| Author |
Message |
    
The Soulfullest Mr T
Citizen
Username: Howardt
Post Number: 1402
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 8:36 pm: | 
|
The Effectiveness Thing
By PAUL KRUGMAN (NYTimes, Monday Feb 6, 20060
We are ruled by bunglers. Every major venture by the Bush administration, from the occupation of Iraq to the Medicare drug program, has turned into an epic saga of incompetence. In retrospect, the Clinton years look like a golden era of good government.
Given the Bush administration's evident inability to govern, Democratic electoral victories should be a sure thing. But they aren't. Why?
Before I try to answer that question, let me justify my assertion — which is sure to generate a lot of angry mail — that Bill Clinton knew how to govern, while George W. Bush doesn't. All you have to do is consider the rise and fall of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Under the elder George Bush, FEMA was used as a dumping ground for political cronies, with predictable results. Descriptions of FEMA's response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992 sound just like the response to Katrina: for three days FEMA was nowhere to be found, and when it finally arrived its relief efforts were utterly incompetent.
Bill Clinton changed all that by choosing James Lee Witt, who knew a lot about disaster management, to run FEMA, and encouraging him to run the agency professionally. The result was a spectacular improvement in performance. FEMA, formerly considered one of the worst agencies in the federal government, won praise for its quick and effective responses to events like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
But George W. Bush restored the practice of stuffing FEMA with cronies; the ludicrous Michael Brown is gone, but others remain. And the agency has reverted to impotence and incompetence.
As FEMA went, so went government as a whole.
On one side, FEMA's rebirth under Mr. Clinton wasn't unique. For example, a similar tale of miraculous turnaround can be told about the Veterans Health Administration. And I'd argue that there was a broad improvement in the government's professionalism during the Clinton era.
On the other side, what happened to FEMA starting in 2001 is typical: politicization and cronyism have become standard operating procedure throughout the federal government, even when the need for professionalism is obvious. (Recall how unqualified political loyalists were sent to run Iraq during the crucial first year.) That's one main reason President Bush has failed at everything he's tried except cutting taxes — and winning elections.
Which brings me to the political puzzle. Our leaders' bungling hasn't escaped public notice: more than half of Americans say that the Bush administration has been a failure. Yet it's not at all clear that Democrats can translate this sentiment into large political gains — because despite the governing skill of the last Democratic administration, the public doesn't think of Democrats as being effective.
A lot of this has to do with the way the news media cover politics: they focus mainly on Washington, and many news organizations — especially the broadcast media — prefer to do horse-race stories rather than discuss policy issues. And from that point of view, the Democrats present a sorry spectacle. Not only are they a minority in Congress, shut out of power; they're an undisciplined minority constantly facing defections from their own ranks on crucial issues.
The issue of Iraq epitomizes the political paradox. The war has been a monstrous policy failure, but it remains a political asset to the Bush administration, because it divides the Democrats and makes them look ineffectual.
Yet if the Democrats could present a united front on Iraq, they'd probably have a lot of public support. You'd never know it from the range of views represented on the Sunday talk shows, but a majority of Americans believes both that the administration deliberately misled the nation about W.M.D.'s and that we should set a timetable for withdrawal.
And the public's views on other issues seem to favor the Democratic position — or, rather, what the Democratic position would probably be if the Democrats could agree on one — even more strongly. For example, the public believes by two to one that the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans.
The point is that Democrats are largely winning the battle of ideas: on the issues, public opinion is shifting in their direction. But to take advantage of that shift, they have to overcome an image of ineffectiveness that is partly the fault of the news media, but largely the result of their own disunion.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1533
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 10:37 am: |
|
the problem with the dem party is that they show no vision.they complain and gripe without presenting a clear plan for the future.
endless griping and bitterness will not win the hearts and minds of the electorate. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5131
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 11:12 am: |
|
Why can't Democrats win it? Because they're failures, and what they're promising isn't a winner beyond their base and goes against the grain of that nagging "values" thing.
Witness at how they have to posture in the NSA hearings from the talking points Reid is said to have distributed in today's NY Times. They have to look like they care about national security. They have to look strong. The public won't go for a "look." They want the real thing. Diane Feinstein says things along the lines of "we all want to make use of electronic surveillance, but....." No you "all" don't! You're looking at this as political opportunity rather than a way to make the surveillance more effective or even more congressionally palatable.
And this BS about the Democrats being ahead on the issues over Republicans? Maybe in the way things are worded to the public ("Who do you think is better on X?"). If it was that easy, why won't Democrats come out with specifics and hammer them in the press? Because they have no new ideas, and they can't agree on how to present the old ones they still have. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2998
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
cjc: I agree with you on the Dems posturing rather than having policies or any coherent leadership (although I do not fault Reid for getting everyone on the same hymnal, since the GOP has worked this to an incredibly fine art).
But it is a disease of all politicians in the US right now, and not just the Dems. The GOP leadership is retching in its collective campaign bag in response to the Bush budget which calls for continued tax reductions, domestic spending reductions, and increased foreign and domestic security spending. No one wants to go to the voters and tell them that their favorite domestic programs are going to get slashed, even before inflation is considered. They are waffling in the face of Bush pushing forward with the agenda that they have trumpeted for the last 5 years. I bet they run screaming from Bush's budget until at least after the midterm elections, at which point they will again find their religion.
It is a sad state of affairs in the country, and I lay the blame on the voters, who collectively refuse to listen to the hard truth at times (whether from GOP or Dem side) and would rather hear platitudes and empty promises than deal with politicians with real stances and making tough choices.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 789
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 11:25 am: |
|
and yet its this REPUBLICAN administration that has failed, not the past DEMOCRATIC one.
Krugman is right in one respect - the news media are not sending the democrats message - its there and its not being hidden. Libertarian states that there are no ideas but yet the ideas that were used during the Clinton years were solid and worked and we had a better American. Those are democratic ideas and values. When a democrat stands against what this administration is doing to people they are called complainers. Yet they stand every day in the congress (house and senate) and argue the issues but these arguments are not presented to us by our media. Only by watching CSPAN can you get an idean what our leaders are really doing.
liberal media BS. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5132
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 12:40 pm: |
|
What were the ideas of Clinton? Cap gains tax reductions and welfare reform (which passed despite his veto) and healthcare reform (which his own party didn't vote for)?
Bush is going to get hollered at for 'cutting' some 141 programs totallying $15B out of a 2.77 TRILLION budget. That's a 'slash'? That's a NICK. Slashing programs for a country with a 4.7% unemployment rate. Revenues have steadily increased into the Treasury, so I don't see a need to raise taxes upon the economy.
Domestic programs and entitlements for special interests -- voting to put other people's money into their own pockets. Over half the budget goes to just that.
The media is sending the "Democrats message." The message is they don't have one.
ESL -- I agree with laying blame upon the voters. They ultimately get what they vote for. They don't want to face the unfunded liability of the failing programs they're counting on in their old age at the expense of saving that same money and more to take care of themselves. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 790
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 1:17 pm: |
|
balanced budget, deficit reduction and actual surplus gained, more cops on the streets, less taxes for the poor, more programs for the poor and middle class, the list is long and there is no wonder he was a very popular president.
I do believe that many eloquent dems including Al Gore and Howard Dean have made many valid and valuable efforts to get 'the message' out to the voters and at each turn the media has chosen to spotlight the messenger and not the message.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5133
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Clinton was dragged to a balanced budget and refused to go along with a Balanced Budget Amendment. He got deficit reduction because the economy rocketed after the Republican victory in 1994, cap gains tax cuts and their reigning in Clinton spending (which, sad to say, is missing today as they've passed the spending and Bush has refused to veto it. Ditto the surplus.
How can you say less taxes for the poor if 1) they don't pay income taxes and 2) he never signed a tax cut? Clinton raised taxes, including taxes on Social Security income. Didn't get much of a bump off that tax hike in 1993 in terms of revenue directly related to that. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1907
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 1:43 pm: |
|
the reason the Democrats don't control both houses of Congress and the White House is largely a result of the form of representation set out by the Constitution. It's one of the quirks of our democratic system that even if one party represents a majority of citizens in the country, they can very well be a minority in the government.
No one has to be reminded that a majority of Americans voted Democratic for president in 2000. But most do need to be reminded that the 44 Democratic Senators actually represent states that comprise a majority of the U.S. population. Moreover, in 2004, more voters cast Democratic House candidates than for Republican candidates.
I've got to hand it to the Republicans and their supporters though. Their members of Congress represent less than 50% of U.S. voters, and their president represents 52% of U.S. voters, but they aren't shy about claiming dominance in the "marketplace of ideas." All this even though a swing of a few hundred thousand votes in a few key states, could cause their majorities in the government to evaporate. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2999
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 1:47 pm: |
|
cjc: The voters will also get the blame if the SC overturns or guts Roe and we return to a time of back alley abortions. They will also get the blame if Bush's deficit spendng does become a major economic drag, as many predict. It is not just the welfare state legacy that is a looming problem. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5134
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 1:49 pm: |
|
How do figure Republicans represent less than 50% of US voters when they have a majority in the House of Representatives which is based entirely upon population totals, Doc? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1908
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 1:59 pm: |
|
I'm actually wrong on the %, but the principle is the same -- the Republicans have a higher % of seats than they got votes. 50.1% of House votes were for Republicans, but Republicans actually won 53% of the seats in the House. So they did get a majority, but by the slimmest of margins. Hardly enough to declare convincing victory in the "marketplace of ideas."
It's easy to figure how that can work. The Dems who win can pile up bigger majorities in their districts than Republicans who win theirs.
And my point about the Senate still holds. The 44 Democratic senators represent a greater proportion of the U.S. Population.
I certainly can't dispute the obvious - that the Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. What I do dispute is the notion that Repulican ideas are hugely popular across the U.S. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1534
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 2:14 pm: |
|
at each turn the media has chosen to spotlight the messenger and not the message.
they give the people what they want. the general population in this country is lazy and stupid. they dont want to think. they want flashy slogans and entertainment tonight type news.
the media is just supplying a product that the consumer will buy.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 791
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 2:42 pm: |
|
cjc - I have to laugh at what you write. You continually blow off Clintons impact on the country in the 'booming' 90's but the fact remains that what he accomplished was major. You can rail about high taxation if you want, I call it fair taxation. Everybody group was better off. You continue to blame Clinton for the 'recession' but I know that in 2006 my salary has not kept pace with inflation and I know that the paltry tax cuts that the middle class got have done zip to help me with my financial issues.
Bush has catered to his wealthy friends and any industry shill who wanted a handout. The K street republicans allowed the lobbiests to write their own legislation and did not allow democratic amendments. This administration is the one the deserves your disdain. The last one was the best one in my lifetime. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5135
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 2:53 pm: |
|
I'll join your laughter if you can answer my questions. Here's another one -- did the wealth gap increase or decrease during Clinton's tenure?
Your take-home salary might not have met inflation, but if your company paid for your healthcare I'd bet your total compensation beat it.
And if you fall for the Repub=Big Business canard, you should know the K-Street lobbyists were told to hire Republicans to do their lobbying instead of Democrats. So...who wrote the legislation when Democrats ran the show? That same K-Street. ADM wasn't at the table during the 90s? Tyson and their illegal workers? Enron? (yes......Enron, Hoops. Look at their history of work in the 90s). Special interests like unions? |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 792
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 3:15 pm: |
|
More oversight in the 90's. More regulation in the 90's. My takehome pay bought me more, my healthcare bought me more drugs, less deductibles.
The wealth gap is far larger today then at any time since Carter. I have always shared the cost of healthcare with the firm but the cost that my firm bares,(bears, beers?) is less, far less now.
I wont argue that the republican congress in the 90's was not a driver, but if that is true then why did the republican congress of the 2000's drop the ball, stop doing any inquiry into ethics violations, refuse to participate in executive oversight, and generally run up this largest of deficits ever?
The fact remains that the executive in charge during the 90's was a democrat and that the 90's were one of great accomplishment.
|
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1487
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Clinton was great for Republicans also.
- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3
|
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3001
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 4:02 pm: |
|
I don't get why Dems get so dewey-eyed over Clinton. He ran against his own party half the time, and was more like a moderate Republican on many issues than a Dem.
Guy: don't forget that one Repub who became and Independent--that bollixed up the GOP for a bit. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 637
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 7:17 pm: |
|
I love this. Most of you Dems still don't get it. I love all this hand wringing. And I love the potshots at Bush during the funeral. As always, the Dems have no idea how to appeal to the public. Hey Doc, the Republians represent the vast amount of land in this country. It is not the constitutions fault that most libs want to live on top of each other in tiny apartments and condos in our major cities.
I can't wait to see what excuses are used after the Repubs gain seats this year. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1909
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 9:29 pm: |
|
southerner,
"land" doesn't vote. people do. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 642
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 11:05 pm: |
|
I understand good Doctor. But if you are going to make ridiculous claims then so will I. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1910
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 11:18 pm: |
|
please explain how my claims are ridiculous. I'm stating a pretty obvious fact. Only slightly more than 50% of voters prefer Republicans. 52% for Pres and 50.1% for Congress is hardly a landslide for Republican ideas.
That's hardly "ridiculous." more like "painfully obvious." |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5158
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 12:25 pm: |
|
ESL -- Democrats loved Clinton because he beat Republicans. That's all that mattered, even if his policy decisions and manueverings and feints went against his party, he won.
Actually, the wealth gap shrank during the first 2-3 years of the Bush Admin. Recessions will do that for you every time. The wealth gap also increased during the Clinton Administration when the stock market took off. That's just how it works. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page