The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Krugman
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.06 You Save: $21.89 (84%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.26 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Conscience of a Liberal
Book Review: Preaching to the Choir
Summary: 2 Stars
"Being progressive,'' says Paul Krugman in the concluding pages of The Conscience of a Liberal, "means being partisan." Like Krugman, my training lies in economics, but unlike Krugman, I am not partisan. Rather, I take a policy orientation to social issues: there are problems to be solved in order to enhance the lives of citizens, and it is our job to discover and publicize solutions to these problems. Krugman's partisan stance only clouds the issues. For Krugman there is a "union movement" rather than a "bureaucratic labor aristocracy," critics of the welfare states want to "turn back the clock," rather than streamline and curb the inequities of the welfare state, conservatives have won by "exploiting cultural backlash" rather than by mounting a principled opposition to the explosion of crime, drug abuse, and single-headed households in a manner that resonates with the voting public. Critics of the wealth tax are "financed by a handful of [super-rich] families," with the public being ignorant dupes of the slick politicians.
This book epitomizes what is wrong with American liberalism. Krugman was a fine, perceptive international trade theorist, but he is a political hack, with nothing new to offer. There is one problem as far as Krugman is concerned: inequality. But inequality is an intellectual abstraction, not a politically motivating issue. People hated the Robber Barons because they were robbers and barons, not because they were rich. Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates do not send the Pinkerton men out to protect their ill-gotten gains; nor to the other super-rich. Socialists' ringing political slogans dealt with fairness, social progress, and power to the people, not "inequality." Moreover, a truly progressive movement must built on technical progress that is impeded by the reigning powers that be (Sam Bowles and I call this efficiency-enhancing egalitarian redistribution), not the beggar-thy-neighbor, zero-sum-game sort of redistribution favored by Krugman.
I suspect Krugman is correct in saying that the degree of inequality in the USA today is the product of politics, not economic necessity. This is because some advanced industrial countries have more equal distributions of income and wealth that the USA (e.g., France, Germany). But, these countries are plagued by bureaucratic inefficiency and deeply threatened by the "lean and mean" up-and-coming countries like Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, India, et al. The USA has purchased a thriving economy and full employment at the cost of having a bunch of super-rich families. Not a bad deal, after all.
Krugman's vision for the future has three key premises, all wrong.
First, he believes progressives can win on a platform of redistributing from the rich. However, no one cares about inequality. People care about injustice, unfairness, poverty, sexual predators, family values, gay marriage, terrorism, and many other problems of everyday life. People don't care about Gini distributions and other abstractions. Moreover, Krugman should know that if the wealth were redistributed to the middle class, the US investment rate would fall, since the rich save their money and it is translated into investment, whereas the middle classes would spend their gains on consumption, thus driving out investment. A "soak the rich" policy simply cannot work to the advantage of the middle classes.
Second, Krugman would strengthen the labor unions, which he credits for their egalitarian effects. However, unions were strong only when industry was highly non-competitive in such areas as automobiles and steel. The oligopolistic character of mid-twentieth century industry, with a few countries in the lead, made fighting over the excess profits highly rewarding. With globalization, there are no excess profits to be fought over. Thus, it is not surprising that most successful unions in the USA are public service, not private (e.g., teachers, government employees). There is no future in unionism, period.
Third, Krugman believes that liberalism can be restored to its 1950's health without the need for any new policies. However, 1950's liberalism was based on southern white racism and solid support from the unions, neither of which exists any more. There is no future in pure redistributional policies in the USA for this reason. Indeed, if one looks at other social democratic countries, almost all are moving from corporate liberalism to embrace new options, such as Sarkozy in France (French socialists have the same pathetic political sense as American liberals, and will share the same fate).
I am sorry that we can't do better than Krugman. There are very serious social problems to be addressed, but the poor, pathetic, liberals simply haven't a clue. Conservatives, on the other, are political sophisticated and hold clear visions of what they want. It is too bad that what they want does not include caring about the poor and the otherwise afflicted, or dealing with our natural environment. Politics in the USA is no longer Elephants and Donkeys; it is now conservative Pigs and liberal Bonobos. The pigs are smart but only care about what's in their trough. The Bonobos are polymorphous perverse and great lovers, but will be extinct in short order.
I am adding the following remarks on December 19, 2007 in response to some of the personal and public comments on my remarks. These should be seen as clarifications.
Many commentators consider my remarks on Krugman's partisanship as unwarranted because Krugman has always spoken his own mind, and has never toed the (ever-changing) Democratic "party line". For instance, it is widely thought that Krugman was passed over by Bill Clinton for heading the Council of Economic Advisors (in favor of Laura Tyson) because of Krugman's opposition to "industrial policy." Now, thankfully Clinton did not follow the "industrial policy" suggestions of Robert Reich, Robert Kuttner and others, but we must thank the forceful interventions of Krugman (and others) for exposing "industrial policy" for what it is---mainly an unsupported set of statements that would likely have weakened the American economy considerably.
Partially because of the adament opposition of key Democratic economists, including Krugman, Clinton opted for a sound economic policy---one of the strongest points of his adminstration. But now, industrial policy is not fashionable, and protectionism has not been a major part of Democratic political philosophy, pace Robert Kuttner. Indeed, as far as I can tell there are no issues of fact that separate Republic and Democratic policy thinkers concerning the running of the economy. More broadly, burning political issues of domenstic social policy today revolve around values and not facts, and around the personal characteristics of politicians rather than the economic models that they embrace to deal with setting a policy agenda for the country. In this setting, it is not surprising that Krugman would become a partisan political actor, as I have suggested has happened. At any rate, I am virtually certain that should really stupid economic ideas pop up as the Presidential race heats up, Krugman would come out fighting, at the cost of his credibility with some Democrats, in favor of economic realities.
Some have asked me what Krugman should be stressing, if not redistribution of wealth and income. Here are some suggestions. First, a vision of national health insurance that answers the (legitimate) objections of its critics. For instance, instead of single-payer, perhaps state-by-state regulation of universal care, much as current welfare and automobile insurance. Second, he should come out in favor of school vouchers and charters, and otherwise suggest how to make the educational system more competitive. Third, he should embrace faith-based interventions into community service, especially as concerns the urban poor. Fourth, he should propose a national system of apprenticeship skill acquisition, whereby firms are subsidized when they train their workers (government intervention is needed here because once trained, the worker can simply leave the firm for higher wages). Fifth, he should propose a plan for promoting minority entrepreneurship. This is of course a land mine, because it is so subject to corruption and unfairness. However, there are some degrees of freedom in this area, such as promoting minority business networks, specialized vocational training for minority entrepreneurs, and the like. Sixth, he should propose a precise way forward in dealing with environmental issues (nuclear, solar, coal, oil, endagered species, etc.) There are many people working hard on these issues whose ideas never get beyond the scientific conference and the pages of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and their ideas are often very sound. Seventh, promote the labor market and educational policies of Nobel prize winner James Heckman and others who have a good take on the numbers and what forms of intervention are likely to be fruitful.
But most of all, Progressives need a vision of what real contributions we can make to improving the lives of Americans and the citizens of the world. Income redistribution away from the very rich may (or may not) necessary to achieve this vision, but Krugman's beggar thy neighbor ideas are insipid and counterproductive.
Book Review: Illumines the past while plotting an agenda for the future
Summary: 5 Stars
This is one of finest analyses of American political history that I have ever read. There have been an string of excellent books in years critiquing the economic and political goals of the extreme Right (which has largely taken over the Republican party) such as Thomas Frank's WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS and ONE MARKET UNDER GOD, Michael Lind's MADE IN TEXAS and UP FROM CONSERVATISM, George Lakoff's MORAL POLITICS, and Kevin Phillips's AMERICAN THEOCRACY and WEALTH AND POLITICS, among many, many others. These books have detailed the birth of the Far Right, the individuals who fund their Top-Down agenda, and exposed many of the long term effects of their policies. There is no question that one of the reasons that America is currently engaging in a backlash against the Right is the realization of how damaging the Right's goals are to the well being of the vast majority of Americans. The largest portion of Krugman's book is devoted to recounting all of this. There is not a great deal that is new in this portion of the book, but I do believe that no one has summed up all the aspects so well as Krugman has had. For all the brilliance of Frank's WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS, he neglects, as Krugman correctly points out, the role that race has played in the rise of the Right. For instance, what I remember most about Ronald Reagan - along with his astonishing ignorance on a host of subjects ("Trees cause more pollution than cars.") was the racism that permeated all of his polity positions. He constantly evoked welfare cheats and crime in inner cities and there was no question that this was meant and perceived as an attack on blacks. It certainly accounted for much of his support in the South (I'm from the South and I remember how much many of the people I knew from my home state delighted in his efforts to put the black man in his place, as they would frame it).
The first two-thirds of Krugman's book are taken up by this absolutely superb and dead on analysis of how we got to where we are. One thing he does not address, except in passing, has been the amazing takeover of the media by the Right, shown most ironically in their greatest public relations success, the creation of the myth of the liberal media. The Right utterly dominates radio, television (except for Keith Olbermann and the two political satirical shows headed by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert), and most newspaper reporting (apart from op ed columnists like Krugman, Gene Lyons, and the late Molly Ivins). Those on the left have fought back in two areas. There have been huge spates of liberal books in the past decade that have had an enormous impact on political debate. The books on the right have been unrelentingly propagandistic with virtually no factual support to them and while some writers like Ann Coulter sell a lot of books to her fans, few or no books on the Right have actually influenced national opinion. But because the books on the Left have frequently been fact-based, they have gradually altered the political climate in a host of ways. I think this is going to continue since a great deal of their work has been to point out the factual inaccuracies of a lot of the Right-wing rhetoric. Bill O'Reilly, for instance, is today universally regarded as a right-wing figure, whereas a decade ago many actually believed his claims to be "spin free." He is also increasingly regarded as misinformed, cranky, and irrelevant, especially when Christmas roles around each year. This is the only part of the overall political story that I think Krugman fails to sufficiently note.
The most important part of the book is the last. There is no question the Right is in disarray today. Since 1981 they have been pushing an agenda that has harmed almost all Americans, except those in the highest economic brackets. We know now that trickle-down simply doesn't take place. (Why anyone ever thought this is baffling. Even in the twenties Will Rogers quipped that many people think gold is like water: put it at the top and it will flow down to everyone. But, he insisted, gold isn't at all like water. Put it at the top and all it does is sit there.) There has been little or no middle class economic growth for decades, while the very wealthy are not only getting richer and richer, but paying an increasingly smaller portion of their profits in taxes. Benjamin Franklin spoke openly of the necessity of a progressive tax system in which the wealthy paid far more than those who made less. John Adams (considered the first American conservative) spoke of the need of most of the money in estates to pass to the government in taxes in order to prevent the formation of an economic elite in the United States, a sentiment with which Thomas Jefferson strongly agreed. Why it has become so verboten to see the morality of taxing those who are so much better off is inexplicable. And many of the superrich agree with this. Warren Buffett has spoken out again additional tax cuts and opposed Bush's elimination of the estate tax. Bill Gates's father is one of the leading figures in opposing the recent changes in the estate tax, proving that there are rich people with consciences. My point is that more and more people are seeing through the right wing rhetoric and culture wars to see just how harmful their policies have been for America.
But what next? And this is where Krugman has much to offer. All evidence right now points to huge Democratic gains in the 2008 election. Though much can change in a year, right now no GOP political candidate polls strongly against Hillary Clinton (though many Right wing pundits consider her unelectable - for the record, I don't like Hillary because she embraces too many right-wing economic policies). But the Democrats look very likely to make huge gains in both houses of congress. Few Democratic Senate seats will be vulnerable, while a host of GOP seats are, pointing to a probable veto-proof majority in the senate. If we do indeed get strong Democratic majorities in both houses and a Democratic president, what comes next? I think Krugman is correct in thinking that a universal health program must be implemented. Almost all Americans agree that his should be a major goal for congress. Even most of the GOP presidential candidates are talking about the necessity for universal healthcare, though most of them are advocating private insurance programs funded through tax relief, not a good idea. I think Krugman is correct in calling for socialized health insurance (which is not socialized medicine). There is absolutely no question that the best way to do this would be through a single-payer system as in Medicare or in Canada, but I reluctantly agree with Krugman that healthcare reform will only be possible with the inclusion of the current private insurance companies as administrators. This means that the program will be more expensive than if we had a single-payer system, but without a compromise with these companies probably nothing will be accomplished. But some of the Democratic candidates are talking of a federal plan that would compete with the private companies. I think this would both keep the prices charged by the private carriers down. I have a superb health plan at my company and would stay with that, but I delight in a healthcare plan that would mean that no one could be turned down.
We've developed a fear of government in the United States that has meant that we have a lower standard of life than in many of the other leading economic powers. We'd rather have government stay out of our lives than have a better quality of life. Krugman believes that a government instituting a progressive political agenda would do much to dispel some of the irrational fear of government that most Americans hold. Social Security has made the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans better and the same would be true of universal healthcare and other federal programs. Once it is in place, other progressive programs could then be proposed as people realize that government can play a crucial role in helping people to better lives.
This book should be high on the reading list of any American concerned about our country fulfilling its potential and promise. In the past few decades we've increasingly ceased to be concerned about the general weal and have focused instead on welfare for rich people. Krugman's book is crucial for explaining how this perverse situation arose and what we could do to correct it.
Book Review: "Movement Conservative" Expose
Summary: 5 Stars
The title of this book is the antithesis of "The Conscience of a Conservative," the book penned by Barry Goldwater. I think another title would encourage a broader spectrum of readers, but the author's point is to discredit "movement conservative," to thrash it into the ground. Krugman seems to hold nothing back in his scorn for "movement conservative," which he feels has been the basis for the extreme polarization of the political parties of late. He thrives on the comparisons between conservatives and liberals. That is the point of his book.
With "movement conservative" potentially crushed in the 2008 elections (which he could not foresee with certainty in his book written in 2007), and if the new liberal government goes on to perform well in a new New Deal effort, the result will be a renewal of our two-party system that keeps the other side "honest," but does not demand domination over decades, per Krugman.
The book flows well and is highly efficient in telling its story. The details are there, and the principals in the story are brought to life with credible simplicity. Presidents, for example:
FDR: "FDR's mission in office was to show that government activism works....And he did." "FDR's success gave liberal intellectuals credibility and prestige...."
Truman: "In 1946, Truman proposed a system of national health insurance that would have created a single-payer system." "(His) bid failed in the face of opposition from two critical groups: The American Medical Association and Southern whites."
Eisenhower: "...taxes on corporations and the rich were even higher during the Eisenhower years than they had been under FDR." "...he preached `moderation,' and considered those who wanted to roll back the New Deal "stupid." "...Eisenhower's `modern' Republicans took control of their party...."
Nixon: "...Nixon governed like a liberal in many ways: He indexed Social Security for inflation...expanded government regulation of workplace safety and the environment, and even tried to introduce universal health insurance." "Nixon was a transitional figure....For Nixon it was all personal." "...he did not share the conservative movement's hatred for government intervention and the welfare state." "...he was a pragmatist, rather than an ideologue." "(But he) showed how the dark side of America...above all, race, could be used to win elections."
Reagan: "Ronald Reagan... ran for Governor of California in part on a promise to repeal the state's fair housing act." "The youth rebellion (of the 60's) frightened and infuriated many Americans - Ronald Reagan in particular." "(He) was able to signal sympathy for racism without every saying anything overtly racist." "(He) tried and failed to slash Social Security benefits." "Reagan taught the movement (conservative) how to clothe elitist economic ideas in populist rhetoric."
Clinton: "Clinton famously tried to introduce a form of universal health care - and completely failed." A major reason for his failure was that he did not get started on the issue soon enough. He was preoccupied with budget issues. He simply was not ready with the details of his health care plan. His campaign had not gotten into any specifics. "...Bill Clinton never had a well-defined agenda. In a fundamental sense, he didn't know what he was supposed to do....and he didn't build a movement."
George W. Bush: "(In 2004), the nation rallied around George Bush, as he promised to punish the `evildoers' responsible for 9/11 and bring in Osama dead or alive." "We may never know why his administration wanted that war so badly." "...the war worked to Bush's advantage for a surprisingly long time." "Without that purge (in Florida of voters identified as felons), George W. Bush would not
have made it to the White House."
The thesis of the book includes the argument that "movement conservatism has been antidemocratic, with an attraction to authoritarianism, from the beginning." Krugman says that "conservatives insist that those in power have the right to do as they please." Walking a bit of a thin line here, he goes on to say that "The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition." (And do as they please?) What may be missing here, is an analysis of how that mentality led to the downfall of the Bush administration and the Republican right after the 2004 election?
Another element of his thesis is that the benefits of the post-WWII boom came to the end in the `70's, with the economic crisis brought on by rising inflation and high oil prices. What has followed has been a rapid "concentration of income in the hands of a small minority." And once the funding was combined with the political leadership, the "vast right-wing conspiracy" was born, "as we know today."
Krugman sees health care as the primary issue for a new liberal administration. He argues that the moral case for universal health care isn't in dispute and that "Health care reform is the natural centerpiece of a new New Deal." He provides comparisons of the current U.S. system vs. nations with universal care to reach his conclusion that "We're off the charts in terms of what we pay for care, but only in the middle of the pack in terms of what we get for our money." This is a good chapter, full of all kinds of statistics and insights, including that Medicare was signed by President Johnson "less than nine months after his victory in the 1964 election." "Thus, it's a very good thing that health care reform has become a central issue in the current presidential campaign." He adds that universal health care is not a revolutionary or radical idea today and that there are many examples to follow that are well-tested. And back to real politics, "Getting universal care should be the key domestic priority for modern liberals."
Although it is not talked about it much in the book, I'd think that immigration reform would be another priority for "modern liberals," both for real politic and for humanitarian and other reasons. Krugman notes that "immigration is a deeply divisive issue for the for the coalition that supports movement conservative....(and) The obvious reality that an important wing of the Republican Party is bitterly anti-immigrant pushes non-white immigrants into the arms of the Democratic Party. " And, "Republicans have sought to contain this problem by keeping immigrants and their descendants disenfranchises as long as possible."
There is much more in this excellent book, and most of it is full of witty insight, e.g., "an obsession with other people's sexual lives has been an enduring factor in movement conservatism - a key source of the movement's, um, passion." And, "Movement conservatism...found a mass popular base by finding ways to appeal to two grassroots sentiments: white backlash and paranoia about communism." And: Ronald Reagan's 1966 California campaign marked the first great electoral success for movement conservative. And one more: "...both long term trends in American society and recent events have damaged the ability of movement conservatives to change the subject, to mask the reality that they are on the side of the privileged...."
In summary, if you consider yourself a "liberal," you will probably love this book and find all kinds of reinforcement for your base positions. If you consider yourself a "conservative," you will most likely not read the book. But if Krugman turns out to be right, the difference between the two parties will cease to be as extreme as they have been, assuming that the Obama administration is successful operationally in its legislation and in making the collective good the primary goal once more.
At that point, someone can write the book, "The Conscience of a Centrist." Seems like a nice thought to me.
Book Review: Distributive Justice Revisited
Summary: 5 Stars
Due to the dominance of right wing (viz., party, interests, or sympathies of "the haves") control of the media, the word "liberal" has taken on pejorative connotations for many Americans. The non-stop barrage of corporate propaganda leveled at the American public, sort of like those radios one couldn't turn off that Stalin had planted in every home (yes, America, we can turn them off), has made every effort to make "liberal" a dirty word, while the so-called conservative (a misnomer if ever there was one) political agendas and jaded economic policies created by and for the profits of an elite few at the top, veiled in the promises of shibboleths like "Reaganomics", "supply side economics", and "trickle down theory", have promulgated the rape and pillage of 95% of American taxpayers' wallets and the environment of the planet on which we are attempting to live, at a rate never before imagined possible.
We can thank Princeton economist Paul Krugman for restoring a bit of dignity to the designation "liberal", in this sensitive and incisive examination of the interaction between the political and economic spheres in our nation over the past 150 years, but especially the past half century - a history of which many, especially those born after 1970 (the increasing majority of Americans) or who have naturalized since then, are unaware.
Krugman cuts to the chase when he points to the consistent "hardheartedness" of the policies of the political right which have dominated American social directives for most of our lifetime. He is correct to emphasize that overt racism, "backlash" to the gains made by the civil rights initiatives and incentives, has really been the primary shared persuasion uniting the factions which comprise the political power base through which the representatives of privilege, in the guise of public service, have been able to roll back progress toward a more egalitarian society promised by The New Deal and The Great Society. The Dixiecrat migration to the Republican Party in the late 60's and early 70's, which Krugman correctly sees as a direct result of the civil rights legislation of the Kennedy /Johnson era flipped the South entirely to the Republicans. Further large areas in the western parts of mid-Atlantic states, Appalacia, and the Mid and Southwest , where education was less advanced, with considerably smaller percentages of the population actually obtaining a college degree, were, and are, more vulnerable to the propaganda of the New Right which began to infiltrate and eventually dominate public discourse.
According to Krugman: "There were always people who hated the New Deal, hated Social Security, but in the 1950's, the couldn't get anywhere. . . But in the 1960's they found their feet. Goldwater seized the ... nomination. . . but much more important is Reagan . . . the first central figure . . . because he found a way to exploit the white backlash against civil rights without being explicitly racist. So he talked about welfare queens driving Cadillacs. He ked about welfare cheats. He became governor of California by campaigning against the fair housing law. . . Nixon found the tactics ... It's not that we evolved into a new Guilded Age and we developed a right wing to support that. It's that we developed a right wing that wanted a new Guilded Age, and they got it."
An economist, Krugman takes on the putative verity of one of the scared cows of classical economics: Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand", an idea at the heart of so-called "free market" theory - that people would be guided by the same considerations self-interest which motivated them to enterprise, in the first place, to produce benefits for each other and society. This assumption, developed in response to bald mercantilism, which viewed the quid pro quo market dynamic as outright warfare, was one of the foundations of Smith's seminal theory of laissez-faire capitalism. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the Marxian observation that one of the inherent and potentially fatal tensions in capitalism is its need for a labor force (comprising the vast majority of society) but the inherent unwillingness of the market makers, the employers of that labor force, to support and develop the liberal institutions needed to maintain its members. Krugman's position finds the moderate, middle ground between these extremes: strong liberal institutions with regulatory powers are needed to sustain an economy capable of supporting large- scale populations and, at this crucial juncture, a habitable environment. Any sort of "Invisible Hand", if such exists, will be, for better or worse, guided by the interaction of money and political will, as the history which Krugman relates, in its essentials, demonstrates. These facts dictate that for democratic society (or any society with democratic aspirations) to flourish, the right of the majority to enact legislation which will ensure an equitable distribution of goods and opportunity. Nor should this freedom s be abused to the extent of creating a tyranny of the majority. But, neither should that freedom be so trampled and stifled in the name of professed market exigencies or "national security", that, at the majority's expense, a tyranny of a minority might emerge. This sorry state of affairs is what, in Krugman's view and that of many others (dare I say the majority of the world population?), our current political status quo represents.
Book Review: Do Democrats have the strength to reclaim the New Deal?
Summary: 4 Stars
What follows is as brief a synopsis as I can come up with for The Conscience of a Liberal.
At the close of the Hoover administration, it was clear that a Democrat would be elected to the presidency. It was by no means clear, though, that we'd get FDR and the New Deal. Out of catastrophe we got protection for the unemployed, for the elderly, and for the poor; and got job relief. The going was hard, but FDR did it.
For a few years the forces of reaction tried desperately to roll back the New Deal. Out of that we got McCarthyism, whose purpose wasn't to root out Communists but rather to reverse the New Deal. As Richard Hofstadter put it, "Had the Great Inquisition been directed only against Communists, it would have tried to be more precise and discriminating in its search for them: in fact, its leading practitioners seemed to care little for the difference between a Communist and a unicorn."
McCarthy lost. The Republicans made their peace with the New Deal after beating up on Truman for a while (Korea and all that). Out of this accommodation came Eisenhower. The New Deal was by now far too popular to overthrow, so Republicans and Democrats came together for 30 years or so. They really were "Republicrats" in that interval -- parties without many essential differences on policy. There was even a marriage of convenience between Northern Democrats, who supported greater rights for blacks, and Southern Democrats who obviously didn't. But the South derived a lot of benefit from the New Deal (read especially volume 1 of Robert Caro's LBJ bio, on the electrification of rural Texas), so they clung to the party. It didn't hurt that the South had always been Democrats, since Republicans had been the party of Lincoln.
The New Deal, and especially the tax policies that went along with it, led to greater income equality than the U.S. had seen in half a century. Political moderation went along with economic leveling.
But the legacy of slavery tore apart the Democratic party. LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts was the death knell. The Dixiecrats had enough. They split off and became Republicans. The GOP exploited this. Republicans became more and more extreme, using all the codewords of race ("states' rights" and so forth) to disguise what they were really after. Today the GOP is dominated by two wings: the businessmen, who wish for more immigration (cheaper labor) and lower taxes; and the rural, conservative Christian wing that is afraid of blacks and immigrants.
The GOP is corrupt and has become the party of cronyism. This cronyism is at its worst in the Iraq War: we elected people who explicitly wish to destroy government, so we shouldn't expect that they'd put their hearts into governing. They especially wouldn't be able to run a war. Wars call for shared sacrifice and for increased taxes, two things that Republicans are loath to defend. The GOP's utter failure in the Iraq War will cut out one of its fundamental pillars, namely that it's strong on defense. Its constant accusations that Democrats are the party of taxing and spending should have died long ago.
The weakness of unions plays a crucial role in all of this. Republicans gutted unions in the 70's and 80's, starting with Goldwater. It didn't have to happen this way, and contrary to popular belief it has nothing to do with a postindustrial economy: European nations, and Canada, have by and large maintained their unions' strengths; only the U.S. and Britain -- dominated by Reagan and Thatcher -- have lost significant union membership, because conservatives looked the other way while companies illegally fired union-organizing employees.
Hence Democrats find themselves poised at a crucial moment. With all the momentum and much of the power, they could reinstate the New Deal. They could succeed where Truman and Nixon failed, and institute national health insurance. In so doing, they could prove to Americans that government can work. We know that national health insurance can work, because it does work in every other advanced industrialized nation. With health care successful, we could reclaim a progressive nation and finally take the country back from the reactionaries. And we could re-empower unions, giving power back to the people and taking it away from the robber barons.
All of these are Krugman's observations. Compromise with the GOP, says Krugman, is impossible. It was impossible during the New Deal, and it's impossible now. We won then because the public overwhelmingly wanted what FDR offered. We will win now -- if we fight like hell -- because universal health insurance is what the public wants. We cannot compromise with those who seek the destruction of all we stand for.
The question is whether Democrats have the leadership to bring us what we deserve.