Krugman
On The Democrats
By Thomas Riggins
10 November, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The
liberal economist and New York Times op ed columnist Paul Krugman has
just published a new book, THE CONSCIENCE OF A LIBERAL. It got a big
write-up in The New York Review of Books by Michael Tomasky (11-22-07).
Some of Krugman’s ideas will appeal to most reality based progressives.
Here is a quote from his book, cited by Tomasky.
“The central fact of
modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party
by movement conservatives, whose vision of what American should be is
completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement. Because
of that control, the notion, beloved of political pundits, that we can
make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish.... “to
be a progressive, then, means being a partisan --- at least for now.
The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have
both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome
Republican opposition.”
The recent defection of two
top Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Republican side
on the Mukasey confirmation vote is a case in point. The Bush administration’s
use of torture could have been decisively rejected rather than rewarded
had the Democratic majority been greater than just a few votes.
Right now, the Democrats
and Republicans are basically in different ideological camps over war,
torture, health insurance, environmental issues, and a host of other
major issues. The Schumer-Boxer defection over Mukasey was not just
some bipartisan deal to get the Justice Department functioning again.
It was a real betrayal of the progressive direction the American voters
elected this Congress to advance. After all, the Democrats had the votes
to stop Bush’s man and his equivocations on torture, yet he was
approved anyway.
So, the question is, can
the Democrats really push forward a progressive agenda even if they
have both the presidency and a bigger majority? What will keep them
from still failing to solidly push a progressive people’s agenda
instead of caving in to pressures from the corporate plutocracy and
the military-industrial complex?
Krugman tries to answer this
question in an article in Monday’s New York Times (11-5-07)..
Krugman thinks the long right wing control of national politics is about
to end. He seems to envision a big Democratic sweep in 2008.
He is on tour now, promoting
his book, and he says a good question that often comes up is, “How
can you be so optimistic about the prospects for progressive change,
when big money has so much influence on politics?”
Citing the research of recent
polls, Krugman says that Americans have never, in recent history, been
so fed up with how the government is being run and that two of the main
reason’s are the failure of the misadventure in Iraq, and the
growth of a new economic populism. There is widespread resentment against
the abuses of the big corporations and the declining share of wealth
available to the middle class.
“Longer-term studies
of public opinion,” Krugman writes, “suggest a substantial
leftward shift.” Well, the Democrats have controlled Congress
for a year now and Bush’s agenda is still popping along with hardly
any real challenges. Why hasn’t the “leftward shift”
manifested itself more vigorously in the halls of Congress? One of the
main reasons, according to Krugman, that “the Democrats are having
trouble finding their voice is the influence of big money.”
Krugman cites some examples.
First, the failure to get rid of tax loopholes that favor the very rich,
at our expense, such as hedge fund managers who only have to pay a 15%
tax rate on the millions (and billions) they rake in. Industry lobbyists
have so far gotten the Democrats to drag their feet and delay taking
any action. Another thing worries people who think the Democrats may
sell out, and that is the closeness of Hillary Clinton to the MIC and
its allies.
Krugman quotes an article
from the Nation magazine: “Not only is Hillary more reliant on
large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but
advisors in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters,
G.O.P. operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists.”
Hmmmm! It doesn’t seem as if we can expect too much from her.
Nevertheless, Krugman doesn’t
think the cause is lost. The Democrats and Republicans are very different,
he says. He mentions the fight for children’s health insurance
and the fact that all the Democratic front-runners have new and progressive
policies that they are pushing, as compared to the same old reactionary
agenda pushed by the Republicans.
Nevertheless, he is worried
about how things will turn out. He tells us about Al Smith, a great
Democratic progressive, who ended economically right-wing and a critic
of FDR and his policies. Krugman quotes H.L. Mencken’s explanation
for the turnabout: “His association with the rich has apparently
wobbled him and changed him. He has become a golf player.”
I see now where Krugman got
the title for his NYT article: “Wobbled by Wealth?” I guess
I’m not as optimistic as Krugman. I expect the worst from any
capitalist party when it comes to fighting the MIC, et al. Krugman has
a wait and see attitude. He ends his article thusly: “So, how
wobbled are today’s Democrats? I guess we’ll find out.”
Well, if the first year of the new Democratic Congress is any indication,
progressives had better have a Plan B.
Thomas Riggins is
the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at [email protected]
or at Thomas Riggins' Blog
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.