purpose has been to serve as "the problem" (the face!) of greed and corruption that the 1% and corporations hide behind. Blame those who are different. But no terrorists poisoned Flint! Over blown, too much regulation, power speaks (Jeb Bush, MI officials) to deflect and demoralize those who protest the power class, its inhumane quest. Cities that depended on black labor for its factories saw corporations abandon the work force, and now Democrats are blamed.
For Republicans, this election is to defeat Obama in absentsia! His is the political name above all ideology; through him, race walked the halls of power. They hurl vitriol and shame themselves. He tried to shred the spear; they turned it into a thousand daggers.
6
As usual. You're right Professor. In the middle however are the educated, successful world that gives up on wealth building as too tricky, too hard. Middle income wages suffer because life become comfortable and career risk taking ceases. Young scientist get corporate jobs and learn the process of business and ignore innovation as a job for someone else. Innovation and invention is now done in corporate teams for peanuts on the dollar.
1
Plutocrats prejudiced? No, they use it,
And help working people abuse it,
It's Wealth rides the roost,
Give Bernie the boost,
I like Bernie's way and I choose it.
And help working people abuse it,
It's Wealth rides the roost,
Give Bernie the boost,
I like Bernie's way and I choose it.
95
Your analysis of our malaise strikes me as accurate, but your characterization of Sanders' position seems to me to knock down a straw man. I don't believe that Sanders thinks for a moment that the influence of money in politics is the cause of all our problems. I think he feels, however, that very, very few of them can be dealt with or solved until the parlous corrupt system of campaign financing and lobbying is curbed and eliminated. Global warming, union busting, income inequality, arms procurement, lousy schools, banks too big to fail or to regulate, a ridiculous health insurance system and all the rest are the way because of political influence bought and paid for. I think Sanders has correctly recognized that solving that problem is a necessary but not sufficient condition. one that must be met before one can go on to deal with all the other prejudices, hatreds, stupidities, and ignorance that also afflict us. To take one obvious example: representatives of gerrymandered districts are forced to pander to their radical base, willy-nilly, even if they know better and even if they know that a majority of voters would prefer other policies.
But: you can always call up Senator Sanders and ask him what he thinks.
But: you can always call up Senator Sanders and ask him what he thinks.
239
Unfortunately, most of human history shows the powerful and rich ruling over the rest of us. We have different names for them but they are all regarded as the people who run the planet, or at least their portion of it.
Our Democratic-Republic is an ongoing experiment with the idea that We the People can be a effective sovereign that can hold back powerful and wealthy individuals. At best We the People have held them in check, just barely.
I have read reports of studies that show that corporations, if viewed as a person, are Sociopathic to Psychopathic and many of the most wealthy and powerful fit those descriptions as well. The fact is that humans haven't evolved a whole lot since history has been written. Technology and knowledge have expanded exponentially but humans are still just humans.
We live in the post Freudian world where the knowledge of how to manipulate people has been refined to a science. Yes, the powerful of pre-history knew how to manipulate other as well, today we can hire professionals to make it a sure thing.
Like the professional magician, the Sociopath in Charge practices diversion getting our attention focused elsewhere while we are being taken advantage of and we wind up thanking the Sociopath. We have a society where we really have a lot in common but have ben convinced that we are divided. As long as we accept the division we have lost. When will we wake-up? Too late I suspect.
Our Democratic-Republic is an ongoing experiment with the idea that We the People can be a effective sovereign that can hold back powerful and wealthy individuals. At best We the People have held them in check, just barely.
I have read reports of studies that show that corporations, if viewed as a person, are Sociopathic to Psychopathic and many of the most wealthy and powerful fit those descriptions as well. The fact is that humans haven't evolved a whole lot since history has been written. Technology and knowledge have expanded exponentially but humans are still just humans.
We live in the post Freudian world where the knowledge of how to manipulate people has been refined to a science. Yes, the powerful of pre-history knew how to manipulate other as well, today we can hire professionals to make it a sure thing.
Like the professional magician, the Sociopath in Charge practices diversion getting our attention focused elsewhere while we are being taken advantage of and we wind up thanking the Sociopath. We have a society where we really have a lot in common but have ben convinced that we are divided. As long as we accept the division we have lost. When will we wake-up? Too late I suspect.
11
In my opinion if a Republican wins the Presidency it will be many years before any progressive legislation is passed. In fact much of what we have now will be rolled back. The times are very risky.
27
Bernie Sanders followers will object - they accept no analysis that features their guy as less than messianic - but this nicely captures the reality that we face. Idealists without flexibility are always a liability in the end because their intolerance of other views exacerbates frictions.
Like the other sides ideas and attitudes or not, we are all Americans. We can't just discard one half, as Sanders wishes, sort of childish, really. We can either find away to move ahead with a large majority willing to go along without more fighting, or we can continue to implode with a useless, unbending clash of what each side firmly believes are virtues.
Like the other sides ideas and attitudes or not, we are all Americans. We can't just discard one half, as Sanders wishes, sort of childish, really. We can either find away to move ahead with a large majority willing to go along without more fighting, or we can continue to implode with a useless, unbending clash of what each side firmly believes are virtues.
8
Senator Sanders has patiently advanced his priorities in Congress over a 26 year period by working effectively with legislators who disagree with him and by amending legislation to get his proposals enacted. This demonstrates that Senator Sanders has plenty of flexibility. His recent success in passing a comprehensive veterans health care bill was achieved in partnership with GOP Senator John McCain.
163
I am a hard headed Bernie fan. Clintons brought us a lot of compromises that have borne ugly fruit. Taking a lot of Wall Street money put Obama in a position to choose the banks over foreclosure victims. Does anyone believe that Hillary won't do the same? They may not always win, but they know who they are betting on. Finally, look at what the Sec of State and Bill Clinton failed to do for Haiti. They and Obama were pledged to make things better. Where did those billions go?
3
Dr. Krugman is absolutely right that "racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice are powerful forces in their own right". So why does he support Hillary? The last time she ran for President, her campaign against Obama was all about racial dog whistles. (And I thought I had a bad memory.) In case anyone forgot that, check out http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/hillary-clinton-reparations_b_....
I can also understand why Hillary and PK want to go easy on the top 1%. After all, they are one percenters! (The Clintons do plenty of hobnobbing with Wall Street titans.)
Also, millions of African Americans still have no health insurance, but Sanders' single payer system would cover them. Is that why Hillary opposes it? Does PK oppose it because it would add to the federal deficit? Ouch!
Finally, there are even more issues, such as war-mongering, "free trade", character and integrity. It is no accident that Mrs. Clinton is one of the least liked politicians in the country, and very unlikely to ever be elected President.
I can also understand why Hillary and PK want to go easy on the top 1%. After all, they are one percenters! (The Clintons do plenty of hobnobbing with Wall Street titans.)
Also, millions of African Americans still have no health insurance, but Sanders' single payer system would cover them. Is that why Hillary opposes it? Does PK oppose it because it would add to the federal deficit? Ouch!
Finally, there are even more issues, such as war-mongering, "free trade", character and integrity. It is no accident that Mrs. Clinton is one of the least liked politicians in the country, and very unlikely to ever be elected President.
24
There's no mystery about the plutocrats behind the curtain or whether the same reactionary forces have been using decades of white backlash to empower their "conservative movement". Think Dixiecrats,George Wallace, Nixon's "Southern Strategy", and Reagan's kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. All of which were gradually folded into the plutocrat's real agenda- destroying progressive taxation, de-regulating everything in sight, and essentially allowing the complete takeover of government and the economy by a tiny group of super-wealthy families.
The political issue in 2016 is between gradual reform of the Obama type, or no reform, masquerading as "political revolution". One understands the appeal of the latter. But the idea that a self-described "independent socialist" talking political revolution is going to win a majority of the electorate is pure self-deception. It simply isn't going to fly in most demographic groups, and, more importantly, in the states that will decide the election. And the certain result, a Republican President, to go with a Republican Congress and Supreme Court, will undo not only Obama's limited reforms, but every social and economic reform since the New Deal.
The political issue in 2016 is between gradual reform of the Obama type, or no reform, masquerading as "political revolution". One understands the appeal of the latter. But the idea that a self-described "independent socialist" talking political revolution is going to win a majority of the electorate is pure self-deception. It simply isn't going to fly in most demographic groups, and, more importantly, in the states that will decide the election. And the certain result, a Republican President, to go with a Republican Congress and Supreme Court, will undo not only Obama's limited reforms, but every social and economic reform since the New Deal.
11
AND the New Deal!
4
Paul Krugman is plainly shilling for Hillary.
Arguing that Bernie Sanders only sees one issue, and that the one issue is how much money the 1% control, is disingenuous. Yes, he certainly does speak about that.
Bernie Sanders speaks about single payer health care, which impacts people's health and welfare, and also their pocketbooks.
Bernie Sanders speaks about equal pay for equal work, which is a big issue for working women.
Bernie Sanders has a long history of standing up for civil rights, going back to Martin Luther King. He also speaks about the 51% un- or under-employment of black teens and young adults.
He always comments that no one with a full time job should live in poverty.
It starts with money and economics. And that permeates how society behaves.
Bernie is threatening to kick over the apple cart, and the owners of the apple cart are unhappy.
This old white guy who does significantly better than the US average wage of about $50,000 salary a year is happy to vote for Bernie Sanders. He is the real deal. Hillary is a solid second choice for my vote, but only if she can beat Bernie in winning the Democratic nomination.
The fun is about to begin, starting next Monday in Iowa.
Arguing that Bernie Sanders only sees one issue, and that the one issue is how much money the 1% control, is disingenuous. Yes, he certainly does speak about that.
Bernie Sanders speaks about single payer health care, which impacts people's health and welfare, and also their pocketbooks.
Bernie Sanders speaks about equal pay for equal work, which is a big issue for working women.
Bernie Sanders has a long history of standing up for civil rights, going back to Martin Luther King. He also speaks about the 51% un- or under-employment of black teens and young adults.
He always comments that no one with a full time job should live in poverty.
It starts with money and economics. And that permeates how society behaves.
Bernie is threatening to kick over the apple cart, and the owners of the apple cart are unhappy.
This old white guy who does significantly better than the US average wage of about $50,000 salary a year is happy to vote for Bernie Sanders. He is the real deal. Hillary is a solid second choice for my vote, but only if she can beat Bernie in winning the Democratic nomination.
The fun is about to begin, starting next Monday in Iowa.
425
"Bernie is threatening to kick over the apple cart, and the owners of the apple cart are unhappy. "
Including the Times
Including the Times
2
This is an important and timely essay. The white working class is no more ready for revolution than they were in the 1960s. Policies to increase wages and employment, if successful, should bring them around.
4
Unfortunately Dr Krugman is proving himself, again, as out of his depth commenting on Democratiic primary politics. He offers a reductive "analysis" that as an explanation of the fundamental difference between the candidates is as simplisric as his characterization of what drives Sanders, who supposedly doesn't understand issues like race or sexism. Krugman sounds increasingly like a spokesperson for Hillary Clinton. Reminiscent of the stuff he was spouting in '08 about Obama supporters constituting a "cult." It's one thing to analyse policy differences, but the notion that Hillary's main attribute distinguishing her from Bernie is that she understands racism, sexism and bigotry while Sanders doesn't is absurd. The main difference is far more apparent in the fact that she is someone who would accept a half million dollars from Goldman Savhs for a speaking appearance , enable an insane proposition like the Iraq invasion for, presumably, political reasons or rationalize DOMA and Sanders wouldn't. Sanders was fighting for civil rights when Hillary was in high school, enthralled with Goldwater. His record on LGBT rights is much stronger than hers. His record on women's rights at least as strong. Of course, his record on plutocracy is a world apart.
Professor Krugman needs to return to subjects wherein he brings expertise beyond his allegiance to a personality. He's got more to offer than this current torrent of stuff that has all of the nuance of a Hillary bumper sticker.
Professor Krugman needs to return to subjects wherein he brings expertise beyond his allegiance to a personality. He's got more to offer than this current torrent of stuff that has all of the nuance of a Hillary bumper sticker.
412
I'm guessing here, but it's a pretty safe guess, imo. Krugman would be happy enough with a President Sanders. He can't be entirely satisfied with his current "let's bake a smaller loaf of bread, better than going hungry" rhetoric. His true nightmare is Sanders winning the nomination, but losing the Presidency. Against a Republican candidate that would be at best terrible, but probably very terrible.
8
So disappointing to see Paul Krugman, whom I admire enormously, distort Bernie Sanders's record and statements to bolster his support for Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders has worked tirelessly against racism (he marched with Martin Luther King and has embraced Black Lives Matter), and advocated for women's rights (he has strongly supported Planned Parenthood throughout his Congressional career.) His campaign against income inequality and for a strong safety net is more comprehensive than Clinton's, but this does not negate his effectiveness on combating racism and sexism.
By the way, Dr. Krugman has repudiated his own support for single-payer, as has Hillary Clinton during this election cycle. In 2008, Dr. Krugman urged his readers to support Clinton for president because her health plan would come closer to single-payer than Obama's. Eight years later, he criticizes Bernie Sanders for pressing for singer-payer. What a shame.
The silver lining, though, is that Dr. Krugman has educated his readers on why
single-payer is viable. That has prepared the ground for Bernie 2016.
Bernie Sanders has worked tirelessly against racism (he marched with Martin Luther King and has embraced Black Lives Matter), and advocated for women's rights (he has strongly supported Planned Parenthood throughout his Congressional career.) His campaign against income inequality and for a strong safety net is more comprehensive than Clinton's, but this does not negate his effectiveness on combating racism and sexism.
By the way, Dr. Krugman has repudiated his own support for single-payer, as has Hillary Clinton during this election cycle. In 2008, Dr. Krugman urged his readers to support Clinton for president because her health plan would come closer to single-payer than Obama's. Eight years later, he criticizes Bernie Sanders for pressing for singer-payer. What a shame.
The silver lining, though, is that Dr. Krugman has educated his readers on why
single-payer is viable. That has prepared the ground for Bernie 2016.
653
From John Avignon at Salon: "Sanders and his supporters too often exemplify a political manifestation of this black and white ideology. One of the consistent criticisms of Bernie Sanders throughout his career is that he’s self-righteous and unwilling to entertain any position or belief that doesn’t exactly match his. Back in 1991, when Bernie was still new to Congress, progressive icon Barney Frank said of him, “Bernie alienates his natural allies. His holier-than-thou attitude—saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else—really undercuts his effectiveness.”"
4
You see what you want to because of your emotional attachment to Bernie that much is obvious. What a shame that you are acting a bit like the right wing at this important moment in history.
2
I understand tensions are running high in the NYTimes comments section nowadays. The Sanders v. Clinton squabble has led to some heated, but still well-meaning exchanges.
However, to claim that Dr. Krugman has repudiated his support for a single-payer system is blatantly untrue. He has, very recently in fact, published several posts re-iterating his support for it. He just doesn't think it's possible now and that a Clinton Presidency would make it more possible in the future than a Sanders one.
Yes, this is a position very heavy on the minutiae of politics, but it's a policy he has clearly stated. We should not make false accusations in an attempt to discredit one of progressive economics best-known advocates. This comments section is not Pravda!
Remeber who the real opponent is, and how much money they can muster to their defence. Don't waste effort fighting a good man!
However, to claim that Dr. Krugman has repudiated his support for a single-payer system is blatantly untrue. He has, very recently in fact, published several posts re-iterating his support for it. He just doesn't think it's possible now and that a Clinton Presidency would make it more possible in the future than a Sanders one.
Yes, this is a position very heavy on the minutiae of politics, but it's a policy he has clearly stated. We should not make false accusations in an attempt to discredit one of progressive economics best-known advocates. This comments section is not Pravda!
Remeber who the real opponent is, and how much money they can muster to their defence. Don't waste effort fighting a good man!
5
Dr. Krugman, I am disappointed. As an economist, you know the correlation between racism and class struggle, that tolerance increases with social mobility and racism takes hold in times of economic hardship and despair.
Hillary Clinton won't fix racism in this country. She won't fix sexism in this country. She probably won't fix this country.
I'm not saying Bernie Sanders can fix it all, either, but I think he understands that as long as whites and blacks and Latinos and Muslims are all fighting for the same shrinking piece of the pie, white privilege, racism, fear, and violence will persist. I think you understand that, too.
Hillary Clinton won't fix racism in this country. She won't fix sexism in this country. She probably won't fix this country.
I'm not saying Bernie Sanders can fix it all, either, but I think he understands that as long as whites and blacks and Latinos and Muslims are all fighting for the same shrinking piece of the pie, white privilege, racism, fear, and violence will persist. I think you understand that, too.
868
As long as Republicans continue to try to wreck the country for those they refuse to tax, the country is not fixable. But if we are going to try to save our "democracy," it will not be with "revolution," but with a calculating woman.
5
I'm sorry but where does this even come from?
HRC has fought for most of her career against the things you say she can't fix. She did it even when she wasn't in the public eye.
I call garbage. You have nothing, not a single shred of a fact to support this.
HRC has fought for most of her career against the things you say she can't fix. She did it even when she wasn't in the public eye.
I call garbage. You have nothing, not a single shred of a fact to support this.
5
"underlying that argument is a deeper dispute about what’s wrong with America, what brought us to the state we’re in"
Also underlying is a deeper dispute about what to do about it. Big change in the role of money, or small changes pecking at many issues but leaving big money in its central place.
Sanders proposes to get big money donors out of their position of buying our politics. He proposes to get big banks out of their position of too big to fail, subsidized to do anything they like for their own selfish ends, private profits on socialized risks and costs. He proposes to get all Americans paid better, starting at the bottom, so they share in the productivity they have added to their own efforts over there decades when they got none of it. He proposes everyone share, women, blacks, Hispanics, everyone.
Hillary proposes more of the same, of the Democratic Establishment same. We've seen this for decades. Donors like it. Wall Street likes it. Big banks running the Treasury Dept and the Fed like it.
Related to this, Hillary would continue and expand the wars. She pushed for more and bigger wars as Sec of State, and as President she'd get it.
Sanders has other priorities for America, here not in the Middle East or the borders of Russia. That is a difference worth hundreds of billions over the term of a President, a trillion over Bush's term for example. Sanders would use that money here at home, as see above.
Hillary would spend it on more wars. She has a list, still.
Also underlying is a deeper dispute about what to do about it. Big change in the role of money, or small changes pecking at many issues but leaving big money in its central place.
Sanders proposes to get big money donors out of their position of buying our politics. He proposes to get big banks out of their position of too big to fail, subsidized to do anything they like for their own selfish ends, private profits on socialized risks and costs. He proposes to get all Americans paid better, starting at the bottom, so they share in the productivity they have added to their own efforts over there decades when they got none of it. He proposes everyone share, women, blacks, Hispanics, everyone.
Hillary proposes more of the same, of the Democratic Establishment same. We've seen this for decades. Donors like it. Wall Street likes it. Big banks running the Treasury Dept and the Fed like it.
Related to this, Hillary would continue and expand the wars. She pushed for more and bigger wars as Sec of State, and as President she'd get it.
Sanders has other priorities for America, here not in the Middle East or the borders of Russia. That is a difference worth hundreds of billions over the term of a President, a trillion over Bush's term for example. Sanders would use that money here at home, as see above.
Hillary would spend it on more wars. She has a list, still.
221
Absolutely right on. The only, minor, exception I might take is lumping all the "big money" folks together. To me there is a clique of politically minded big money guys, the Kochs and Adelsons and others who use their riches to further the political agenda of which you speak. There are others, Bill Gates, members of the dispersed Rockefeller family fortune and some other of the Silicon Valley billionaires, whose focus is entirely different.
8
Nobblesse oblige?
1
The divisions in America are indeed more than economic, and Krugman is right about Republicans duping enough voters by at election time by fanning the flames of prejudice and fear, and foisting a fairy tale vision of American history. Progressives would do well to accept what gains we can make, while the headless monster that the Republican Party has become reels out of anyone's control. One hopes we are seeing its death throes.
12
There is a dark side to the Sanders - Clinton fight that I've wondered about, and that no one has talked about:
1. How much of Sanders support is based on the polarizing figure of Hillary Clinton?
2. How much of Sanders support is based on a reluctance from voters to support a female candidate?
It is not only about the difference in the two candidate's strategies.
On the Republican side, Trump exudes power, confidence, and mastery. People don't particularly seem to care what he says, just that he is the strongest contender in the room.
So much about voting seems to be animal in nature. I'm afraid the best avenue for a Clinton victory is for Hillary to demonstrate power, confidence, and mastery, and to put Sanders in a head-lock.
1. How much of Sanders support is based on the polarizing figure of Hillary Clinton?
2. How much of Sanders support is based on a reluctance from voters to support a female candidate?
It is not only about the difference in the two candidate's strategies.
On the Republican side, Trump exudes power, confidence, and mastery. People don't particularly seem to care what he says, just that he is the strongest contender in the room.
So much about voting seems to be animal in nature. I'm afraid the best avenue for a Clinton victory is for Hillary to demonstrate power, confidence, and mastery, and to put Sanders in a head-lock.
4
I would be delighted to ave a woman as president, but prefer Sanders to Clinton based on his economic program, authenticity and honesty. But if Senator Sanders is defeated by Secretary Clinton, I'll likely vote for her in November.
24
Paul, it is beneath you to reduce the difference between Clinton and Sanders down to Sanders only being interested in one thing and Clinton against more than one thing. Inequality is a many headed hydra and one ushered in by applying the practices learned from sexism and racism to ostracism casting a wider net, namely, anyone vulnerable to being made financially ruined.
The difference between Clinton and Sanders is more one of strategy. It's posing the same solution Obama chose, of the establishment working from the inside, or that the inside cannot muster the leverage required to effect the force to reverse the extremism of the republican right.
Your argument fails those feeling the full freight of what the far right can do to your job, to your financial health, can compromise finally getting health insurance and still can't afford health care, your family's future, I'm sorry Paul, you're coming across as a shill for the establishment that has sold out most Americans.
Your words fall not on deaf ears but those more attuned to the degree to which the establishment just does not get it, that is blind deaf and dumb to the misery experienced so deeply across America, that fails to comprehend the acuteness and crisis now experienced for many numbering in decades not years, of people in their prime work life being told they will never be gainfully employed and foretold of an old age of even deeper misery unable to do anything to help their children have a better chance.
The difference between Clinton and Sanders is more one of strategy. It's posing the same solution Obama chose, of the establishment working from the inside, or that the inside cannot muster the leverage required to effect the force to reverse the extremism of the republican right.
Your argument fails those feeling the full freight of what the far right can do to your job, to your financial health, can compromise finally getting health insurance and still can't afford health care, your family's future, I'm sorry Paul, you're coming across as a shill for the establishment that has sold out most Americans.
Your words fall not on deaf ears but those more attuned to the degree to which the establishment just does not get it, that is blind deaf and dumb to the misery experienced so deeply across America, that fails to comprehend the acuteness and crisis now experienced for many numbering in decades not years, of people in their prime work life being told they will never be gainfully employed and foretold of an old age of even deeper misery unable to do anything to help their children have a better chance.
188
There are arguments for Clinton over Sanders. This is not one of them. Sanders has a record. He's been elected and reelected multiple times by big bipartisan majorities. To suggest that he's some kind of pie-in-the-sky revolutionary who doesn't understand gradual change is ridiculous. And to suggest that Hillary Clinton taking on the social issues head on is going to help solve them is also ridiculous. She antagonizes the bigots and the fundamentalists and has little chance of winning over voters on the right. Bernie Sanders has a unifying economic message that can only be good for the impoverished and the oppressed.
733
// He's been elected and reelected multiple times by big bipartisan majorities. //
Yes, in Vermont. He will do very badly in swing districts in OH, FL, CO, AZ, NM, VA, NC, MI. These are the states that will decide the election. Sanders may carry CA, NY and MA. These states are already in the Democrats' bag.
Do not be mislead by aggregate voter polls that do not separate out swing districts and swing states. These are the voters that were uncomfortable with Gore and Kerry. The GOP does not need swift boats, wind surfing and climate change to take Sanders down. His record and pronouncements are enough.
Wen they do the numbers on his policies - and his policies are feather light in numbers and devoid of estimates now - it will emerge that a big tax increase on the middle class will be needed. The savings that he claims are not even near enough to cover the costs of his policies. Even the most liberal of economists estimate that he will have to make a substantial tax increase on families making more than 90,000 dollars a year.
Sanders will do the Democratic party what Nader with his 60,000 odd votes in FL did. He will put a GOP monster in the White house and take many Democrats in marginal congressional seats and senate down. This is a train wreck waiting to happen to progressives.
Do not get mislead by aggregate voter polls (non-stratified sampling). It is not an accident that the President has all but endorsed HRC. Sanders is the last best hope of the GOP in 2016.
-SK
Yes, in Vermont. He will do very badly in swing districts in OH, FL, CO, AZ, NM, VA, NC, MI. These are the states that will decide the election. Sanders may carry CA, NY and MA. These states are already in the Democrats' bag.
Do not be mislead by aggregate voter polls that do not separate out swing districts and swing states. These are the voters that were uncomfortable with Gore and Kerry. The GOP does not need swift boats, wind surfing and climate change to take Sanders down. His record and pronouncements are enough.
Wen they do the numbers on his policies - and his policies are feather light in numbers and devoid of estimates now - it will emerge that a big tax increase on the middle class will be needed. The savings that he claims are not even near enough to cover the costs of his policies. Even the most liberal of economists estimate that he will have to make a substantial tax increase on families making more than 90,000 dollars a year.
Sanders will do the Democratic party what Nader with his 60,000 odd votes in FL did. He will put a GOP monster in the White house and take many Democrats in marginal congressional seats and senate down. This is a train wreck waiting to happen to progressives.
Do not get mislead by aggregate voter polls (non-stratified sampling). It is not an accident that the President has all but endorsed HRC. Sanders is the last best hope of the GOP in 2016.
-SK
14
Yet when Hillary Clinton was in the Senate, there were many Republican Senators who, though rightists all, found, to their admitted surprise, that they came to respect her. It is quite possible that she might be able to do more with Congress than Barack Obama, despite the hostility that you correctly describe. Of course how liberal she would be willing to be is another question.
6
I really don't think the teapublicans are going to want to play with a socialist, either. BOTH candidates will face the same obstructionist congress that Obama had to deal with for 8 years.
7
"if the divisions in American politics aren’t just about money, if they reflect deep-seated prejudices that progressives simply can’t appease, such visions of radical change are naïve. "
I just don't get the logic here. Krugman is saying there are voters on the right who are (1) anti-progressive in social values but (2) unhappy about economic inequality. Sanders talks a lot about (2) and Krugman thinks Hillary is the better candidate to attract these voters? Or the Democrats are just supposed to write off these voters and continue to lose elections? O what exactly?
I'm just tired of this. Krugman seems to be flailing in every way to justify his "I'm for Hillary" button.
I just don't get the logic here. Krugman is saying there are voters on the right who are (1) anti-progressive in social values but (2) unhappy about economic inequality. Sanders talks a lot about (2) and Krugman thinks Hillary is the better candidate to attract these voters? Or the Democrats are just supposed to write off these voters and continue to lose elections? O what exactly?
I'm just tired of this. Krugman seems to be flailing in every way to justify his "I'm for Hillary" button.
266
Read the posts in these forums. Read every columnists and their recent (daily) rants against Trump and the GOP.
Yes, Democrats are supposed to WRITE OFF all of these voters, and ignore their concerns (just as they have for 50-some years) and even more so, they should ridicule and make fun of conservatives, Republicans, white people, anyone with a strong religious faith, anyone over 55, and oh yeah -- white people.
Then act all surprised and hurt when you lose.
It's not just Krugman. EVERY columnist here is on the stump for Hillary -- even the supposedly-conservative Brooks & Douthat. It really feels like "someone" is turning the screws on their staff; "someone" is very deeply vested in seeing Empress Hillary on the throne.
Yes, Democrats are supposed to WRITE OFF all of these voters, and ignore their concerns (just as they have for 50-some years) and even more so, they should ridicule and make fun of conservatives, Republicans, white people, anyone with a strong religious faith, anyone over 55, and oh yeah -- white people.
Then act all surprised and hurt when you lose.
It's not just Krugman. EVERY columnist here is on the stump for Hillary -- even the supposedly-conservative Brooks & Douthat. It really feels like "someone" is turning the screws on their staff; "someone" is very deeply vested in seeing Empress Hillary on the throne.
7
Let me explain's reasoning à la Krugman.
1. There are deap-seated prejudices that progressives simply can't appease.
2. Hilary will attack sexism and racism.
3. ...
4. These prejuduced voters will turn to her.
Seriously, you get a point, and I hope Krugman reads your comment and answers it
or change his mind.
1. There are deap-seated prejudices that progressives simply can't appease.
2. Hilary will attack sexism and racism.
3. ...
4. These prejuduced voters will turn to her.
Seriously, you get a point, and I hope Krugman reads your comment and answers it
or change his mind.
2
Golly, Dr. Krugman, there's nothing new here today. The Right's opening to daylight was Richard Nixon's wooing of disaffected whites who deserted the Democratic agenda after the massive social upheaval of LBJ's Great Society. The oligarchs merely showed resentful whites the way home. When presidents promise to institutionalize racism and poverty (Nixon's "benign neglect,); when they openly declare that government is a welfare state (Ronald Reagan); when a president assumes office after dishonest racial baiting (G. H. W. Bush and Willie Horton); when one of his sons assumes office after another son disqualifies black and Latino voters to hand a disputed election to his sibling (G. W. Bush), then one can see the enduring generational threads of the racism that underlies American politics for half a century. Toss in Roe v. Wade (1973) and the social upheaval was complete: freedom for blacks, freedom for women. Can't have that, can we? So the Right insinuate race and class and sex into a shifting dynamic and create permanent wedges to inflame their somnolent base every four years to succeed at the national level. The giant evil then sleeps until the next election cycle, much like the monster in Stephen King's It, awakening only to satiate its hunger. Bernie Sanders doesn't tolerate it and can prove it; Hillary Clinton says she doesn't, but her Wall $treet portfolios give her the lie.
165
Sanders: "Will not be bought."
Trump: "can't be bought"
Clinton: "Been bought, but it doesn't matter."
Billionaires: worried that there will not be anyone that they can buy.
In a democratic election, Bernie clearly has the strongest hand.
Trump: "can't be bought"
Clinton: "Been bought, but it doesn't matter."
Billionaires: worried that there will not be anyone that they can buy.
In a democratic election, Bernie clearly has the strongest hand.
17
And we see Krug feeding it here.
2
Dear Professor Krugman,
I must disagree with you on a few points.
You state that "if the divisions in American politics aren’t just about money, if they reflect deep-seated prejudices that progressives simply can’t appease, such visions of radical change are naïve." In my eyes, you are still asking "What's the matter with Kansas?". The answer is that neither party has made a compelling case that they can increase the quality of life of the typical American voter. The Democrats have been complicit in increasing the exposure of the public to the hazards of global capitalism. They may have patched together a semblance of a social safety net, but they have increased the headwinds through NAFTA, deregulation, privatization, etc.
In short, the typical Democrat has provided no compelling reason for people to overcome their basest prejudices because, if they are in fact voting against their economic self-interest, it is in a minuscule manner.
As a result of Bernie Sanders' candidacy, the questions that normal people are asking are not about ludicrous social mores based on biblical literalism, but "why can't we have a strong social-safety net in a capitalist state"? The answer, as you have so eloquently argued in the past, is that there is nothing contradictory about these things.
The shift in constituency that occurred after the Goldwater candidacy is not permanent. There is every indication that a Sanders candidacy can bring about a new coalition, to the benefit of us all.
I must disagree with you on a few points.
You state that "if the divisions in American politics aren’t just about money, if they reflect deep-seated prejudices that progressives simply can’t appease, such visions of radical change are naïve." In my eyes, you are still asking "What's the matter with Kansas?". The answer is that neither party has made a compelling case that they can increase the quality of life of the typical American voter. The Democrats have been complicit in increasing the exposure of the public to the hazards of global capitalism. They may have patched together a semblance of a social safety net, but they have increased the headwinds through NAFTA, deregulation, privatization, etc.
In short, the typical Democrat has provided no compelling reason for people to overcome their basest prejudices because, if they are in fact voting against their economic self-interest, it is in a minuscule manner.
As a result of Bernie Sanders' candidacy, the questions that normal people are asking are not about ludicrous social mores based on biblical literalism, but "why can't we have a strong social-safety net in a capitalist state"? The answer, as you have so eloquently argued in the past, is that there is nothing contradictory about these things.
The shift in constituency that occurred after the Goldwater candidacy is not permanent. There is every indication that a Sanders candidacy can bring about a new coalition, to the benefit of us all.
120
Every indication is what? The turnout of young progressive who if in the unlikely even Sanders gets the nomination and winds the presidency will not ever come out in vote the Boring midterm elections when he will get slaughtered by the regular, older voters who don't depend upon the excitement of the campaign and the silly promises of one election brining a radical change. It was silly when Obama promised reconciliation between the parties, and he almost destroyed his first timer by half-believing it, and it's even sillier now when Sander's followers imagine that the US will become a democratic socialist polity right after they get their man into office. And all indications are that his followers will stick with him thought the inevitable defeats in Congress, and the Court, and the hard long slog to enact seriously progressive legislation? Why not? It's so easy to turn the phrase--"all the indications". See.
5
I very much doubt that Senator Sanders' supporters believe that, without substantial change in the composition of Congress, America will easily enact Senator Sanders' program. What we do believe is that Senator Sanders, if elected, will continue to fight for ordinary Americans. That's a lot more than we'll get from Senator Sanders' competitors, all of whom are invested in Business as Usual.
29
“the Sanders view is that money is the root of all evil.”
For the last 35+ years, many issues have been swept under the rug by both corporate parties. The notion that money is the root of all evil is absolutely true. Money is power and power begets more power and wealth.
Money, power and greed drives our stock market, our business strategies, and our taint our elections. Our bloated, incomprehensible tax code serves one purpose and that is to enrich those who have gamed the system.
Citizen United, Super Pacs and dark money have completely corrupted our officials, our nation's priorities and our political system. Money allows you pay to play. It gives you access and stature.
The American people have been forsaken and neglected since the 1970’s because they don’t have a seat at the table. Bernie ‘s revolution is turn the tables and he rejects the corrupt status quo where only the Plutocracy and corporations are served while Americans eat cake (endless wars, Wall St Bailouts, corporate welfare, bloated Defense and tax cuts).
Make no mistake, once officials take their monies, they are indentured. Companies become their masters and control their priorities. Their whole existence is keeping the gravy train going no matter how low they have to stoop.
As Bernie says, “Congress doesn’t control Wall St, Wall St controls Congress”. Enough is enough…
For the last 35+ years, many issues have been swept under the rug by both corporate parties. The notion that money is the root of all evil is absolutely true. Money is power and power begets more power and wealth.
Money, power and greed drives our stock market, our business strategies, and our taint our elections. Our bloated, incomprehensible tax code serves one purpose and that is to enrich those who have gamed the system.
Citizen United, Super Pacs and dark money have completely corrupted our officials, our nation's priorities and our political system. Money allows you pay to play. It gives you access and stature.
The American people have been forsaken and neglected since the 1970’s because they don’t have a seat at the table. Bernie ‘s revolution is turn the tables and he rejects the corrupt status quo where only the Plutocracy and corporations are served while Americans eat cake (endless wars, Wall St Bailouts, corporate welfare, bloated Defense and tax cuts).
Make no mistake, once officials take their monies, they are indentured. Companies become their masters and control their priorities. Their whole existence is keeping the gravy train going no matter how low they have to stoop.
As Bernie says, “Congress doesn’t control Wall St, Wall St controls Congress”. Enough is enough…
896
Best way to end monies influence in elections is to go with publicly financed elections.
18
If money is the root of all evil than Bernie Sanders is definitely your candidate. We will all have a lot less of that money if he is elected !!!!!
4
Is this the pope?
Class, race, gender, and a whole host of attributes that label people other than white, upper class, and male, have bearings on how money is distributed, but the reality is that money itself is the great evil. Since The New Deal, money has been kept in a few hands, though it used to be less money, more hands, and even those who were not rich were solvent, and capable of enjoying a real middle class lifestyle. Affordable higher education, housing, and medical care—even vacations—were within the grasp of many people. Now, having more money than can be spent in several lifetimes remains the goal of the 1%, and woe unto the rest of us.
When just 62 people have more money than half the world’s population, legislating away the evil aspects of money has to be the primary focus.
When just 62 people have more money than half the world’s population, legislating away the evil aspects of money has to be the primary focus.
452
Elizabeth: What you say is correct, however it is not all simply about the distribution of money. It is mostly about the economy and the relationship between business and government.
The oligarchy has been inexorably marching forward. That is the nature of capitalism, a fact alluded to even by Marx. However, there was a terrible transformation in the US propelled by our worst President, Reagan. Why our worst? Because he preached (with some success!) that "government is the enemy," and "the problem." Sadly, many in this country believed him, even though we are a democracy and the government, in fact, is us.
Since then, Republicans have been trying to kill gov't institutions in the bathtub. They want deregulation, elimination of gov't services, unfettered "market" activities. This is terrible for a modern, capitalist economy. It emasculates the guarantor of "balance of powers" between business on one hand and workers and consumers on the other hands. It thwarts most progress to advance economic rights and improve economic conditions in our society. It produces inequality and instability (like we saw in 2008).
The problem isn't that the rich are too rich; the problem is that we have been convinced to let go of the reins by which business can and should be governed, regulated and controlled, for the benefit of all. "Trickle down" and "eliminate gov't services" are the harmful dogmas that we need to explain, resist and defeat.
The oligarchy has been inexorably marching forward. That is the nature of capitalism, a fact alluded to even by Marx. However, there was a terrible transformation in the US propelled by our worst President, Reagan. Why our worst? Because he preached (with some success!) that "government is the enemy," and "the problem." Sadly, many in this country believed him, even though we are a democracy and the government, in fact, is us.
Since then, Republicans have been trying to kill gov't institutions in the bathtub. They want deregulation, elimination of gov't services, unfettered "market" activities. This is terrible for a modern, capitalist economy. It emasculates the guarantor of "balance of powers" between business on one hand and workers and consumers on the other hands. It thwarts most progress to advance economic rights and improve economic conditions in our society. It produces inequality and instability (like we saw in 2008).
The problem isn't that the rich are too rich; the problem is that we have been convinced to let go of the reins by which business can and should be governed, regulated and controlled, for the benefit of all. "Trickle down" and "eliminate gov't services" are the harmful dogmas that we need to explain, resist and defeat.
17
Money itself is not the "great evil." The LOVE of money is the root of all evil. If you leave that first part out, the aphorism does not make sense.
5
"The Clinton view, on the other hand, seems to be that money is the root of some evil, maybe a lot of evil, but it isn’t the whole story."
The emphasis should be on the words "seems to be." Sure, both candidates are on the same side, but the difference is measured in degrees of commitment and a deep understanding of the root problem. On racism, only one candidate has a developed platform: Bernie Sanders. On the economy, only one candidate is committed to fully reform a political system that is rotten to the core, and a regulatory system that has been hobbled to accommodate the rot.
The defeatism expressed in this, previous columns and op-eds with respect to what is and isn't politically viable is disingenuous at best. Just a couple of years ago we were talking about getting the voting public engaged and getting out the vote. Now that we are, again, faced with a candidate who isn't the presumptive nominee stealing the show, all is gloom and doom. What was doable suddenly is a pipe dream. Policies we were solidly in favor suddenly are unworkable and unrealistic. Healthcare should be a human right. It is in all first world nations. Civil Rights should be a top priority. Economic equality and good jobs with sustaining wages should also be top priority. Hillary does not support the fight for $15. Only one candidate is committed to seeing this nation towards all those goals and more: Bernie.
War of the Burros: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1V1
News roundup http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1UR
The emphasis should be on the words "seems to be." Sure, both candidates are on the same side, but the difference is measured in degrees of commitment and a deep understanding of the root problem. On racism, only one candidate has a developed platform: Bernie Sanders. On the economy, only one candidate is committed to fully reform a political system that is rotten to the core, and a regulatory system that has been hobbled to accommodate the rot.
The defeatism expressed in this, previous columns and op-eds with respect to what is and isn't politically viable is disingenuous at best. Just a couple of years ago we were talking about getting the voting public engaged and getting out the vote. Now that we are, again, faced with a candidate who isn't the presumptive nominee stealing the show, all is gloom and doom. What was doable suddenly is a pipe dream. Policies we were solidly in favor suddenly are unworkable and unrealistic. Healthcare should be a human right. It is in all first world nations. Civil Rights should be a top priority. Economic equality and good jobs with sustaining wages should also be top priority. Hillary does not support the fight for $15. Only one candidate is committed to seeing this nation towards all those goals and more: Bernie.
War of the Burros: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1V1
News roundup http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1UR
359
Congrats on having Robert Reich read your question about sleep!!
3
Thank you Rima for saying it so well. Paul Krugman is generally spot on, but for some reason, he seems to have fallen short here. I'm looking forward to a column where he advocates for Bernie Sanders.... and it may be coming. Let's see where we are in a couple of months. Course it would be nice if he "saw the light" without the benefit of American public opinion beginning to Feel the Bern and piling on the Sanders bandwagon in the primaries.
2
Dear Rima: The good Doctor is a realist. He knows what is coming from the other side; he knows the average citizen is woefully ignorant of many things; he knows the Democratic nominee will be hammered this fall regardless of who that nominee will be.
If you wish to win a war: know your enemy and plan accordingly.
If you wish to win a war: know your enemy and plan accordingly.
21
Today's GOP in a nutshell
If you are white all right
If you are black get back
If you are brown get out of town
Ladies, we have an alley and a coat hanger for you.
Step right up and get your handy dandy transvaginal probe.
If you are white all right
If you are black get back
If you are brown get out of town
Ladies, we have an alley and a coat hanger for you.
Step right up and get your handy dandy transvaginal probe.
50
The rise of Trump is all about the rise of fear in American politics.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs puts safety as the largest driving force of human behavior after physiological needs. Fear of immigrants, fear of the government taking your guns, fear of government taking your money, fear of Islamic extremists, fear of those people...drives voters into the arms of Trump.
Emotions trump rationality.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs puts safety as the largest driving force of human behavior after physiological needs. Fear of immigrants, fear of the government taking your guns, fear of government taking your money, fear of Islamic extremists, fear of those people...drives voters into the arms of Trump.
Emotions trump rationality.
41
Just as Trump rose, he can easily fall too. It really doesn't take much to prick a balloon and let all the air out. Donald is a fraud, he has been screaming porous border, immigrants, Muslims since he first attracted attention of a discontented populace. He has been screaming he is so wealthy he cannot be bought by anyone. Well hell, yes. The Saudi Prince (foreigner! Muslim!), "Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said on Twitter that he's bailed the billionaire out twice -- and suggested the GOP presidential frontrunner might need his help a third time." Can you imagine that? Donald Trump needed a foreigner to bail him out with Arab money.
78
The unpleasant fact underlying a good part of the debate so far is that those seeking to conserve the wealth and privilege of the wealthy and privileged, whom we call conservative, always seem in their hour of need, to play the xenophobia card. They hope in that way to attract support from frightened and possibly resentful people who would otherwise not think of voting for them. That of course can be leavened with chauvinism masquerading as patriotism and self-righteousness disguised as religion. Surely rational talk can overcome that unpleasant side of mass politics.
8
Surely. Have you been paying attention to the past fifty years of American politics?
6
Surely you jest? The British maxim: Keep calm and carry-on does not apply across-the-pond as we have inherited the moral self-righteousness of the Puritans coupled with the stubborn independence of the Scotch-Irish.
8