Paul Krugman blog- Shoulda Coulda Woulda

[n2doc]

...
But on the Obama issue, I still think that the administration has made four serious misjudgments.

First, I think that it has paid too much attention to the short-run political risks of taking unpopular positions versus the medium-run political risks of having a lousy economy. Yes, a real mortgage-mod program would have fed Tea Party sentiment — but it might have meant a stronger economy in the second half of 2010, and that would have mattered a lot more. As best as I can tell, the political types in the White House have, year after year, operated on the principle that the economy is on the mend, so it’s time to pivot to centrist-sounding themes — only to keep finding that no, the economy isn’t on the mend, and they’re paying for that at the polls.

Second, the administration made what I continue to believe was the awful decision to pretend that the half-measures it was actually able to get were exactly right, not a penny too small. Would it have made a difference in 2010 if Obama had been able to say to the country, “I asked for more aid to the economy, but those guys blocked it, and that’s why we’re not recovering faster”? I don’t know — but it could hardly have been worse than the position he actually found himself in, which was trying to explain why a policy he insisted had been perfect wasn’t doing the job.

Third, it’s one thing to recognize that there’s only so much you can do; it’s another to adopt the arguments of your enemies. Since some time in the fall of 2009, Obama’s rhetorical stance has been basically that he’s like the GOP, but less so; can you even remember him offering a full-throated defense of Keynesian policies?

Finally, while the White House doesn’t set Fed policy, it does get to appoint Fed governors. Why are there all those vacant seats? Why weren’t there recess appointments?

more
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/shoulda-coulda-woulda/

[vi5]

1. God..this paragraph just nails it...

"Third, it’s one thing to recognize that there’s only so much you can do; it’s another to adopt the arguments of your enemies. Since some time in the fall of 2009, Obama’s rhetorical stance has been basically that he’s like the GOP, but less so; can you even remember him offering a full-throated defense of Keynesian policies?"

This is what infuriates me. Not that there's only so much he can do in the face of the obstructionism. I get that. I understand it. It's the approach of accepting that some of what the other side is saying is true or in good faith and must be adopted.

"They want to destroy medicare......we just want to cut it heavily."
"They want to destroy unions......we just want them to have much less power."
"They want to destroy public schools.....we just want to give some public school money to private schools and to make teachers teach to tests and take away tenure.....on second thought......maybe we do!"
"They want no tax cuts for the rich.....we just want to pretend that in a few years we'll support them."

[n2doc]

2. And people wonder why there is a lack of enthusiasm on our side

I guess fear and anger will have to do instead.

[phantom power]

3. +oo