Krugman ran an article last week suggesting that Obama’s discussion of partisanship isn’t helpful:
But he then went on to say that partisanship is why “we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that’s what we have to change first.” Um, no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. If all goes well, we’ll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship — but that will be the end of the story, not the beginning.
Or to put it another way: what we need now is another F.D.R., not another Dwight Eisenhower.
You see, the nastiness of modern American politics isn’t the result of a random outbreak of bad manners. It’s a symptom of deeper factors — mainly the growing polarization of our economy. And history says that we’ll see a return to bipartisanship only if and when that economic polarization is reversed.
I wonder how Krugman feels about the following partisan rhetoric:
In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it – Social Darwinism, every man and woman for him or herself. It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford – tough luck. It allows us to say to the women who lose their jobs when they have to care for a sick child – life isn’t fair. It let’s us say to the child born into poverty – pull yourself up by your bootstraps
But there is a problem. It won’t work. It ignores our history. Our economic dominance has depended on individual initiative and belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity
And so if we’re serious about this opportunity, if we truly value families and don’t think it’s right to penalize parenting, then we need to start acting like it. We need to update the social contract in this country to include the realities faced by working women.
Or This:
I believe if the American people could truly see what was going on here they would oppose this nomination, not because she is African American, not because she is a woman, but because they fundamentally disagree with a version of America she is trying to create from her position on the bench. It is social Darwinism, a view of America that says there is not a problem that cannot be solved by making sure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It requires no sacrifice on the part of those of us who have won life’s lottery and does not consider who our parents were or the education received or the right breaks that came at the right time.
Today, at a time when American families are facing more risk and greater insecurity than they have in recent history, at a time when they have fewer resources and a weaker safety net to protect them against those insecurities, people of all backgrounds in America want a nation where we share life’s risks and rewards with each other. And when they make laws that will spread this opportunity to all who are willing to work for it, they expect our judges to uphold those laws, not tear them down because of their political predilections. Republican, Democrat, or anyone in between. Those are the types of judges the American people deserve. Justice Brown is not one of those judges. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this nomination.
Or This:
In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it – Social Darwinism, every man and woman for him or herself. It’s a tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford – tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job – life isn’t fair. It let’s us say to the child born into poverty – pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes that we will always be the winner in life’s lottery, that we will be Donald Trump, or at least that we won’t be the chump that he tells: “Your fired!”
But there a problem. It won’t work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it has been government research and investment that made the railways and the internet possible. It has been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools – that has allowed all of us to prosper. Our economic dominance has depended on individual initiative and belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity – that has produced our unrivaled political stability.
And so if we do nothing in the face of globalization, more people will continue to lose their health care. Fewer kids will be able to afford this diploma you’re about to receive.
Also here
Here
Here
Here
and
here
That’s a pretty biting critique of the Republican Party, one that I think FDR could approve. But if you are determined to not listen and instead do what bloggers are supposed to despise the most–eating only the media narrative, there isn’t much that can be done.
Kind of like insisting Obama didn’t want to withdraw from Iraq in 2005 by taking a quote out of context.
Here’s the Obama speech
I understand some of the worry about his speech calling for universal health care lacking details, but let’s remember, we are one year out from the first primaries and caucuses, he’ll have plenty of time to put together a plan.
ArchPundit