Krugman Doesn’t get the Game
Over at the NYT, Paul Krugman misses what I think is really going on:
Can Mr. Obama do anything in the time that remains? Midterm elections, where turnout is crucial, aren’t quite like presidential elections, where the economy is all. Mr. Obama’s best hope at this point is to close the “enthusiasm gap” by taking strong stands that motivate Democrats to come out and vote. But I don’t expect to see that happen.
What I expect, instead, if and when the midterms go badly, is that the usual suspects will say that it was because Mr. Obama was too liberal — when his real mistake was doing too little to create jobs.
Actually, one has to wonder if Obama WANTS to win the 2010 elections. There’s a certain cynical value to losing.
If the Democrats lose one House of Congress, many of them will be replaced by the lunatics the Republicans have recruited or that the Teabaggers have elected. These people are insane and will act that way.
This will give the President, who is no friend to the progressives who elected him, two narratives:
“Look at these psychos! Elect Democrats and me in 2012, or the lunatics will have the run of the asylum.”
and
“The American people have spoken, and I have listened. We moved too far to the left, too quickly, and now I will move back to the center, as defined by the right.”
Now, you may call me relentlessly negative all you want, but I have seen this movie before in the 1990s. The GOP swept into power in 1994, and then lost seats in 1996 and again in 1998, while Clinton won in a landslide (in part due to moderate Americans’ disgust with the GOP freak show). Clinton was able to use the GOP as a foil, much as Obama has been doing, showcasing their insanity to win elections, while using the same insanity as an excuse for not making progressive accomplishments.
yes, yes, i know: relentless negativity. Probably fostered and fueled by the white progressive blogosphere. OTOH, I’ve seen this movie before.
