This is the deal: white American voters are not instantly inclined to see a Black male as an advocate of their interests and defender of their families and communities.

This is not exactly racism. It's not based on an attitude that Obama lacks competence, etc. It is more like group-think, a kind of tribalism.

The problem is, that all working Americans need an advocate. We are suffering, have been suffering, are going (fairly rapidly) downhill. We need an advocate in Washington, DC.

I think Obama's reasonableness plays against his effectiveness as an advocate for working Americans. His calm, his balance, don't communicate that he will fight like a bulldog to improve economic security for working Americans. It critically undermines Obama's case to this group. I think that is the fundamental reason why he has failed to "close the deal" with this group of voters in primaries and polls. Voters believe, with reason, that without that fight quality in a leader who is defending their interests, their interests and needs and priorities will not get addressed. AFter all, that is the status quo.

In the absence of this advocacy, you have McCain's quality of 'fight like a bulldog' - against the wrong things (Iran, Russia). And you have McCain's whiteness, which in the trust area, inclines the white working class to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Frank Rich in today's NYTimes described Obama's campaign as 'overly genteel'. I think that's correct.

The way race is operating in this election is a bit new. It is about trust and not bias. This is what is not fair: McCain defaults to being more trusted by the white middle and working class voters (even when he would shaft those voters). Obama has to make the case.

There are two ways.

Obama has begun, in various ads, to show how McCain is a candidate who loves the elites and shafts working Americans. He is business as usual.

This is good, it may not be enough.

It is really important to TARGET the TRUST that the working class has for McCain. It can be destroyed. It has many vulnerabilities. He is an old timer and his record and character are there to be used against him. But this has to be a strategic task, done thoroughly and deliberately (through surrogates, in many cases).

If this is not something in Obama's character, if he is not capable of going negative in this way, I think he will lose.

It's possible the Obama campaign really sees our essential national problem as one of partisanship, and that explains his approach. But it is not partisanship: it is the rise of predatory elites and the decline of the middle and working classes. If this fundamental error of analysis is driving the Obama campaign, again, he will lose.

I have a lot of experience in the technology industry, and there are certain political attitudes in that world, among those leaning Dem. They are politically soft, suburban, well-meaning. They don't understand politics as war. I worry that he has too many of this type in his "genteel" campaign, and not enough South Side of Chicago (where I'm from) Democratic warriors.

Posted at August 17, 2008 3:03 PM in response to Blowing August: Will The Convention Give Obama The Big Bump He Needs?

I think there should be a book in the wings that will drag out all the dirt on McCain. Playing defense to Repub offense is a losing position. McCain has ties to corruption going back to the Keating 5. He had affairs and dumped his first wife to a pill popping, thieving heiress. Folks who know him say his temper should disqualify him.

Ample material here for a assault by book. Why won't anyone go for it?

Posted at August 15, 2008 12:21 AM in response to Obama Campaign Mapping Out Aggressive Counter-Attack Against Swift-Boating

I think Obama is blowing it, which could be tragic.

One way the Republican tactics of sliming a candidate work is the Democrats have for some reason a real problem in attacking back. They don`t think it looks "presidential" (dukakis, gore, kerry). I see Obama not using the obvious ammo against McCain: whose economic advisor engineered our casino of a financial system, who sings "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", who thinks it is cute that he is totally ignorant of economics, etc ad nauseum.

The problem with not attacking back is that it sends a message: I will not stand up for YOU American voter, because I cannot even stand up for myself.

I think that the message folks are getting from Obama on the economy is, I am too weak to challenge economic business as usual in this country.

This trashes the best reason folks have for voting for Obama.

Posted at August 4, 2008 4:30 PM in response to Denver: A "Biography" Convention Would Be a Disaster

I wonder how you see the issue of the yuan peg to the dollar.

First of all, no American policy caused the Chinese to adopt a peg. Do you agree?

It seems to me that the Chinese currency being undervalued wrt the dollar was a larger contributor to the loss of American manufacturing than the value of any other currency. And that was a huge part of the run up in the deficit.

Compared to other currencies, esp the Euro, the yuan has barely budged. Comments? Prognosis?

Posted at April 11, 2008 4:39 PM in response to The High Dollar: President Clinton’s Unaffordable Tax Cut

It seems to me that apologists for globalization rely on "sovereign prerogative" whenever it is convenient, as a sort of rhetorical cover for the corrosive impact globalization has on the welfare of the workers of the west.

In fact, globalization deprives first world workers of middle class jobs, and replaces those jobs with cheap goods made by low wage workers with minimal rights in 3rd world totalitarian states, e.g. china. No one ever raises the issue of "sovereign prerogative" to protect first world workers.

What is at stake for workers in the first world is: our wages, our futures, our rapidly degrading world environment, the stress on middle class families in all areas of life, and more.

The only reason "sovereign prerogative" is not used to defend first world workers is that American MNCs are making money hand over fist by destroying the American productive economy, and through cronyism and the influence of money our political system puts their interests above the interests of first world workers. This is corruption plain and simple.

Posted at April 10, 2008 2:45 PM in response to Inequality, Tax Rates, and Globalization

You picked a bad example, because it blends together the effects of technology and improved (and cheaper) gadgetry of all kinds with the lower labor cost of 3rd manufactures.

A better example would be, say, a t-shirt.

If it would save American jobs, would you buy a $20 t-shirt from a local shop, or an $8 dollar version, from China, at Wal-Mart?

The difference here is really the difference in labor cost. Not so in your example.

I also have to say I'm very skeptical of arguments in favor of free trade. Too much water under the bridge, by now. I don't believe that this country knows how to do sophisticated, effective social policies. We're not Denmark. After we have a good nationalized health care system, my view may change. But we are nowhere near a strong position to implement effective trade assistance. On the other hand, we industrialized under a tariff regime and we could do so again.

A main characteristic that all liberal pro trade economists seem to share is an underestimation of the importance of the job market is providing social progress and stability in this country. To the cheerleading of you and your fellows, this job market has been demolished by globalization. Now you have 'ideas' as to how to patch up the mess. Where's your proposal to extend the EITC? (Most of us would rather have a job.) Sorry to say, I'm skeptical.

Posted at April 9, 2008 8:35 PM in response to The Crunchian Take on Globalization

Oh, boohoo. Krugman is so popular my comments will be overshadowed!

I just want to say, Prof Krugman, that I grew up in a racial transition zone and saw white flight (and the resultant economic devastation) up close and personal. I find your analysis completely in accordance with my years of experience. (This was the south side of Chicago in the 60's and 70's).

I think the (white) Republican elites used racial polarization and fear (just as they are now using 'Islamofacism' to create 'Islamophobia'!) as a lever to push the white middle and working classes into their political camp. The necessary perquisite was of course racism on the part of white voters.

Naturally the very same leaders who used racism to win elections were hardly trustworthy guardians of the social welfare of white voters of modest means - to the contrary, they have purposefully chased the devastation of those same folks.

Posted at November 1, 2007 3:40 PM in response to The awful truth, and the better future

I think the Republicans have used attacks on character as a fundamental electoral strategy. Indeed, that is beyond debate. They are pioneers in poisoning the American political scene; they've introduced fundamental changes; destroyed the standards of decency.

It is disingenuous to argue that analyzing the motives of Republicans in their pursuit of tax cuts is an attack on character.

It is actually evidence of how ad hominem attacks by conservatives have become building blocks for flawed arguments that Douthat suggests that the progressives are now using the tactics of his side.

Posted at September 11, 2007 1:41 PM in response to The Motives of Your Opponents

In support of Dean's point, 78% of mortgages in the core Bay Area over the last few years were 'funny': no money down, teaser rates, NINJA, etc. Without those (which were embraced by buyers because of cheerleading by the Fed) the market here would never have gotten so out of whack. Without 'funny' mortgages, the entry and mid level buyers can't afford to buy. The lower half of the market right now if very, uh, constipated.

Posted at September 10, 2007 1:36 PM in response to “The Human Race Has Never Found a Way to Confront Bubbles”

I read somewhere (wish I could remember where) that this problem of quality in China has historical antecedents. In the 19th Century silk was first imported to England from China, then Japan. Japan delivered higher quality silk, China was unable (why?) to upgrade silk quality, and lost market share permanently.

I wonder whether China is such a behemoth that problems solved by govt regulation elsewhere are simply insolvable in China. You have a dog eat dog variety of capitalism that causes suppliers to undercut one another to such an extent that quality and safety improvements aren't feasible.

Posted at August 15, 2007 7:03 PM in response to Toy Story, Global Version