Paul Krugman: In Defense of Obama (Rolling Stone)

[YoungDemCA]

When it comes to Barack Obama, I've always been out of sync. Back in 2008, when many liberals were wildly enthusiastic about his candidacy and his press was strongly favorable, I was skeptical. I worried that he was naive, that his talk about transcending the political divide was a dangerous illusion given the unyielding extremism of the modern American right. Furthermore, it seemed clear to me that, far from being the transformational figure his supporters imagined, he was rather conventional-minded: Even before taking office, he showed signs of paying far too much attention to what some of us would later take to calling Very Serious People, people who regarded cutting budget deficits and a willingness to slash Social Security as the very essence of political virtue.

And I wasn't wrong. Obama was indeed naive: He faced scorched-earth Republican opposition from Day One, and it took him years to start dealing with that opposition realistically. Furthermore, he came perilously close to doing terrible things to the U.S. safety net in pursuit of a budget Grand Bargain; we were saved from significant cuts to Social Security and a rise in the Medicare age only by Republican greed, the GOP's unwillingness to make even token concessions.

Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn't deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it's working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it's much more effective than you'd think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.

I'll go through those achievements shortly. First, however, let's take a moment to talk about the current wave of Obama-bashing. All Obama-bashing can be divided into three types. One, a constant of his time in office, is the onslaught from the right, which has never stopped portraying him as an Islamic atheist Marxist Kenyan. Nothing has changed on that front, and nothing will.

There's a different story on the left, where you now find a significant number of critics decrying Obama as, to quote Cornel West, someone who ''posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit.'' They're outraged that Wall Street hasn't been punished, that income inequality remains so high, that ''neoliberal'' economic policies are still in place. All of this seems to rest on the belief that if only Obama had put his eloquence behind a radical economic agenda, he could somehow have gotten that agenda past all the political barriers that have con- strained even his much more modest efforts. It's hard to take such claims seriously.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008#ixzz3FYzM1bj0

[BeyondGeography]

1. He really has been out of sync

But his motives for the country have always been good. Krugman has more integrity in his pinky than just about any commentator of similar stature.

[flpoljunkie]

2. One to read and bookmark

[YoungDemCA]

3. Indeed it is!

Long article, but well worth a real read (IMHO).

[YoungDemCA]

4. Also: Everyone do yourself a favor and don't read the comments section

Otherwise, you'll see comments like this:

This guy has drunk the kool-aid so many times he has become delusional. Obama makes Carter look good and that is saying something. Krugman has to be one of the most far left loons I have ever seen. He won't be happy until everyone is waiting in line for bread and milk, brothers and sisters can marry each other and ISIS is flying their flag over the White House as they promised. This guy is beyond crazy. I almost feel sorry for him.

[pamela]

6. Or, better yet, leave a comment.

Yes, the rightwingers have invaded the comment section. That's what they do and they do it well. They rush in in droves and spout their negative crap. Instead of ignoring the comment section, join in! You'll notice that none of those comments address anything substantive, they just spout the usual anti-Obama crap. They count on progressives to see those comments and feel out-numbered.

[calimary]

7. THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

WHERE is the push-back??????

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. Some are even paid to post to simulate popular support for the Right.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

23. you've got a good idea for a reply right in your post, too

I never know what to say to such wholesale bullshit....trying to narrow down to "the most powerful fact ever offered " makes you crazy. Truth is, there is no fact that will break through reich wing propaganda noise.

The only thing that makes any sense is to point out the propaganda method itself.

[liberal from boston]

13. Paul Krugman

Exactly--Reading the comments I was stunned at the hate, lies, attacking FLOTUS, etc. Majority of comments are from RW extremists who live in a fact free bubble. The hate against Paul Krugman & Rolling Stone for printing the Krugman's article is mind boggling.

[ensemble]

32. so maybe our drift at times....

into a third world gangster state is, sadly, the will of the people (some people, anyway).

[geek tragedy]

5. Krugman criticized Obama from the left

in 2008 for Obama's demagoguing against the individual mandate.

He was right.

[sendero]

8. "it took him years to start dealing with that opposition realistically"...

.... that sums up my complaint handily. Any reasonable person knew by the end of year 1 that this was how it was going to be.

[hifiguy]

18. +1

You do NOT bring sweet reason to a knife fight. Obama should have realized this far sooner than he did.

[Vinca]

9. While I disagree with the President on a few things, I've also been stunned by his low ratings.

It makes no sense. There's been job growth, economic recovery, healthcare, a lesser involvement in war. And he's pretty much done everything with only opposition from Congress. All I can figure is they're polling some of the same people Jimmy Kimmel polled who have no idea who Joe Biden is.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

24. I think it's entirely media saturation...loud simple minded garbage,

Repeated endlessly on a practically infinite number of platforms....including twisted conservative religion, where pastors in every hinterland tell their audience what gawd says they should think, spouting the CONservative lies.

[Lns.Lns]

33. It is not so surprising

Many people are working harder and don't have time to keep up. All they hear is horrible news when they do watch news. The right has a noisy little machine working 24/7. The silver lining is no matter how bad the ratings are, in comparison to, you name it... Republicans, Congress, etc., the cockroaches still beat them.

What I always thought was unfair in polling is... Is the country headed in wrong/right direction. Of course it is going in the wrong direction with a completely inept, gerrymandered, hate filled bunch of people stopping everything from getting done. Our economy would be roaring if it wasn't for obstruction and that would open the door for making things more fair. Unfortunately, they attribute that question to a President's success... makes no sense to me. It would make more sense to ask, if the President could enact most of his preferred policies, would that be a right/wrong direction.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. Right after Obama scored a victory with a second term the media acted like he was a lame duck.

[zipplewrath]

12. Really poor defense from the left

He does a fair enough job defending Obama from the right critique. But from the left, his defense lies somewhere between "it coulda been worse, but he failed at his efforts" to "it's the best that could have been done" without really establishing it.

Furthermore, he came perilously close to doing terrible things to the U.S. safety net in pursuit of a budget Grand Bargain; we were saved from significant cuts to Social Security and a rise in the Medicare age only by Republican greed, the GOP's unwillingness to make even token concessions.

It's true that the Affordable Care Act will still leave millions of people in America uninsured. For one thing, it was never intended to cover undocumented immigrants, who are counted in standard measures of the uninsured. Furthermore, millions of low-income Americans will slip into the loophole Roberts created: They were supposed to be covered by a federally funded expansion of Medicaid, but some states are blocking that expansion out of sheer spite. Finally, unlike Social Security and Medicare, for which almost everyone is automatically eligible, Obamacare requires beneficiaries to prove their eligibility for Medicaid or choose and then pay for a subsidized private plan. Inevitably, some people will fall through the cracks.

[JDPriestly]

14. K&R.

I agree 98% with Krugman (but I still reserve my right to grouse and to push for improvement).

But I disagree on one thing. He said:

Let's be clear: The financial crisis should have been followed by a drastic crackdown on Wall Street abuses, and it wasn't. No important figures have gone to jail; bad banks and other financial institutions, from Citigroup to Goldman, were bailed out with few strings attached; and there has been nothing like the wholesale restructuring and reining in of finance that took place in the 1930s. Obama bears a considerable part of the blame for this disappointing response. It was his Treasury secretary and his attorney general who chose to treat finance with kid gloves.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008#ixzz3FYzM1bj0

Krugman sits in an ivory tower at a university. He doesn't see what I see down here in reality. The distress of families who lost their homes. A couple who once had a thriving business, the big house, the good life reduced to living in one room and renting the rest through no fault of their own. The divorces. The children emotionally scarred and unable to do perform well in school. Elderly people who thought they had saved enough to supplement Social Security and who never recovered the money or homes they lost. Men and women in their 50s and 60s who lost their jobs and will never be able to save for retirement because when they work, they just don't earn what they did at one time. Young people who bet their lives on education and are now saddled with student loans they can't repay on the earnings from their minimum wage jobs.

As Krugman says, things are much better than they might have been. Obama deserves a lot of the credit for that. It is, however, just wrong that the very executives -- whose actions or inaction, caused the pain of so many Americans -- have profited so much in the aftermath of the economic crisis have not had to pay for their crimes, their violations of law, their fraud. They enjoy fantastic wealth while millions of innocent Americans have lost so much. That is not just a little unfair. That is an insult to the idea of justice.

[Lns.Lns]

34. That is true... but

In defense (although in an ideal world I would have liked to see them all go to jail), if something the size of Lehman could cause such a panic that we were on the brink of another Great Depression, I am not sure that the investment community wouldn't have made it even harder to dig out in fear they would all be in jail. Right, wrong, or indifferent the reality was, a 40% decline in 401K's, 30% property value decline, lending frozen... we can all be armchair politicians, but when the fate of hundreds of millions of citizens well being is on the line and it's up to you to save them, I am not sure biting off your nose to spite your face is the right approach. That is what Republicans do and they get away with it... we don't. Anyone can pick up a book and see what it was like during the Depression even with a great Pres. like Roosevelt. He's a cautious man, I am not sure there was a choice.

It won't be up to him by the time we are able affect change. It's up to us. When are we going get up and vote in the numbers the right gets, particularly in midterm elections?

On the bright side... the long history does move toward justice. On the not so bright side... the bastards might very well crash the economy again if we let the Republicans gain more power through ambivalence and if it is soon, which is possible, there will be no relatively quick return to stability.

[JDPriestly]

43. I suppose that if you are losing your house or already lost it, voting is not a big priority.

If you lost your job or are in the midst of a divorce that results from anger over money, you probably aren't really that interested in politics at all.

It's the task of Democratic politicians to take care of working people and to work harder to protect jobs and work in our country. Because Democrats generally are working people. When we get Democrats in Congress who agree to laws or programs that protect the rich, the bankers, those who outsource, HB-1 visas, trade agreements that make it easy to ship jobs overseas and sell cheap foreign-made products here, then it is unlikely that the Democrats, that is the working people of America, the middle and lower income people, will feel like voting.

So, the way the economic recession was handled by the Obama administration and other Democrats affects how well we will be doing this fall in the elections.

Everyone likes Obama. But people are likely to stay home when it comes to voting for Democrats in local elections. I do not expect to see a big turn-out in California, but I think Democrats will do better here than elsewhere.

Jerry Brown gets a lot of credit for that. He has not done everything right. Who can or does? But he rescued (with a lot of help from our California voters and especially our Democratic California legislature) the state from what the press claimed was near bankruptcy. That kind of good government makes Democrats strong and brings out Democratic voters. We need to see that at the federal level. Jerry Brown allowed voters to raise taxes on the more prosperous. That's important.

[Dustlawyer]

15. I will acknowledge what Krugman says, but what he didn't say was Obama is owned by the

financial interests, look no further than his selling out the BP oil spill victims. He knew Feinberg was hand picked by BP but went along with calling him "Independant" and blessing the imaginary "20 billion dollar fund" while at the same time giving BP control over the Coast Guard. The CG sprayed the Corexit for BP! In 4 1/2 years the victims are still being screwed, BP has a lock on the media, the Gulf is worse, and Obama is nowhere to be found!

[Lns.Lns]

35. Please check yourself

As bad as the spill was, as bad as many things are, the country was in turmoil. I watched a Republican congressman apologize to BP in a congressional hearing for being so harsh to them. You act as though the President can act in a vacuum. If it had of been a Republican Pres. they probably would have paid nothing. BTW, the reason something like a BP can get a lock on media is because of Republican Presidents and Congress' in the past undoing laws that protect us commoners. The Supreme Court (at least the majority) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporations, the Congress (at least the majority) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporations and so much more... and you blame the President? We all do things we don't want or like to do... and many because that is what Republicans and their policies have wrought.

[Dustlawyer]

37. I blame the President for what he did and dint do, and I am in a position to know what went down.

I support Obama for many things, but he chose BP over the Gulf citizens. He did give them the Coast Guard. He did know Feinberg was BP's hand picked guy and yet blessed the deal to get it off of our media before the midterms. He has abandoned the victims and allowed BP to drill in the Gulf again. He could have at least made the condition that they resolve this case before drilling could commence again for BP. This thing would have been over by now had he done so. He could delay payment of the huge government fine until after BP paid the rest of the claims, he chose not to.

I don't where blinders, I try to call it like I see it. He has done some amazing things under extremely difficult conditions, but you don't get to be POTUS without owing favors. I thought he might be different, especially in his second term, I was sadly mistaken. I ask you to look in the mirror and check your own self. I don't expect perfection, but this was not a mistake, it was a calculated decision.

[Lns.Lns]

38. I am not putting you down

You know many many people... not just in the Gulf states got screwed. I don't blame the President for that. When you are bleeding profusely, do you worry about the stain on your shirt? There is pressure from red state Democrats. Do we give up what majority we have for principle only? There were a lot of people who voted for Nader on principle and look what that wrought. Republicans use our consciences against us all the time. We just have to be more realistic about things. I had first hand experience watching my retirement accounts go into the toilet, my properties values into the same toilet, I have also felt a lot of pain... does that make me blame the President... or do I blame the deterioration of laws and regulations that have been turned on their heads over the last 40 years or so? Why is the President responsible for all the moving parts? Even with all the accusations of him being a "King" or "Dictator", why is he responsible for Congressional laws that are there when he arrives? Why did Dems lose it's majority in 2010? My opinion and only mine, people bug out every time something effects them personally and stops looking at the whole picture. Again, just my opinion, but we should be learning from the mistakes instead of just bitching about it.

Feinberg may have capitulated this time, not sure. He did handle Tarp and within his authorities did not only get our money back, but also was quite verbal (as I recall) about it. But I am not that up on the entire situation.

It sounds like you are in a Southern state. My state decided our Republican Governor should be replaced by a Democrat. It has been getting better for us... at least in my humble opinion. What did your state do?

[Dustlawyer]

39. I am not attacking you either, however I disagree with you on two things.

The first is that I hold Obama responsible for HIS PART in the dirty deal. It his is different than say, the IRS scandal with Lois Lerner allegedly targeting Republicans. Obama cannot know what every beaurocrat is up to or direct their work, quite the opposite. Obama played an active role in the spill resolution. He also has the power to insist BP doesn't get to drill again until they resolve all the issues in litigation. In Brazil when an oil company had an offshore spill they seized the passports of all of the employees who were not allowed to leave the country until they ponied up. While I would not advocate that exact measure be taken, all of the oil companies are drilling in the deep waters in the Gulf with zero changes in preparedness or technology. There is no accountability and the Obama administration hasn't said boo about the spill since Feinberg was picked.

The second thing I disagree on, I will admit that I held your view until a couple of years ago. I too was pissed at Nadar for costing us the election and subjecting us to W. Over time I have realized that if we always support the Democrat against the Republican, we will never really have real change, Obama taught me that as well. I believe that the Plutocrats control our government and both parties through campaign contributions, Super PACS, and the media that they own. They threaten Americans with the really crazy Republicans and laugh when we sigh in relief that a Democrat was elected this time, not knowing that they control our guy too. Our guy gives us some of the things that we care about that the PTB don't care. They know that to keep up the illusion of Representative Democracy we have to appear to win sometimes. On the things important to them they are passed as quietly as possible and they have their media to help shape it.
This time around the spoiler may be Bernie Sanders, someone who I think has a slim chance at winning. For me however, he supports a solution to end the legal bribery of our politicians, Publicly Funded Elections and ending campaign contributions. I would rather his message get out to the widest possible audience as many times as it can. I am tired of holding my nose and voting FOR someone who is going to sell me out to the corporations, just not as badly or as openly as the other party's candidate. People who believe in Democratic ideals, not just the Democratic Party should want to support someone like Bernie even though his chances are slim. If the Democrats all got behind him instead of the more electable, but more flawed Democratic favorite, Bernie would then be the favorite and we could return our country back into a Representative Democracy. But that is not reality, not everyone has reached a high enough level of frustration at the same time, if ever. If people would stop and think about it, they wouldn't think this was either a conspiracy theory or fringe ideas. I mean, you give a candidate a lot of money (enough to guarantee election) and let them know what is important to you (usually against the countries overall interests), and the candidate understands that you will give that money to their opponent if they don't do what you want, what do you think that ambitious candidate will do? This has to stop sometime! Democratic front runners cannot say what Bernie is saying and win. This is what happened to Obama, who I think, all things being equal, could have been the best President this country has ever had! In many respects he has been a great President, but they still have a hold on him.

[Lns.Lns]

40. Best step forward

Reverse Citizen's United. However, without having a majority, I don't see that happening. I understand your frustration, but that is the battle. If we don't win (holding your nose or not), the next crash means major suffering for all of us. There are very few tools left and the next step is third world status. That is something that some would love... people so worried about survival they don't question where the paycheck is coming from.

I really like Bernie Saunders, however, if you are going that route Elizabeth Warren has a lot more understanding of economics. My real fear is that they would tear up either one in this environment. You have to be a person that actually practices not taking things personally. I watch people in debates and you can tell (at least I think I can), people who are not experienced enough to not let what people say get to you. The President has that, but even he gets worn down sometimes. Tim Geithner was able to do that, he always amazed me how cool he could be in hearings when both sides were attacking (please don't start screaming at me about how bad the policies were, it is just an observation about people who let things get to them and those that don't). It is a hard lesson to learn, but one that serves you well in life. Things can unfortunately take time to get it where you want it to be. Kinda what hard work to accomplish a goal is all about.

I definitely don't know all things, all I know is that I would be more comfortable with Elizabeth Warren as a VP to learn what it takes to be a "successful" President in the future. She would be great if I were confident she could withstand the stress. Jimmy Carter was pretty good and look at what they did to him.

[Dustlawyer]

41. Thanks. I believe both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie understand the reason for the attacks and don't

take it personally. Obama has had more crap thrown at him than any human being, even Bill and Hillary, but I am sure living under a microscope where even wearing a tan suit causes an uproar can cause the head to get more grey.

I have long been attempting to spread the word for us to fight for Publicly Funded Elections. That would make the biggest difference I think, but would require a lot more frustration and outrage and many times more than OWS put out there to have a chance. Unless we decide to break with blind support of a system where only the corrupt can stay elected and it is legal to bribe the politicians we are doomed. We will never address climate change in time, assuming it's not to late already.

I cannot remember the quote exactly, but "If you do what you have always done, you will get what you always got!"

[Lns.Lns]

42. I hear you

My biggest concern is still the Supreme Court. If we split the vote and we get one more God smacked conservative on the court, everything we have gained since Roosevelt will be on the line. These guys don't care that they are reviled. One more and all our rights are in jeopardy (in my opinion). Your quote might actually work for me as well. We did not work in unison and we got W. Even worse, we did not act in unison and we got Reagan. Even though W was horrible and transparently a disaster for the country, Reagan's more subtle policy changes ruined us up until now. Things actually do run in cycles. Did you ever read The Fourth Turning? We never do learn. However, I do believe we do evolve to better and better situations even if it doesn't seem like it when we are living in it.

I have read Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity and it's scary. What makes you think, given all the dirty tricks they are not even trying to hide anymore, that if the got a Republican in the White House and even a split in the Senate that their VP breaks the tie, that they would not change the rules (and justify it by the changing of the rules in placing judges that we did) and pass a privatization of Social Security and Medicare? They would privatize education, the would abolish the EPA and you know all the others they have vowed to demolish with just a Senate rule change, like a majority passes a bill. I may be a big chicken, but I don't want to take the chance.

Look, I had really big hopes for OWS and unfortunately, they do what we always do. Instead of using it to affect change, what we got was a bunch of finger waving and we don't want to tell anyone what to do. We have this tendency to over think things (and whine sometimes) and instead of taking advantage of the split between the establishment Republicans and the Tea Party people we are now doing the same thing. That is why they keep winning and little by little taking more and more away from us. We don't know how to stay unified. We don't learn from watching what they get away with just by staying unified. Things may not be ideal, but we are actually chipping back. We have the first steps for universal health care, we avoided a Great Depression, we have equal rights becoming a reality in terms of who you love, we are starting the conversation and have made some step toward helping the climate. We give all that back if we split and let them win back the Presidency. It may be a hold your nose situation, I just don't know yet. I am concerned about Hillary being her own person because I really wasn't that happy with Clinton. He did sign the dissolution of Glass Steagall (among other things I am not happy about) which took less than a decade to blow up the economy. There was a lot more chipping away at regulations prior, but that is too complicated for here. Again, we did what we always do... we like Nader's sentiments so let's protest vote. As much as Gore was not everything we wanted, where do you think we would be right now in terms of climate change? We had a surplus then, think of what we could have thrown at a renewable energy future as that was his passion. I wouldn't change being a liberal or progressive or whatever the appropriate language is these days, but it hurts my heart when we bite off our noses to spite our faces.

Even though I totally understand what you want, I want us to win and chip and chip and chip until we get a better society. I also think that Clinton (the man and possibly the woman) is so competitive that they will want a legacy more dramatic than what Obama's will be after the dust clears. After all, before Obama Clinton was the top dog for job growth, but that is nothing compared to what Obama has accomplished and in a much worse environment. I am sure you have read Krugman's piece on his legacy. That could very well work to our advantage if they want to outdo Obama. It sound like, in the end, we want the same things. The question... how to make sure we get there.

Regards.

[stevenleser]

16. Krugman nails it... again. nt

[grahamhgreen]

17. Kick. Withholding criticism til after the elections

[Hekate]

19. I have alwasy respected Krugman's opinion. Thanks for posting this.

KnR

[pnwmom]

20. Thanks! n/t

[DanTex]

21. K&R. Good article.

[navarth]

22. I appreciate Krugman's defense of PBO

and I also appreciate legitimate criticism of PBO. Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Spazito]

25. Krugman gets it...

He understands the importance of what President Obama has been able to accomplish in spite of the overwhelming opposition from repubs and is able to criticize constructively instead of destructively which is a lesson those on the left whose criticism is all too often destructive, without value.

[Electric Monk]

26. k&r

There's also a dupe thread, posted a day later, but the comments have a much uglier tone to them. Anyway, here it is if anyone wants to read it http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025644404

[Cha]

27. Kick! thanks YDCA

[DallasNE]

28. This Seems About Right -- On Several Fronts

Obama has been one of the most consequential and successful Presidents we've had. And, yes, he was slow to read the real goals of the Republican opposition -- goals with a substantial assist from old fashioned racism.

[dsc]

29. I think most of the article is well done

but I have a huge problem with the environmental section. It is absurd to call Obama the best President for the environment in history. Both Nixon and Carter were considerably better. Nixon signed the clean air and clean water acts and the act which created the EPA. Carter gave us our first mileage standards for cars and light trucks and appointed a crusading EPA administrator. He also tried to get us off of oil back in the 70's something which he clearly failed at but he did try and it stayed in the conversation from his time on.

[sorechasm]

30. True, but the President's under the radar reforms include trucks, buses, and SUV's.

I'm sick of the black bile flowing from those trucks. Ever since Carter's initiative, trucks were exempt because smog production was supposed to provide more jobs.

"Nor is it just about renewables; Obama has also taken big steps on energy conservation, especially via fuel-efficiency standards, that have flown, somewhat mysteriously, under the radar. And it's not just cars. In 2011, the administration announced the first-ever fuel-efficiency standards for medium and heavy vehicles, and in February it announced that these standards would get even tougher for models sold after 2018. As a way to curb green house-gas emissions, these actions, taken together, are comparable in importance to proposed action on power plants."Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008#ixzz3Fym7s5cC
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[dsc]

31. I am not saying Obama didn't do more than all the rest of them

because he did, but I still think Nixon, as awful as he was otherwise, was by far our best President for the environment and Carter was a close second. Obama would be a close third to them. My main beef with Krugman was that I felt Obama got more credit than he deserved but that Nixon and Carter got less.