As a big Paul Krugman fan, I’m a bit disappointed by the tendentiousness of his attacks on Obama. Krugman may be right about the Social Security "crisis" rhetoric and the importance of health care mandates, but his attempts to say that Obama was praising Ronald Reagan are just flat-out wrong, and rely on a deliberately obtuse interpretation of the remarks. Obama was saying that Reagan was able to unite disparate groups with his narrative of optimism and strength, even if the actual policies consisted of deficit spending and class warfare against the poor. And the particularly dishonest thing about Krugman in this debate is that he said something very similar in his 1994 book Peddling Prosperity, which I read cover to cover at the time because my introductory economics textbook was so unbelievably dull.
"In 1981 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan uttered a startling pronouncement: ‘The Republicans,’ he declared, "are now the party of ideas."…By 1980, however, the rightward shift of American politics had put Moynihan’s positions well to the left of center, so this was a self-punishing admission. Why would Monynihan say such a thing? Because as an unusually bookish politician, a former Harvard professor who prided himself on his intellectual honesty, Moynihan felt compelled to admit the impact of conservative ideas on American social thought, above all economics. His generosity was refreshing and also ironic; for it came just at the moment when conservatism was simultaneously seizing real power and losing its soul, experiencing a process of intellectual and moral debasement." — Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity, pp. 23-24
Krugman’s 1994 narrative is pretty much in keeping with what Obama was saying in his Reagan remarks. What gives Paul? (and Hillary?). Do you guys really think Obama was praising Reagan, or was he making a "refreshing" observation about Reagan’s combination of political success and intellectual and moral bankruptcy that very closely echoes what you both have said at various times? Sheesh. (And I write all this as a financial backer of Edwards, BTW).
Accidental Blogger 
2 responses to “Paul Krugman on Reagan (Andrew)”
Andrew, I am as surprised as you are with Paul Krugman’s impatient and crotchety dismissal of Obama. I am glad Obama took the opportunity to point out the falsehoods Bill Clinton has been “peddling” about him, among them the distortion of the “Reagan” statement. Hillary snapped at him, “I’m here. He’s not.”
Obama countered, “Well, I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.”
Eugene Robinson explains in the Washington Post the real reason the Clintons (especially Bill) are hopping mad about Obama’s quip about Reagan.
It is too bad that an otherwise sensible person like Krugman has taken up the cudgel on behalf of the Clintons.
LikeLike
As a guy who leans republican, I am watching the Dem. primaries from a safe distance. I think Krugman, whom I admire, is correct.
Obama has not laid out a single position that can appeal to a democrat. He tries to be Reagan with his rhetoric, hope opportunity and apple pie for all . His health care ideas are about setting up committees. Can one of the Obama nuts point out a single concrete idea that he has come up with that is really liberal. He does not have enough national history for anyone to judge his competence, chracter and vision.
Also,an activist will not make a good President. He might be a good legislator but not a good president. A President needs to have concrete ideas and then make sure he can sell them to the nation. I definitely think he can sell an idea but if I was a liberal I would want to know what is that I am buying.
LikeLike