Debunking the Reagan Myth -By PAUL KRUGMAN

[kpete]

Op-Ed Columnist
Debunking the Reagan Myth

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 21, 2008

Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.

And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

[liberal N proud]

1. It was a Reagan nightmare

And I don't think we have woke up from it yet.

[BlueJazz]

3. Good Line! .....I knew we were headed for a train wreck when 80 percent.....

...of the people who heard the phrase "Greed is Good" thought "Yeah..I like that"

[robbedvoter]

14. No kidding! I had an ex who watched "Wall Street" several times for that rant

(in good part why he's an ex)

[BlueJazz]

22. I understand..I'd find it hard to give my soul to someone who ...

..(even partly) is overly selfish.

[OzarkDem]

7. Only a brief respite during the Clinton years

Say what you will, but Clinton did a fantastic job of restoring sanity and healthy growth to our economy.

[liberal N proud]

12. And it didn't take long for them to erase that restoration

Imagine how bad it would be right now it Clinton had done what he could.

[OzarkDem]

16. Gore predicted in the campaign

I recall his analogy of how he and Clinton would be handing the keys to a finely tuned, expensive sports car to the GOP, who would then run it in the ditch.

It took them quite a while and a lot of stealing and debt to kill the Clinton economy, but they finally did it.

OTOH it won't be hard to revive. Its evidence based economics, its proven, its not a mystery anymore. Get rid of the federal debt, get out of Iraq, get rid of tax cuts for wealthy and invest in jobs in the US. We've done it before, it can be done again.

[CTyankee]

20. The problem is that now, unlike when Clinton took over, we are up against a big problem:

the baby boomers retiring in droves and a money sucking war. The environment is also in worse shape than we even imagined back then, worse now. In short, lots more problems to be fixed and not a lot of time to fix them. It's a real dilemma...

[EFerrari]

18. Exactly, because as Krugman says, no one will challenge the story

with one of their own. Both Obama and Clinton are committing the Reagan Error.

[trotsky]

2. As usual, Krugman nails it. n/t

[livvy]

4. I'm 50 pages into "The Conscience of a Liberal" by Krugman.

The Gilded Age of the past, the Great Compression of the 50's, and our return to a second Gilded Age is the topic. So far it is excellent.

knr

[OzarkDem]

5. Reaganomics v.2 has been a disaster, too

Bush economic policies are nothing more than a warmed over version of Reaganomics. Those of us who had to raise families, pay the bills and try to stay employed during the Reagan era recognized it instantly and won't soon forget it. Pardon us if we don't feel like praising him.

I'll never forget the endless fear of keeping your job while employers went through round after round of job cuts. My employer cut the number of employees in half during the Reagan years and I have no fond memories of watching people's lives being destroyed.

[ewagner]

6. Great article!

Krugman hit it right on the head....I watched the Obama video and for the life of me I couldn't understand why he felt it necessary to praise Reagan...I pondered these possibilities:

Obama is hopelessly naive. I don't think that's true. I think he knows the damage that Reagan did to our country and probably knows just as well how reviled Reagan is to members of his own party.

Obama was pandering to an editorial board. Not my idea...Krugman suggested it and I suspect it is at least partly correct. In which case my formerly very high opinion of Obama has been diminished.

Obama was "positioning" himself for the general election Apparently there is a belief that there is still a "moderate middle" out there that will be swing voters in November. Wrong.

Obama was trying to show that he can be bipartisan. Republicans have shown us their disdain for bipartisanship...they (Grover Norquist) call it date rape....they call those who compromise whimps....they have said that, like farm animals that have been neutered, we (the democrats) will eventually learn to accept our diminished place in the pecking order...we will become comfortable with our role as a permanent minority party...

In my opinion, none of these possibilities are acceptable to me...and I will have to re-evaluate my opinion of Obama.

[gratuitous]

10. Good analysis

There may be other possibilities, and I hope strong Obama supporters will check in, because I'd like to hear some of those other possibilities. Because if Obama is thinking general election already, I would gently remind him that we haven't even had Super Tuesday yet, and he's got miles to go before getting the nomination. The Democratic nomination. He's not campaigning for Republican votes (yet); he's trying to win over his own base right now. And after eight disastrous years, I'm more than ready to be appealed to. I don't need another 10 months of our putative candidates patting Republican wrists and telling them it's going to be all right.

[WinkyDink]

11. I choose (c) and (d). America needs a fighter for economic JUSTICE, and he isn't it.

Republicans CANNOT BE, and NEVER HAVE BEEN, reasoned with, on this score.

[Lasher]

8. Very good point.

To lionize Saint Ronnie is to encourage perpetuation of his ideologies. That's why we've seen a never-ending fairy tale about how great he was.

Just lower taxes on rich people at everybody else's expense like Saint Ronnie did and that will lead to true happiness for all like the Shangri-La of the '80s. Funny thing is, it's harder to lie about how great it is in the present than it is to lie about how great things were in the past.

[kikiek]

9. It was the neocons first puppet presidency. They started their long term plans of

fascism for the world. GHWB didn't pull it off so George W Bush was handpicked as the second puppet. Now we're sinking fast. Clinton was able to correct some of the Reagan years disasters. Let's hope whoever gets in after GW will be able to also. Personally I wish whoever it is luck. We are in even worse shape this time I think. The democrats need to be united to do it though, and it isn't going to be easy. Thom Hartmann will be good to listen to this week. He will lay it out about what economical disaster Bush has led us into now.

[robbedvoter]

13. As far as I am concerned, it was Raygun who lost in Nevada, so I celebrated!

Just as I celebrated Obama winning Iowa and women winning NH. (Michigan - still too confused on that one)
Judging by the new trends on DU, I might root for The MIghty Clenis in SC.

[Berry Cool]

15. Head of nail, meet hammer.

He said it all. It is a grave mistake to attempt to drape yourself in the cloak of "the Reagan mystique," or to claim you wish to do so, when the actual implemetation of Reagan's policies is the antithesis of everything you believe in.

[Elspeth]

17. Excellent article. Read the whole thing

THanks!

[mnhtnbb]

19. Excellent. Thanks for posting.

[hfojvt]

21. gotta disagree with Kruggers again

Krugman: "Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan."

The failure of the Clinton administration is more profound than that. Clinton, in fact, DID change the narrative. Now Democrats are running as budget balancers, tax cutters, tough on crime, tough on drug users, pro free-trade. Even Democrats, without saying so, are claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.

Reagan 1981: "But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals."

Does that not sound like Hillary who wants to put "fiscal responsibility" first?

Reagan 1981: "Well, this administration's objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunity for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work."

Does that not sound like Clinton, whose big legacy is (supposedly) a "growing economy".

Reagan 1981: "It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government."

Clinton SOTU: "The era of Big Government is over."

What we need, at this time, is to debunk the Clinton myth.