Krugman's groveling

I gather Comrade Krugman has been compelled by progressive activism's Piety and Purity Patrol to publicly confess his accumulated transgressions of political reality-recognition. He ends his initial show trial of a column today in a fitting outburst of self-critical despair:  

In pointing out that we could be doing much more about unemployment, I recognize, of course, the political obstacles to actually pursuing any of the policies that might work. In the United States, in particular, any effort to tackle unemployment will run into a stone wall of Republican opposition. Yet that’s not a reason to stop talking about the issue. In fact, looking back at my own writings over the past year or so, it’s clear that I too have sinned: political realism is all very well, but I have said far too little about what we really should be doing to deal with our most important problem.

As I see it, policy makers are sinking into a condition of learned helplessness on the jobs issue: the more they fail to do anything about the problem, the more they convince themselves that there’s nothing they could do. And those of us who know better should be doing all we can to break that vicious circle.

Dear members of the ideological court, ladies of piety, gentlemen of purity, allow me, if you will, to be brutally but counteroffensively blunt here, in Comrade Krugman's defense.

His intentions were pure, during his recent and rather extended lapse of political realism. He meant no harm. He had only come to accept -- because of immovable reactionary forces -- that braying in each and every column about what should be done to reduce unemployment, when it was so thunderingly conspicuous to anyone paying any attention whatsoever that nothing would be done since it can't be done (see hyphenated clause) was all rather pointless.  

You see, ladies and gentlemen of the Progressive Purity Court, it had dawned on the Nobel mind of Brother Paul that he was beginning to sound like one of those most pitiable political beasts known to thinking man: No, it wasn't that he was sounding like a cable-TV progressive activist, although in that there would have been tragedy enough; no, it was much worse than that; yea, he was beginning to read like a progressive blogger, always belching and bloviating that we should do this and we should do that, while never pausing, not even for a singularly sobering breath, to acknowledge that that's not merely improbable, my friends, but unfuckingbelievably impossible. Conclusion: So what's the point?

Aye, you see, what occurred to Brother Paul, if I may speak on further behalf of my enormously chastened client, is that progressives must stop blathering about what should be done and they must start explaining instead how they can achieve a political launching point from which certain progressive things can be done. And that, of course, means toning down the progressively pious evangelism and cranking up the pragmatic trench-warfare of political reality.

Ah, I see from your aghast faces that my defense of Comrade Krugman's brief immersion in such reality isn't likely to carry the day. I know, I know, reality isn't much fun: it harbors few opportunities for transcendent self-righteousness and absolutely none for hallucinatory utopianism. My apologies.

Brother Paul, you're on your own. Go back to groveling.

Comments

[Alli]

I read parts of this article on another site. Needless to say the people commenting on the article aren't even close to recognizing political reality.

[Robert Lipscomb]

This seems to be a false choice. One should never limit himself what only seems possible today or pie in the sky thinking. Successful endevors usually incorporate both. One common management technique being over the past few years is BHAG (big harry ass goals) Management is taught to imagine goals outside their current realm of possible. But the second phase is to begin addressing the the real world pragmatic steps that get you there.

My BHAG is single payer healthcare. I realize that is not politically possible in the current political climate. So how does one change that climate? Well, by talking up the goal of single payer health care and by talking up the benefits of that system - until a majority agree and the climarte is changed.

[Beulahmo]

@Robert Lipscomb--

Your position is so obviously logical, I'm astounded that we don't hear it from our most conspicuous liberal/progressive activists. Is it because it's work that will involve time and persistence? Is it just too daunting for them? Or is it that they lack the skills for transmuting lofty goals into pragmatic steps?

[Robert Lipscomb]

@Beulahmo

It is the hard work of retail politics for political parties and political movements. one must keep restating and, explaining and justiying one's position. It might take years to work, but it will work.

For some time Lawrence O'Donnell repeatedly has been making the point to his Republican guests that Social Security and Medicare are socialist programs. Usually, the guest is silent because he knows he cannot criticize the two most popular government programs. If every progressive, to say nothing of every Democrat, repeatedly makes that point over the next five years, the word, "socialism", will lose its sting

[Beulahmo]

@Robert Lipscomb

Great observation! I will spread this little strategic bit to the people within my 'sphere of influence.'

Thanks! :-)

[R.C. Chile]

Democrats can't even keep control of Congress for more than two out of every ten years.Maybe after twenty or thirty years of responsible governing from the center then,maybe,they can once again shift to more progressive values.

[Peter John]

Do as the conservatives do: Talk it up, stay positive, stay on point. And if that doesn't work scream that the other side are meanies and are planning to destroy America.

What I mean to say is continue to advocate your procgressive position. Prepare a set of simple progressive talking points and talk them up. Support your local progressive politican with time and money. And vote and get your friends and relatives to also vote.

[Ed-words]

John Stuart Mill,Great Books author

and MP about 70 B.C.(Before Cars),

was happy to have his progressive

ideas just debated in Parliament,

with little chance of passage.

Today,Richard Dawkins,calls it

raising the "consciousness level."

[ronbo]

So you oppose Krugman because...? Oh, he didn't solve the problems for YOU. Your attack is another whine. At least Krugman has readers and follwers and logic and reason. All you have is a 2011 whine that lacks any kick. I'd call it grape juice, but it's more kool-aid from the right. Sorry, your solutions (whining loudly) seems to be your patient answer to all.

[the Duke of Dementia]

Well, my recommendation for a starting point is this:

Hey Republicans, TeaScrotes, Conservatrds...STFU and get in the back seat, you had your chance to drive and you fucked things up!

[Peter G]

It is commonly posted on many a left wing blog that Krugman should be the Obama administration's economic guru. As sympathetic as I am to Krugman's aspirations I can think of no one less politically adept. He just does not have a clue about politics.

[rjwalker]

LOL. Your name calling is pretty lame, but it is the pinnacle of the piece.

[Dorothy Rissman]

rjwalker, LOL. You call that a comment? I would call it a sixth grader taunting the teacher. Grow UP.

[Steve Martini]

Name another bulls*t commenter who has predicted the future better? We might not like him, but he has proven to predict the economic future of our county better than any republican so far!!!!

[Beulahmo]

@Steve Martini

I think you're missing the point. I think most of us LIKE Krugman and agree with his positions and know that he's got a great understanding of what's happened to the economy and what will likely reinvigorate the economy while closing the gap between rich and poor. What's frustrating is that he hasn't always given enough attention to political conditions. I'm not hating on him because of that -- he's an economist, not a political scientist. But he and his fans could help contribute to solutions if, when they talk about their vision of how things need to be, they would also talk about HOW we successfully move that vision through the political process.