I used to look forward to reading Krugman's columns, but I now find my stomach churning at the sight of his name. Krugman has been going at Obama with a hatchet and with the same kind of vitriol normally directed at President Bush because he disagrees with Obama on political strategy -- rhetoric, really -- not on substantive policy.

I view my own political beliefs as generally far to the left of the Democratic Party, and I have been convinced for a long time now -- long before Obama made his famous speech at the 2004 convention -- that 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 (that the Edwards/Clinton health care proposals will insure 15 million more Americans than Obama's proposal, for example). 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.

You say that Obama's agenda is markedly progressive, yet he keeps attacking Hillary from the right, as Krugman points out, and Obama's health care plan is markedly the least progressive of the plans offered by the Dem candidates. Similarly, his raising of Social Security as an issue against Hillary was right out of Republican talking points. Obama might be a viable candidate after he has learned to play on the national stage, but right now, I see a fair amount of pandering and not much substance.

Where is he attacking her "from the right?" He's attacking her based on common sense and political reality. Anyone can look good by promising the electorate everything under the sun (please view Hillary's Christmas ad). The health care issue is completely manufactured. Do you honestly believe that you're going to get 100% compliance? It simply doesn't work that way in the real world. This looks like Krugman throwing a tantrum b/c the leading candidate isn't sucking up to him. It's pure arrogance. Are you telling me that if we could get 97% compliance that Krugman would refuse in order to shoot for universal coverage?

Ellamenta,

The smaller point to make in response to this concerns who has been attacking whom: it was only after Clinton began to repeatedly state that Obama's plan would leave 15 million people uninsured that he responded that he thought that mandates (forcing people to sign up) were not the best way to go.

Clinton's claim of 15 million uninsured is, in addition, highly distorting. All three of the Edwards/Clinton/Obama plans make health care accessible to all Americans -- universally. The only practical policy effect of leaving mandates out is that there may be free-riders who choose not to sign up for health care and make it more expensive for everyone else because they are still able to get health care when they happen to later become sick or injured. When Clinton says that Obama's plan will "leave" 15 million people uninsured, the most natural implication is that his plan leaves 15 million people without the benefit of health care -- which is patently untrue.

The more important point is the distinction between substantive policy and political rhetoric. As a matter of policy, the mandates in the Clinton/Edwards plans are not really "left" of Obama's plan -- that government should be as efficient as possible and not allow free-riders to defraud the system is an long-standing Republican position. As a matter of political rhetoric/strategy, however, Obama does concede that lots of Americans dislike the idea of the government forcing people to do things.

Whatever you may or may not believe, there are a lot of Americans that dislike the idea of the government forcing them to do anything at all. They really, really dislike the idea -- not a little, but a lot. Whether or not Obama ever uses the word "force," you can be quite sure that people opposed to universal health care will use it against any plan that includes mandates -- and they are likely to use it in highly distorting or hypocritical ways.

To illustrate: Say you believe (as I do) that the best health care policy would be a single-payer national health care system (like the V.A. or most other industrialized nations), but you know that a system like that is a sure political loser right now. What do you do? What kind of policy do you support? I would say that you support the plan that gives universal access to health care -- and gets the American public believing that universal health care is an unproblematically good thing -- in the least politically risky manner possible and the most politically (rhetorically) inclusive manner possible. In short, you support Obama's plan, which has the benefit of anticipating the most damaging (and distorting) line of attack and avoiding it.

Now, if you believe that simply by anticipating this line of attack and trying to avoid it (or using the word "force" at all if your position is relentlessly attacked/distorted) is inherently to adopt a right-wing position, then I'm afraid that you are dooming the Left to an inherent catch-22: either you keep speaking about progressive policies in ways that turn off lots of Americans in the middle, or you are adopting right-wing positions.

Obama has never said, and nothing in his plan or rhetoric implies, that mandates cannot be added a few years down the road to help control costs.

Your point on Social Security I do not understand, and I don't think simply describing something as a "Republican talking point" is particularly enlightening. I am also not sure how Obama's specific proposal of lifting the social security tax cap (now just under $100,000 of yearly income) is a less progressive proposal than H. Clinton's refusal to support such a specific plan, instead supporting a bi-partisan commission to figure out the issue later. I'd even go so far as to describe Obama's plan to pay for any coming social-security shortfalls with added revenue ONLY from people with over 100K in income (and by eliminating a highly-regressive element of our current tax code) to be, well, very progressive.

Last, Clinton describes herself as a political moderate along the lines of the Democratic Leadership Council. How and why people seem to think that the Clintons are champions of progressive left policies I utterly fail to see. Welfare reform, for example, did not seem to me to be a particularly progressive policy choice.

Obama, recognising that the current withholding is REGRESSIVE, stated that an easy way to ensure the stability of social security would be to eliminate the cap...

Right now, those making above 97,000 dollars/year pay no social security tax on the money they make above 97,000. Hillary attacked him for that statement (according to you) from the left by crying out for the poor poor (extremely rich) people that would have to suffer under the burden of "billions of dollars in extra taxes (which, you should note must be paid by everyone who is NOT in the upper 5% earnings bracket) on the MIDDLE CLASS!"

I don't know exactly what you consider to be progressive, but passionately weeping for the plight of the wealthy when they are asked to pay the same tax that I'M paying doesn't sound like it's right out of a republican playbook. It sounds like a policy suggestion I can support. In fact, I DO support it, and have for 20 years or more.

Trying to claim "that's right out of the republican playbook" makes you either a shill or a complete dumbass.

If you would like to argue on behalf of the poor benighted wealthy people who might be asked to pay the same as the actually poor people (because extremely wealthy Hillary finds this to be so very lamentable)... I'd be happy to argue that out with you, but try to drop the "you disagree with me so YOUR A REPUBLICAN!" bullshit. Hillary is by far the presidential candidate in the democratic party that aligns closest to the neo-con agenda. That is a fact that is supported by every vote she has cast in her expansive 7 years of total experience.

Mr. Krugman is correct, as he usually is. Sen. Obama is not a liberal or progressive. Remember he is the protege of Sen. Joe Lieberman. Remember he voted for the bankruptcy bill. Granted, he opted out of the important votes with his eye on his political future. Sen. Obama is a phony. Sen. Obama is simply not electable in a 2008 Presidential election. The Democrats would be foolish to nominate him. The Rethuglicans would love it, a guaranteed win.

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.

You understand this and I understand this but Krugman confuses the polarization of fear and hate as wedge issues with the partisan, policy issues being delivered by Obama. What makes it all the more interesting is that Krugman doesn't understand that what Obama is doing is exactly what Krugman proposes. I guess that is what contamination of the thought process will do to someone, as it has done with Krugman here. The other thing that hurts the Left's cause is that their message is getting drowned out by MSM's exclusive focus on the horse race.

Krugman has, and does, critique Obama on policy, specifically as to whether mandates are necessary or not. He ALSO critiques his use of language, yes, and why not? You remark in your own post about the importance of how you frame your positions. Do you disagree that Obama is using right-wing talking points on this issue, as well as Social Security "reform"? If so, what are you points?

The New Deal worked because FDR and others fought to get it installed. Talking about holding hands at a big table isn't going to bring needed reform. Krugman isn't saying go out there and yell "hey stupid, you conservatives are idiots and we're right!" He is arguing, however, that one must be prepared to fight for needed reform and to be partisan if need be--make your point, make it well, and make it strongly. Obama's rhetoric, not to mention his mandate-less plan which is universal in his wishes only, are not and will not help a progressive agenda.

Obama=Bill Clinton. There, I said it. I like Obama, I really do. I like his foreign policy. But the guy is gonna hope our progressive/liberal agenda right off the table.

Remote Neural Monitoring is a form of functional neuroimaging, claimed[1] to have been developed by the National Security Agency(NSA), that is capable of extracting EEG data from the human brain at a distance with no contacts or electrodes required. It is further claimed that the NSA has the capablility to decode this data to extract subvocalizations, visual and auditory data. In effect it allows access to a person's thoughts[2] without their knowledge or permission. It has been alleged that various organizations have been using Remote Neural Monitoring on US and other citizens for surveillance and harassment purposes.[3].

Krugman tries to make an argument that is at least plausible to cover his sinister motives. Sorry Krug it's not even close to a plausible argument.

America has moved forward and is not mired in the personalities and political club rivalries of the past.( Neither are the special interests as hidden as they used to be.) Like our European relatives before us, even "conservative" America has come to recognize universal health care is a necessity. In Europe, Canada, and most of the civilized world there's both "liberal" and "conservative" reasons for universal health care, but there's consensus. The same consensus is jelling here. A consensus of Americans are appalled there's $150 billion a year to fight a war in another country's interest but not that same amount to provide universal health care. The "quick fix" of mandatory health insurance is bizarre. If you don't get mandatory auto insurance you can't drive. So if you don't get mandatory health insurance what, you can't breathe??? Clinton/Edwards/Romney/Rudy et al. all look ridiculous on this.

FDR changed America because he had a huge consensus. A mandate. Obviously Krugman is scared of the one person who can achieve this type mandate for real change today. I suspect that a consensus for fair settlement in the middle east is the the real fear that distorts all other logic.

Children play with paperdolls, pasting and rearranging physical traits and clothing on human forms until they get one they think they like or until they are bored--for that hour. The US primary process seems to be following the same approach.

From Europe, it is not possible to judge Obama in the full US context. It is possible to look at the whole roster of candidates on both sides and know which ones seem to offer qualities that we would like to see the US go forward with.

Mr Obama is the only one who offers such qualities in my opinion. In contrast, Mrs Clinton represents a political machine we have seen before, which created the policy basis for most of the international and economic crises that are unfolding today. It is clear that a vote for her is 1) a vote for Team Clinton (a fact that seems no longer hidden); and 2) a vote for past that is now in the fruit of failure--and posing great risks to the Atlantic alliances and key global balances. (There is no doubt that the Bush Administration bears the greater part of responsibility, but the Clinton Administration shaped policies with many of the same advisors and objectives in mind. Mrs Clinton was more than a fly on the wall during those years and should not be permitted to stand aside during tough questions.)

Amongst Democrats, Mr Obama represents a 21st-century for the US and the world.

From here, on the Republican side, there are none who would offer the slightest hope of more than arrogant stonewalling and nation-building in foreign policy. Mr McCain sees the world through his (overplayed, no?) Vietman experience and rarely has differed from Mrs Clinton in the Senate. Mr Giuliani is annoying and would attempt to treat the entire world as he did New York: through the eyes of a middle-class, white boy from one of the great city's suburbs. Mr Huckabee. His speeches and comments are not deemed to merit translation into French or German. (Perhaps in German they may echo some of the more innocent passages of Mein Kampf; at least they are far from being like Ayn Rand.)

I commend today's article by Christopher Caldwell in the Financial Times: <link>

Help Mr Obama develop a 21st-century message.

I see no evidence Team Clinton was in such agreement with the Bush team as you suggest. Furthur, risks to Atlantic alliances and global balances is a peculiarly Eurocentric concern, and hardly the worst fear on the American side of the pond.

All our candidates are paperdolls because that is how the system works. Obama probably crafted the nuances of his healthcare policy in order to have talking points to use against his opponents. The way to rise in the polls is to differentiate yourself and find a wedge issue, be that healthcare or whatever else works.

Krugman is just doing what Krugman does best, and that is opinionating from a fairly liberal vantage point. It is potentially disingenuous to only listen to his ideas when he happens to agree with you and castigate him when he does not.

Right now both Clinton and Obama, not to mention the Huckabees and McCains of the world, are merely jockeying for position. Their true intent is to get elected, not present detailed policy positions to the world. The substance will come later hopefully.

>>re: posting from fredf--

I feel as though I have just heard from Hillary as she sips her morning coffee.

If your system needs to wait for and trust sound substance will arrive AFTER an election, then it should seem one should question the role of direct popular elections in a country of 300-million people. Recent history would suggest the random joy that once characterised the system may be a thing of the past, and that professionalism in government has been the price paid for a mediatised electoral system.

We are not fools on how politics work here. Only fools stand adamantly behind systems that are failing to deliver as sound results as they once did. It has been often observed that the US could never embark on a project such as the complex public debate and referendums involved in shaping the EU framework and constitution. A close look will show that they have taken a close look at the Swiss Confederation, as well as the UK, French, German and US constitutions. The Swiss system is undergoing reform at present. These are good discussions to have from time to time.

Suisseman:

I am not standing behind this system. I don't like our brand of politics any more than you do. I was saying that substance will emerge later because that is how it works, not how I want it to be.

It sounds as if you endorse Obama because of his "change" platform. We (or at least I) see it as little more than sloganeering and soundbites. Many of the Republicans are for "change" too, which is even more meaningless. They only wish to distance themselves from the Bush legacy. Their conservative credentials were never in question.

The liberal credentials of the Democrats are little in question either.

I am not taking a stand either pro or con to either Hillary or Barack.

When you talk of how the US is unable to tackle the complexity of the EU I wonder if, to phrase it very politely, you are being tongue-in-cheek. Regardless, I will take you at your word and only chuckle at the meaning.

>>fredf--Point taken. The case is still out on Obama, I would agree. However, when I had occasion to spend a few days recently at Harvard, I was impressed by the fervour he seemed to have generated amongst people I consider fresh thinkers with tested credentials. I will look for more information on who forms the team behind him. As an economist, I will look particularly to see where Bob Rubin moves in the months ahead. Summers, whom I respect but recognise is a less circumspect political creature, has already taken a role supporting Obama. His foreign policy counsel is much less impressive. Domestic issues are beyond where I would presume to take a position.

I deserve the tongue-in-cheek comment, but, from Switzerland, we are just pleased to see the progress that has unfolded in the past 20 years around us. Nonetheless, I oppose much further integration of Swiss interests into the EU. Convergence is another matter.

One should be concerned about the future of "the Project" today. Expansion to 27 has certainly served central Europe well, but the fundamental economic balance has been broken to accomodate political imperatives. Pressures continue on further expansion, as opposed to fostering parallel development. As for complexity, they've ironed out a lot more wrinkles in Brussels than one may see from there. France, however, is the major threat to destabilising future progress.