TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 12:15 AM
November 19, 2008 | 5:54 PM
November 19, 2008 | 5:27 PM

November 19, 2008 | 11:20 PM
November 19, 2008 | 9:29 PM
November 19, 2008 | 4:23 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
04.02.2008
Krugman's Inner Rovian

Paul Krugman says:

I believe that universal health care has to be THE central item in a progressive agenda--not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because of its political economy implications. As I explain in Conscience of a Liberal, Republicans went all-out in 1993 to block health reform because they feared that success would reinvigorate the progressive agenda. And they were right.

This is troubling. Imagine you're a Senate Republican. You think the health-care system is getting a bit out of control, and you find it unacceptable that 45 million Americans lack health insurance. So you're thinking about signing on to Ron Wyden's universal-coverage bill, as five of your GOP colleagues have already done. Then, along comes Krugman to tell you, oh, by the way, Kristol was right in 1993--if we get our foot in the door by passing health care, you can count on a broader Kucinichization of America. What are you gonna do? Chances are, you'll be a lot less likely to support the bill.  Krugman continually insists Republicans will fight universal coverage tooth and nail at every turn, and then frames the issue in such a way as to ensure that they will.

Now, obviously, a lot of liberals would like to use health care as a springboard for other items on their wish list. But given the painful history of universal-coverage proposals and the momentum the issue has now, it seems like a grave mistake to tie it to a whole bunch of less-popular stuff on the agenda. (Unless, of course, you're supremely confident that the Democrats will pick up enough Senate seats as to render Republican support unnecessary--but that's a huge gamble. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it, a big health-care reform bill "passes with 75 votes or not at all.") The right strategy would be to reassure Republicans that universal coverage isn't the first step towards a single-payer system, huge new taxes, and a dramatic expansion of the welfare state in other areas.

It always surprised me that Karl Rove would constantly brag about how privatizing Social Security was the opening salvo in a piece-by-piece demolition of the social safety net--and then he proclaimed himself shocked, shocked when Democrats showed no interest in helping Bush partially privatize Social Security. It would be a bitter irony if universal health care were to elude our grasp again because liberals made the same mistake.

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Monday, February 04, 2008 10:47 AM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

virginiacentrist said:

My theory on Krugman:

1. He was incensed when the Obama campaign pointed out that he'd praised their healthcare plan.

2. He gets tons of hate mail from Obama fans that further fuels his anger.

3. He's in constant contact with the Clinton campaign, which has provided him with talking points for his columns (which are ready made for mail pieces).

February 4, 2008 11:22 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Sigh. Krugman on economics might be the best op-ed writer in America now. Krugman straying from a strict focus on economics as such is the liberal Fred Barnes. Plus, the name-dropping of his book is reaching Friedmanesque proportions.

I worked for the senator Krugman stole his book title from during the Hillarycare debate, and I'm sorry but Krugman's history is just plain wrong. Democrats didn't need any Republican votes to pass health care reform in 1993 or 1994. Democrats in fact managed to pass the critical budget that put us on the path to a surplus without a single Republican vote. Democrats, not Republicans, killed that reform, and they did it mainly because of Hillary's Cheneyesque irresponsibility and Bushian incompetence in managing the issue.  

Krugman's preference for Hillary on health care is exactly as sensible as would be his preference for George W. Bush on the hurricane-recovery issue.

February 4, 2008 11:22 AM

purcellneil said:

Josh,

If, as you say, these Republicans really find it unacceptable that 47 million Americans lack coverage, isn't it hard to believe they would oppose the legislation out of a vague generalized fear of what might come next on the liberal agenda?  Isn't it more likely that they would recognize that such a propgram would reduce the financial resources available to Democrats for other liberal projects?  

You compare health insurance reform with social security, but these are very different proposals.  The privatization of social security proposed by President Bush would have reduced retirement security for millions of Americans -- it was objectionable on its face to most liberals, and our opposition did not require any Rovian connections to other conservative projects.

President Obama will run on a platform that embraces a number of priorities and policy proposals - these will be no secret from the Republicans.  If Obama were to promise not to make any changes beyond his health care proposal, he wouldn't win the Democratic nomination, and many Democrats would be looking for a third party candidate (or even to John McCain) as an alternative.

We have seven years of Bush-DeLay government to roll-back.  There's no point pretending that we can fool Republicans about our intentions.

Neil

February 4, 2008 11:28 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Neil,

Really? Democrats won't vote for Obama if his health care plan "only" insures all adults who want insurance and all children regardless of their parents' preference?

Because it had never before occurred to me that the problem with American health care is that the government hasn't ordered everyone to get health insurance. All this time, I had thought that the problem was that health care is too expensive, and decent insurance to defray costs is also too expensive.

Obviously, the most economical and fair system would be universal single-payer. But that's not on offer this year. So the difference between Hillary and Obama really does boil down to whether you think the core problem is the lack of state coercion or high prices. And frankly, I just don't know any Democrats who believe it's the former rather than the latter. Do you?

February 4, 2008 11:44 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Neil,

Never mind. I now see how I misread your operative sentence there. And you're right. My bad.

February 4, 2008 11:45 AM

dbhuff said:

This is where Obama takes the sting out of a Republican who supports this change...even makes it palatable.  Krugman, smart tho he is, is just as partisan as anyone in politics.  He ranks up there on the partisan scale with Rush or Hannity.  Its not about how to get things done, its about how to ram my agenda down your throat...

February 4, 2008 11:47 AM

teplukhin2you said:

As a political strategist, Krugman's an ace economist.

A pity the guy degrades himself with these columns. Coulda been a contenda for a Nobel. Note to Paul: they make exceptions for radical playwrights and poets. They don't make exceptions for economists who abandon economics for partisan hackery.

February 4, 2008 2:18 PM

blackton said:

rhubarbs, right on about your sentiments, if wrong at who you directed them against. I have been beating this horse for a long time, the problem with our health care system is not the few young people who can afford to buy insurance but don't, due to life circumstances or stupidity, but the millions of low income people who can't afford it and whose jobs do not provide it. Mandates are a stupid distraction in our fight for these people. Let us fight for these people first, and let the Republicans fight against.

February 4, 2008 2:54 PM