Clinton/Krugman Defend 'Hardheaded Realism'... and Plutocracy

[nashville_brook]

Clinton/Krugman Defend 'Hardheaded Realism'... and Plutocracy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/clintonkrugman-defend-har_b_9053672.html

In theory, there are a lot of things to like about [Sanders'] ideas. But in theory isn't enough. A president has to deal in reality. I am not interested in ideas that sound good on paper but will never make it in real life. Hillary Clinton, 9/21/16

Team Hillary (now including economist/columnist Paul Krugman) is worried about major defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their counter-attack is clear — Bernie is all pie in the sky — he isn't facing up to the realities of Washington. And, as Krugman coldly puts it, Sanders and his supporters are letting "idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence." But these demeaning attacks say much more about Clinton than they do about Sanders.

(snip)

Clearly Clinton and Krugman accept that elite rule not only shapes our current sense of reality, but that it is our permanent reality.

Krugman, however, should know that what remains of our democracy needs to be pressured from below. His Princeton colleague, Martin Gilens, along with Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, have co-authored a study that definitely shows that the average American currently has no independent impact on public policy. They reviewed 1,779 congressional bills over the last decade and found:

When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

Therefore, unless you already are an economic elite, you have no ("near zero&quot influence over government policy, which is the textbook definition of a plutocracy.

(snip)

Clinton (and Krugman) are also making an enormous tactical error. The more they stress pragmatism and acceptance of elite political control, the more they clear the field for Bernie. People already sense what Gilens and Page have so carefully researched — that America's basic political and economic structures are rigged against them...Moreover, it's factually incorrect to say that Bernie appeals to our hearts while Hillary appeals to our heads. Bernie's supporters are using their heads. The only way to change the system is to challenge it. Nothing short of a "political revolution" stands any chance of success.

That's "hardheaded realism" of the first order.




From the paper cited above -- link goes to PDF to download.

In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule--at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes..... [We] believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened. (Gilens and Page)

[VulgarPoet]

1. Can't say this surprises me

Acceptance of our corporate overlords ends with us, one way or another. I refuse to count myself in that number.

[n2doc]

2. I remember a Krugman who chastised Obama for not going for the Public Option

And for not asking for a large enough Stimulus. And for being too ready to compromise with Repubs on Austerity and safety net cuts. I don't remember him pushing 'realism' in any of these.


I still wonder, what sort of deal he cut with the Clinton Gang.

[VulgarPoet]

3. Or what kind of dirt they have on him.

[MisterP]

4. these types chastised Obama and Clinton for a LOT of things

we know better now and know to get screenshots of their OPs

[Fawke Em]

5. I also remember Krugman poo-pooing those "angry" Obama supporters

[nashville_brook]

6. yikes! maybe he should stick to numbers and leave the interpersonal stuff to others.