Krugman in the Times today: "...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 think Krugman has been on the side of the angels for the last 8 years, and I heartily agree with much of what he has said in his columns during the Bush administration. But I disagree with him on this. The assertion that "history says that we’ll see a return to bipartisanship only if and when that economic polarization is reversed" is extremely shortsighted. Is Krugman stating that the last era of bipartisanship we experienced was in the 1950s, with the resurgent middle class? What about Joe McCarthy? And there are plenty of modern counter-examples: what about Tip O'Neill and Reagan in the 1980s? Clinton's two terms of bi-partisan cooperation with the Gingrich Congress on welfare reform, budget reduction, and a host of other topics? Wasn't economic polarization already happening back then?
There is an element of "true believer" in Krugman's tone, which goes like this: if only X would occur (e.g. the tax cuts be reversed, God reintroduced into public schools, the US pulls out of Iraq, etc.) then all would be good again and we could return to our noble state of social balance. But until that day comes, we will only have hatred, strife, ultimatums, and division -- and I will be the engine of those negative traits, because I believe so strongly in the righteousness of my cause. It's a version of the "no justice, no peace" argument -- because everyone has different visions of what justice entails, it becomes a recipe for perpetual conflict.
Krugman: "The history of the last few decades has basically been the story of the New Deal in reverse. Income inequality has returned to levels not seen since the pre-New Deal era, and so have political divisions in Congress as the Republicans have moved right, once again becoming the party of the economic elite. The signature domestic policy initiatives of the Bush administration have been attempts to undo F.D.R.’s legacy, from slashing taxes on the rich to privatizing Social Security. And a bitter partisan gap has opened up between the G.O.P. and Democrats, who have tried to defend that legacy."
This is a very simplistic caricature of the way politics works. The real reason why we have such a divided political culture right now is that it is a direct result of a clear strategy being promulgated by the White House and many in the Conservative movement. See the Halperin and Harris book The Way to Win for details. Clinton moved toward the center to build a centrist coalition, but Rove decided to go hard right to build a majority on one side of the spectrum. To say that recent attacks are a direct result of Democrats defending the New Deal is to cast what is primarily a strategic battle as an ideological right-vs.-might struggle that is better suited to Hollywood than the realities of the Beltway.
"What about the smear campaigns, like Karl Rove’s 2005 declaration that after 9/11 liberals wanted to “offer therapy and understanding for our attackers”? Well, they’re reminiscent of the vicious anti-Catholic propaganda used to defeat Al Smith in 1928: smear tactics are what a well-organized, well-financed party with a fundamentally unpopular domestic agenda uses to change the subject."
Insults have always existed. They come fast and furious every day of the week, as they always have. There are plenty of things to be insulted by -- Fox (and the blogosphere) have made an industry out of it, constantly tracking the insults bubbling up from one side or the other. But we choose how much focus we give to the insults. Reagan was attacked viciously in the 1980s, and Clinton was attacked viciously in the 1990s, but they both managed to focus their attention on what they wanted to achieve instead of the hateful rantings directed against them, and they achieved much in the way of bipartisanship as a result. Hateful publications and radio shows have been a part of the American landscape for years, but it's new for them to be at the top of the ratings. They'll never go away, but hopefully they'll start to slide back into unpopularity.
"...politicians who try to push forward the elements of a new New Deal, especially universal health care, are sure to face the hatred of a large bloc on the right — and they should welcome that hatred, not fear it."
Is seems that Krugman is arguing that the Democrats should behave much as the Republicans have behaved. The hated of the other side, through this lens, is a badge of honor to be worn with pride. But this is the argument of the true believer as opposed to the pragmatist. Hatred will inevitably corrode the pillars of our civil society, even if one has enough power to withstand it for some short period of time. What this country needs is to move beyond the politics of division and separation back toward a politics of unity. In this, Obama (as well as much of the Democratic leadership, fortunately) is way ahead of Krugman.