tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post3301302368503005264..comments2024-03-28T06:49:24.930-04:00Comments on International Political Economy at the University of North Carolina: 7 Year Old PoliticsThomas Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14092437150746625670noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-51713993129282142742011-05-15T10:29:27.959-04:002011-05-15T10:29:27.959-04:00"Similarly, with tax cuts, Bush's budget ..."Similarly, with tax cuts, Bush's budget projection did not assume tax cuts would pay for themselves. The CBO didn't score them that way. I doubt David Brooks wrote that,"<br /><br />Bush or his noise machine never sold the idea that his tax cuts would pay for themselves? Can you be serious. I've no idea how the CBO scored them but the notion that they were the principal mechanism by which they were sold by the army of Republican shills and spinmeisters in the popular media is completely disingenous. I took this as just one example of the casuistry that seems to have pervaded much of your response which btw seems to have become progressively more defensive as it should have done. The original comment was broadly wrong while Krugman (who I disagree with much of the time on political issues) was broadly correct. Trying to foist the Bush tax cuts, the housing bubble and invasion of Iraq on the general public is ridiculous (sorry but there is no other way to describe it).Brummagem Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00998868549766033751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-48344366125458450572011-05-14T13:20:36.399-04:002011-05-14T13:20:36.399-04:00I covered all of this in the CT thread, so I'm...I covered all of this in the CT thread, so I'm not going to repeat myself. Let me just that it's a very tortured logic where David Brooks gets blamed for tax cuts, health care spending, and wars that a majority of people supported. Your facts are wrong about Iraq: a majority supported invading Iraq *before* 9/11, and public support was always over 50%, not contingent on the UN. (Larger majorities wanted UN involvement, yes, but simple majorities always favored invasion.) <br /><br />And yeah, everyone thought it would be much shorter and cheaper than it's been. But that includes the pundits, and most (if not all) of the gov't officials.<br /><br />Similarly, with tax cuts, Bush's budget projection did not assume tax cuts would pay for themselves. The CBO didn't score them that way. I doubt David Brooks wrote that, and anyway there were plenty of elites (inc. Krugman!) arguing that would squander the surplus. I don't think it's right or fair at all to say people were misled into approving of tax cuts. <br /><br />I don't think there is more than a semantic difference between asset and demand, in the context in which we're discussing politics. Please tell me how you could distinguish between the two?<br /><br />ONCE AGAIN: I never, ever, ever, not once said that elites don't deserve blame. I never said that they didn't deserve the *majority* of the blame. I only said that there was some left over for the populace that rewarded them for pursuing the policies that led us here. That's all.Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-52569987695043440172011-05-14T09:12:42.415-04:002011-05-14T09:12:42.415-04:00If the elites make up stuff that justify their pro...If the elites make up stuff that justify their proposals, and the press prints and accepts it; the public, which only follows issues casually, should not be blamed for assenting to what the elites have decided to do. <br /><br />It is true that the public was in favor of getting rid of Saddam Hussein because they were told falsely that he was a threat to the US. But there were no street demonstrations demanding that the government do something, and no evidence that it was a hot button issue. In fact, G W Bush campaigned on a humble foreign policy before he was elected, despite his desire to be a war president, which he expressed to his campaign biographer. <br /><br />According to public opinion polls, public support for the war was contingent on support and cooperation by allies, and the UN.<br />http://people-press.org/2003/01/30/public-struggles-with-possible-war-in-iraq/<br />When the UN inspectors went in and at the beginning of 2003, found that there was no nuclear program and reports of chemical weapons etc. were not verified, 62% of the public said that the inspectors should be allowed to finish the job. The invasion proceeded despite the fact that the inspectors said it would take about 3 months more to finish. The Bush administration said that the war would cost only $50B, would be over in a few months; and that 100,000 soldiers or less would do the job. <br /><br />I think there is more than a semantic difference between public assent, and public demand. The intensity of feeling on an issue can in fact be gauged by public opinion polls.<br /><br /> <br />Contrary to what you claim, the public was told by the elites at that tax cuts would pay for themselves, and they are still being told that, by the Republicans, despite the fact that it has been falsified by experience.<br /><br />The point that Krugman is making is that political pundits have not accepted their share of responsibility for misleading the public. Some of them claim that these things were demanded of them by the public, which is untrue.<br /><br />In fact some of them are still touting the same falsehoods that persuaded the public to believe in the actions that lead to the serious mistakes that put us where we are now - the Iraq War, the Bush tax cuts, and financial deregulation. Ideology, pride, and campaign money has prevented the politicians who promoted these efforts from seeing and admitting to their mistakes.eadlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-77454977337874008072011-05-13T22:25:34.125-04:002011-05-13T22:25:34.125-04:00Believe it or not, I could dislike Krugman *and* h...Believe it or not, I could dislike Krugman *and* he could be wrong, all at the same time. In fact, I could dislike him *because* he's wrong. <br /><br />I've dealt with the rest of the things you said in other places. You can look for the sources (esp polls) at CT or in previous posts. To sum: <br /><br />1. The public was in favor of invading Iraq *before* 9/11, and a majority was in favor before Bush ever made a case for invasion. That majority continued until the invasion. There is no evidence that I've seen that public support was dependent on mass delusion. <br /><br />2. The public was in favor in tax cuts. They were even (by plurality) in favor of the Bush tax cuts, despite knowing they primarily benefitted the rich (80% said they thought they were unfair). But anyway, they supported increasing the deficit for a tax cut. We're talking about deficits here, not distribution. <br /><br />3. Bush wasn't able to privatize Social Security. Why? Because the public didn't want him too. The public restricted the ability of the elites to enact policy. Thanks for helping to prove my point.<br /><br />4. "Assent by the public should not be confused with demand." Firstly, why not? Secondly, how can you tell the difference? If I ask someone if they want a tax cut, or an invasion of Iraq, and they say "Yes"... on what grounds am I to conclude that that is merely assent rather than demand? Why should that matter for setting policy? This is crap semantics.<br /><br />And, to reiterate once more, elites deserve blame for enacting bad policies. I'm not trying to exonerate anyone. In fact, I'm trying to blame *more* people.Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-17648662492218264652011-05-13T22:10:58.344-04:002011-05-13T22:10:58.344-04:00The basic point made by Krugman is that the politi...The basic point made by Krugman is that the political elites sold the public a bill of goods with the Iraq War and tax cuts. False information and crackpot theories were sold as wisdom, with the cooperation of the mass media. Journalists fell down on the job.<br />Medicare part D was structured to benefit the drug companies, and prevent the government from negotiating prices like all other countries with universal health care do.<br /><br />The Iraq War is an especially clear example, where Bush expressed his intention before election, to become a war president, win a quick victory so he could garner the prestige to pass his economic program - which was tax cuts and privatization of social security. He also wanted to outdo his dad, who left Saddam Hussein in place. Bush and Rumsfeld were ready to invade Iraq right after 911, but had to wait another 1 1/2 years, all the while manufacturing a case with false reports of WMD, because the public needed to be sold. <br /> <br />Two rounds of tax cuts were sold successfully. Tax cuts would pay for themselves. Who wouldn't approve of tax cuts, if they didn't add to the deficit and paid for themselves? Social security privatization failed, because the public wouldn't buy it.<br /><br />Assent by the public should not be confused with demand.<br />It seems to me that Winecoff's dislike of Krugman is driving the argument here, rather than any real evidence. In fact Winecoff is honest enough to admit this when he was called on his initial comments.eadlernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-41387322606245261682011-05-12T14:39:47.262-04:002011-05-12T14:39:47.262-04:00Anon, that's just not true. Polls taken in lat...Anon, that's just not true. Polls taken in late-2001 show 74% of Americans were in support of invading Iraq. That dipped a bit, but never once under 50%, until the invasion, when over 60% approved.<br /><br />As for tax cuts, Drezner and I have both posted polls showing that large majorities of the people wanted tax cuts for themselves. I've also posted polls showing that the public wanted the Bush tax cuts, even though the knew they benefits were skewed to the wealthy, albeit at lower numbers. <br /><br />In 2004, Bush ran against a candidate that focused on two issues: the Iraq war, and the tax cuts. Bush won.<br /><br />What other evidence do you need to conclude that the public supported this stuff?Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-92037518536767617312011-05-12T01:00:56.216-04:002011-05-12T01:00:56.216-04:00Kindred: I think Krugman is right if he means that...Kindred: I think Krugman is right if he means that the public did not drive the tax cuts and Iraq war policies. Instead, elites (i.e. the Bush people) drove both. After 9/11, the public did not want to invade Iraq. They supported it only after much PR (or lies and fear) by the Bush administration. I think this was pretty much the same with the tax cuts. During the 2000 campaign, I don't think there was strong support for them. Only after elites started debating it and agreeing to it did they then persuade the public. I would argue that mass publics are not important to most of the policy process, and thus explaining how a policy was passed. They are epiphenomenal. Most of these things are elite driven, (i.e. by Admin. officials, legislators, interest groups, and the media).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-1417779006655935782011-05-11T13:59:47.017-04:002011-05-11T13:59:47.017-04:00What nobody has mentioned is the ability of elites...What nobody has mentioned is the ability of elites to shape political opinion. Krugman was correct, just not very thorough about explaining how it worked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com