Slate's Bizbox
politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

Progressives, To Arms!Forget about Bush—and the middle ground.

By Paul Krugman
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2007, at 7:53 AM ET

(Continued from page 1)

In a way, it's understandable that many political analysts are finding it hard to grasp how much things have changed. After all, not long ago it was conventional wisdom among the chattering classes that America had entered an era of long-term Republican—and conservative—dominance. I have a whole shelf of books with titles like One Party Country and Building Red America, all of them explaining why movement conservatism—the interlocking set of institutions, ranging from the Heritage Foundation to Fox News, that make up the modern American right—is invincible.

And it's true that even now, polls suggest that Americans are about twice as likely to identify themselves as conservatives as they are to identify themselves as liberals.

But if you look at peoples' views on actual issues, as opposed to labels, the electorate's growing liberalism is unmistakable. Don't take my word for it; look at the massive report Pew released earlier this year on trends in "political attitudes and core values." Pew found "increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies." Meanwhile, nothing's the matter with Kansas: People are ever less inclined to support conservative views on moral values—and have become dramatically more liberal on racial issues.

And it's not just opinion polls: Last year, the newly liberal mindset of the electorate was reflected in actual votes, too. Yes, some of the Democrats newly elected last year were relatively conservative. But others, including James Webb of Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana, have staked out strikingly progressive positions on economic issues.

The question, however, is whether Democrats will take advantage of America's new liberalism. To do that, they have to be ready to forcefully make the case that progressive goals are right and conservatives are wrong. They also need to be ready to fight some very nasty political battles.

And that's where the continuing focus of many people on Bush, rather than the movement he represents, has become a problem.

A year ago, Michael Tomasky wrote a perceptive piece titled "Obama the anti-Bush," in which he described Barack Obama's appeal: After the bitter partisanship of the Bush years, Tomasky argued, voters are attracted to "someone who speaks of his frustration with our polarized politics and his fervent desire to transcend the red-blue divide." People in the news media, in particular, long for an end to the polarization and partisanship of the Bush years—a fact that probably explains the highly favorable coverage Obama has received.

But any attempt to change America's direction, to implement a real progressive agenda, will necessarily be highly polarizing. Proposals for universal health care, in particular, are sure to face a firestorm of partisan opposition. And fundamental change can't be accomplished by a politician who shuns partisanship.

I like to remind people who long for bipartisanship that FDR's drive to create Social Security was as divisive as Bush's attempt to dismantle it. And we got Social Security because FDR wasn't afraid of division. In his great Madison Square Garden speech, he declared of the forces of "organized money": "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred."

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Paul Krugman is a columnist for the New York Times.
This piece is adapted from Paul Krugman's recent book, The Conscience of a Liberal, with permission of the publisher, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Copyright © 2007 by Paul Krugman. Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

FDR's point was something so many people have forgotten, or never knew -- that being on the right side requires choosing sides. So many people now want to be "independent" where the meaning of "independent" means committed to nothing but my own self-interest. There's not much future in that.

--Arlington

(To reply, click here.)

I understand you believe that hyper-partisanship is not itself the problem, but the damage done by its careful wielding by a few evil men (and women). But do you really believe the way to reverse that damage, and move the country forward, is to wield the same blunt axe with the other hand?

No, I think that you're smarter than that. You must know that the only way to make big changes is to bring along a larger mandate.

I'm of the opinion that lasting change happens when people can largely agree with the changes, not when they're rammed down your throat.

--dsinha

(To reply, click here.)

As a young voter, I am really tired of this fight. Any Democratic push to the left, even if it results in victory in 2008, would simply embolden the old school conservatives in 2010 and/or 2012, resulting in more disaster and partisanship. Seeing how Congressional Republicans behave now, imagine how difficult they could make politics for a partisan Democratic president a few years from now when they get their first sniff of blood.

There are solutions to many of our problems that can be reached without the political gamesmanship that has defined politics since the 1960's. To me, the most successful executive politicians this decade have been Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg, both of whom are essentially non-partisan, socially liberal, economically moderate / conservative "Republicans" who work with and endorse politicians of all parties.

Hate it or love it, this is the model we are moving towards and Obama is really the first presidential candidate we have seen with this type of outlook. 10 or 15 years from now, the Obamas of the world are going to dominate American politics...

--Alcibiades

(To reply, click here.)

There are roughly as many registered Democrats as registered Republicans in this great nation of ours. The Democrats vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, while the Republicans vote overwhelmingly for the Republican candidate. The election is decided by demography (states like Utah that are majority one-party) and by moderate independents. And you can't win with just Utah or Massachussetts.

The Democratic Party is not going to grab the swing votes if they run Kucinich or Edwards. In fact, that's about the only way they lose 2008. The Republicans are doomed if they pick anyone farther right than Rudy.

Let me offer myself as an example. Lifelong Democrat. Pro-choice, prayer-out-of-public-schools, but seriously fiscally conservative. Voted for Clinton, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry in the last 4 presidential elections. Vote in a purple state with a decent number of electoral votes, so folks like me actually matter. And if the Democrats don't give me a choice of either Obama or Clinton, I vote for either Giuliani or maybe McCain. If the Republicans have gone and picked somebody else, I'm voting independent.

We've been here before. The Goldwater path led the Republicans to electoral annihilation, and this is basically the same silly plan. Trust me, the lurkers do not support you in email.

Lots of you are hardcore progressives in ice-blue states. It's nice that folks like me are further right than anyone you're likely to meet this month. But, believe it or not, you can't win an election with just the Whole Foods vote.

--caldwell

(To reply, click here.)

If the left wants to have better success enacting a progressive agenda, they need to change not so much their policy proposals as to change the way they talk about progressive policies and goals. Obama is brilliant at this: his agenda is markedly progressive, yet he garners large support from independents and even Republicans because of the way he frames the issues and the way he speaks to their concerns.

For a long time now, Republicans have been very good at using wedge issues and divisive rhetoric (as well as distortions and outright lies) to turn the public against policies that they would otherwise support. This public divisiveness does not help the Left's cause. The New Deal and The Great Society had widespread popular support in large part because people viewed those programs as designed for them, and for the benefit of the broad middle of the American public. The Left can only have significant success again with programs like this if they can re-convince the broad middle, and frame issues so as to garner their support and defuse Republican lines of attack.

Paul Krugman, however, seems to think that rhetorical conciliation can only result in policy failure, that to have successful progressive policies we need to speak in as partisan a manner as possible. While he may be a brilliant economist, and while his efforts to point out the simple factual inaccuracies of Republican economic proposals and ideas have been very valuable, a political visionary he is not.

His lack of political vision alone is not particularly damning. His recent spate of anti-Obama attacks, however, have taken on an extremely personal tone and have (I think) involved significant distortions. It is fine for Krugman to be a political fool, but not when his political foolishness leads him to this kind of crusade of distorting attacks against the Left's best spokesperson in decades.

If he wants to support a progressive agenda, I suggest he keep his vitriol for those who oppose such an agenda, not for those like Obama who share progressive goals.

--Spenser

(To reply, click here.)

(12/26)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Let the Oil Deals Flow
Raad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.