It should not be a surprise that Krugman has taken this tack now. He's a New Yorker, arguably one of the most popular who writes for New York City's most prestigious newspaper, the New York Times. The New York primary is fast approaching, and Sanders has been steadily eating into Clinton's pledged delegate lead, Wisconsin's being the most recent. The victory itself was not the biggest problem for Clinton. The biggest problem was that She was up by 6 points in the week before the primary, to lose it by 13.5 points, an almost 20 point swing, and a clear demonstration that Bernie's momentum is not waning. It's only getting stronger at the worst possible time for the Clinton campaign. This has caused Krugman to use his popularity and influence over the next couple of weeks to throw shade at Sanders as much as possible. A successful primary for Sanders in Clinton's home state (yes, carpet-bagged, but still) on April 19 could pose bigger problems than the outcome itself, if it causes the superdelegates to start entering the conversation, which is Clinton's biggest fear.
"The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises? Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point."
This is not exactly true. These are not non-Wall Street institutions when they are publicly traded. And Wall Street was very much in bed with big banks during the crisis. The repeal of Glass-Steagal, which existed to keep commercial banks and investment banks separate, allowed these institutions to merge or be bought as a subsidiary. Even in the predatory lending portion, Wachovia and Washington Mutual were eaten alive for their share of the sub-prime mortgage and credit default swap market. Bank of America bought Countrywide. These institutions are not mutually exclusive.
"You could argue that policy details are unimportant as long as a politician has the right values and character. As it happens, I don’t agree. For one thing, a politician’s policy specifics are often a very important clue to his or her true character — I warned about George W. Bush’s mendacity back when most journalists were still portraying him as a bluff, honest fellow, because I actually looked at his tax proposals. For another, I consider a commitment to facing hard choices as opposed to taking the easy way out an important value in itself."
This is a very interesting spin. I do believe character matters more. And the roots of Sanders' policy desires lie in a more even playing field for everyone, and curbing the uber-wealthy's exploitation of an imbalanced tax system to widen the wealth gap. But more interesting is Krugman's little tilt at the end there, "taking the easy way out." Really? Sanders is taking the easy way out? No one could have chosen a more difficult way than Bernie. He has used socialist buzzwords that have demonized him from the start. If anyone is taking the easy way out, it would be Hillary, hoping to maintain the establishment status quo. Selling out has never been so easy.
"But in any case, the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues. It’s one thing for the Sanders campaign to point to Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street connections, which are real, although the question should be whether they have distorted her positions, a case the campaign has never even tried to make. But recent attacks on Mrs. Clinton as a tool of the fossil fuel industry are just plain dishonest, and speak of a campaign that has lost its ethical moorings."
Bernie did not have to make the case that Hillary's positions have been distorted by her Wall Street connections. Elizabeth Warren already did that - sliced and diced Hillary on her complete reversal of position on the banking reform bill in 2005. As for her connections to the fossil fuel industry, Bernie did not make that correlation. Greenpeace did. Bernie only mentioned it as an example of allegiances beyond just Wall Street that could be damaging to the country's economy, and he quoted Greenpeace to do it.
"And the timing of the Sanders rant was truly astonishing. Given her large lead in delegates — based largely on the support of African-American voters, who respond to her pragmatism because history tells them to distrust extravagant promises — Mrs. Clinton is the strong favorite for the Democratic nomination.
Is Mr. Sanders positioning himself to join the “Bernie or bust” crowd, walking away if he can’t pull off an extraordinary upset, and possibly helping put Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the White House? If not, what does he think he’s doing?"
As I mentioned, Bernie has been cutting into Hillary's pledged delegate lead. And her lead is not large, unless you count the superdelegates, as Krugman clearly does. He obviously does not think superdelegates are malleable if the pledged delegates become a tight race. As for the ridiculous canard that Sanders is joining the "Bernie or Bust" crowd, he's already said more than once that he will support Hillary if she becomes the nominee. But Krugman is not looking for reality. New York's primary is coming, so the narrative needs to shift as quickly as possible. So quote Bernie out of context when you need to paint him one way, then ignore his actual quote when you need him to be something he's not.
No comments:
Post a Comment