To the left? To the right? Or just different?
Yesterday night's Democratic presidential debate featuring the economy helped me fashion a response to Paul Krugman's column from Monday, which struck as way off-base when I read it, even though I wasn't sure why.
Krugman described John Edwards as "driving his party's policy agenda," which has been stated here on the Warren Reports before, and which I am happy to accept as a completely reasonable assertion. But then Krugman went on to write that Obama's recent stimulus plan was "to the right" of Clinton's, concluding, "For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy."
What really rings false about Krugman's analysis is his knee-jerk dependence on buzz words and state action to define "progressive," instead of an in-depth analysis about how to best solve problems and create economic security for middle class people.
For example, Obama's refusal to use "mandates" in his health care plan would result in the same consequences as Clinton's plan, which calls for mandates, yet imposes no sanctions for refusing to comply with the mandates. But for Krugman, the word "mandates," seems to be enough to make Clinton more "progressive." Obama's plan includes putting cash into the hands of consumers, which Krugman defines as to the "right" of Clinton's plan that relies entirely on government action. In both of these contexts, Obama's policies seem intent on preserving a role of individual choice and action, which we should be careful to dismiss as conservative or not "progressive." What if that ends up working to facilitate the progressive goal of redistributing wealth and opportunity and enhancing middle class security? Who made up these rules about being a progressive?
Most disturbing is that Krugman's accusation that Obama's plan doesn't include the alternative energy minimums that Clinton's does ignores Obama's far more ambitious alternative energy plan. Krugman's praise of Clinton's call for a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures and 5 year freeze on interest rates ignores Obama's detailed consumer protection proposals that seem far more likely to protect consumers in the long-run.
I am glad to see Edwards, Obama and Clinton all focused on the economy and I genuinely like elements of all three of their proposed policies. I think the differences between them can be instructive to us, but Krugman's characterization of those differences wasn't just wrong; it attempts to trap us into potentially regressive and ineffective definitions of "left," "right" and "progressive," instead of fostering innovative and ambitious thinking about how to solve the problems facing middle class Americans.
Comments (16)
Good piece. It seems pretty clear that Krugman does not like Obama. He's getting a little strident on the subject.
January 16, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably because putting yourself at odds with a rising political star is a good way to guarantee attention, re: Chris Matthews' entire career.
January 16, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew,
That's a really absurd, unwarranted and unfounded slander of Krugman.
Maybe you're the real Chris Matthews here...
January 16, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any point in meta discussions about the candidates? It's bad enough that everyone has to put in their 2 cents about them, but then we get to discussions of whether other's remarks are valid or not.
There are only two sure things:
1. Any of the Dem candidates will make a better president than any of those from the GOP.
2. Any health policies put into place during the next administration will having only a passing resemblance to what is being discussed by the candidates.
What the candidates skip over is how they plan to get their plan enacted. Goals or aspirations are all to the good and may attract voters, but once in office the candidate is faced with the powerful forces that have prevented change to date.
The insurance companies and their allied middle men aren't going away. The drug companies aren't going to yield up their lucrative system of patent protection and direct to the public advertising. They also aren't going to give up the mechanism of buying favorable research (or suppressing unfavorable outcomes).
Those in congress who are owned by the industry aren't going away, 96% of them can be expected to be re-elected, just as they are every time. What can the president offer them to make them give up their backers in the industry, especially considering the cost of running for office?
So what if Krugman has his favorites? He hasn't addressed the issue of getting policies enacted anymore than the pols. Leave the cheering sections to the football field.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
January 16, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enacted is the key word. Unless Bush has redefined the presidency to more closely resemble a sovereignty, quite possble that, all the I'll change, fix, do, start...whatever that comes out on the primary stump is without legs.
(Lyndon Johnson got his stuff done because he had serious dirt on the movers and shakers in Congress.)
Of course if the presidency has become a sovereignty we're either doomed - if we elect a fool or a crook or the package - or we're headed for utopia.
January 16, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I follow. Krugman's saying that Obama's plan is centered around tax cuts, which is not unlike many a GOP proposal, not the kind of targeted spending generally associated with a liberal stimulus package, such as the one our own Jared Bernstein keeps demanding. Are you saying that (1) it's just another approach and not less progressive, (2) it misstates Obama's plan, or (3) it overlooks that Obama also is a believer in industry regulation? The last is certainly valuable, and I understand that it's been Warren's concern, but I don't see it as all that relevant to assessing Obama's economic policy. I don't see the evidence for (2) from you, and (1) is just wrong.
I could see an alternative criticism of Krugman here. We could say that on entering office in January 2009, the president will face a very different economy. At that time, present guesses as to how best to manage the recession may be less important than regulation, assuming that lots of people aren't struggling to break even for years following a recession, as Bernstein or Leonhart in the Wednesday Times have argued. It's an argument worth considering, since deregulation is a Bush/Cheney trademark. Or you could identify Clinton with her husband's administration and repeal of Glass-Steagal. But these are not the case you're making.
I didn't, in short, find this post at all convincing. I'm happy to think that the candidates are really quite close. I'm happy to think they're all night and day compared to the GOP. I'm happy to think Obama is a fine candidate, and I suppose he's my second choice after Edwards. And indeed I'm happy to think this also means we can stop demonizing my last choice, Clinton, as RINO. Still, you're not doing a great job of rescuing those swooning for Obama.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/January 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't quite follow this post either, since the putative topic is the comparison of the candidates' stimulus packages, but the author then wanders off the point and goes on to discuss all sorts of economic policy proposals that are not parts of the proposed stimulus package.
But Brad DeLong discussed the various proposals yesterday. According to him, the chief virtue of Obama's stimulus package is that it can be passed quickly, and doesn't include a lot of complex initiatives which will require time-consuming legislative wrangling and be open to a lot of lobbyist intervention. The package could be passed and the checks cut by April.
The proposed stimulus packages aren't plans for January, 2009. They are proposals for what the government should do right now. If a recession is about to start or already underway, then stimulus is needed immediately. Some of the things that are part of the other plans are good things to do in themselves, and Obama has put forward similar proposals as part of his general economic policy agenda, but they will take too long to be enacted to provide the necessary stimulus in a timely way. So I guess the criticism of Krugman is supposed to be that Obama is being unfairly labeled as less progressive only because he did not propose front-loading some his most progressive economic policy proposals into an immediate stimulus package.
My own criticism of Krugman is that here, as elsewhere, he discusses the economic merits of policy proposals in the abstract and doesn't pay sufficient attention to the political realities that must be weighed as well.
January 16, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
John,
Thanks for your comment, which I find insightful. My main point was your (3), which is that Krugman's analysis seems to ignore Obama's focus on regulation presented in places outside of his stimulus plan, and in this context your (1) could also be true. Obama's inclusion of a tax cut in the context of his broader proposals doesn't, in my mind, make him less "progressive."
January 16, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do health care policy, and Obama's proposal is far less then Clinton's (and not just in the area of the mandates) which is slightly weaker then Edwards. Sorry, but in my area of wonkitude Krugman is simply stating the facts.
And Edwards health care proposal came after Clinton had suggested early on her plan would be weaker then it turned out to be, and there was lots of talk at the time that his proposal (and Obama's ultracentrism) pushed her tactically to propose something stronger then she had first hinted at, strategically to get her to the left of Obama.
Then again I support single payer, John Conyers HR-676 (Expanded and Improved Medicare for All), so I consider all three of their proposals mediocre. However, Obama's is more mediocre then the others.
Now on foreign policy, Obama is definitely to left of Clinton, and probably to the left of Edwards.
January 16, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I do health care policy, and Obama's proposal is far less then Clinton's (and not just in the area of the mandates)..."
Without getting too technical, could you elaborate?
January 16, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry Shonu. I disagree with most of your post, but especially with your suggestion that "individual choice" as a policy emphasis can be a progressive value.
That strikes me as naive. "Individual Choice" might have a function in progressive policy, but it has long been the stick that neoliberals use to beat back attempts to enact government controlled social insurance programs and to undermine the ones we already have. Ever heard of Milton Friedman?
Why start off in what will surely be an epic fight by ceding ground to market fundamentalists? Maybe that's a bone to throw them down the road, but I don't see where Obama gets off criticizing Clinton and Edwards for pushing the most viable plan.
January 16, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew,
Thanks for your comment.
I actually think Obama's message very centered around individual participation. As a former community organizer, he seems to understand that people have to be allowed to play some role in the solution to their problems. In the quote that dominates his website, he says "I'm asking you to believe, not just in my ability to bring change in Washington. I'm asking you to believe in yours."
I see his inclusion of elements of individual choice in his policies as an extension of this philosophy, and I am willing to see how he develops this concept before deciding how"progressive" it can be.
I am familiar with Milton Friedman, and I don't think he has a monopoly on individual choice, agency or democratic participation. Nor do conservatives more generally. I don't think traditional Democratic policies or rhetoric that were supposed to be helping middle class families have been that effective, so I am glad to see the candidates mixing it up.
January 16, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shonu,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
But I've got to ask you this: In what sense does giving people an option not to insure themselves invite "democratic participation"? How is it participating to say "I want the option to not do something." On the most basic level, he is inviting people not to participate.
It's more like saying: "I'm asking you to believe in your ability not to participate in the change I will create."
Democracy is a social contract, in which people give up certain rights in order to gain the many benefits of an organized society. As unromantic as it may be, an important part of democratic participation is to be willing to give up some freedoms out of a larger sense of self-interest.
It's certainly reasonable to argue about where that line should be drawn, but I don't think there's anything terribly inspiring about Obama's unwillingness to ask Americans to accept a small loss of freedom for their own good. I find it to be sort of deflating. And when he then turns around and attacks other candidates for asking Americans to work together, I find it counterproductive, and discouraging, and it's certainly not the kind of leadership I'm looking for.
As for the efficacy of Democratic policies and rhetoric in helping the middle class, I'd ask you to consider the period between world war II and 1970, where traditional democratic ideas were largely hegemonic, and produced the most significant material gains for the middle class in American history.
The problem isn't that these ideas don't work. It's that we've allowed them to be undermined by people who are more intersted in the short-term, unequal benefits of market fundamentalism.
And I think, Shonu, at a certain point, if you don't think traditional Democratic policies are worth fighting for, then why not just be a libertarian?
--Andrew Hiller
January 16, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shonu,
Is it possible you can edit your post and include the traditional link to that which you are responding to?
Responding to the Recession By Paul Krugman
While I'm here, I would like to thank Krugman for walking the walk in this column regarding what he has ranted about in the past.
January 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! Sorry I missed that. I have added the link.
January 16, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In both of these contexts, Obama's policies seem intent on preserving a role of individual choice and action, which we should be careful to dismiss as conservative or not "progressive." What if that ends up working to facilitate the progressive goal of redistributing wealth and opportunity and enhancing middle class security? Who made up these rules about being a progressive?"
I'm sorry you've shifted the ground too much here. "Individual choice" sounds outright Luntzian.
January 22, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink