Krugman: Debunking the Reagan myth

[Herman Munster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?hp

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.”

Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

1. ouch

[Zueda]

2. I'm just glad Barack didn't go as far as

to say that he would hang Reagan's portrait in his office as Hillary said she would do.

[Andromeda]

11. So she could throw darts at it.

:freak:

[Zueda]

16. Yeah....Riiiiiight.

[durrrty libby]

3. K

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship "

This shit is worse than I thought.

[kurth]

5. Krugman knows his shit - which is economics

including Reaganomics.

[oasis]

6. Krugman exposes the flawed thought processes of the "Great Pretender" once again.

:thumbsup:k&r

[question everything]

7. A Teflon candidate praises a Teflon president

It is clear that for many Obama supporters, his youth, his charisma, his different kind of a black leader, his eloquence are what matter. Digging deeper into substance is viewed as "going negative" on him, as even being racist.

And if you don't like the attacks on him now, and if he is the nominee, wait until Karl Rove goes after him.

"The excess of the 60s and the 70s?" From someone who used to be a dope head in those days?

[liberalnurse]

8. Krugman sure can shine the spotlight on the big picture .

Eloquently defined the absolute truth...

[ArkySue]

9. K&R

[Raster]

10. ronnie the raygun had NOTHING right! No Democrat should be praising the Great Liar.

Shame on Clinton, shame on Obama. There was no "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship." There was greed and arrogance. There was complete disdain for the public good. The raygun era was the beginning of the mess we are in now. Look up "corporate stooge" in the dictionary. You'll see ronnie's face staring back at you. I hope they drove a stake through his heart and welded the casket shut when they buried him. Good fucking riddance.

Wake up America!:kick:

[JDPriestly]

13. I agree with you.

And the wars in Central America? Has everyone forgotten that?

[KittyWampus]

21. Really? The GOP lost mid19th center and came back to rebuild their party from grassroots up.

what you and the rest of the howling reactionary screamers on DU need to realise is YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

[Raster]

23. Excuse me? "...howling reactionary screamers...?"

Care to qualify any of your bullshit or you just doing a hit and run?

[Truth2Tell]

26. Part of which problem?

And STOP YELLING for christsakes.

I assume you mean the "problem" of the Democratic Party not bending quite far enough to the radical right for your liking? Not enough praise for corporate lobbyist driven politics? Not enough capitulation to war making? So the GOP rebuilt their Party from the grassroots up after WWII. So what? So they figured out they needed to co-opt the bigots and war crazy nationalists from the Old South Democrats. And they did. Thanks Lee Atwater. And now this is a problem with you? Now we need em back? Is that it? I'm missing the "problem" you're yelling about. :shrug:

[JDPriestly]

12. Thank you for posting this.

Krugman has it right. The Republicans have been allowed to rewrite history over and over.

[oasis]

14. And Obama does the GOP a big favor by perpetuating the "Reagan is great" myth.

:puke:

[Senator]

15. And Had We Impeached Reagan And/Or Poppy Bush ...

... for their admitted/known crimes, we'd not have their minions wreaking this current havoc on our once-great nation and the world.

That was the real Clinton failure. Opting for "hope" and "bipartisanship," over responsibility/accountability.

Failure to impeach is complicity -- approval -- exoneration for the regime.

We allow it (again) at our peril.

====

[Truth2Tell]

27. Exactly.

I dread the day in 2020 when some cowardly DLC Democratic candidate invokes the "strength, determination and moral clarity" of the George Bush Jr. era (Maybe Pelosi on the Presidential campaign stump :shrug:).

We set ourselves up for this shit.

[chimpymustgo]

17. Krugman is always on the MONEY. Obama supporters: listen up!

Obama needs to APOLOGIZE for praising that racist, homophobic, sexist, lying, cheating, murdering, arms trading, drug dealing, warmongering sonofabitch.

[KittyWampus]

20. Krugman is in jeopardy of becoming a partisan hack. If he wants to flail Reaganomics, fineEa

that has NOTHING to do with Obama.

[oasis]

25. Krugman knows his stuff.

[KittyWampus]

18. Krugman yet again sinks into the partisan pit and loses his way. Obama wasn't praising Reagan

and he made a point that KRUGMAN and all the howling DU'ers themselves prove.

[KittyWampus]

19. If the 80's ushered in an era of greed, the 90's under Clinton extended it. Further deregulation

and privatization. Out sourcing escalated under Clinton. Consolidating media. Corporate executive pay rose even more. Houses got even bigger.

Clinton gave us NAFTA, remember?

Krugman doesn't admit that it was Clinton's LUCK in getting the Tech Bubble while POTUS.

And every DU'er who howls about Obama's remark is part of the problem the Left faces.

The Right DOMINATED the message. Since Goldwater, the GOP has built from the ground up and have been very effective.

Who the heck is Krugman to insist Obama have included a "clear declaration that Reaganomics failed"?

"Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?"

[sufrommich]

22. "Historical narratives matter"

That sentence alone is what is so infuriating about Obama's comments.I'm sorry,I don't want a candidate who's willing to attract voters by validating the myth of Reagan.I want a Democrat who will call them what they are:pathetic.

[THUNDER HANDS]

24. I'm sure he's not biased at all

i mean look at the quotes he selected...

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.”
Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills.

Really? What would give one that idea, maybe the word SENSE - ie, a nice way of saying ILLUSION.

But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

It's in his book. Page 31 of The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes:

"...certainly liberals were right to complain that his domestic policies tilted heavily toward economic elites, with corporate raiders making tidy profits throughout the eighties while unions were busted and the income for the average working stiff flatlined."