Class War Politics - by Paul Krugman NYTimes

[applegrove]

Class War Politics

Paul Krugman
NYTimes

"In case you haven't noticed, modern American politics is marked by vicious partisanship, with the great bulk of the viciousness coming from the right. It's clear that the Republican plan for the 2006 election is, once again, to question Democrats' patriotism.

But do Republican leaders truly believe that they are serious about fighting terrorism, while Democrats aren't? When the speaker of the House declares that "we in this Congress must show the same steely resolve as those men and women on United Flight 93," is that really the way he sees himself? (Dennis Hastert, Man of Steel!) Of course not.

So what's our bitter partisan divide really about? In two words: class warfare. That's the lesson of an important new book, "Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches," by Nolan McCarty of Princeton University, Keith Poole of the University of California, San Diego, and Howard Rosenthal of New York University.

"Polarized America" is a technical book written for political scientists. But it's essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what's happening to America.

... SNIP"

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/opinion/19krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman

[applegrove]

1. Sorry - Times Select.

[bluestateguy]

2. The book synopsis

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262134640/qid=1151188466/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-9052099-0823840?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Book Description

The idea of America as politically polarized--that there is an unbridgeable divide between right and left, red and blue states--has become a cliché. What commentators miss, however, is that increasing polarization in recent decades has been closely accompanied by fundamental social and economic changes--most notably, a parallel rise in income inequality. In Polarized America, Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal examine the relationships of polarization, wealth disparity, immigration, and other forces, characterizing it as a dance of give and take and back and forth causality.

Using NOMINATE (a quantitative procedure that, like interest group ratings, scores politicians on the basis of their roll call voting records) to measure polarization in Congress and public opinion, census data and Federal Election Commission finance records to measure polarization among the public, the authors find that polarization and income inequality fell in tandem from 1913 to 1957 and rose together dramatically from 1977 on; they trace a parallel rise in immigration beginning in the 1970s. They show that Republicans have moved right, away from redistributive policies that would reduce income inequality. Immigration, meanwhile, has facilitated the move to the right: non-citizens, a larger share of the population and disproportionately poor, cannot vote; thus there is less political pressure from the bottom for redistribution than there is from the top against it. In "the choreography of American politics" inequality feeds directly into political polarization, and polarization in turn creates policies that further increase inequality.

[applegrove]

3. I'll have to get that book.

[Eric J in MN]

4. The New York Times should tear down that wall.

Why should the op-eds be singled out to be more difficult for people to read?

They could make people watch a commercial for access, like salon.com does.

[applegrove]

5. I know it is terrible for many. That you have to wait a few days for

the important pieces. But I'm one that doesn't want to see the NY Times make it in the next century...at a time when all MSM is suffering.

I paid my $50 and get a year of NY Times.

I'm sure the article will be posted elsewhere soon.

We need certain MSM to do the hard reporting. Cause otherwise we have no facts. If NY Times tries to adapt and sells to the world ..and makes money. They will survive.

[Eric J in MN]

6. Why not make people pay the $50 for any article beyond

the front page?

If they're going to charge, why single out op-eds?

[applegrove]

7. Because that is what people will pay for. Those articles are reprinted

around the world in newspapers. So the cat is already out of the bag in terms of not competing with themselves. If you want the daily news.. instead of those highly prized opnions.. then you have to buy the NY Times itself.

Marketing is like that. You sell what you can at a high price..

I for one would not be happy if the New York Times couldn't compete and pay good salaries to its writers and reporters.

And being opion pieces..they are still valuable a few days later when you can get them for free on some mirror site. So that is good. I guess the fee of $50 a year means that you are paying for timely availability of stories. Though I tend to check once or twice a week. I would pay again. I spend more than that on magazines in a year. Much more.

[Eric J in MN]

8. The major articles are reprinted elsewhere, but not

the minor ones generally.

[applegrove]

9. And that depends on the articles. But many of the columnists are

re-published in newspapers around the world. I think you get more money out of a columnist that has a loyal following.

I'm just saying.. I'm all for MSM making a buck..especially if it is in a way that doesn't mean corporations have the power of the control. Unlike TV.. at least consumers of Newspapers have some say cause they are buyers. Unlike the TV.. where it seems consumers have no say. So much so...people have turned to the Web for their information.

[Eric J in MN]

10. What is wrong with the Salon.com model

of giving people a choice of paying a subscription fee or watching an ad?

[applegrove]

11. NY Times makes alot of its money off of what people will pay to

read out of their own pockets rather than on advertising alone. So they are more linked to the people as customers than say the TV Networks... who have to go through the prism of corporations buying an add before their product "news" reaches the customer.

I think..we like the model where people pay for good information and the newspaper has the reporters and discernment to give us what we want. And isn't so dependant on the word or approval of corporations buying ads.

I think it has been demonstrated the corporations are very republican (or at least self serving) and push to change regulation and memes..so they can make more in the short term. That isn't what the NY Times should be about. I'm glad it is only a part of how they make money to pay reporters. And that they are very tied to the people who read their stories... to make money.

Don't know really. Just my opinion.