Why We Need Krugman
Posted on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:38:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
By Big Tent Democrat
I always envisioned the progressive blogs and the progressive base as the Left flank of the Democratic Party, holding both our pols AND the Media accountable. The blogs have certainly held Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on issues, and I applaud them for that. But the blogs generally have not held Barack Obama's feet to the fire. Worse than that, they have not only NOT held the Media to account, too often they have echoed what Paul Krugman labels the Clinton Rules:
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
If folks wonder why I rail about the Media and the progressive blogs on this, I think Krugman offers an explanation:
I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.
For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.
For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.
But more important even than that for me is that we are not engaged in politics to see particular candidates triumph. We are engaged in politics to see particular ideas and issues triumph. When we accept, even echo, the biases of the Media, in order to serve a candidate we prefer, we debase our commitment to the issues we claim to care about.
Paul Krugman understands this and has spoken faithfully to his views on the issues and to basic fairness. He is wrong on many things. But he is not shading his views to support the candidate of his preference. He argues for his issues and supports candidates based on how he perceives the issues he argues for will be effected by particular candidates.
I repeat my mantra:
As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.
And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.
In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.
Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.
NOTE: Comments are now closed.
| < Monday Open Thread | Matthew Dowd: Obama Will Win the Nomination > |
