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
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty. Click image to expand.

Here's a thought for progressives: Bush isn't the problem. And the next president should not try to be the anti-Bush.

No, I haven't lost my mind. I'm not saying that we should look kindly on the Worst President Ever; we'll all breathe a sigh of relief when he leaves office 405 days, 2 hours, and 46 minutes from now. (Yes, a friend gave me one of those Bush countdown clocks.) Nor am I suggesting that we should forgive and forget; I very much hope that the next president will open the records and let the full story of the Bush era's outrages be told.

But Bush will soon be gone. What progressives should be focused on now is taking on the political movement that brought Bush to power. In short, what we need right now isn't Bush bashing—what we need is partisanship.

OK, before I get there, a word about terms—specifically, liberal vs. progressive. Everyone seems to have their own definitions; mine involves the distinction between values and action. If you think every American should be guaranteed health insurance, you're a liberal; if you're trying to make universal health care happen, you're a progressive.

And here's the thing: Progressives have an opportunity, because American public opinion has become a lot more liberal.

Not everyone understands that. In fact, the reaction of the news media to the first clear electoral manifestation of America's new liberalism—the Democratic sweep in last year's congressional elections—was almost comical in its denial.

Thus, in 1994, Time celebrated the Republican victory in the midterm elections by putting a herd of charging elephants on its cover. But its response to the Democratic victory of 2006—a victory in which House Democrats achieved a larger majority, both in seats and in the popular vote, than the Republicans ever did in their 12-year reign—was a pair of overlapping red and blue circles, with the headline "The center is the place to be."

Oh, and the guests on Meet the Press the Sunday after the Democratic sweep were, you guessed it, Joe Lieberman and John McCain.

More seriously, many pundits have attributed last year's Republican defeat to Iraq, with the implication that once the war has receded as an issue, the right will reassert its natural political advantage—in spite of polls that show a large Democratic advantage on just about every domestic issue.

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