In the Arena

Krugman Quibble

I agree with most of what Paul Krugman has to say about the debt deal–with one crucial exception. He’s right that Obama should have included raising the debt ceiling in last December’s tax deal…but he’s wrong, I think, about the President using what we’ll call “constitutional means”–the 14th Amendment–to blow past this silly, disastrous fight.

If he had cited the 14th Amendment and simply ordered Treasury to pay the bills, he would have been impeached by the radical Republicans. This would have guaranteed that the next 16 months would have been overwhelmed by an even worse version of the silliness visited upon our nation by the poisonous Limbaugh-Tea Party nihilists.

We can argue about whether we’re due for 16 months of nihilist sabotage anyway. We probably are. But you really can’t fault Obama for trying to keep the wilder excesses of this disgraceful crew off the table. I would prefer that the President passionately make the case against them. I would prefer that he expose their world-class ignorance and hypocrisy. I would prefer that he made himself plainer to the public (and yes, I still think he should appointed Elizabeth Warren to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau–that was a symbolic fight worth having because it would have demonstrated the Limbaugh-Norquist fealty to the oligarchs and put the President firmly on the side of average folks.)

As the election grows closer, he may deploy the array of rhetorical and political weapons at his disposal. For now, he has accepted the least worst alternative to limit the damage this tyrannical minority seems intent on doing to our economy and our nation.

Related Topics: Viewpoint
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty No. 2), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay-marriage advocates — as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus