I have a few random thoughts today and they are quite random.
Let’s start with Nobel Laureate and NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman who has an interesting blog, “FDR, Reagan and Obama,” that shouldn’t be ignored. Here is part of Krugman’s statement, but you should read the entire post. [Here] [The underlining is mine.]
Some readers may recall that back during the Democratic primary Barack Obama shocked many progressives by praising Ronald Reagan as someone who brought America a 'sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.' I was among those who found this deeply troubling--because the idea that Reagan brought a transfomation in American dynamism is a right-wing myth, not borne out by the facts....
...And here’s this... [from Obama]. 'We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.'
This is a right-wing smear. What actually happened was that during the interregnum between the 1932 election and the 1933 inauguration — which was much longer then, because the inauguration didn’t take place until March — Herbert Hoover tried to rope FDR into maintaining his policies, including rigid adherence to the gold standard and fiscal austerity. FDR declined to be part of this.
But Obama buys the right-wing smear.
More and more, it’s becoming clear that progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion. Once you got past the soaring rhetoric you noticed, if you actually paid attention to what he said, that he largely accepted the conservative storyline, a view of the world, including a mythological history, that bears little resemblance to the facts.
And confronted with a situation utterly at odds with that storyline … he stayed with the myth.
I am thrilled that Krugman is being more confrontational. I wonder if anyone in the Obama WH will pay attention?
I have one more random thought and this one concerns Hillary and her natural leadership abilities.
I’m referring to two of her reactions quoted over this past week-end.
The first echoed what we all feel about the TSA and their new airport security procedures. When asked on Face The Nation if she would wish to submit to the pat downs, she answered bluntly: [Here]
Not if I could avoid it. I mean, who would?
Bingo! She then went on to say the usual soothing things about the TSA working to improve the process, but what will be quoted is her first, down-to-earth, common sense statement that everyone with good sense and a brain would agree with.
The second reaction occurred on Sunday during a Chris Matthews interview on Fox. When asked about the recent conviction of Ahmed Ghailani, Hillary replied that the “vast majority” of American detainees should get civilian trials and went on to prove it in her clear-headed, no-nonsense prose. [Here]
Yes, indeed, ain’t she grand.
Thank you, Paul and Hillary.
Aren't we most fortunate to have them part of our national discourse?