Customer Reviews

The Conscience of a Liberal

5 star:		(109)
4 star:		(24)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

As baby boomers, we grew up with products "Made in the USA" and scoffed at trinkets from Japan. Our parents enjoyed life-long employment, health care, affordable education, Social Security and pensions that made the golden years more golden. This is what author Paul Krugman describes in his new book "Conscience of a Liberal." He calls this the "Great Compression" where the politics of equality was borne from the New Deal in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt defied the laws of Adam Smith and his invisible hand, and redistributed the wealth of a nation, effectively killing the "Gilded Age" where society was comprised of the very wealthy and the poor.

FDR's New Deal saw the minimum wage becoming half of the average wage earner, the rise of unions, and the mansions of the nation's wealthiest becoming museum attractions. This was the creation of the middle class that was vehemently opposed by Republicans who believed that government intervention would turn the country communist and ruin the economy. It didn't.

By the time Dwight Eisenhower, Republican, became president most in the party had made their peace with the New Deal and only a fringe of an extremist element, known as movement conservatives, still opposed it.

These conservatives made a brief, unsuccessful surge with the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964. They got a break when Democrats embraced civil rights, which broke the Solid South away from them. Racism and the wrath of the angry white male were exploited, and the message of Ronald Reagan could not be missed when he launched his campaign in Philadelphia, MS. Sound familiar?

Through skillful marketing of ideas, conservatives were able to exploit racism and frame themselves as strong on defense, tough on crime, and opponents of big government and taxes, even though they lacked the record to support any of these assertions. Once again, we returned to a Gilded Age with a rising disparity between the have's and the have nots, and a declining middle class. Middle class income is less than it was under President Lyndon Johnson, and bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures have increased because of crushing medical debt and jobs being shipped overseas.

And this is where Paul Krugman claims that conservatism is running on its last pint of gas. With record low unemployment and a booming economy, Americans are still uncertain about the their future and their prospects. They have had no tax relief, no job security, income failing to keep pace with cost of living increases, rising health care insurance costs, no end to an unpopular war, rising education costs, and companies repudiating their pension promises. With forty-five million Americans having no health insurance and sixteen million being under-insured, conservatives are no longer able to convince them that they are better off with tax relief going to the richest companies, while they are trying to dismantle Medicare and Social Security, in other words, the New Deal.

In spite of the current widening gap, Krugman sees an optimistic future, a demise of movement conservatism and a return to the politics of equality through universal health care. He points out that this is not socialized medicine but socialized insurance. The government program, Medicare operates efficiently with smaller administrative costs than major insurance companies, which have considerably higher operating expenses. The author's second point is that while racism still exists, it is not as deep as it was twenty years ago, and can no longer be exploited by movement conservatives. Equally important, he believes that Americans will eventually see that conservatism is of no advantage to them, only to the corporations and the wealthy.

Writing in a style and vocabulary that will not require the reader to carry a dictionary, this award-winning columnist and economist provides an interesting background of American populism, political history of America in the 20th century, and the remedy for the current politics of inequality.

It was a thoroughly enjoyable reading experience. It is worth every penny.

As a southerner (transplanted from Michigan), retired engineer, and a citizen very worried about my country under the conservatives, I welcome with a full heart Krugman's lucid, so truthful expose of the conservatives' motives and methods. Having perused most of the sources he names, I welcome the beautiful analysis and synthesis of the US predicament. He gives hope that we can shake off the traps and enlighten the people about their mistaken voting habits, especially those dictated by racism, which I daily see here in the southern states. Thank you so much, Paul.

Krugman does it again with an impeccably reasoned history of the interaction between US politics and economics. I wasn't expecting much new, but Krugman repeatedly opened my eyes by putting our current political conflicts in the context of 140 years worth of economic and political history. He documents how the distribution of economic resources are guided not only by Adam Smith's invisible hand but also by politics. He describes how we achieved relative equality with high productivity growth during the 1940-60s, analyzes how political decisions led to our current moderate growth with most of the benefits accruing to a small fraction of the population, and discusses the way movement conservatives have achieved and maintained political power while furthering the economic interests of a small minority. The second half of the book suggests a modest plan for liberals to achieve when they regain political power--beginning with universal health insurance.

I've often found it hard to understand what motivates conservatives. I now understand their history and ideas much better. Compromising with them isn't going to work. It will be interesting to see how conservatives respond to this book. They will clearly quibble, attack, and distract, but it is hard to see how they could counteract Krugman's carefully documented main points.

This book is a must read for everybody concerned about the direction our country is moving. The timing is propitious as it arrives just as the radical conservative movement is beginning to falter. It refutes essentially every argument radical conservatives use to advance their cause and distort discussions. And it will be the book of the decade if it does begin the process of getting our political discussions about the undoing our social safety nets back to where they were in the 1950s. Krugman quotes Eisenhower as writing of those who would "attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs...." that "Their number is negligible and they are stupid." Radical conservatives will always be with us, but they do not need to remain in political power.

This was a very interesting read, and being somewhat of a libertarian and leaning rightward on all things fiscal or economic, I walked away from reading "Conscience of a Liberal" with a greater understanding of the liberal viewpoint. In fact, I would also say that I have greater tolerance now for liberal policies and the welfare state in general. (However, perhaps part of that is because I also just finished George Lakoff's "Moral Politics", which was interesting and highly recommended).

Krugman definitely lambasted a handful of prominent "movement conservatives", but did so in a way that didn't offend me. Maybe that's because I share Krugman's disgust at the takeover of the republican party by the religious right. Also, I found this book to have perhaps the most clear and succinct distillation of the healthcare issue that I've been able to find anywhere. I feel I have a better handle now on what the "problems" really are. Lastly, I agree with the author that our country could tolerate somewhat higher taxes on the "ultra-rich" without significantly impairing market-based incentive forces and the entrepreneurial spirit. I am all for Krugman's ideas to clean up the tax loopholes that allow hedge fund managers to pay a lower rate. Thankfully, Krugman doesn't hint at raising corporate taxes.

However, despite all that, there are a number of important areas where I disagree or take issue with some of the author's assertions:
1) Krugman seems to yearn for the day when "A worker protected by a good union, as many were, had as secure a job and often nearly as high an income as a highly trained professional". Several times he hints at the need to achieve salary parity between high and low skilled workers. Why? Is that really fair, and even if it were, does that make sense? As Krugman himself points out globalization has caused the U.S. economy to rely more on high technology and highly technical workers. We desparately need more engineers and scientists, and we need people to start having more interest in those subjects at an earlier age. If busting your butt to study hard, go to school, and study a difficult field in college is going to get you the same rewards as a job doing menial labor, where has the incentive gone to catch our workforce up to the 21st century?
2) I think Krugman is stretching quite a bit with his theory that the primary reason voters continue to vote republican, even when it's obviously not in their economic self interest, is due to race. As another reviewer pointed out, the South's switching over to the republican party probably has more to do with religion than race.
3) Krugman makes the point over and over again that we should be able to achieve nationalized healthcare just like Europe, with comparable costs per person. This however ignores the cultural differences between Americans and Europeans, in that Americans have very poor diet and exercise habits relative to Europeans, and Americans seem more obsessed with pills (this comes from my own personal experience spending several years in multiple countries living in Europe, where, for the most part, somebody will only take an aspirin if they are in excruciating pain).
4) Taxes: why so little mention of implementing a VAT tax or use tax? I'm guessing because these methods aren't progressive enough for the author. Be careful about raising the capital gains tax too much, that could stifle private investment. Thankfully Krugman doesn't say anything about raising corporate taxes, which would result in reduced reinvestment, reduced growth, and reduced hiring.
5) Why should France be the ideal we should be aspiring to achieve? I don't think the author has ever found himself stuck in a French city when he needed to be somewhere else, because the entire country was on strike, as I have... Not to mention that it's nearly impossible to fire somebody in France if you need to, which results in reduced hiring and a lack of negative consequences for poorly performing employees. And don't get me started about the gross inefficiencies in the numerous state-owned industries....
6) Krugman tries to tell the reader that the huge decline in union membership since the 50s is because of illegal and coercive measures used by republicans... but doesn't elaborate. The real reason unions are in decline is because of the vastly improved labor-management relations compared to 50-70 years ago, not to mention the broader range of benefits offered by most employers, and the simple fact that the better, more motivated workers are tired of being passed up for promotion by others, only because they have more seniority. Meritocracy will win every time, and unions stifle meritocracy. Unions run amock is one of the big causes for the current sorry state of Detroit, what with the unbelievable "legacy costs" of the big-3 due to excessively lavish retirement plans and disproportionate hourly wages.
7) In general, the notion that the rich become richer at the expense of the poor is overly simplistic. Krugman should know that economics is not a zero-sum game, especially in the age of globalization. Globalization results in lower prices for consumer products, and the poor benefit disproportionately from these lower prices. And to suggest that somehow the rich are getting richer by taking money that is really due lower-paid workers is very crude analysis.
8) I wish Krugman would have talked more about educational opportunity (he did make a brief reference to free college for everyone in France). If you really want to reduce "inequality", we need to make sure everyone, regardless of background, has the opportunity to excel in life and get a good education (but that's about where I stop). Assuming you can give everybody equal opportunity up to that point, from there we need to let the market work freely to encourage people to focus on areas that need the most attention.

Despite these criticisms, I enjoyed this book immensely and learned a great deal. I encourage other right-leaning students of political economy to give it a chance.

It is a cliche to refer to a book as "must read," so approaching this review I have struggled to find a different formulation. But, what the heck... This is a "must read" book if you care at all about politics, economics, and/or social policy. Krugman is a good writer but a devastatingly incisive analyst. His arguments are certainly informed by social awareness but they're anything but fuzzy. Rather, they're delivered with precision and bolstered by meticulous research and analysis.

The Conscience of a LIberal achieves its best moments when it surgically dismantles the tired arguments of movement conservatism, making the reader wonder how any of them were ever taken seriously in the first place. My only quibble with the book is Krugman's reliance on the phrase "welfare state" as a descriptor for the social structure he's espousing. While it's a technically accurate description, its negative connotations, unfair as they might be, will ultimately undermine Krugman's ability to persuade readers. And that's unfortunate because this book has the potential to change the thinking of anyone, even conservatives, who approach it with an open mind.

America would be better off if all the presidential candidates, members of Congress and other federal bureaucrats read the last 60 pages of this excellent book. Since 28 others have already reviewed it for Amazon, I'll focus on its last three chapters. They concisely explain the national health care issue, the damage America is suffering because of the tremendous gap between the few very rich and the ever-increasing number of very poor, and the steps Americans must take to right the ship of state. Krugman argues logically for universal health care and describes why it isn't the "socialized medicine" threat President Bush and his followers claim it is. He also notes that the growing inequality in Americans' income has already condemned the children of today's adult poor to the likelihood that few of them will do well in college but many will continue their parents' poverty. And he calls on liberals to join progressives in becoming partisan -- and active -- in efforts to re-establish "a truly vital, competitive democracy." America's goal shouldn't be the one-party rule some on the right seek, he says. Instead, the parties should compete to show they can "deliver a decent life to all Americans and keep each other honest." Say it again, Paul.

Paul Krugman is an incisive observer of economic trends, and his customary acumen is displayed in portions of "Conscience of a Liberal". Krugman is his best in describing the growth of U.S. income inequality since 1980, in drawing parallels between contemporary America and the pre-New Deal era, and in prescribing a way forward for America's embattled liberals and progressives. Krugman is also persuasive in arguing that political reforms drive income distribution, a theory that runs counter to substantial commentary over the past several decades that asserts that economic trends drive political developments. These elements of "Conscience of a Liberal" make worthwhile reading.

But despite these considerable strengths, Krugman's coverage of the rise of movement conservatism is a tired repackaging of the substantial literature on the rise and rule of the political right. This material has been covered at length and in more persuasive detail by others, and there is little to be learned-- unless you are new to this subject-- by Krugman's recounting of how the Democratic Party lost the South.

Krugman is at his best when he sticks to economics and aspects of public affairs which are linked to the subjects of living standards and income distribution. This reader looks forward to a volume in which Krugman displays his talents more fully.

Paul Krugman has written a book documenting that history, from an economic and political standpoint, does repeat itself to a large degree. He does this by comparing the days of the Robber Barons to today's CEOs and explains the similarities and the differences.

This is a critical analysis of where the middle class has gone in the past 30 years and why the middle class is shrinking as we speak. He discusses what he calls "movement conservatives" (also known by many as neocons or the rabid right) and how they have let ideology interfere with bipartisanship. He also compares Republican Presidents such as Eisenhower and Nixon to Reagan and Bush and explains the differences in economic policies. In addition, he demonstrates that the tactics used by this group are a failure to most people and are hurting this country deeply.

The book is very well documented, balanced, and is thoughtfully presented. His conclusions of what need to be done to swing the country back on course are dead on and presented in a well written style, making the book a relatively easy read considering the subject matter. Highly recommended and a must read for all in the middle class who wonder why they cannot get ahead.

A reader is entitled to his own opinion of this book, but a readers it not entitled to his own facts. A reader may believe or disbelieve that the "trickle down" theory economics has merit, but it is a fact that working class wages have barely kept pace with inflation over the past 40 years. A reader may believe or disbelieve that having a class of super-wealthy Americans dominate our culture is good but it is a fact that such a class now exists.

What sets this book apart from so many is that Krugman does not rely only on rhetoric to make his points, he relies on a tough-minded factual analysis of what has happened to this country over the past 40 years.

This is one of finest analyses of American political history that I have ever read. There have been an string of excellent books in years critiquing the economic and political goals of the extreme Right (which has largely taken over the Republican party) such as Thomas Frank's WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS and ONE MARKET UNDER GOD, Michael Lind's MADE IN TEXAS and UP FROM CONSERVATISM, George Lakoff's MORAL POLITICS, and Kevin Phillips's AMERICAN THEOCRACY and WEALTH AND POLITICS, among many, many others. These books have detailed the birth of the Far Right, the individuals who fund their Top-Down agenda, and exposed many of the long term effects of their policies. There is no question that one of the reasons that America is currently engaging in a backlash against the Right is the realization of how damaging the Right's goals are to the well being of the vast majority of Americans. The largest portion of Krugman's book is devoted to recounting all of this. There is not a great deal that is new in this portion of the book, but I do believe that no one has summed up all the aspects so well as Krugman has had. For all the brilliance of Frank's WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS, he neglects, as Krugman correctly points out, the role that race has played in the rise of the Right. For instance, what I remember most about Ronald Reagan - along with his astonishing ignorance on a host of subjects ("Trees cause more pollution than cars.") was the racism that permeated all of his polity positions. He constantly evoked welfare cheats and crime in inner cities and there was no question that this was meant and perceived as an attack on blacks. It certainly accounted for much of his support in the South (I'm from the South and I remember how much many of the people I knew from my home state delighted in his efforts to put the black man in his place, as they would frame it).

The first two-thirds of Krugman's book are taken up by this absolutely superb and dead on analysis of how we got to where we are. One thing he does not address, except in passing, has been the amazing takeover of the media by the Right, shown most ironically in their greatest public relations success, the creation of the myth of the liberal media. The Right utterly dominates radio, television (except for Keith Olbermann and the two political satirical shows headed by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert), and most newspaper reporting (apart from op ed columnists like Krugman, Gene Lyons, and the late Molly Ivins). Those on the left have fought back in two areas. There have been huge spates of liberal books in the past decade that have had an enormous impact on political debate. The books on the right have been unrelentingly propagandistic with virtually no factual support to them and while some writers like Ann Coulter sell a lot of books to her fans, few or no books on the Right have actually influenced national opinion. But because the books on the Left have frequently been fact-based, they have gradually altered the political climate in a host of ways. I think this is going to continue since a great deal of their work has been to point out the factual inaccuracies of a lot of the Right-wing rhetoric. Bill O'Reilly, for instance, is today universally regarded as a right-wing figure, whereas a decade ago many actually believed his claims to be "spin free." He is also increasingly regarded as misinformed, cranky, and irrelevant, especially when Christmas roles around each year. This is the only part of the overall political story that I think Krugman fails to sufficiently note.

The most important part of the book is the last. There is no question the Right is in disarray today. Since 1981 they have been pushing an agenda that has harmed almost all Americans, except those in the highest economic brackets. We know now that trickle-down simply doesn't take place. (Why anyone ever thought this is baffling. Even in the twenties Will Rogers quipped that many people think gold is like water: put it at the top and it will flow down to everyone. But, he insisted, gold isn't at all like water. Put it at the top and all it does is sit there.) There has been little or no middle class economic growth for decades, while the very wealthy are not only getting richer and richer, but paying an increasingly smaller portion of their profits in taxes. Benjamin Franklin spoke openly of the necessity of a progressive tax system in which the wealthy paid far more than those who made less. John Adams (considered the first American conservative) spoke of the need of most of the money in estates to pass to the government in taxes in order to prevent the formation of an economic elite in the United States, a sentiment with which Thomas Jefferson strongly agreed. Why it has become so verboten to see the morality of taxing those who are so much better off is inexplicable. And many of the superrich agree with this. Warren Buffett has spoken out again additional tax cuts and opposed Bush's elimination of the estate tax. Bill Gates's father is one of the leading figures in opposing the recent changes in the estate tax, proving that there are rich people with consciences. My point is that more and more people are seeing through the right wing rhetoric and culture wars to see just how harmful their policies have been for America.

But what next? And this is where Krugman has much to offer. All evidence right now points to huge Democratic gains in the 2008 election. Though much can change in a year, right now no GOP political candidate polls strongly against Hillary Clinton (though many Right wing pundits consider her unelectable - for the record, I don't like Hillary because she embraces too many right-wing economic policies). But the Democrats look very likely to make huge gains in both houses of congress. Few Democratic Senate seats will be vulnerable, while a host of GOP seats are, pointing to a probable veto-proof majority in the senate. If we do indeed get strong Democratic majorities in both houses and a Democratic president, what comes next? I think Krugman is correct in thinking that a universal health program must be implemented. Almost all Americans agree that his should be a major goal for congress. Even most of the GOP presidential candidates are talking about the necessity for universal healthcare, though most of them are advocating private insurance programs funded through tax relief, not a good idea. I think Krugman is correct in calling for socialized health insurance (which is not socialized medicine). There is absolutely no question that the best way to do this would be through a single-payer system as in Medicare or in Canada, but I reluctantly agree with Krugman that healthcare reform will only be possible with the inclusion of the current private insurance companies as administrators. This means that the program will be more expensive than if we had a single-payer system, but without a compromise with these companies probably nothing will be accomplished. But some of the Democratic candidates are talking of a federal plan that would compete with the private companies. I think this would both keep the prices charged by the private carriers down. I have a superb health plan at my company and would stay with that, but I delight in a healthcare plan that would mean that no one could be turned down.

We've developed a fear of government in the United States that has meant that we have a lower standard of life than in many of the other leading economic powers. We'd rather have government stay out of our lives than have a better quality of life. Krugman believes that a government instituting a progressive political agenda would do much to dispel some of the irrational fear of government that most Americans hold. Social Security has made the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans better and the same would be true of universal healthcare and other federal programs. Once it is in place, other progressive programs could then be proposed as people realize that government can play a crucial role in helping people to better lives.

This book should be high on the reading list of any American concerned about our country fulfilling its potential and promise. In the past few decades we've increasingly ceased to be concerned about the general weal and have focused instead on welfare for rich people. Krugman's book is crucial for explaining how this perverse situation arose and what we could do to correct it.