|
There was an attempt to provide national health insurance to all Americans back in the 40s and 50s. I hope he is right, but I still have my doubts. In black precincts, there were so few, that people there had to stand in line for hours, if they were patient enough. One example in 2004, the Ohio Secretary of State, the person in charge of elections, was George Bush's state director. Yet, today most Republicans want to roll back social programs.In 1968, Lyndon Johnson was in the middle of a mess in Vietnam and decided not to run for re-election. We need to be careful or the Republicans will do the same this year.Ronald Reagan, the person many Republicans admire, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it would be "humiliating to the South".
The author feels health care has to be the top priority for Democrats.Another survey question had to do with the size of government. Richard Nixon exploited the war to his favor and won the election. He talks about the results of polling over the years. The author suggests that the main reason why Republicans have been so successful up to this point is based on their ability to use the race card. He told people it would be "stupid" to roll back the New Deal. "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so." By the time Reagan ran for president, he did a very good job of using the race card to scare white folks, but he did so subtly few noticed it.The author warns us that today there really is a "vast right wing conspiracy" in the form of conservative think tanks. The CEO, of one of the major companies that makes voting machines, told George Bush that he would do everything we could to make sure Bush was re-elected. Then four years later, he was able to turn an unpopular war to his advantage again, because he was able to convince the voters that McGovern's call for withdrawal was irresponsible and weak.
He says in 1972, 37% of the people wanted a government plan to cover medical costs and 35% opposed. Over 20 years later, 20% wanted a smaller government and 43% wanted a bigger government.Eisenhower won in 1952 partly because of being a war hero, partly because people wanted out of the Korean War, but also because he talked about "moderation". (Sounds good but have we forgotten about what happened to Congressman Harold Ford who ran for US Senate from Tennessee. Many Southerners opposed the plan because they felt if it passed, it would force hospitals to admit blacks. This is from the Texas Republican Party platform.
The author talks about previous elections and how they are different from today. On the issue of whether people approve of inter-racial marriage, in 1978 only 36% approved. After Republicans aired racists and sexist ads against Ford, he lost. They also state in the same document they pledge to "dispel the myth of separation of church and state".The author also warns us that Republicans are very good at voter suppression. By coincidence ()., in white precincts there were more voting machines than they needed. Oral Roberts University.
The more percentage of black people, the less that state spends on social programs. When he ran for governor, one of his platforms was to abolish the state fair housing act. Over 30 years later, the figures are 42% in favor and 27% opposed. Bob Jones University.No.
Though I wondered what kind of drugs he uses, nevertheless he did make some interesting points.One reason why he believes this has to do with health care. Another example was in 2000, the Republican Secretary of State in Florida was their state's Bush director. Though there are liberal think tanks, they pale in comparison to the conservative ones. I don't understand how after all these examples, there are folks, who think Obama can win.But, the author gives us hope. Georgia passed a law forcing all voters to present a government issued ID knowing that many poor folks (read Democrats) wont bother. He feels there is hope for liberals.The author makes a claim, with what he thinks is proof, that the electorate is becoming more and more liberal. She just told county election officers to stop counting after Bush was ahead.
She also purged many people from the polls that shouldn't have been. 700 Club. "We believe that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders."Focus on Family. In 1972, 32% wanted a smaller government and 25% wanted a bigger government.
By 2007, the figure was 77%. "Keeping black people out of hospitals was more important.than providing poor whites with the means to get medical treatment." The author points out that the percentage of black people in a state has a direct correlation to how much that state spends on social welfare programs. The author strongly suggests that if Obama is the Democratic nominee, the Democrats can forget about any southern states.What organization has the following as part of their document of principles. He believes because there is a larger percentage of minorities and less number of racists, a candidate like Obama could win. This was just a little over a year ago).The author believes that liberals are becoming back in favor again.
As expected from a Nobel prize winner, Krugman has put together a well researched book, that explains much of how the US economy came to be how it is at the start of the 21st century. Seriously, this book is that good. If you are at all interested in Economic history, or political history, you owe it to yourself to read this book. He also explains why this should not be the current state of affairs and how to fix it. If only the politicians today had as much courage as he does to do the right thing.
Lastly, I agree with the author that our country could tolerate somewhat higher taxes on the "ultra-rich" without significantly impairing market-based incentive forces and the entrepreneurial spirit. Thankfully Krugman doesn't say anything about raising corporate taxes, which would result in reduced reinvestment, reduced growth, and reduced hiring. Thankfully, Krugman doesn't hint at raising corporate taxes. Why. 7) In general, the notion that the rich become richer at the expense of the poor is overly simplistic.
However, despite all that, there are a number of important areas where I disagree or take issue with some of the author's assertions:1) Krugman seems to yearn for the day when "A worker protected by a good union, as many were, had as secure a job and often nearly as high an income as a highly trained professional". economy to rely more on high technology and highly technical workers. Not to mention that it's nearly impossible to fire somebody in France if you need to, which results in reduced hiring and a lack of negative consequences for poorly performing employees. I am all for Krugman's ideas to clean up the tax loopholes that allow hedge fund managers to pay a lower rate. 2) I think Krugman is stretching quite a bit with his theory that the primary reason voters continue to vote republican, even when it's obviously not in their economic self interest, is due to race. Globalization results in lower prices for consumer products, and the poor benefit disproportionately from these lower prices.
As Krugman himself points out globalization has caused the U.S. Be careful about raising the capital gains tax too much, that could stifle private investment. Krugman definitely lambasted a handful of prominent "movement conservatives", but did so in a way that didn't offend me. This was a very interesting read, and being somewhat of a libertarian and leaning rightward on all things fiscal or economic, I walked away from reading "Conscience of a Liberal" with a greater understanding of the liberal viewpoint. Also, I found this book to have perhaps the most clear and succinct distillation of the healthcare issue that I've been able to find anywhere. If busting your butt to study hard, go to school, and study a difficult field in college is going to get you the same rewards as a job doing menial labor, where has the incentive gone to catch our workforce up to the 21st century. but doesn't elaborate. I don't think the author has ever found himself stuck in a French city when he needed to be somewhere else, because the entire country was on strike, as I have.
5) Why should France be the ideal we should be aspiring to achieve. 8) I wish Krugman would have talked more about educational opportunity (he did make a brief reference to free college for everyone in France). Several times he hints at the need to achieve salary parity between high and low skilled workers. Maybe that's because I share Krugman's disgust at the takeover of the republican party by the religious right.
I'm guessing because these methods aren't progressive enough for the author. (However, perhaps part of that is because I also just finished George Lakoff's "Moral Politics", which was interesting and highly recommended). And don't get me started about the gross inefficiencies in the numerous state-owned industries.6) Krugman tries to tell the reader that the huge decline in union membership since the 50s is because of illegal and coercive measures used by republicans. Is that really fair, and even if it were, does that make sense.
As another reviewer pointed out, the South's switching over to the republican party probably has more to do with religion than race. Unions run amock is one of the big causes for the current sorry state of Detroit, what with the unbelievable "legacy costs" of the big-3 due to excessively lavish retirement plans and disproportionate hourly wages. In fact, I would also say that I have greater tolerance now for liberal policies and the welfare state in general. Meritocracy will win every time, and unions stifle meritocracy. The real reason unions are in decline is because of the vastly improved labor-management relations compared to 50-70 years ago, not to mention the broader range of benefits offered by most employers, and the simple fact that the better, more motivated workers are tired of being passed up for promotion by others, only because they have more seniority. Assuming you can give everybody equal opportunity up to that point, from there we need to let the market work freely to encourage people to focus on areas that need the most attention.Despite these criticisms, I enjoyed this book immensely and learned a great deal. If you really want to reduce "inequality", we need to make sure everyone, regardless of background, has the opportunity to excel in life and get a good education (but that's about where I stop). This however ignores the cultural differences between Americans and Europeans, in that Americans have very poor diet and exercise habits relative to Europeans, and Americans seem more obsessed with pills (this comes from my own personal experience spending several years in multiple countries living in Europe, where, for the most part, somebody will only take an aspirin if they are in excruciating pain).4) Taxes: why so little mention of implementing a VAT tax or use tax.
I feel I have a better handle now on what the "problems" really are. And to suggest that somehow the rich are getting richer by taking money that is really due lower-paid workers is very crude analysis. We desparately need more engineers and scientists, and we need people to start having more interest in those subjects at an earlier age. 3) Krugman makes the point over and over again that we should be able to achieve nationalized healthcare just like Europe, with comparable costs per person. Krugman should know that economics is not a zero-sum game, especially in the age of globalization. I encourage other right-leaning students of political economy to give it a chance.
Krugman is logical and makes perfect sense throughout the book. One of the best books I've ever read. I had to read it for class and I am forever grateful to my professor for assigning it. When people ask me why I am a liberal I often find myself quoting parts of the book and lending out my copy to my moderate friends who don't understand my viewpoints. I recommend this book to anybody.
I recommend reading the book from cover to cover, but be skeptical. Racism explains the switch in the 60s from left to right in the south, but it doesn't follow that that's why southerners vote Republican these days.
In that respect, this book is fantastic and is totally worth the price. I read this book primarily for the information about median income, and the creation of the middle class.
The latter is perhaps harder to refute, but I've never seen any reputable information regarding chronic voter fraud by the Republican party, and--though I disagree with Republican principals on a great deal of things--it's very difficult to extract a covert racist message from any of Reagan's speeches, much less those of prominent Republicans these days. But some of the theses have weaker arguments supporting them than they should.Krugman is dead set on the assertions that essentially all of America is behind the liberal cause and Republicans only win by means of fraud and exploitation of racial tensions.
The former thesis is disproved simply by taking a look at Gallup. There's a strong case to be made that religious convictions are why the south votes conservative.The book is an easy read, and none of Krugman's arguments are completely ludicrous.
It's unfortunate that the arguments in Krugman's book aren't as tight as the ones in his NYT articles.
|
