In the 10/29 Guardian: "Cuomo: The founding fathers apparently didn't like parties, and so how about this whole notion that - of ideologies that take the form of particular parties? Is that a good thing for us, do you think?
Krugman: I think it's unavoidable. I mean, I think the - you know, if you're going to have a more or less democratic system, people will have to get together and have to - you know, would you rather that people run for office just saying, trust me, I'm a great guy. We actually sort of did that in 2000, and it didn't work out so well, right? Or would you rather have them spelling out what they believe in, what it is they intend to do, and that means essentially parties and partisanship.
You know, my great hero is Franklin Delano Roosevelt and he was an intense partisan. He said of the people who were opposed to him: I welcome their hatred. And yet he created a more - not just a more equal, but eventually a more harmonious society than we've had before. So, you know, partisanship for its own sake is a bad thing, but partisanship - gee, I'm almost going to sound like Barry Goldwater here - partisanship in the defence of liberty is no vice.
Cuomo: Maybe I'm not going to give the answer to you. My job is the questions, but this question what an alternative might be - maybe an alternative would be a society where you argue only about the issues and what distinguishes you is where you are on Iraq, where you are on middle class, where you are on healthcare - what you said in an important part of your book - as distinguished from what you purport to be for in some broad sense, called an ideology.
Krugman: Well, except those things amount to an ideology. I mean, it's very clear. Right now, we have - you can say it's certainly for better or for worse, but the two parties represent clearly different ideologies. We know no Republicrats in this world right now. We have Democrats at least all to some degree believe in the power of government to do good. They believe in collective action. The Republicans believe that lower taxes and less regulation are the answer to all problems. Those are ideologies. People sort themselves out.
The only thing I have a concern about it whether voters will actually be informed about the differences on issues. The worst thing I can imagine is that we have, as we have had in several recent elections, a blur in which the news media don't really tell people where the candidates stand, and instead make it all into personality traits.
Cuomo: I think - something I learned recently looking up the meaning of ideology. If you look in American encyclopaedias, it says, you know, rules for - basic rules for a system of economics or politics. If you look in the Oxford, it says that and then it says ... despite - and people will hold these propositions despite events. In other words ... (laughs)
Krugman: OK.
Cuomo: It's a rule that never changes on circumstance.
Krugman: Yeah, my other great idol from the 20th century is John Maynard Keynes, who when someone challenged him about his having changed his views, he said, when I receive new evidence, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?
Cuomo: (Laughs.) Yeah, right. Now, when it came to Bill Clinton -and you certainly you know him well and know his work well. And I think you said in the book at one point that he didn't have any real strong liberal credentials, nor certainly conservative credentials. You couldn't label him as either.
Krugman: Well, you know, I was - I mean, clearly his values I would have described as liberal, but he didn't come into the strong view about exactly what the role of government should be. I don't know what you think; I think of it as a liability. I think in the end - not so much him. It's not a critique of him. I think that we did not have a well-defined progressive movement when he came into office, and that that was a great handicap - that the other side knew what they wanted and the people who voted for and supported Bill Clinton were not so clear on what they wanted and he didn't have a clear agenda as a result.
Cuomo: Yeah, and you made that point in the book that he didn't have an agenda and therefore he didn't leave a legacy, really. And I think you're right about that. But most people - I'm not sure you did - but most people, I think, would say he had a good record.
Krugman: Oh, he has a terrific - he did a terrific job of governing, and you know, we forget - we forgot when we - when Bush came to the White House, we forgot how important it is simply to take the business, to take the job of running the US government seriously. So you look at - Fema was a prized, a much-honoured agency under Clinton - fell apart. The veterans administration was a morass when he came to office - became the best healthcare system in America. So it's - no - you know, if we could - I want that competence back, but I think we also need to have a clear direction.
Cuomo: See, that puts us in an interesting position. If we admit that he was competent and had a good record - and he had a very good record, he left us with a $5.4 trillion potential surplus - but that, you know, there was internet and globalisation, a lot of other things came to his aid, so there was coincidence working there. But if you assume, OK, he's not a real liberal. He wasn't markedly liberal or markedly conservative, and he winds up in good record, why don't we look for another such person now in 2008? Why should we look for a liberal?
Krugman: Well, partly because there was undone business. In fact, Clinton did fail to get us a universal healthcare system and that's terribly important and that was a huge missed opportunity. You know, by the time we finally do get it even on optimistic grounds, it will have been 17, 18 years that tens of millions of people who should have had health coverage won't have had it.
And also some of his achievements, it turned out, were squandered. Wouldn't we rather that Bill Clinton had managed to put in place some new institutions that would make America a better place rather than pay off a lot of debt so that George Bush could come in and run it up again?
I mean, in some sense, you want a more enduring legacy because you want something that will persist. The great thing - again, I'm going to go into my FDR worship again - but the great thing about FDR is he created institutions - social security, unemployment insurance, minimum wages - that all survived till this day despite the assaults of people who, you know, wished that it had never happened.
Cuomo: The - maybe this is simplistic, but my favourite historic figure on ideology is Abraham Lincoln, mostly because he was able to reduce everything into little capsules that seemed to make sense, and on the question of ideology, his popular - the most popular quote that I can find is: "Government as the coming together of people to do collectively what they couldn't do as well through the market system privately." And that, it seems to me, is perfect: that if the market works to educate other people or to give them healthcare, then fine. You don't need government, but - [laughs] - it just doesn't work to do those things and so you do need government..."
I think the biggest gulf in the Democratic party right now is the split between those who want a strong Progressive president, which is really the liberal counterpoint to the Bush years, or those who want a competent technocrat president, who want to end the partisan back and forth. I must say I'm slanting toward the latter, which is why I am supporting Obama. But I can see why the Krugmans of the world want a strong Progressive movement (ideological) candidate, because this is their only chance to get one in office. When viewed in this light, I can see how Hillary appeals to both camps.