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: Shame
Summary: 2 Stars
This is never less than well-written, fluent, and earnest.
But, but, but... it's unsatisfying, profoundly unsatisfying, and unlikely to have much good effect on anything, I fear.
The problem is, Krugman falls into the same problem that a number of other liberals do - and fails to take seriously, or even treat honestly, the opinions and arguments and beliefs of conservatives. (And of course I am sure some conservatives often do the same with liberals). Any intellectual or imaginative attempt to do so seems, in this book, either beyond or merely beneath him; and so we are left with a well-intentioned manifesto for political action and belief spoken into a wall. People already on the same side as Krugman will hear it and take delight; people on the other side will understandably ignore him, or are unlikely even to hear it in the first place. Quite how that will be good for America - especially American unity - especially real and permanent advances in the quality of its civilisation - I cannot see.
I am a touch sympathetic with a number of his wishes (though a few, such as the general idea that government should always be equalising, especially financially, have the serious potential to be pernicious if extended very far), but he writes with one hand clasping a megaphone and the other clasping a gun which he is constantly discharging into his foot. I am sure you can justly accuse a small number of conservatives as being merely puppets for the rich, securing political measures for their benefit, living off their patronage, and falsely and perversely garnering electoral support from the poor to do so. But what about the fact that the rich disproportionately fund and vote Democratic? And what about the fact that the principle of liberty - of the maximum possible freedom of the individual from the government - is a demonstrably coherent and in many ways obviously laudable belief, which provides neither more nor less compassion, help or equality for all in America, than that which all people are genuinely willing, of their own rather than the government's volition, to contribute to.
Conservatives emphatically DON'T believe it's every man for themselves, and one should not be compassionate. They merely believe that it is immoral for the government to coerce this out of everyone. Conservatives would see man reform himself; liberals would see government assure man that there is no such need, as long as there are laws on the book that force him to pay into certain programs from time to time.
Krugman's book strikes a blow for his side, and there will be many more books striking blows for that, and the other side too, no doubt. But with each passing one - every one winding their own side up a little more, continually communicating the idea that the other side is a group of witless, devious monsters - the real chance of centrist, calm progress in America is delayed or scuppered even more.
Book Review: On Being a Liberal
Summary: 5 Stars
In this new book by economist and New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman, we are given an economic history of the last 135 years. But since it is less than 300 pages, it is of course not comprehensive, it focuses mainly on the issue of equality, or lack thereof. It is also a work of political history as it is about the Democratic and Republican stake in that issue.
As far as the economic history is concerned, it is not all that controversial. It is a liberal economist's history of inequality. Starting in the 1870's with what was commonly known as the Gilded Age, Krugmen argues that the period lasted until the New Deal, calling it the Long Gilded Age. It was a time of great inequality and bitter partisanship. Workers lived on subsistence wages with no social safety net and the rich simply got richer. The next era, called The Great Compression (1945-1975), was a time of relative equality and bipartisanship, it was the golden age of the middle class. (Read also Robert Reich's Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life (Borzoi Books).) Krugman's thesis is that the middle class was "created" through political action, not naturally, by the invisible hand, as conservatives would have it. Then sometime in the mid-1970's movement conservatives gained the upper hand in the Republican party, resulting the the Presidencies of Reagan and Bush II. The period is called The Great Divergence since once again there is great income inequality and bitter partisanship. The author argues that movement conservativism has again devitalized the middle class through political actions such as tax cuts for the rich, elimination of social safety nets, etc.
Krugman's political history is one in which the Democrats do no wrong and Republicans do all the damage. This part of the account is not very interesting nor very helpful. If the Republicans were behind the Long Gilded Age and the Great Divergence and the Democrats behind the Great Compression, a more interesting question would be: What are the causes behind one group's ascendancy over the other? Conservatives would argue that it was the result of market forces, Krugman counters that it's most political engineering.
Whichever the partisan reader believes, will probably determine whether they love or hate this book. My personal view of The Great Divergence is that it was a matter of demographics. As the the Baby Boomers entered the marketplace around 1980, they became more conservative, they wanted to keep more of their income. Now, as they enter retirement, they will become more liberal, they will lean more toward redistributive income. I agree with Krugman that we are entering a new liberal era, but for different reasons.
Book Review: Healthcare, Income Inequality, and the Welfare State
Summary: 5 Stars
This book is a great read for anybody willing to understand more about the liberal point of view on economic policy. The main subjects that Krugman touches on are income inequality, the ideas behind a welfare state, and a reasons why we need universal healthcare. These are currently hot topics in the summer of 2009, as Obama has raised taxes on the wealthy and currently is attempting to push through a form of nationalized healthcare.
I think that Krugman has laid down a good foundation for people to realize where liberals are coming from with their economic ideas. It seems like all you hear from political talk shows these days is that the United States is turning into a "socialist state" under Obama. A lot of people cringe at the word socialism, as they often associate it with an anti-Western mentality (like it used to be in China and in the Soviet Union). However, as Krugman points out, the idea of a Welfare State is not only beneficial to the recipients of the aid, but to the economy and society as a whole, as most of Europe can attest to these days. Krugman goes into detail about how income inequality has created political polarization in Washington. He attributes this situation to the fact that there is a shrinking middle class, and it seems that Democrats are siding with interest of people in poverty, while Republicans are keeping the interests of the wealthy as their first economic priority. This, in turn, has pulled the two parties apart more than ever, especially compared to the 1950's and 60's when there was a strong middle class, and bipartisanship wasn't so hard to come by. Krugman then goes into talking about the "movement conservatives" who have taken control of the Republican party (in the 1970's) and moved it as far to the right as it can. He then accuses these "movement conservatives" of trying to unravel the policies put in place by the New Deal, particularly Social Security and progressive taxes.
Once again I think this is a great read for anyone looking to find more meaning behind the liberal/progressive economic plans that are currently being put in place by the Obama administration, as Krugman holds many of the same positions. It is certainly a great book for liberals who agree with Krugman's point of view, but I would also encourage moderates and conservatives to take a look at it just to get a better understanding of the reasoning going into these liberal viewpoints. After all, it is one thing to denounce these views just because Rush Limbaugh told you so (plus he uses the scary "s" word), instead of actually taking the time to see what these opinions are all about.
[...]
SJL
Book Review: Excellent
Summary: 4 Stars
Silly me, as much as I've liked Paul Krugman's commentary in the _New York Times_ I didn't know until right before reading his book that hs is an economist. Economics has always been a subject I've been too timid to tackle, but Krugman writes so clearly that I can understand what he has to sayl
In this wonderful book, he explains the political economy of the US since what he calles the "Long Gilded Age" which extends to the Great Depression. He makes some fascinating points, all of which he backs up with research.
1) Income inequality is as high now as it was in the Long Gilded Age.
2) The middle class America that he and many of us grew up in did not come about naturally by the maturation of the economy, but was created by the New Deal policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
3) During the time of the strength of the middle class, bipartisanship was much more in evidence.
4) Movement conservatives have polarized the country by moving away from bipartisanship... the shift has not come from the Democrats moving farther left, but almost completely by the GOP moving sharply to the right.
5) Movement conservatives have tried to roll back the New Deal, and have succeeded in many ways, leading to new high levels of income inequality.
6) Income inequality leads inevitably to a lessening of democracy.
7) Issues of race played a key part in the success of movement conservatism.
8) Movement conservatism has taken over the Republican Party so that there are few non-movement conservatives left. They have been so successful because they have proved able to win elections.
Krugman sees reason to hope. Movement conservatism has become less attractive because it is rife with croneyism,, which leads to incompetence. Race is becoming less a factor as the country becomes more tolerant.
So Krugman asks what progressives should do now to increase democracy and lessen the effects of income inequality. He suggests the first step is to complete the New Deal by providing guaranteed universal health care. He then does a masterful job of explaining why the US health care system is no better than most others but costs so much more, and what it would take to fix it.
Despite all the belief that in America anyone can climb high, he shows that there is strong inequality of opportunity in the US, and he talks about ways of improving that.
Overall, the book is an excellent history of the US political economy since the 1920s, and a call to action by liberals to pursue policies to increase democracy and equality for all Americans.
Book Review: Worrying about widening inequality
Summary: 5 Stars
This book is valuable if for nothing else than as a counter to the extremes that the current Administration have pushed in public policy. It traces through three periods - the "Long Gilded Age", the "Great Compression", and the Reagan era of movement conservatives - to show some of the factors behind the shifting weight of economic inequality in American history. It ends on a partisan note - not exactly the best way to win over converts; but it does make some strong points about the way politics have affected economics, and there is an excellent chapter on the dire need to reform the health care system.
Whatever the precise figures are, it is quite clear that since the 1980s a wealthy elite has become considerably wealthier while the average American's inflation-adjusted income has stayed relatively the same. The division is growing to the point that the once relatively homogeneous society, in which the baby boomers grew up, is splitting more and more into haves and have-nots. Anyone who has any sense of history and cares about democratic institutions should be concerned about this deepening division. Concentration of wealth inevitably leads to a concentration of political power and then to injustice, which does not go hand-in-hand with democracy. We have seen some of the fall-out in the culture of corruption and crony capitalism - the influence of big money. The author makes the argument that the Horatio Alger success story has become more difficult to duplicate in this day. As the importance of influence increases, the importance of merit decreases.
The book may seem excessively one-sided with its continuous portrayal of the Republicans as being the party of exclusivity and greed and the Democrats fighting for the salt-of-the-earth American worker, but consider what has resulted from the alignment of big money with movement conservatism in taking control of the Republican Party. What we see here is more a perpetuation of an ideology that sustains itself through influence than a movement that is intent on coming to grips with real problems. The intelligentsia that spins out this ideology has become one big echo chamber due to well-funded think tanks. People who tow the line even if they blunder enormously, like Paul Wolfowitz, are rewarded. Write something in dissent or profess a disloyalty, like Bruce Bartlett against George W, and you find yourself looking for a job. Meanwhile, we have leaders who spin out fantasies about Iraq or the free markets, while what goes on beyond the babble, whether it be the surge or the subprime mortgage mess, appears to be quite different.