Paul Krugman came down even more clearly on the side of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in Friday's column. His argument, in a nutshell: Sanders is too idealistic. Clinton is more practical, and that's the way you get things done.
Although Krugman is not one to espouse much similarity between the two major parties, one way he finds them roughly similar is "the persistent delusion that a hidden majority of American voters either supports or can be persuaded to support radical policies, if only the right person were to make the case with sufficient fervor." He continues:
Meanwhile, on the left there is always a contingent of idealistic voters eager to believe that a sufficiently high-minded leader can conjure up the better angels of America’s nature and persuade the broad public to support a radical overhaul of our institutions. In 2008 that contingent rallied behind Mr. Obama; now they’re backing Mr. Sanders, who has adopted such a purist stance that the other day he dismissed Planned Parenthood (which has endorsed Hillary Clinton) as part of the “establishment.”
But as Mr. Obama himself found out as soon as he took office, transformational rhetoric isn’t how change happens. That’s not to say that he’s a failure. On the contrary, he’s been an extremely consequential president, doing more to advance the progressive agenda than anyone since L.B.J.
It's not difficult to see where Krugman is going with this. He's making a case for Clinton's incrementalism over Sanders' sweeping change. Obama achieved what he did, Krugman says, by accepting compromises on healthcare, financial reform and by raising taxes on the rich while not making a dent in inequality. Sanders, Krugman suggests, may resemble candidate Obama; but Clinton is heir to Obama as president. And for Krugman, that's a good thing.
Krugman devotes the remainder of his column to a discussion of how and when big changes have occurred in American politics. Even F.D.R., he suggests had to make compromises with Southern racists to get things done. "Remember, too, that the institutions F.D.R. created were add-ons, not replacements," Krugman writes. "Social Security didn’t replace private pensions, unlike the Sanders proposal to replace private health insurance with single-payer. Oh, and Social Security originally covered only half the work force, and as a result largely excluded African-Americans."
So, have your idealism, Krugman concludes, but the reality is that the next president will still have to deal with a likely Republican and recalcitrant Congress, and good luck with that.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.
It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.