The Wrong Path?
In an essay that introduces Newsweek‘s Paul Krugman-profile cover story, titled “Obama Is Wrong,” editor Jon Meacham notes that “every once a while, a critic emerges who is more than a chatterer — a critic with credibility whose views seem more than a little plausible and who manages to rankle those in power in more than passing ways.
“As the debate over the rescue of the financial system–the crucial step toward stabilizing the economy and returning the country to prosperity–unfolds, [Krugman] has emerged as the kind of critic who, as Evan Thomas writes, appears disturbingly close to the mark when he expresses his ‘despair’ over the administration’s bailout plan. …
“There is little doubt that Krugman — Nobel laureate and Princeton professor — has be come the voice of the loyal opposition. What is striking about this development is that Obama’s most thoughtful critic is taking on the president from the left at a time when, as Jonathan Alter notes, so many others are reflexively arguing that the administration is trying too much too soon.
“A devoted liberal, Krugman hungers for what he calls ‘a new New Deal,’ and he prides himself on his status as an outsider. (He is as much of an outsider as a Nobel laureate from Princeton with a column in the Times can be.) Is Krugman right? Is the Obama administration too beholden to Wall Street and to the status quo, trying to save a system that is beyond salvation? Does Obama have — despite the brayings of the right — too much faith in the markets at a time when prudence suggests that they cannot rescue themselves?
“We do not know yet, and will not for a while to come. But as Evan — hardly a rabble-rousing lefty — writes, a lot of people have a ‘creeping feeling’ that the Cassandra from Princeton may just be right. After all, the original Cassandra was.”
When did Paul Krugman become the most respected voice in the U.S.? He’s just one man who’s been both right and wrong in his political pontificating over the years.
Krugman is an outsider in the way that a fancy hooker is paid for companionship.
He makes some good points, but fails to realize the political reality of the situation. For Obama to initiate such radical changes in the first hundred days would be political suicide. Think about what the sell-job for a “new New Deal” would do to him? The public isn’t ready for this right now, and the GOP would subsequently eat him alive. Obama’s gonna pull out the big guns in ’11 or early ’12, so even if his policies ultimately fail, he can go into the debates saying “these things take time to work” – and they do. As revolutionary a figure as Obama might be, the next election is never far from his mind.
Have patience, Mr. Krugman. Patience.
“Think about what the sell-job for a “new New Deal” would do to him?”
I realized I just dropped the most unnecessary question mark in the history of question marks. I apologize?
Thomas Friedman disagrees with Krugman. He’s a smart guy too but the truth is nobody knows what to do. At least this president is trying as opposed to the prior absentee landlord who sat his ass on vaction for 2 days while an american city was underwater.
Looks like Cambodia suddenly turned neo-conservative. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20090328/ap_tr_ge/as_cambodia_atrocity_tourism
I wouldn’t be surprised if the planners of the Bush Memorial are taking notes.
Krugman’s a smart guy, and his judgment seems far more sound than Geithner’s on this. I wish he was in charge of treasury.
They’re both wrong. The difference is, Krugman probably KNOWS that.
The government “versus” corporate-interests Liberalism they both profess to follow just doesn’t “fit” anywhere anymore. The gov and Big Business are so intertwined and reliant on one-another as to be inseperable.
The “worst” Obama can do to an industry is nationalize it, and with the Financials that’s a joke: They’ve been feeding off government input and taxpayer funding through various channels for years. They MEAN IT when they say “too big to fail” – any collapse would take the whole country down with it. “Nationalizing” corporations doesn’t mean squat when the nation is already “corporatized.”
What troubles me, as an Obama supporter, is that he continues to ignore the voices on the far left. Paul Krugman, Howard Dean, the pro-pot-legalization committee from earlier this week, all have valid ideas but all have all been shut out of the debate. Dean had to get a job on CNBC because this new administration offered him bupkis. According to the Newsweek story, even David Brooks was invited to chill at the WH salon, but not Krugman — and he’s an old buddy of Lawrence Summers. Now, what logic is there in shunning the current Nobel-winning economist?
Is there anyone on the Obama “team of rivals” who represents the progressive wing of the Democratic party?
“Is there anyone on the Obama “team of rivals” who represents the progressive wing of the Democratic party?”
Why should Obama make any special effort to be involved with people who, like it or not, will make him look “bad” to moderates (who will be deciding the congressional election in a little over a year) when said people are going to vote for his side anyway?
Spoken like a true Republican, MovieBob, whether you are or not. The only endgame you see is strategy, not solution.
arturo,
Obama has two official wars to deal with, one more all-but-garaunteed to break out if (read: WHEN) Mexico collapses within the next few months. He has a toppling economy that hasn’t even crashed all-the-way yet. He has a mile-long list of “promised-to-do’s” that he’s got to make SOME headway on to prevent the starry-eyed young turks who put him into office from getting disillusioned and re-discovering the joys of eff-it-all nihilism.
And he has less than TWO YEARS in which to finish or at least get beyond-halfway on ANY of it because in 2010 he’s gonna have to put everything on hold to try and lead this multi-headed (and all the heads HATE eachother) monstrousity of an excuse for a political party called The Democrats through an all-out WAR for control of Congress. And heaven help him if he DOES lose one house (which would all-but certainly happen if the voting was today, btw) in which case he’ll spend 2010 to 2012 getting ridden hard and blocked at every turn by the Republicans looking to “soften him up” for the 2012 election.
In other words, if he’s NOT focused on strategy right now, he’s a fool.
Bob, he’s not going to lose either house. It doesn’t matter if things don’t get better in a few months, because the public will see some actual effort on his part to improve the situation, and see a bunch of obstructing and complaining on the part of the Republicans to stop him. It’s not like the Clinton years, when the GOP simply just replaced the Soviets with the “New World Order” of the U.N., since I imagine the public would actually prefer the U.N. taking over the clean-up job for Bush’s messes, rather than having us become even more vulnerable by going it alone-hence why Barry was elected in the first place. I’ll agree with you on the rest of the stuff, though, but I think the Mexico thing is going to have to force him to re-evaluate our drug policies even further than simply brushing them off on-line.
Here’s the problem with that: Obama has so far managed to maintain enough of his “not just another politician” act that the (lets face it) largely sympathetic media continues to play up his rather alarming number of early turmoil to “the democrats” with Obama himself almost as a seperate entity from his party.
That’s how his numbers stay good while Congress’s continue to fall. Good for him now, BAD for him in the Congressional elections. It’s entirely possible that Obama himself can maintain high popularity even as some of his “moderate” fans opt to start tossing democrat senators out on their asses.
If the Dems connect enough Republican enablers to the execs at AIG, 2010 will be a walk in the park. And if the Republicans choose to vote against their share of the stimulus locally, that’ll be another strike against them. The only way the Dems can lose at this point is if they’re doing crappier jobs at infrastructure rebuilding.
It’s funny. I remember reading more than one article in the liberal press, after the 2008 election, about how difficult the Republican base was to please. They were just a bunch of complainers, you see.
Looks like liberals are running into the same problem.
Democrats are slowly finding out that it’s a lot easier to complain than it is to lead.
Oh, we’re not really complaining, since our President actually listens to us and takes our opinions into consideration.
特价机票
北京特价机票
上海特价机票
成都特价机票
杭州特价机票
西安特价机票
重庆特价机票
广州特价机票
贵阳特价机票
长沙特价机票
天津特价机票
南京特价机票
郑州特价机票
南宁特价机票
国际机票
国内机票
团队机票
上海到长沙机票
深圳到上海机票
航空新闻，机票新闻
国际机票价格查询
断桥铝门窗
阳光房
深圳航空公司
南方航空公司
东方航空公司
海南航空公司
上海航空公司
山东航空公司
四川航空公司
厦门航空公司
国际航空公司
美国西北航空公司
奥凯航空公司
上海吉祥航空公司
华夏航空公司
香港华民航空公司
国泰航空公司简介
澳门航空公司
东北航空公司