Why Krugman (and Edwards) are wrong
I was making some similar arguments about why Edwards' populism won't work and would only create a backlash just as it did after FDR's second term. Even though all liberals love FDR, the fact of the matter is that part of his legacy is the rise of conservatism. Same thing with Clinton, who wasn't even that populist. Part of Clinton's legacy is Bush. The only reason why most conservatives agree that FDR was ok is because he was a war president during a popular war, and people got rich from the war. Krugman might be a good economist, but he's a horrible historian.
Someone on the Barack Obama blog commented
"All the great reformers in history, FDR here, De Gaulle in France, Adenauer in Germany, even Hu Jintao in China today are masters in finding a common ground. They all have a vision and a plan, but was set them apart is their ability to bring people from opposite or diverse backgrounds to translate this vision in to reality. FDR was known for his brain trust. De Gaulle was a conservative who had communists in his government."
There are also many many examples of backlash and the failure of populism in modern Chinese history. Yes, that's right, the Communists were populist.
No comments:
Post a Comment