MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
[Not sure if this has been cited yet, but I just found it.]
We are witnessing for the umpteenth time liberal criticism that ignores the diversity in our political system and the dispersion of power in our constitutional system. From time immemorial, Democratic presidents are harshly criticized by liberals for deviating from their "one true faith," without much regard for politics. Invariably, they say, if the president had taken a principled public position, he would have mobilized the "base" and countered the forces of darkness (i.e. those with whom they don't agree), but they don't offer a cogent political analysis. As in this case. To repeat, how should Obama have negotiated with a transformed House of Representatives when he needed their assent?
Comments
Thanks for the link, donal.
I find the article hackneyed and unpersuasive.
Liberals have "one truth faith"? That comes as news to me. I can tell the author doesn't have much understanding of the "liberals" he writes of because if he did, he would know that if you put 10 liberals in a room these days you'll probably get 15 opinions.
For the umpteenth time, he conveniently sets up the strawman of the inflexible purist liberal when the truth is closer to the opposite. The single liberal "argument" he identifies--the mobilizing the "base" argument--is one which I have seen made not by a single actual liberal, progressive or leftist here at dag. Maybe he should actually read what critics criticized before putting words in their mouths.
He goes on to bash Krugman:
If you are the President in that situation and you have a realistic, not a naive, understanding of your adversary, when Harry Reid says he wants Republicans to bear some responsibility for raising the debt ceiling instead of resolving the issue in the lame duck Congress, what you say to the Senator Majority Leader is something like "Harry, what makes you think these folks won't hold out? And even if your minority in the Senate doesn't, we've got a really radical, crazy bunch coming into the House and they're calling the shots now, not Nancy. They're going to be pushing Boehner to the limit. Let's not give them leverage. Let's get it done now."
If Heineman's point is that if that was Reid's expressed preference, Reid shares responsibility for that poor decision, ok, fine. But, again, the buck stops with the President. He badly misread the nature of his adversary. It was an unforced error, as they say, and a disastrous one. Which directly put him into the position of having to get GOP House assent to raise the debt ceiling later on.
Heineman goes on, in criticism of Krugman,
Well, the 42nd president of the United States, truly one of the master triangulators of our day and absolutely no one's idea of a purist "liberal", expressed support for a 14th amendment option. Or maybe Heineman thinks Bill Clinton has gone over to the purist liberal dark side in his old age? Of course there is no citation to back up the assertion that "the great weight of authority" believes such a reading of the constitution is wrong, nor even the name of a single legal scholar whose analysis the author found dispositive or particularly persuasive, so that a curious reader might see why Heineman wrote that.
Krugman has been perhaps the most visible and courageous public intellectual saying we shouldn't be doing deficit reduction now. He says why, so anyone can "see his work". The last thing we need is to have no voices of dissent, "Olympian" or otherwise, willing to say the Washington Emperor--both parties--has no clothes and is in the process of butchering the central economic policy decision of our day.
So it doesn't matter whether the policy both parties are in the process of pursuing is wrongheaded and counter-productive? Those among our public intellectuals who disagree should just go with the flow and sign onto deficit reduction even if they think it's a really bad policy, in lieu of trying to persuade policymakers that it's a bad move? Heaven help our country if exceptionally well-informed commentators adopt Heineman's view and stifle themselves. Heineman and I have different concerns. The self-suppression of powerful, heavily informed dissent truly would represent a crushing blow to our country's future.
But, donal, seriously, thank you for posting what is at this site right now a dissenting view. I do that myself sometimes, thinking it's good to introduce more minority viewpoints at the site, certainly including ones I disagree with. I posted as a news item awhile back an article by Guy Molyneux of the pollster Peter Hart and Associates, maintaining that, "unfortunately", the public opinion polling data was rock solid in support of deficit reduction. The polling data I've seen cited by other commentators asserts just the opposite--that the public cares far more about jobs and the health of the overall economy than about deficit reduction. A few days ago I linked to a piece at the WH Blog site defending the debt deal, which flavius at least noticed.
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:45am
Fair critique, but I do agree with the concluding paragraph:
by Donal on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:57am
I thought it was by far his best paragraph. But his choice of "Liberals" as the subject of his sentence reflects and reinforces his failure in the article to distinguish between the Paul Krugmans of the world (who in my view should continue to do exactly what they are doing) and the local progressive-minded activists of the world. Most of the latter are not terribly likely to compose "Olympian" op-eds against President Obama that contribute exceptionally well-informed expert substance or original arguments capable of influencing public debate over national policy.
Paul Krugman's audience is national policymakers and those interested in listening in or weighing in on the arguments being advanced. The local progressive-minded activist's audience is folks based in their community who they are trying to persuade to do something specific, such as vote for candidate X.
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:14am
Please tell me how Krugman repeatedly ignoring political realities and constantly criticizing the only relevant liberal in the arena in the most personal terms does liberalism any good at all.
by brewmn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:13pm
I think the problem, as stated in various ways, is where you draw the line between expecting more from Obama and expecting Obama to do it all himself.
by Donal on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:36pm
I agree. I have just been baffled by the nature, the tone, and the volume of criticism leveled at Obama from the left since early 2009.
There was never a lot of "yeah, this isn't my ideal health care reform plan, but he's facing a lot of intractable opposition from Republicans and powerful, entrenched interests, who have co-opted many Democrats as well. Even so, this bill will do a lot of good, and move us a lot closer to universal health care." Instead, it was all "he's a Corporate Sellout!" "He's a Secret Conservative!" "Kill the Bill!"
And Krugman, with one of the prime pieces of real estate in all of media, has veered into this type of criticism far too often, even if he did so while not getting quite as apoplectic as the amateur blogosphere. I can agree with the substance of much of the criticism of Obama's policies; I simply can't agree that focusing so much of your rhetorical energy on tearing him down is going to have any positive effect on liberalism, or for liberals or those Americans whose welfare they claim as their Number One priority.
by brewmn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:02pm
Krugman has been tough on Obama and the Democrats where he thinks they are wrong. For someone with his level of knowledge and stature that is exactly what I think he should be doing. He should be trying to persuade policymakers to make good policy. He's not a partisan hack or a shill for misguided policies just because Democrats are pursuing them. That IMO is what makes him valuable and worthy of respect.
Partisan flacks and hacks are a dime a dozen, although obviously some are good at it and some are not particularly good at it. If you want to have someone tell you what you're supposed to think about some matter because you're a Democrat, you can always read James Carville or watch Democratic party talking heads on the Sunday morning talk shows.
The Carvilles have a role to play, too, which can be helpful to time-challenged, already committed activists looking for tips or talking points for how they might be more effective. He's just not a policy person, not someone anyone trying to think critically or independently should be paying a whole lot of attention to if they are meaning to examine an issue thoughtfully with a view towards making up their own mind. I'm pretty sure he would tell you exactly that himself if you were to ask him.
If you don't think Krugman has been merciless on the Republicans you either haven't been reading him or haven't been paying attention.
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:27pm
Krugman doesn't just criticize. And he doesn't "ignore political realities". He says what he would do. And he explains why. Do you even read him? Lately?
Part of what Obama is being criticized for here lately on the debt ceiling matter is for *not* pursuing a liberal policy. How do you call an embrace of austerity now a "liberal" policy? In addition to many progressive economists, even Larry Summers and Ben Bernanke, hardly flaming leftists either of them, oppose austerity now. I don't care what the GOP and the RW media say on that--they're wrong.
Obama's record is a mix of liberal policies--which actually have helped the economy from being worse than it is--along with "centrist" and center-right ones, which stand to harm it and retard recovery. The GOP and RW media will call him and his policies "liberal" because they've spent 30 years defining liberal as synonymous with evil, for the purpose of eliminating any need to argue against the actual policies or proposals so described, many of which in fact are popular and argue well.
It's just false to say those who are being critical of Obama's handling of the debt situation and economic policy in general have offered no alternatives. Specific, avoidable mistakes have been made. Options on the table have been rejected. You might not like the alternatives that have been proposed. You might not believe they would have worked any better. But those are separate arguments, different from saying no alternatives have been offered.
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:09pm
Dude, any criticism of Obama that doesn't criticize intractable Republicans and conservative Democrats in the same breath is just spitting into the wind. And you can offer all of the alternative solutions you want, but until you can offer a plausible means for passing progressive legislation with a filibuster-able majority in the Senate and a House run by the Tea Party, you might as well throw in a wish for a couple of ponies, too.
For example, remember that "too small" stimulus? The biggest in sheer dollar terms in our history? How much bigger does Krugman think it could have been and still kept the three Republicans (it passed the Senate w/61 votes) who voted for it to stay on board?
When Krugman writes about basic economic issues, and when he attacks the economic illiteracy of the Washington establishment generally and the Republicans specifically, he's the best columnist in America. But his thoughts regarding what the Obama administration could or should have done, and his blaming so many problem's solely on a failure of presidential will, is just armchair quarterbacking of the type I can get on any angry lefty blog.
You can sit here and find fault with aspects of the president's legislative or rhetorical strategy all you want. But you can't prove that your way would have succeeded, so to all seems like a big waste of time to me. I'd rather fight the forces that are the true obstacles to a better America. And that doesn't include Barack Obama.
by brewmn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:17pm
What Dreamer said about the article: "hackneyed and unpersuasive."
Why do so many people who obviously are not liberals -- whose very choice of words shows contempt for liberals -- think they are welcome to lecture liberals on what they should or should not do. They aren't.
by acanuck on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:50pm
Well, everywhere but here in the hot house of the lefty blogosphere, I am a liberal. And I certainly have contempt for a certain type of professed liberal. Is that "hackneyed," "unpersuasive," or both?
by brewmn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:26pm
I was referring specifically to Heineman, author of the article. But feel free to take it personally.
by acanuck on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:36pm
The guy who attacks Krugman for writing from the "comfy confines of an office at Princeton" turns out to have spent 18 years as "GE's Senior Vice President/General Consultant from 1987 to 2003, and then Senior Vice President for Law and Public Affairs in 2004 and 2005."
As Doctor Day would say, "Hahahahahahaha!"
Just the guy to lecture Democrats on hard realities, political naivete, the diversity of our political system, dispersion of power, high principle, political power and the "forces of darkness."
Well, he did get one thing right... "in these situations there is a huge amount of disinformation, phony moves, game-playing on both sides. And that is where hard political analysis is so important."
by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 7:22pm