The Essential Krugman: "Centrism Is for Suckers"
by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times:
If you want to understand the state of America today, a good place to start is with the contrast between the political strategies of conservative business advocacy groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and those of more or less liberal advocacy groups like the Sierra Club.
The chamber recently got into trouble because of ads it ran praising Republican[s] ... who, it said, voted for the Medicare prescription drug program. It turned out that one of the congressmen ... actually voted against the program, while two others weren’t even in Congress when the vote took place.
Oops. But the bigger question is, aren’t business groups supposed to favor fiscal responsibility and reducing the size of government? So why is the chamber praising a program that substantially increases the size of government and has no visible means of financial support?
The answer is obvious: the ... chamber, like many conservative organizations these days, believes that its interests are best served by helping Republicans win elections. ...
If you want an even starker example, consider ... that the National Federation of Independent Business, the small-business lobby, is supporting the bizarre, hybrid ... legislation... rais[ing] the minimum wage while sharply cutting taxes on very large estates.
From a small-business owner’s point of view, this ... makes no sense. Many ... small businesses believe, rightly or wrongly, that they would be hurt by a rise in the minimum wage. Meanwhile, ... if current law had applied in 2000, only 135 small business estates would have paid any tax... But ..., like the chamber, the federation believes that its interests are best served by acting as a loyal servant of the Republican electoral effort...
Now compare this with the behavior of ... the Sierra Club, the environmental organization, and Naral, the abortion-rights group... [B]oth ... have endorsed Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, for re-election. The Sierra Club ... defended the Chafee endorsement by saying, “We choose people, not parties.” ...
But while this principle might once have made sense, it’s just naïve today. Given both the radicalism of the majority party’s leadership and the ruthlessness ...[of] its control of the Senate, Mr. Chafee’s personal environmentalism is nearly irrelevant...; the only thing that really matters for the issues the Sierra Club cares about is the “R” after his name.
Put it this way: If the Democrats gain only five rather than six Senate seats this November, Senator James Inhofe, who says that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” will remain ... as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And if that happens, the Sierra Club may well bear some of the responsibility.
The point is that those who cling to the belief that politics can be conducted in terms of people rather than parties — a group that also includes would-be centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman and many members of the punditocracy — are kidding themselves.
The fact is that in 1994, the year when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party, things fell apart, and the center did not hold. Now we’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship.
The Sierra Club Responds to Paul Krugman
Note: From a link in the comments to Paul Krugman's column, here's the Sierra Club's response:
A Response to Paul Krugman, by Carl Pope, Sierra Club: The Sierra Club, unlike Paul Krugman does not believe that it is naïve to reward leadership. Nor do we think that all politics comes down to whether you have a D or an R after your name on the ballot. Senator Lincoln Chafee earned our endorsement for his courage in standing up to the bullies in the Republican leadership, for transcending the polarizing sound-and-light show that passes for politics these days, and for hewing true to his core beliefs. Championing the protection of the legacy we leave our children cannot remain a partisan issue -- we are all sweltering under the same sun this summer.
The value of the Sierra Club's endorsement -- to environmentally concerned independents, Republicans, and Democrats alike -- is that it tells voters where a candidate stands on values they cherish. If a voter wants to know who the Democrat is in a race, they don't need the Sierra Club to tell them. Our job is to reward conviction, applaud leadership, and promote progress made in cleaning up the air and water and in preserving our wild lands and wildlife -- no matter which side of the aisle we find it on.
Indeed, in political races all over the country where the Sierra Club happens to be endorsing Democrats who share Lincoln Chafee's values on the environment, right-wing campaign managers have tried to blunt the power of our message by saying that we are simply "a knee-jerk arm of the Democratic party." Paul Krugman, ironically, would like us to make the jobs of these people easier.
And to set the record straight -- because of the committee seats he holds and the influence that he wields as a member of the Republican majority -- Senator Chafee has been extremely effective in stopping President Bush's polluting "Clear Skies" plan and in blocking efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.
At the Sierra Club, we value performance above party affiliation. We stand up for the people who have stood up for us and for the environment. And we are proud to stand with, and behind, Senator Chafee.
And, in a follow-up to today's column in Money Talks, Krugman adds:
Centrism, Schmentrism, Money Talks: ...Paul Krugman: My point wasn't that Chafee is a bad guy (and I'm not allowed to make election endorsements, anyway — officially, you have no idea whom either David Brooks or yours truly wants to win the midterms.)
The point, instead, is about the nature of the political environment. Take the six most liberal Republican senators, and replace them with Democrats who, as individuals, are considerably more conservative; the result would still be a dramatic shift of the political scene to the left. Take the 16 most liberal Republican members of the House and replace them with conservative Dems, and we'd be living in a transformed political universe. Conservative organizations seem to understand this; many liberal groups apparently don't.
posted by Richard at
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home