Good riddance to that cynical putz, Judd Gregg. And frankly, thank you very little Tim Geithner for your impenetrable, marble-mouthed “strategy”, which wasn’t exactly Viagra for concerned Americans’ confidence levels.
Let’s make a bold move that would really matter: nominate Paul Krugman. Not that he’d take it (why would he want to do this job?)
Today’s column in the NYT, here, illustrates, yet again, that the Krug has been right, about everything, for the last eight years. And here’s the thing: it’s not simply that his advice wasn’t heeded; that he didn’t get the attention of the appropriate people, it was that he was ridiculed and derided for being a naysayer, a party-pooper, a dud (Kind of reminds me of Al Gore and how his thoughts about the environment used to be received). Krugman’s overdue Nobel for Economics was poetic justice, but in practical terms, it was esentially posthumous; not for his death, but the death of our economy. And he was harping about it, all along. Indeed, Krug and Gore’s Nobel prizes are like bookends signalling the semi-return to rational thought that all but dissipated during the Bush era.
A few words about the whole Bush era thing. Lest anyone think this is an attempt to lay all the blame at one man’s feet, it most certainly is not. The catastrophic mismanagement of the last eight years could never conceivably be attributed to one individual. Rather, it required a large, dedicated cadre of misguided goons to pull off such epic suck. Seriously. Now that the economy is off the rails, it’s become easier to overlook how much dough we’ve spent in Iraq. And I’m as glad as any other American-hating Defeatocrat that conditions seem to have stabilized over there, but let’s not kid ourselves: by the time the accounting is completed, we’re likely to have spent more than $3 Trillion (here’s a sobering refresher course). For what? Here is what we’ve been reduced to hoping for (and what its architects and defenders are now crowing about): that it’s not an unequivocal fiasco. If it’s merely stable enough so we can quietly extract ourselves, it will be a wash (and, in the opinions of the aforementioned war-monkeys, a total success, vindicating the entire endeavor). Think about that. And so, naturally, it’s tough to stomach the austere hand-wringing by the Repubs over the current (ever-shrinking!) stimulus package. Now, after the bride has been vengeance-fucked by a gang of drunken bikers, they are considering the more dignified option of chastity (in this instance, the bride is our financial future). As is always the case with “conservative” Doppelgängers , once the Prom is over they are eager to embrace virtue, albeit with a hangover and guilty conscience.
What’s not to love about the Krug? It’s not just that he has been prescient on seemingly every issue (economic as well as foreign and domestic policy), it’s that he drives die-hard Republicans insane. Don’t make the mistake of equating the effect he has on Repubs to the effect, say, Newt Gingrich has on Dems. There is similar animosity, certainly, in both camps, but there is one crucial difference: in addition to being smarmy, smug and insufferable, Newt is also consistently, incredibly, reliably wrong on virtually every topic he pops off on. And boy does he pop off. Still, what makes this very small man such a large nuisance (and so easy to see through) is that practically everything he espouses is inexorably designed to augment his own agenda. He is irrevocably dedicated to creating more space, for himself. It is all about him, more so than it is for the average political blowhard. Where most politicians, to quote James Brown, are too often talkin’ loud and sayin’ nothing; he talks loud and says many things. They just happen to all be wrong. In fact, Newt is the anti-Krug. On every issue Krug gets in front of (and is able to articulate in ways that are reasonable, effective and most importantly, subsequently proven right), Newt gets wrong. Iraq? Check. The mid-term elections in ’06? Check. Anything having to do with the economy? Check. In fact, Newt is wrong on things Krug doesn’t even go near, like political handicapping. Think I’m joking? As anyone paying attention these last two decades could have predicted, he was a vocal cheerleader for the current Republican intransigence on the stimulus plan (let’s return to the video tape: Not a single Republican vote! That, in and of itself, is abundantly revealing, but what the Repubs, among other things, have just done is unanimously vote against what amounts to the largest middle class tax cuts in history. That might not play out, shall we say, to their satisfaction in 2010). His allergy to bi-partisanship under any circumstances is not what makes him unique, it is the way he combines being incorrect with the craven (and consistent) willingness to distance himself from his own pronouncements once they lay in ruins all around him. He, like many of his opportunistic ilk, could not have run away from Bush quickly enough once it was clear any association with him was toxic. He is, in short, his own unique and special entity, and I certainly hope he waddles front and center for the GOP in the years ahead, as it can only help us.
But getting back to Krugman: he irritates Republicans not simply because he tells the truth, but he tells it without allegiance to ideology or agenda. Unless you want to start calling “the truth” an agenda (and, now that I think about it, that is kind of what many Republicans did these last eight years, and as Stephen Colbert brilliantly pointed out, the truth has a discernible liberal bias). He is that increasingly rare entity: an economist who actually takes the time to taste the tea instead of just reading tea leaves. This requires intellectual rigor, hard work, and courage–something most economists (and just about all Republicans, and, frankly, more than a few Democrats on the scene right now) lack.
Krugman doesn’t need the honor, or aggravation, of being formally involved in any administration. His words will be listened to for the simple reason that they should be listened to. They demand attention. But it is in our collective best interest that we pay more attention, and do our part (in whatever way it’s possible–mostly by hoping Obama and his somewhat underwhelming front line of defense on economic matters pay close attention). There never seems to be a short supply of insider-types who monitor crises with one hand on their balls and one hand holding their own wallet (see: Paulson, Henry and Geithner, Timothy). Regrettably, despite the considerable promise the Obama administration presents, and the significant accomplishments already attained (how do you think that “stimulus” package would look if McCain was counting on Phil Gramm to help craft it? And that’s assuming there was even an interest in stimulating anything, other than more of the same egregious tax cuts that made this mess metastasize), there are some serious lightweights and old-school crusaders whose chief ambition is to maintain the status quo. Which would be: to maintain that expanding space between the have-nots and the have-mores. This is the one thing all of the old guard find intolerable. Let’s hope some better angels (we could settle for some mediocre angels) are able to step up and make the words meaningful and difference work simultaneously. It would be change, and not change everyone can believe in. Which is progress: the people who don’t believe in that type of change are the very people we can no longer afford to have obstructing the way forward.
