Krugman And The Rhetoric Of Obama/Reagan

by tristero

While utterly appalled by them, I’ve argued that Obama must have had his reasons for his vague remarks in praise of Reagan. I speculated that they were intended both to acknowledge and co-opt the Village’s myth of St. Ron of Hollywood. Krugman thinks it was more specific than that:

…Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.)

But Krugman does more than simply call attention to Obama’s motive. He makes it clear Obama’s remarks were quite disingenuous:

But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail.

Good point, and an example of Obama’s sheer genius at saying things in such a way that we assume he agrees with us. Simultaneously, Obama was unclear enough in his “declaration” to provide the impression that he only was discussing ephemera, ie, Reagan’s image, while also expressing enough admiration of that image to gain the editorial endorsement he needed.

Krugman doesn’t like this one bit:

I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.

Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.

Did you catch that? No? Read it again, and remember: Krugman’s as sophisticated a rhetorician in his own way as Obama:

I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration…

Got it now? Krugman criticized Obama by bashing Clinton. Krugman seems to be saying that for all his criticism of Obama, and he’s criticized him often, he is not going to give the Clintons, despite having approvingly quoted Bill earlier, any kind of unambiguous endorsement.

Krugman’s final point is that all the Dem candidates are missing an excellent opportunity to debunk the rightwing myths that have made it so difficult for liberal, Democratic, and even moderate candidates to wield national influence. I think that is absolutely true. But that is far more difficult for a serious national candidate to do than it is to say. Let’s not forget that in Krugman’s own paper serious people don’t include those favoring withdrawal from Iraq. That means that most of the world, including its political and cultural leaders, do not hold realistic-enough views on Iraq to be worthy of Mr. Gordon’s keen attention.

In other words, the “acceptable” mainstream discourse really is, as the liberal blogosphere has argued since time immemorial, incredibly restricted. It is doubtful that any potential candidate who criticized St. Ron of Hollywood would ever be granted the standing the press has willingly accorded the less-than-worthless Huckabee. To criticize Reagan is the height of unseriousness.

Of course, I’m not saying that’s appropriate. I’m saying that is how corrupted and claustrophobic our public discourse has become. I don’t think any candidate who dared to bash Reagan would receive that much coverage – good, bad, or indifferent. S/he’d be ignored.

As, I believe, Erich Fromm once said, free speech matters little if They own all the microphones.