I don't know if these times call for being a squish.

This isn't like the 90s, when a small group of clearly unhinged nutbags hijacked the public discourse and led an idiot's crusade against Bill Clinton.

—Kevin Drum

You mean it's worse now?

Ah, Kevin.

HAHAHAHA!!

I've got some friends here I showed them your post. How you're not a liberal and then, the biggest wopper: Paul Krugmans NOT A LIBERAL!!

Ha ha. Yeah, I remember all those articals from Paul Krugman congratulating President Bush on the toppling of Saddam and his tax cuts.

This is a despareate attempt on Kevin's part to attempt to paint wackey liberals as "moderates" so that anybody who isn't liberal looks like a fringe faschist. Not gonna work Kevin.

This post gets comic post of the year!

I've got some friends here I showed them your post. How you're not a liberal and then, the biggest wopper: Paul Krugmans NOT A LIBERAL!!

You need to work on your reading skills there egbert. Kevin wrote that neither he nor Krugman were radicals.

Krugman calls for the government setting the price of labor, seizing 30% of the GDP for socialized medicine, and raising taxes to strangle productivity... and he's *not* radical? That shows more how far left the Democrat Party has become than anything.

Egbert's friends are the two garden snakes he keeps in his terrarium.

"Egbert's friends are the two garden snakes he keeps in his terrarium."

And one of them is named Al.

"...and raising taxes to strangle productivity"

Go back to peddling apples, Al. The facts are clearly against you.

I tell you ... I visit a lot of blogs, but this one has the dumbest trolls I've ever witnessed.

Not sure if it's because most commenters here are intelligent folks, thus making the likes of Al and egbert look dumber, or if these two guys ate too much lead paint as kids.

Oh, and if Krugman is a radical, so is 70%+ of the American public since a vast majority of folks support all the things listed.

Krugman calls for the government setting the price of labor, seizing 30% of the GDP for socialized medicine, and raising taxes to strangle productivity... and he's *not* radical?

That's right. A truly radical proposal would be calling for, say, the elimination of private ownership of land, prohibitions on the inheritance of capital or usury, or the like. Krugman's merely trying to gently correct the broken status quo.

Step 1) Pull your keys out of your pocket.

Step 2) Jingle them.

Congratulations. You're a journalist.

"Fair and Balanced" Dave:

"You need to work on your reading skills there egbert. Kevin wrote that neither he nor Krugman were radicals."

That is just the point. The basic lie of the conservatives is that anyone who is not a conservative is a Stalinist, so "liberal" automatically means "radical."

"Just ask Max Sawicky's ghost." Where is Max anyway. Need him around to remind us that the so-called "left" isn't Left.

And this:
"Krugman calls for the government setting the price of labor, seizing 30% of the GDP for socialized medicine, and raising taxes to strangle productivity... and he's *not* radical?"

WTF? In your dreams, maybe, Al, Krugman's purpose is to "strangle productivity", etc., but that just proves you are truly delusional. Truly.

To be a liberal, it's not enough to believe that the government should provide a certain laundry list of services. One must advocate contintuing increases in government functions, money and power. If single-payer health insurance is enacted, liberals won't stop advocating other programs and benefits.

Even under Republican administrations, state, local and federal governments have continued to take larger shares of GDP and to increase their powers. Increased governmnet money and power means less personal freedomfor individuals.

I would love to define a "moderate" as someone who wants the government to continue doing what they're doing. A "liberal" would want expaned government involvement and a conservative would want a reduction in government. However, few in the mainstream are calling for large reductions in government. George Bush substantially increased government involvement in education and senior pharmceutical drugs, yet he is regarded as a conservative.

In short, moderates and far left liberals are going to the same place. They differ only on how quickly to get there.

Hey Al -- notice how much we spend and how little we get? All the other industrialized countries spend less, live longer, live healthier, and kill fewer infants. You can look it up, it's on the InterTubes, where nationmaster.com has collected statistics from flaming pinko publications like the CIA factbook.

Note, also, the lovely dodge where pro-private-health people try to convince people that those numbers don't really matter, because they are AVERAGE numbers, which lump together both the insured and uninsured. #1, till they have the numbers, why believe them. #2, that's immoral. #3, it's much more approriate to talk about the average lifespan (because lifespans really are clustered pretty well) than it is to talk about the average income (there's people making 10, 100, even 1000 times as much money as I do -- nobody, nowhere, has ever lived as much as three times my current age)

"moderates and far left liberals are going to the same place" True. In health care, they're just trying to catch up with the rest of the developed world, for example -- comprehensive, relatively low-cost government insurance -- rather than living in the 19th Century.

Krugman, that Reagan economist, has been more right more often than pretty much any MSM journalist. Just go back to his pieces of four, five, six years ago. God bless him.

would love to define a "moderate" as someone who wants the government to continue doing what they're doing. A "liberal" would want expaned government involvement and a conservative would want a reduction in government.

Whatever you'd love to define things as, that has little to do with the historical use of the terms, or what actual conservatives and liberals seek, though it aligns surprisingly well with what conservatives typically try to associate the terms with in people's minds.

To be a liberal, it's not enough to believe that the government should provide a certain laundry list of services. One must advocate contintuing increases in government functions, money and power.

Huh. Thanks for clearing up my own motivations for me, I coulda never wrapped my teeny little liberal brain around it!

All this time, I have considered myself a liberal because I value the Constitution, individual liberty, civil liberties and human rights.

Who knew I secretly wanted to assist the tentacles of government into every nook and cranny of American life?

This isn't like the 90s, when a small group of clearly unhinged nutbags hijacked the public discourse and led an idiot's crusade against Bill Clinton, or the 2000s, when a small group of clearly unhinged nutbags hijacked the White House and led an idiot's crusade against Iraq.

Fixed it for you.

Ex-liberal wrote:

One must advocate contintuing increases in government functions, money and power.

If you're trying to say that liberals would never want delegations of authority to government to end, you're certainly wrong. You'll have a hard time finding someone to agree with you on that one.

"Krugman calls for single-payer health insurance, tax hikes, and raising the minimum wage. He doesn't come off as all that radical."

Its because he is not. However, all three of these are completely politically incorrect in the GOP of today. These are "radical" positions from the perspective of anyone trying to get the GOP nomination. The fact that most Americans are generally supportive of all three tells you:
(1) that the GOP is more extreme than Krugman (at least on these issues)
(2) the media tends to report these issues in the frame preferred by the GOP - as if they were radical.

liberals won't stop advocating other programs and benefits.

The horror.

My guess is that egbert, for very personal reasons, was violently opposed to taking Terri Schiavo off her feeding tube.

"One must advocate contintuing increases in government functions, money and power."

Great example of when you find that you are unable to rationally discuss an issue on the merits, invent a strawman and argue against that.

Its actually simple, you are debating a fictional monster. You call yourself an ex-liberal. Does that mean you were dumb enough to believe in that strawman? Often people who have unhinged views flip to reverse to new unhinged views and continue to believe that they are the measure of everyone else. Its more a reflection of inability to deal with nuance and the need for a manchean view of reality even if it doesnt fit.

Actually, never-really-a-liberal, most of the political left folks I know simply think that the government should do the most amount of good for the most amount of people.

Compare that to Republicans, who think the government should do the most amount of good for a select few while screwing over everyone else.

... If single-payer health insurance is enacted, liberals won't stop advocating other programs and benefits.

Yes, because the last thing we need in this country is health care for everyone at a cost far less than what we pay now. I mean, the horror!!!

And next they may want to **gasp** help the poor -- THE POOR!! They may want to give assistance to the elderly -- THE ELDERLY!!

I mean, we can't a government care about those things, now can we?! All our government should do is start wars and give corporations tax kickbacks when they ship American jobs overseas.

/snark

Oh ... and thanks for proving my point about this place having the dumbest trolls on the entire Internet. Sorry I left you off the initial list.

I've got some friends here I showed them your post. How you're not a liberal and then, the biggest wopper: Paul Krugmans NOT A LIBERAL!! Posted by: egbert

What a dumb fuck. Of course Krugman's a liberal, it's even in the title of his new book.

What the problem there Eggie, are you assigned only certain parts of the Internet(s) by your soulless, neo-Nazi overlords to facilitate your "work"?

To be "ex-liberal," one must engage in a never ending series of straw man arguments, false dichostomies and other intellectually dishonest bad-faith statements.

I agree with Kevin Drum that most of what American liberals are calling for today is just mainstream common-sense good government. And I also agree that in the 1990s, "a small group of clearly unhinged nutbags hijacked the public discourse and led an idiot's crusade against Bill Clinton."

But those nutjobs were mainly not radical leftists. Those nutjobs were the ones who created conspiracy theories about the Clintons to explain the 1993 suicide of Vince Foster. Those nutjobs were the ones who raised Clinton's truthful artful dodging about a White House intern to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor.

As for those who criticized President Clinton from the left, much of that critique was valid. For example, Mr. Clinton had it within his power to end the ban on homosexuals in the military, but instead he came up with an unworkable "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" compromise, and the left was fully justified in criticizing it. Mr. Clinton was right that AFDC (welfare) needed to be reformed, but did we need to deny food stamps to legal non-citizen immigrants, many of whom have been paying state and local taxes for many years? And did we need to place a five-year lifetime limit on TANF benefits? These are not minor quibbles; these are serious flaws in the welfare "reform" we got thanks to President Clinton.

So, I dispute Kevin Drum's implied theory that unlike today, back in the 1990s, the major source of criticism was from the radical left, pursuing never-never dreams of the phony-baloney socialist Kumbaya brigade. It was never like that. The main source of criticism of the Clinton administration was from the loony right, and by and large, the crticism of the Clinton administration from the left was moderate and reasonable.

Thank you for considering my views.

Swan: If you're trying to say that liberals would never want delegations of authority to government to end, you're certainly wrong. You'll have a hard time finding someone to agree with you on that one.

You may be right, Swan. However, politicians and adovcates don't usually address the next thing they would want if they reached their current objective.. ,

Stil, there are many examples that show liberals always wanting more. Take pollution as an example. Bush essentially left existing laws in place. These are effective laws. Their continuing application reduced just about every air and water pollutant, except atmospheric CO2 during his Presidency. Yet, he's regarded as a villain because he didn't expand environmental controls.

Take SCHIP. Bush is a villain, not for trying to end the program, but for resisting expansion.

Take Medicare. Despite adding limited prescription drug coverage, Bush is villain because he didn't add even more coverage.

Take eduction. Bush added emormously to federal control and funding, but he's a villain because he didn't add even more money.

Swan, the bottom line is that there are constitutiencies in place whose goal is to add to whatever level of government support and involvement currently exists. And, the liberals support these constituencies.

I just posted “did we need to deny food stamps to legal non-citizen immigrants, many of whom have been paying state and local taxes for many years?”

I intended to say “did we need to deny food stamps to legal non-citizen immigrants, many of whom have been paying federal, state and local taxes for many years?”

And by the way, why is it that every time I post a comment here, I click Yes on “Remember personal info?” and every time it forgets my personal info and reverts to No? I use Mozilla Firefox.

In the 1990s the right wing noise machine tried hard as it could to define left wing extremism as Clintonism, and, with the willing connivance of the MSM, has largely succeeded. Pre-Goldwater, Clinton's stands on most issues would have put him squarely in the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. Same for Hillary.

And then there is Krugman...pro-globalization, pro-competition, pro-free markets Krugman. Wild-eyed radical according to the right wing noise machine. Must be, because he deigned to criticize Bush in 1999 and 2000 and 2001 and 2002, before the rest of the world caught on to the little weasle. Socially Krugman is clearly liberal, which despite the best efforts of the vast right wing conspiracy is still not the same as being radical. In terms of economics Krugman is actually a little right of center. Which is probably why the only politician he ever worked for was Reagan.

I first ran across Krugman in 1998 when I read his book "The Accidental Theorist" -- in which he spent a lot of his time bashing Nader, Robert Reich and William Greider (the "accidental theorist" of the title, who according to Krugman ends up proving the opposite of what he intends). For this reason, it was always impossible for me to swallow the "Krugman is an extreme leftist radical" bullshit we started getting from the Right (including Megan McArdle) the moment he started criticizing Bush.

The one real grudge I have against him is his notorious "Listening To Mahathir" column, in which he said that the majority of the Moslem world's paranoid hatred of non-Moslems (and particularly of Jews) is due to Bush's actions. Bush, of course, squirted some wholly unnecessary gasoline on the bonfire, but it was obvious to anyone with any sense that this particular fire had been raging long before then. On that occasion, Krugman really did send common sense winging out the window.

Here, Here Kevin. It is amazing who gets called a radical leftist these days.

Re your last post, Greg Sargent seems to indicate that you (or all of us) go taken by the Post regarding Hillary's torture comments:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/did_washington.php

For those wondering about "ex-liberal," it helps to do what I do - imagine a crabby old man in his 70's. I think the age is pretty close because of some comments from him, and while he won't confirm it he doesn't deny it either.

The crabby part - that is self evident. He reminds me of a neighbor I had while growing up. He was a crotchety old guy who's only activity left in the world was to piss and moan and yell at any kid who came close to his property.

To be a liberal, it's not enough to believe that the government should provide a certain laundry list of services. One must advocate contintuing increases in government functions, money and power. If single-payer health insurance is enacted, liberals won't stop advocating other programs and benefits.

To me a liberal is one who is agnostic towards the size of government and tries to solve each issue as best as possible. Conservatives and libertarians actively try to reduce the size of government, but increasing the size of government is not the goal of liberal thought, just an outcome being open to the idea.

The funny thing is my definition of moderate ends up basically the same as my definition of liberal except the moderate takes a slower approach and steps more cautiously. Also, some of the goals may be different, but the agnostic reaction to government size is the same.

Your moderation is beyond question. However, at least in hindsight, it is quite clear to me that moderation has not served us well during the early part of the twenty-first century.

I am waiting for some sort of mea culpa from the self described moderates for not criticizing the Bushie radicals strongly enough.

BTW, I don't think that during the last six years I ever saw the word nauseating in this blog in reference to any of the egregious assaults on all that our country stands for. But, lo and behold, as soon as even the remote possibility of a Democratic victory in 2008 arises, your physiology reacts so violently to the perceived evasion by the putative Democratic candidate.

the bottom line is that there are constitutiencies in place whose goal is to add to whatever level of government support and involvement currently exists. And, the liberals support these constituencies.

No, "ex-liberal," even your straw man arguments do not support this assertion. But you knew that -- you comment in bad faith, and the more obvious it is, the more insulting to your betters.

Why Kevin's moderator(s) aren't sufficiently annoyed by your pissing on the floor in here is a mystery.

[banned troll deleted]

Shorter American Hawk: intellectual dishonesty is all the Bush Cultists have to offer, and I demand Kevin allow us equal time!

Why is it that the dishonest rightards always whine when they're called on their bullshit? Do you really belive that repeating a lie often enough makes it the truth? Even if it did, why should Kevin subsidize you, especially when you have Saife?

Has the coward American Hawk enlisted yet?

The Democratic Party has been socialist for years. They have won elections by successfully convincing voters they're not (Hillary is a master at this.) If Democrats ran openly on the sorts of things they talk about with each other over drinks at the bar, they would end up where the Green Party is. At least the Greens are honest about it.

[DELETED TROLLING]

The Democratic Party has been socialist for years.

Damn them and their contiuned efforts to nationalize the means of production! Oh, wait...

I'm a liberal but I have no allegiance to gov't programs. I look at what issues, problems, concerns, (both private, public and personal individuals might have) and make my decision on weather we should have more gov't regulation/gov't program or less gov't intervention.
AT&T broken up: Lowered the cost of long distance calls by breaking up Ma bell. It was a good thing.
Airline deregulation: Cut costs and services, while delivering poorer quality and cutting back on airport security. Not so good.

The Republican Party has been Nazi for years. They have won elections by successfully convincing voters they're not (Reagan was a master at this). If Republicans ran openly on the sorts of things they talk about with each other over drinks at the bar, they would end up.... well, you get the idea.

DJ-- Too old, and I already did my bit in Vietnam. Posted by: American Hawk

Riiight.

To be a liberal..... One must advocate contintuing increases in government functions....ex-lax at 2:42 PM

It is the rule of the elite by secrecy and intimidation by the likes of Nixon and Bush/Cheney that is the existential threat to American democracy, a threat with which people like you are in full accord and agreement. There is nothing so feared and hated by Republicons than the idea of independent thinking and a free citizenry able to monitor the actions of their rulers.

Society should provide for the "general welfare." Government is the way that the people in a society act together for the common good. That is why it is enshrined in the Constitution. The alternate in the modern era is corporatism. corporate power over citizens and consumers, which is what the big money boyz who really head your party desire.

.... there are constituencies in place whose goal is to add to whatever level of government support and involvement currently exists....ex-lax at 3:33 PM

The Democratic Party has been socialist for years.... harry at 4:40 PM

DJ-- Too old, and I already did my bit in Vietnam. Posted by: American Hawk.

LIAR!!!

I thought 9/11 changed everything, and conservatives were all for bigger government now?

I'd forgotten about lil ole American Hawk. I guess I figured he'd gone the way of tbrosz, that his mother had finally pulled the plug.

Gotta love the trolls, don't ya?

For them, a government providing health care for kids, prescriptions for seniors, and protecting the environment are all evil evil EVIL!!!

But it's perfectly okay for that same government to tell you who you can marry and what you can or cannot do with your own body.

Of course, they think that the left is "silencing" them by quoting their exact words. Which is strange since, last I checked, ensuring more people read/listen/watch something is the exact opposite of "silencing."

It really must suck to be like them, waking up each and every day without any knowledge of basic logic, nor any sense of empathy or concern for anyone but themselves.

Mike: Society should provide for the "general welfare." Government is the way that the people in a society act together for the common good. That is why it is enshrined in the Constitution. (emphasis added)

Close, but not quite. The Preamble to the Constitution says, ...to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare...

You see the difference. According to the Constitution, defense is to be provided by the government, but not general welfare. The government's job is merely to promote general welfare.

Liberalism is a far more conservative public virtue, it goes back to antiquity, than untaxed private wealth accumulation.

Just for the record political doctrines that reject government as a means of wealth distribution or redistribution are quite new. Indeed it is a very radical notion, given European history, to suggest that government’s main function is merely that of security, particularly to provide security for property and wealth accumulation. Most models of society going back into the Middle Ages assumed citizens or subjects would work in concord, be obedient to the king or law, and government would provide equitable distribution of gains. All this would happen in with the blessing of God. The Romans and those that tried to rekindle the republican virtues of Rome, mixed as they were with Christian virtues, talked about equity, liberality, justice and abundance (Abundantia) for all society. These virtues, among others, are the ideals on which the Res publica is based.

It was not until the 19th century that radicals in England began to press what could be seen as an anarcho-capitalist political order. The ideological origins of this movement were not religious or, like the utopias of the Renaissance, based in antiquity nor do they find their origins in Enlightenment ideals, although they borrow the language of liberty. It is not really a theory of the nation-state at all. It is an economic theory that wants to simplify the virtues of the body politic to that of wealth making, not for the whole working in concord, but for the winners. Those ancient ideals of Republics such as equity, liberality, justice and abundance are rejected. In there place is erected a naturalist argument of “survival of the fittest” where individuals are pitted against one another in a state of natural conflict. It is not only against foolish utopianism but against the legitimacy of the nation and the state, the Republic, that represents and governs all peoples and classes. Like homosexuals in Iran they simply are declared not to exist.

Reagan/Bush say you can have these things and more by lowering taxes and growing the economy. Don't want to dry up revenues, do we?

When the lunatics are running the asylum, the sane people seem deranged.

The government's job is merely to promote general welfare.

So he's getting his 4th star after all?

Ah, liberal blogs, and one I enjoy pretty regularly. If opposition to capitalism and American expansionism, however, make me a "nutjob," then I guess I'm a nutjob. Funny, but it sure doesn't feel that way, and I'm in good company too.

Krugman is a 21st Century capitalist. Shoebacon and others have yet to leave the 19th Century. The canard of "opposition to capitalism" is all they have to offer up.

President Hillary will turn you all into raving radicals.

Heh.

Didn't Paul Wellstone already write a book by that title?

ex-liberal,

To be a liberal, it's not enough to believe that the government should provide a certain laundry list of services. One must advocate contintuing increases in government functions, money and power. If single-payer health insurance is enacted, liberals won't stop advocating other programs and benefits.

So it doesn't matter if liberals are opposed to socialism, that's where it will all end up anyway. I guess you missed logic class the day the professor explained the fallacy of the slippery slope argument.

There is another problem with this argument, which is it isn't just government that expands, the free market does, too. Think of the sub-prime lending market, which exploded in recent years, and with no effective governmental regulation, leading, as was quite predictable, to a financial disaster.

MaxGowan, considering the record of the 20th century, a close review of the 19th is clearly in order. And critiques of capitalism are very "21st century" contrary to your understanding.

there is no financial disaster, where is it? I've been hearing this same economy sucks cause of X crap for 7 years now, when do you all finally realize that line of thinking is just complete crap meant to make you think that way. the market corrected itself has it not? are prices not lower? has building not slowed down. have 0% no money down interest only loans not decreased? prove me wrong.

....According to the Constitution, defense is to be provided by the government, but not general welfare. The government's job is merely to promote general welfare.... ex-lax at 5:10 PM

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
In the context of the Preamble, which is to explain the rationale for having a government, promote is the same as provide, establish, insure and secure. The framers were also authors and 18th Century ones.
Your fallacy is to think that the word promote in that era meant the same as a sales promotion is this.

Krugman is radically dishonest -- that makes him a political radical. Krugman radically bends the truth and slants his history. He often betrays his scientific training to advance his politics. This is a radical political move.

You'll never be in Krugman's class, Kevin, because you lack this radical dishonesty factor.