Author Archives: Chris

Heroism

Posted on by

The other day Paul Krugman wrote,

“If you didn’t see something heroic about [Hillary Clinton’s] performance in the Benghazi hearing, you’re missing something essential.”

There was nothing heroic about Clinton’s performance at those hearings. She demonstrated she’s tough as nails and I’m glad she stood up to the panel of reactionary mouth breathers* who grilled her, but it was not a heroic act. Why not? Because she had nothing to lose by standing up to them.  You want an example of heroism in the face of Congressional inquisitors? Look at the people who got called before HUAC and told them to go pound sand rather than smear friends and former colleagues who’d done nothing wrong. People who told HUAC to go pound sand lost their livelihoods. In order to qualify as a hero you need to put your neck on the line. Clinton did right but she risked nothing doing what she did.

* Their buffoonery is actually beside the point.   They disgust me because they put on a show trial.  I don’t believe for an instant that any of Clinton’s inquisitors gave a shit about preventing another Benghazi-like incident.

Thought for the Day: February 2, 2016

Posted on by

Robert Reich:

There are two dominant views about how presidents accomplish fundamental change.

The first might be called the “deal-maker-in-chief,” by which presidents threaten or buy off powerful opponents.

Barack Obama got the Affordable Care Act this way – gaining the support of the pharmaceutical industry, for example, by promising them far more business and guaranteeing that Medicare wouldn’t use its vast bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices.

But such deals can be expensive to the public (the tab for the pharmaceutical exemption is about $16 billion a year), and they don’t really change the allocation of power. They just allow powerful interests to cash in.

The costs of such deals in “the world we’re living in” are likely to be even higher now. Powerful interests are more powerful than ever thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opening the floodgates to big money.

Which takes us to the second view about how presidents accomplish big things that powerful interests don’t want: by mobilizing the public to demand them and penalize politicians who don’t heed those demands.

Well now that’s just crazy talk, Bob.

What I’m reading

Posted on by

I’ve been a regular reader of Paul Krugman’s columns and blog posts for well over a decade.  Up until the past two weeks he’s been consistently excellent but most of his recent posts have been absolutely awful.  They’re awful not because I disagree with his conclusions, which I do, but because they’re devoid of the cogent analysis he usually brings to the table.  (See below for links to the columns and posts I’m referring to.)  Is willful ignorance on his part?  Honest-to-god ignorance?  I have no idea but either way it’s very disappointing.   If you’ve been reading him recently here’s an excellent rebuttal by Jedediah Purdy, Sanders and the Theory of Change: Radical Politics for Grown-Ups.  At this point I’m checking Krugman’s posts not to learn something new but out of morbid curiosity as to what the latest trainwreck looks like.  Hopefully he gets his act back together.

Somewhat related, I’ve come to favor Mark Thoma over Brad DeLong as an aggregator of economic analyses.  Thoma provides links to good material and an occasional commentary.  DeLong provides links to good material plus a lot of attitude.   I’ve developed “attitude fatigue”.

Continue reading →

Weekly Digest – January 31, 2016

Posted on by

Must Read

Should Read

Continue reading →

Thought for the Day: January 30, 2016

Posted on by

The paradox of compromise is that politicians who know exactly where they want to go can find the give-and-take of legislating much easier than do those who either test ideas against the polls (public opinion is not static) or those who don’t have any large objectives. You can’t know how to move two steps forward and one step back if you aren’t sure of the direction in which you are walking. You cannot know the difference between a minor concession and a major betrayal of principle unless you know what your principles are.

–E. J. Dionne

Walter Benn Michaels on neoliberalism

Posted on by

Neoliberal, n.:  a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods

From “Let Them Eat Diversity“:

The differentiation between left and right neoliberalism doesn’t really undermine the way it which it is deeply unified in its commitment to competitive markets and to the state’s role in maintaining competitive markets. For me the distinction is that “left neoliberals” are people who don’t understand themselves as neoliberals. They think that their commitments to anti-racism, to anti-sexism, to anti-homophobia constitute a critique of neoliberalism. But if you look at the history of the idea of neoliberalism you can see fairly quickly that neoliberalism arises as a kind of commitment precisely to those things….

Continue reading →

Thought for the Day: January 28, 2016

Posted on by

Let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton is not just a more pragmatic insidery version of Bernie Sanders, i.e. a person with the same “ideals”, but a more “realistic” approach to change. The Clintons were two of the most prominent architects of the New Democrat, Third Way, DLC reconstruction of the Democratic Partyin the 90’s. They differ with Sanders not just on political strategy and tactics, but fundamental political philosophy. The Clintons represent the continuation of neoliberalism, while Sanders represents a return to the older, traditional left ideals of an egalitarian and democratic society, where capital is placed firmly under the thumb of the democratic political community.

Continue reading →

Thought for the Day: January 27, 2016

Posted on by

You shouldn’t vote for the candidate YOU LIKE the MOST. You should vote for the candidate that LIKES YOU the MOST. Push comes to shove they take care of who they like.

–Tim Kane

Related reading:  John Michael Greer, “Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment.” (I am a member of the salary class but I have roots in the wage class.  It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to imagine myself becoming a member of it some day or to imagine one or both of my kids becoming a member.  Hell, it shouldn’t matter whether or not you have a personal stake.  People in the wage class should get a fair deal.)

Thought for the Day: January 26, 2016

Posted on by

Detailed policy proposals are as relevant to the election of 2016 as is that gaseous planet beyond Pluto…. This election is about changing the parameters of what’s feasible and ending the choke hold of big money on our political system.

I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.

But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.

The upcoming election isn’t about detailed policy proposals. It’s about power – whether those who have it will keep it, or whether average Americans will get some as well.

– Robert Reich