Thanks again for the post. Your posting on the Democratic primary last week, or so, by Krugman has changed my mind and put me into a state of doubt. Where I remain. If there is one man I trust, it's Krugman. And if he says I'm wrong, I have to listen to him.
I am on a quest now to find other pundits I respect as much is Krugman and see what they say. Off the top of my head that would include people like Joe Conason and David Corn.
<< | Krugman again.
-----------------------------------
Wonks and Minions
January 23, 2016 9:01 am
One of the differences between right and left in America is that the progressive infrastructure includes a contingent of genuine wonks — commentators on policy who really do make models and crunch numbers, and sometimes come up with answers that aren’t fully predictable from their politics. The list includes Ezra Klein, Jonathan Cohn, Jonathan Chait, Mike Konczal, myself some of the time, and others. Right now the wonk brigade has been weighing in on Bernie Sanders, and is in general not too impressed on either financial reform or health care.
And the response of some — only some — Sanders supporters is disappointing, although I guess predictable given that somewhat similar things happened during the 2008 primary. There will, I guess, always be some people who, having made an emotional commitment to a candidate, can’t accept the proposition that someone might share their values but honestly disagree with the candidate’s approach.
Right now I’m getting the kind of correspondence I usually get from Rush Limbaugh listeners, although this time it’s from the left — I’m a crook, I’m a Hillary crony, etc., etc.. OK, been there before — back in 2008 I was even the subject of tales about my son working for the Clintons, which was surprising because I don’t have a son.
But I’m used to this stuff. It’s a bit more shocking to see Mike Konczal — one of our most powerful advocates of financial reform, heroic critic of austerity, and a huge resource for progressives — attacked as one of Hillary’s minions and an ally of the financial industry.
What’s really funny is that neither Mike nor I, nor, I think, any of the other wonks-turned-evil-minions have changed positions. Most of us argued long before there was a Sanders candidacy that the focus on Glass-Steagall and too-big-to-fail was misguided. In fact, I argued that position very early in the Obama years, at the same time I was arguing for temporary nationalization of a couple of big banks. I argued for an Obamacare-like strategy on health care, with perhaps a very gradual transition to single-payer via the public option, in my book The Conscience of a Liberal; and most of the progressive health care experts I can think of adopted pretty much the same position. So nobody should be surprised that a candidate who appears to be disregarding the analysis that led to these positions is coming in for some criticism.
Anyway, I’m not going to obsess over this — this too shall pass, just like the 2008 primary season when I was history’s greatest monster because I was skeptical |
|
