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 $1.08 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Conscience of a Liberal
Book Review: If you do read it, keep questioning and thinking for yourself as you go.
Summary: 2 Stars
Paul Krugman is something of a modern-day economic Robin Hood. He believes the government should very aggressively tax the rich and give to the poor. As evidence, he presents the United States of the 1950s and 1960s, prosperous yet egalitarian. Krugman is an economist by trade, and few economists hold truly liberal views. I was interested in a well-reasoned, well-supported argument for his views. I didn't find it.
Krugman does get points for being the first person I've ever heard use the term "Welfare State" positively. (I'm serious, by the way, that's a great way to shock a reader out of a pre-conceived notion) However, problems abound with Krugman's pro-welfare state arguments.
First, Krugman calls Social Security the "crown jewel" of the New Deal. Social Security is sadly a bankrupt pyramid scheme from which almost nobody under the age of 40 ever expects to receive a penny after paying into it for their entire working life. That's one pathetic crown jewel.
Second, Krugman assumes without explanation that an income gap (the difference in income between rich and poor) is a bad thing, but why? I'm open to the idea, but it needs explaining since there are credible arguments against this view. Consider: if the "poor" earn $10 a day and the "rich" earn $50, then the difference is only $40. All right. But let's say everyone gets five times wealthier. Now the "poor" earn $50 and the "rich" earn $250. That seems great. The "poor" today have as much income as the "rich" yesterday - everyone is wealthier. But look at that income gap! Now it's $200! Is that bad? I'm not so sure, and while Krugman talks about a higher percentage of wealth going to a small group, he makes no attempt to explain why an income gap is inherently negative.
Third, Krugman is a proponent of taxing the "rich" at rates of 70% and up to pay for the welfare state. He never addresses the moral question of taking (literally with the threat of imprisonment at gunpoint) three quarters of what a private citizen works for in order to give to others. The "rich" today pay more than half of their income to the government for federal, state and local taxes. Ask yourself how much is morally defensible. By what right do we help ourselves to the money people earn? I'd be genuinely curious to hear Krugman's thoughts. He never brings it up.
Fourth, the book is unreasonably stilted. Of course Krugman leans liberal, he's disclosed that in the title, but there are limits. At one point, he states that Congress passed an amendment so that the "income tax couldn't be declared unconstitutional again." Sounds crazy to hear that right-wing fanatics could have had the income tax declared unconstitutional doesn't it? Except that an income tax was clearly forbidden by the Constitution until that amendment was passed making it legal. It's an important point he tries to make the reader believe isn't true.
There are further specific problems, but you get the point. Krugman keeps referring to other "advanced" nations that all have a more developed welfare state than the US. Krugman always refers to that as an indictment of the US, but overwhelmingly, countries with large welfare programs (including Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany and others) have economies that grow at a fraction of the pace of the US economy despite having the advantage of being smaller than our economy and consequently easier to grow. Countries like the United Kingdom and New Zealand have had to completely revamp their economies and government policies after Welfare State policies nearly bankrupt the countries. Krugman skips over that too.
So why the second star?
Krugman introduces one insight that seems very plausible that I'd never heard before, and that's always worthy of an extra star. Krugman asks why the US doesn't tend to redistribute wealth as much as the other "advanced" nations. He cites a study by three Harvard economists which concludes that because the poor of the US are frequently of a different race from the wealthy, it's easier to mount a political movement against redistribution. That's a really interesting and potentially penetrating insight in a book that was unfortunately lacking in them.
In the end, Krugman just glosses over far too many obvious and major concerns with his policy recommendations. It's not asking too much for him address the most fundamental arguments in opposition to his own and he never even tries. Not recommended for readers looking for a reasonable explanation of the liberal viewpoint.
Book Review: Very strong - but not his best work!
Summary: 4 Stars
Krugman's newest book removes any doubt (as if there was any still...) as to his political preferences. Always a liberal from the Keynes tradition, Krugman establishes himself as 'not a Republican' first, in this text. Since we are a two-party nation, there's little doubt now about his politics.
Having said that, Krugman writes a remarkably concise and auspicious (even if a bit polemic) manifesto of what being a New Deal Liberal means both for this nation's recent past, and her future. He does a nice job of skewering the contradictions - if not outright hypocrisy - of the supply-side mantra that overpowers reason in the post-modern Republican Party. He rightly exposes the Wizard-of-Oz-like hold that a few extremist legacies of the Gilded Age have over the Republican platform. In addition, Krugman exposes how their so-called 'think-tanks' use Orwellian Doublethink and Newspeak to pit social conservatives against civil libertarians - while picking the pockets of both groups - and laughing all the way to Wall Street!
Nonetheless, his book falls short of the easy-to-follow call to arms of it's namesake (Goldwater's 1960 manifesto The Conscience of a Conservative). Krugman argues that by highlighting a single item on the national agenda - Universal Health Care - liberals in general, and Democrats in particular, can win the hearts and minds (and votes) of the American Electorate, and restore the Progressive Era. Pehaps it was I that had too-high expectations for this book, but such a claim amounts to wishful thinking at best.
Krugman may very well be right in his not-too-PC claim that racism is really at the heart of the rise of post-modern conservatism - however, racism alone can hardly account for the most damaging components of the neo-liberal economic agenda that was openly embraced by the Reagan-era 'revolutionarios'. This agenda stood in stark contrast to the protectionism and isolationism that defined the Republican Party for 3/4 of a century.
The result has been about as race-neutral as any economic phenomenon in America's history - a rapid, substantive and destructive concentration of political power and capital in the hands of the wealthiest 20% of Americans, and a subsequent decline in power and wealth of the lower 80%. The sense of most Americans that they no longer have a say in what Washington, DC does is a direct result.
There is a feeling on the part of most Americans that they cannot work their way into the American Dram anymore. And, is as palpable as the sting of the loss of over 1 million manufacturing jobs to low-wage countries around the world, and as harsh as the loss in the overall standard of living from the Greatest Generation to Generation X. In addition, the rise of the financial services industry as more than a source of capital - to its current post as the most potent source of wealth - virtually guarantees that America will soon no longer be a Democracy, but will become a Plutocracy.
Krugman glosses over these realities in this book, giving little more than passing remarks to the War on Unions that began with the so-called Reagan Revolution, while he continues his support for unfettered 'Free Trade'. These two pieces are not simply examples of the 'hidden hand', but parts of a purposeful action by the most economically powerful to vacuum up as much wealth as they can from what they see as a 'society in decline'.
As such, Universal Health Care will do little more than pacify a public that genuinely sees what's going on, but feels helpless to do anything about it. Without a sea-change political movement, most Americans will need to lower their economic expectations and prepare their children for a lifetime of higher taxes thanks to the 15-fold run-up in the national debt during this so-called Conservative Era.
Krugman hit the mark in 1997 with The Age of Diminished Expectations. While this book is a good read, and does a wonderful job of outlining the economic morass that this country is heading to, it falls short of the manifesto that progressives need to undo the 'New Gilded Age' (as Krugman frequently calls the recent Conservative Era).
Book Review: Worth Every Penny
Summary: 5 Stars
As baby boomers, we grew up with products "Made in the USA" and scoffed at trinkets from Japan. Our parents enjoyed life-long employment, health care, affordable education, Social Security and pensions that made the golden years more golden. This is what author Paul Krugman describes in his new book "Conscience of a Liberal." He calls this the "Great Compression" where the politics of equality was borne from the New Deal in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt defied the laws of Adam Smith and his invisible hand, and redistributed the wealth of a nation, effectively killing the "Gilded Age" where society was comprised of the very wealthy and the poor.
FDR's New Deal saw the minimum wage becoming half of the average wage earner, the rise of unions, and the mansions of the nation's wealthiest becoming museum attractions. This was the creation of the middle class that was vehemently opposed by Republicans who believed that government intervention would turn the country communist and ruin the economy. It didn't.
By the time Dwight Eisenhower, Republican, became president most in the party had made their peace with the New Deal and only a fringe of an extremist element, known as movement conservatives, still opposed it.
These conservatives made a brief, unsuccessful surge with the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964. They got a break when Democrats embraced civil rights, which broke the Solid South away from them. Racism and the wrath of the angry white male were exploited, and the message of Ronald Reagan could not be missed when he launched his campaign in Philadelphia, MS. Sound familiar?
Through skillful marketing of ideas, conservatives were able to exploit racism and frame themselves as strong on defense, tough on crime, and opponents of big government and taxes, even though they lacked the record to support any of these assertions. Once again, we returned to a Gilded Age with a rising disparity between the have's and the have nots, and a declining middle class. Middle class income is less than it was under President Lyndon Johnson, and bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures have increased because of crushing medical debt and jobs being shipped overseas.
And this is where Paul Krugman claims that conservatism is running on its last pint of gas. With record low unemployment and a booming economy, Americans are still uncertain about the their future and their prospects. They have had no tax relief, no job security, income failing to keep pace with cost of living increases, rising health care insurance costs, no end to an unpopular war, rising education costs, and companies repudiating their pension promises. With forty-five million Americans having no health insurance and sixteen million being under-insured, conservatives are no longer able to convince them that they are better off with tax relief going to the richest companies, while they are trying to dismantle Medicare and Social Security, in other words, the New Deal.
In spite of the current widening gap, Krugman sees an optimistic future, a demise of movement conservatism and a return to the politics of equality through universal health care. He points out that this is not socialized medicine but socialized insurance. The government program, Medicare operates efficiently with smaller administrative costs than major insurance companies, which have considerably higher operating expenses. The author's second point is that while racism still exists, it is not as deep as it was twenty years ago, and can no longer be exploited by movement conservatives. Equally important, he believes that Americans will eventually see that conservatism is of no advantage to them, only to the corporations and the wealthy.
Writing in a style and vocabulary that will not require the reader to carry a dictionary, this award-winning columnist and economist provides an interesting background of American populism, political history of America in the 20th century, and the remedy for the current politics of inequality.
It was a thoroughly enjoyable reading experience. It is worth every penny.
Book Review: Ignores the Elephant in the Room!
Summary: 3 Stars
Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal" is meant to lead future thinking the way Goldwater's 1960 "Conscience of a Conservative" did. Krugman's book presents data and thoughtful insight that combine to assert that Americans' economic status is heavily shaped by social norms, race relations, and politics - not just economic science. He also contends that, contrary to conservatives' elation over the 2004 election, liberalism is not dead - in fact it is poised for a comeback, especially if his suggestions for implementing universal health care, reducing income inequality (start by letting the Bush tax cuts expire), and strengthening unions are followed. Unfortunately, Krugman ignores the "elephant within the room" that overshadows any discussion of today's U.S. economy - escalating exports of American jobs. Nonetheless, "Conscience of a Liberal" is interesting and worth reading.
Krugman points out that income inequality today is as high as it was in the 1920s, and that this helps pull politics further to the right. Example: The campaign to repeal the estate tax has largely been financed by a handful of families with huge estates to protect. Forty years ago there weren't that many huge estates and the super-rich, such as they were, weren't rich enough to finance that kind of campaign.
He also contends that the logic that technological changes account for rising income inequality is weak. Even the most highly educated haven't seen large income gains - the big winners have been the top 1%. Further, the rise in U.S. inequality has no counterpart elsewhere in the advanced world.
How did we move from the inequalities of the 1920s to the relative equality of the 50s? Progressive income, capital gains, and estate taxes brought the share wealth of the top 0.1% from 20% in 1929 to about 10% in the mid-50's. In the addition, blue collar workers were helped by little foreign competition and immigration.
Krugman "credits" America's race relations with helping defeat national health care when President Truman first proposed it. Southern Democrats opposed the program because they feared it would integrate hospitals; Krugman also states that staunch AMA opposition was probably the main factor.
Krugman also contends that troubled race relations are a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state. Broadly speaking, the higher a state's proportion of blacks, the lower its social spending/person, even after taking levels of income into account.
His most interesting point involved explaining how Democrats lost control of Congress. More than all the Democrats net loss to Republicans from 1954 to 2004 took place in Southern states; Democrats actually gained seats outside the South. Thus, Krugman concludes that race mongering was essential to the ability of conservatives to win elections in spite of economic policies favoring the rich. (Krugman seems to minimize the effect of Evangelicals in the South - having traveled across the U.S. and within that area, I am less certain about minimizing their impact.) Regardless, his contention that Katherine Harris' purge of eligible Florida voters by striking purported felons (largely black) gave Bush the election is at least credible.
On health care, some argue against universal care on the grounds that it would be too expensive - yet Krugman points out that we already spend about 2X/person more than Canada, France, Germany, and Great Britain, and are ranked #37 by the World Health Organization on outcomes despite our #1 spending. Krugman alleges enormous health care waste due to insurers selective recruitment, differing rules, and scrutiny of expensive claims for rationale to disqualify those involved.
Finally, Krugman's suggestion on reducing income inequality - let the Bush tax cuts expire.
Book Review: Frisco
Summary: 2 Stars
Well, Krugman discusses some thought provoking issues. I don't agree with everything he says but I did consider his points. The issues about cutting the taxes of the rich are true but it was also true that the taxes were cut for everyone with a level of income above the poverty line. So, yes his argument is true but those of us in the middle class that received a lesser tax bill benefited as well. Is it okay for us (middle class) to enjoy a tax cut but the wealthy should not be allowed to enjoy a tax cut. I know some wealthy people who give a lot to charity each year - yes this reduces their tax bill, should they not give to charity? As the former chairman of the St. Jude Children's Research Miracle Mile in my community, I examined an interesting behavior. For volunteers, I had a lot of conscious liberals assist me pull off this event. They did an excellent job with making the event a success, however the large portion of money raised came from wealthy conservatives. We need both sides to make America great. We would not have raised as much money to support the Children's hospital in Memphis without the wealthy but we probably would not have raised the money from the wealthy without the conscious liberals dedicating their time and effort to make the event a success.
After reading " The Grapes of Wrath" and "The Worst Hard Times" both of which discuss the Great Depression and were great reads. I did not get the impression the FDR's New Deal was very successful. True it created jobs for very low wages for some people but not for the masses. Enough money for some to purchase bread. A lot of the New Deal initiatives failed and do not exist today. Although I believe FDR should be credited for trying which I have a great amount of respect for him today. Really, the country pulled itself out of the Depression when we joined the War effort and sending soldiers to Europe and the South Pacific. The women and those that were not able to fight had to go to work in the factories and after the War our country prospered. The author clearly weakened his argument to those with a bit of economic savvy by mentioning the New Deal. As Milton Friedman stated the "New Deal was the wrong cure for the wrong disease and the money supply should have been expanded, instead of contracted." In Monetary History of the United States, Friedman (Nobel Laureate) argues that Great Depression was caused by monetary contraction which was the consequence of poor policy making and the continuous crisis in the banking system. These are facts that caused issues with Krugman's arguments. Personally, I would rather pay lower taxes and a smaller federal government. I believe in the soverignty of the individual with owenership of private property being essential to individual liberty. True freedom does not require legislation that redistributes wealth. Liberty is for the whole which includes all citizens. To take away the liberty of an individual because of his economic status would be stripping that individual's freedom which muddies the water of the term liberal especially conscious liberal. I know many people in this country who declare themselves liberal really cross the lines of a liberal and should be considered a collectivist.
As liberals, we should not limit freedoms from the wealthy just as we want to ensure the liberty of the less fortunate. Those of us with the means should reach out to assist our fellow Americans who need assistance and serve our local communities. Lead by example and welcome all people to participate in acts of goodwill. As a true conscious liberal, I am not sure Krugman gets it but others declaring themselves liberal do not either. Perhaps the book should be named the Conscious Socialist.