« Hunting Bair is a Bunch of Bull | DKC/Feral Cat's Blog | "Banks are the Heart of Our System". Tom Friedman is Wrong...Again! »
Krugman Wants "Good" to be the New "Cool"
At Christmas we often think about who has been naughty and nice. The
emphasis this years was on the "naughty" list and was heavily loaded up
with people who cheated on their wives which is of little concern to
any of us except the wives and children of said malefactors. Instead
the "naughty" list should be filled with the banksters, the O'Liars,
and weasels who have screwed up America's economy and system of
government by gambling with our money, starting needless wars, and
governing with unrestrained hubris. Instead we should be giving more
weight to the "nice" list which should be filled with the
whistleblowers and truth seekers who bravely swam against the main
stream news current, one of whom was Paul Krugman.
Paul Krugman of the NY Times is an enjoyable guy to read. While I may not always agree with him 100 percent, most of his writing is quite eloquent. That is, he seems to put his finger on the conundrum of the moment while both illuminating it and then giving very reasonable and relatively simple solutions to it.
On the top of Krugman's hopes for next year's "nice" list would be the entire Obama administration. In his column "Barack Be Good", Krugman points out that President -elect Barack Obama says he wants to "make government cool again." The way to make the government cool, says Krugman, is to first make sure it is good. And the clues as to how to do that can be found in FDR's administration. Good
But FDR also
I looked up the vacation house online. Obama's Excellent Hawaiian Vacation It's the definition of "location, location, location". It's right on the beach and probably easy to secure. So I'm not quite as worried as Krugman about this particular kerfuffle. And the Senate is already a "House of Lords",so at least Caroline sounds like we would get a good lord/lady instead of a bad one.
But there is nothing wrong about Krugman being a worry wart. After all, he's worrying about us. And I'm glad he has the courage to say that he believes that "good" should trump "cool". Wouldn't it be super cool if the government worked for everybody? It would be really cool if we argued once again for the common good. It would be way cool if we renounced our empire and our love of a leader whether benevolent or not. I like this idea that "good" could be the new "cool".
Who would you put on this year's "good" list? And should they be held over for next year?
Paul Krugman of the NY Times is an enjoyable guy to read. While I may not always agree with him 100 percent, most of his writing is quite eloquent. That is, he seems to put his finger on the conundrum of the moment while both illuminating it and then giving very reasonable and relatively simple solutions to it.
On the top of Krugman's hopes for next year's "nice" list would be the entire Obama administration. In his column "Barack Be Good", Krugman points out that President -elect Barack Obama says he wants to "make government cool again." The way to make the government cool, says Krugman, is to first make sure it is good. And the clues as to how to do that can be found in FDR's administration. Good
Krugman notes:
In order for us not to repeat the last 30 years of the "greed is good" fundamentalism that was put into hyperdrive in the last 10 or so years, we need to define good first as transparency, he says. Krugman wants government to be good by being clean and crystal clear. If the Obama administration proceeds with their proposed huge 700 billion "economic recovery plan", there will be a whole lot of crooks lined up to line their own pockets. For every highway project, commuter rail line, monorail system, broadband build out, nuclear power plant and green car plants, there will be people who own the real estate, the construction companies, and the raw materials who could profit mightily. So the new administration must have an army of inspectors to keep the piggies away from the trough and it must be vigilant about unneccessary pork.Like the New Deal, the incoming administration must greatly expand the role of government to rescue an ailing economy. But also like the New Deal, the Obama team faces political opponents who will seize on any signs of corruption or abuse -- or invent them, if necessary -- in an attempt to discredit the administration's program.
F.D.R. managed to navigate these treacherous political waters safely, greatly improving government's reputation even as he vastly expanded it. As a study recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research puts it, "Before 1932, the administration of public relief was widely regarded as politically corrupt," and the New Deal's huge relief programs "offered an opportunity for corruption unique in the nation's history." Yet "by 1940, charges of corruption and political manipulation had diminished considerably."
But FDR also
"built an emotional bond with working Americans, which helped carry his administration through the inevitable setbacks and failures that beset its attempts to fix the economy."So Krugman's final piece of advice for putting this country back on the right track is to make sure that the new president and the Democratic majority in Congress keep a real bond with working Americans, not just political elites. Krugman is a person that still believes that administrations need the people on their side. So Krugman worries that the some actions such as choosing Caroline Kennedy for the Senate or choosing a luxury Christmas vacation for the Obamas could be the wrong signals to send to people who are struggling. He's worried those actions are "cool", but may also be symbols that the Democrats don't understand the pain in middle America that much more than the Bushies. And he worries that the public can be easily distracted by $3500 a day rentals, $400 haircuts, and $250,000 wardrobes.
I looked up the vacation house online. Obama's Excellent Hawaiian Vacation It's the definition of "location, location, location". It's right on the beach and probably easy to secure. So I'm not quite as worried as Krugman about this particular kerfuffle. And the Senate is already a "House of Lords",so at least Caroline sounds like we would get a good lord/lady instead of a bad one.
But there is nothing wrong about Krugman being a worry wart. After all, he's worrying about us. And I'm glad he has the courage to say that he believes that "good" should trump "cool". Wouldn't it be super cool if the government worked for everybody? It would be really cool if we argued once again for the common good. It would be way cool if we renounced our empire and our love of a leader whether benevolent or not. I like this idea that "good" could be the new "cool".
Who would you put on this year's "good" list? And should they be held over for next year?
Advertisement





I would put Naomi Klein at the top of my list two years running. Also the Paperback version of "Shock Doctrine" is my number one book of the year.
Sheila Bair is on my good list as is Nomi Prins.
December 29, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for pointing this article out. Krugman is indeed a good read - usually thoughtful and often plausibly provocative. He's a democrat (small d) in a den full of "free market" apologists.
I am especially confident that Obama will keep a real bond with Americans as Krugman suggests. The e-mail list he has accumulated alone gives him great opportunity to go right over the heads of Congress and the media to talk to the people directly. I am anxious to see how the Obama Administration makes use of this list, confident that they are too tech savvy to ignore its utility.
And he will definitely need to have a "direct line" to the public. Never mind all the talk about the "librul media." Where it counts, the mainstream press - the one that employs the multi-million dollar news personalities - has consistently weighed in on the side of Wall Street over Main Street. The most recent example I can cite is from Sunday's Meet the Press. In his interview with Axelrod, Gregory kept insisting that the repeal of the Bush tax cuts - the ones that were gifted to the wealthiest among us - would in fact represent a tax increase on these unfortunate souls. Even allowing them to expire as originally planned in statute would be a tax increase, Gregory insisted. You could almost hear the wheels turning as poor Mr. Gregory was computing just how much this "increase" was going to cost him personally while Axelrod rightly explained that this would move us closer to a more equitable burden to be shared by all if in fact Obama chose to let it go away as originally planned.
As to my nomination for the number one "good" award for the year, I would name Thomas Tamm at the top of the list. This op-ed (from the Salt Lake Tribune, no less!) makes the case very well.
This patriot is well deserving of a place in our pantheon of heroes. One of the most shocking moments for me in a whole Administration of shocking moments was the presser when Bush denounced the unknown (at the time) whistleblower who "compromised our security" by going to the press with news about the extent of the Bush/Cheney illegal wiretapping. It was that moment that I began to comprehend just how far off the reservation these criminals had actually wandered. It still leaves me shaking my head that we allowed it to happen, all in the name of defending freedom and liberty, fer chrissakes!
Anyway, good post! Definitely rec'd!
December 29, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the Thomas Tamm link and recommend. I was going to put him at the top of my list too, but was looking for the right spelling of his name. While googling, of course, I got distracted and went into other posts having nothing to do with what I originally was looking for.
Like Daniel Ellsberg, Tamm will has a well deserved place amongst our great pantheon of heroes.
December 29, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Did anyone happen to hear this?
Well, you did mention '...a 'direct line' to the public."
President-Elect Obama - Weekly address.
~OGD~
December 30, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post Feral. I am also pleased the Krugman is writing so many essays. Surely the publishers wish to take advantage. But he will pose an issue and state that he does not have an immediate answer.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out an issue and not pretending that you are all knowing and all seeing.
December 29, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman's blog is also fun. He poses many questions and his readers and commenters are very smart. He had a blog on Dec 22nd about conspiracy theorists that had one great comment after another.
December 29, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a lot of respect for Paul Krugman; his NYT columns tend to be more ideological than intellectual, and more normative than positive.
That said, occasionally we get a break from the exhortations to corporatism and he talks economics for their own sake. When he does, he's as incisive and brilliant as anyone discussing those issues today.
That said, his continual praise for FDR is getting a bit old. FDR, after all, took office only two years into a ten year economic downturn, involved the United States in a foreign war which cost more in lives and dollars than any before or since, and took credit for a government-financed recovery in 1939-40 only a year or so after destroying the recovery the economy had managed to eke out despite his command-and-control programs like the NRA.
He was not a great President, nor a great man; I would place his historical relevance and credit in the same area as Ronald Reagan.
And wouldn't Krugman just love that?
December 29, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I feel FDR and Lincoln were our two best Presidents. W and Buchanan - our two worst.
December 30, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Transparency is how government can win the hearts and minds of Americans. If they can see every aspect of the programs, they can buy-in. In the end, if the programs get off track we can elect someone else. With the private sector, if things get out of hand, we get to talk to their attorneys. There is nothing preferable about that for anyone but those private companies.
December 30, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman has it all wrong re "symbolism matters".
Obama taking a pleasant vacation is a POSITIVE symbol, one which says, "Don't freak out, don't over-react, don't hoard. Enjoy life."
It's much more subtle than when Bush told us all to spend spend spend after 9/11. Is Krugman really that dense??
December 30, 2008 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Was this a rhetorical question?
There's a whole thread about “niggling nabobs of negativism” at Krugman's blog.
Why not ask your question over there?
~OGD~
December 30, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get the connection. I'm talking about his comment about Obama taking a vacation, not about the stimulus package.
If you're trying to say Krugman was being sarcastic, I have to say it didn't read that way.
December 30, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Thanks for this thread...
I rec'd it . . .
And ... Who would I put on this year's "good" list?
Donna Jean
Why my loving wife of 40 years.
1.) She puts up with me.
2.) She tirelessly serves her special needs children the very same everyday at school as she has done for the past 30+ years.
3.) She brings light to everyone she touches.
There are hundreds of thousands of Donna Jeans throughout our country.
~OGD~
December 30, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
awwwwwwwww.
She really must be. Just sayin.
=D
December 30, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
Obama should take a vacation now. He's going to be busy soon. Right now, he has no authority to do any darn thing.
But not because it's a symbol. He does it because he bloody well wants to, and he bloody well CAN.
He's hanging out with the wife and kids, because we don't have a call on him til January.
December 30, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink