Paul Krugman -- a leading voice of worry during the Dem primary that Obama would eschew confrontation for mushy post-partisanship -- has an interesting new post that to some degree clears Obama of the charge that his economic appointments herald an inevitably centrist administration:I'm going to have to agree with the both of them. Actions speak louder than words, and so far Obama's actions are pragmatic to the point of overcautiousness. If Paul Volker's council of advisers is the group giving Obama the real advice on getting us out of the hole we're in, the voices in that council must be unabashedly liberal, and in the classical sense of the word.A thought I've had: there have been some complaints from movement progressives about the centrism/orthodoxy of Obama's economics appointments. To some extent this was unavoidable, I think: someone like the Treasury secretary has to be an experienced hand who can deal with Wall Street, and I haven't heard anyone proposing particular individuals with clearer progressive credentials to hold that position.For the leading progressive economic voice to be saying this is obviously good for Obama. But Krugman also has a challenge for the President-elect, pointing out that the new economics advisory board unveiled today offers him "a very good place to give progressive economists a voice."
"Let's see whether progressives do in fact get a seat at this particular table," Krugman says.
Indeed. Obama did say today at his presser that "labor" would be given a seat at this table. Here's the perfect opportunity for Obama to allay the concerns -- founded or not -- that some liberals have been giving voice to.
A generation and a half of conservative economic theory has been proven a disaster in 2008. Overcautious, incremental change is not going to cut it. Here's hoping.
No comments:
Post a Comment