Paul Krugman Is Not Making Much Sense

[Rebkeh]

Paul Krugman Is Not Making Much Sense
He needs a reality check. His screed against Sanders in the NY Times misses the boat completely.

By Michael Bader, DMH / AlterNet April 9, 2016

Paul Krugman has been a voice in the wilderness for liberals for decades. But when he issues screeds in the Times against Bernie Sanders’ alleged lack of policy credentials and Sanders’ “petulant self-righteous” followers, he misses the boat completely.

Krugman needs a reality check: Wonkish policy details about economic reform are irrelevant. Sanders isn’t an economist. Neither is Clinton. As president, his economic initiatives will have more to do with whom he surrounds himself, not with whether or not he gets it exactly right about the role of the “big banks” in the 2007 Great Recession.

And Sanders is right enough. Big banks, with their bloated indebtedness and irresponsible lending and support for risky derivatives that even they didn’t always understand contributed greatly to the meltdown. Further, these bankers took the bailout money they received from taxpayers and gave themselves big bonuses the next year (until they were shamed into temporarily rescinding them). So, Sanders, I expect, will surround himself not with Wall Street insiders like Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner (these are more likely Hilary supporters and fellow-travelers) but, instead, with progressive economists like Dean Baker, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, and Krugman, himself. The economic policy details that Krugman now demands will most likely emerge from this Sanders-led brain trust, not from a candidate interview with the N.Y. Daily News.

Furthermore, I think Krugman should quit being a martyr by repeatedly saying that Bernie supporters are out there accusing him and other anti-Sanders ideologues of being “corrupt or even criminal.” I’m not sure where he is finding this left wing McCarthyite paranoia? By which reputable Sanders supporters is he being scapegoated in such a ridiculous way? It's as if Krugman wants to wrap himself in the cloak of being a renegade victim when, in reality, his pro-Hilary bias puts him squarely in the liberal establishment mainstream.

Krugman should get his head out of his “inside-the-academic economics-blogosphere” and think about real world politics for a change. Sanders understands that even were he a policy wonk, the President can’t make radical stuff happen without the support of a social movement agitating for such change. And it is here that Sanders and Krugman parts ways, since Krugman doesn’t identify as a political activist and is hardly radical when critiquing moronic Republican orthodoxy or Paul Ryan. But Sanders at least has a cursory appreciation of the absolute necessity of building grassroots support for his radical proposals.

When John L. Lewis petitioned Roosevelt for certain planks of a workers’ rights platform, FDR reportedly said, “Go out there and make me!” The political question of our day is how to mobilize people to “make” their elected representatives legislate on behalf of the have-nots against the haves. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), the details of how to unwind a huge financial institution is irrelevant to this task. Clinton could no more lay out such a process than Sanders. Is Krugman similarly critical of her for such a failure to do so? In either case, it doesn't really matter.

Social movements are made up of people who are passionate and are fueled by a sense of meaning and purpose. This is what Sanders brings to the table and it’s where Clinton fails. It’s not about “idealism vs. realism” but about what exactly it takes to animate millions of people to demand radical social change. And that energy isn’t going to be stoked by a candidate making the distinctions Krugman parsed in the Times, such as those between the sub-prime lending practices of Countrywide Financial, “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers or unscrupulous financial behemoths like Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse.

Krugman wishes, I’m sure, that our citizenry would just be more damn rational and understand these allegedly profound distinctions, but they don’t and won’t. But we know when we’re being screwed and we resonate when a candidate acknowledges that fact.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/paul-krugman-flirting-irrelevance

[saidsimplesimon]

1. Good catch, Rebkeh

During the reign on king george the bush, Krugman became a must read for me. He was a sane voice in the wilderness of iraq war administration's insanity. He has really changed direction since the election of President Obama, imo.

If President Kennedy had been realistic, practical and pragmatic, would we have landed on the moon? There are times when a nation is so bankrupt in imagination, idealism and passion that a change of direction is in order. Senator Bernie Sanders inspires us to fight for and achieve our best aspirations

[wcast]

2. I find the realism argument ridiculous.

Do Republicans spend their time worrying about realism? They push so hard to the right that once crazy ideas seem rational. Trump has made Cruz palatable. Change can't happen if we spend our time worrying about being "real" and getting things done with the other side. That is a lesson that took Obama a long time to figure out.

The American public, on both sides of the spectrum, wants real change. Democrats have a real chance of sweeping this election and making huge gains in both the House and Senate. We have a real chance of forcing real change in our political system. (Operative word there is force). If we go into the White House with the idea of being realistic, things will go on just the same and the old saw of both sides are the same will be borne out, as status quo only benefits the 1%.

[Broward]

3. Krugman probably gets all this

but he's just plainly in the tank for Third Way Hillary.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Paul Krugman is what is locally called an ambassador.

In other words, a shill.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Krugman uses Templates for his writing. In 2008 his whole routine was slamming Obama supporters

in the exact same way he is currently slamming Bernie supporters. Same McCarthyist crapola, and the internet makes it all very glaringly obvious. Joan Walsh does the same thing. They charge their employers for work that is not new but just revised.

From 'Hate Springs Eternal' in which Krugman smears Obama supporters and defends Hillary....

"I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html

So it was hate those Obama supporters expressed, not opinion but hate. Venom from hero worshiping personality cultists who were very much like Bush supporters. They wanted their hero or nobody. It was hate, dangerous and right wing in nature.

Of course today's Hillary supporters are 2008's hateful cultish Obama supporters.....which confuses the whole thing even more....