Book Review: Krugman's Rallying Cry to Liberals

I just finished Paul Krugman's 2007 book, The Conscience of a Liberal. I actually liked this book much more than I initially expected. It is a very entertaining and mostly easy read (I actually listened to the audible audio book). Paul Krugman details America's transition from the "Long Gilded Age" (pre-New Deal) to the "Great Contraction" (post New Deal til 1980s) when America's income distribution became more egalitarian. He then details the switch back, starting in the late 1970s, when the top income earners saw large gains in real income while mid and lower income earners saw only modest gains, if any at all. This was due primarily to the growth of "Movement Conservatism." He then makes the case that it is now (back in 2007) possible to once again to work towards closing the income gap.

There are a few noteworthy points to make about this book:

1. This book was written back in 2007, before the election of Barrack Obama. It is interesting to see that many of the proposals given by Krugman have been played out these last 4 years, most notably health care reform. However, It is also interesting to note that his most important recommendation for Liberals was largely ignored: At the end of his book, he made the case that partisanship was necessary at the moment. Movement Conservatives will reject Liberal proposals no matter how far to the right Liberals have made them. This turned out to be largely true, as seen with the strong conservative objections to the mostly conservative plan known as "Obamacare." One of the biggest threat to Krugman's vision was the election of Barrack Obama who, despite being personally far to the left, has governed almost center-right. This helps explain why Krugman is currently a major critic of Obama's policies. To a certain degree, Barrack Obama ruined Krugman's plan.
2. This book gives a great sense of the difference between being a Liberal and being a Socialist (in the egalitarian sense). At one point, Krugman shares a statistic that makes this point quite well. He complains that average CEO pay, while once 40 times what the average worker made (during the Great Contraction), is (at the time of writing) over 300 times what the average worker makes. Just how accurate this statistic may be is irrelevant. Krugman has essentially stated that he is fine if CEOs make 40 times what the average worker makes. Given today's numbers Krugman is fine is CEOs make, on average, $1.6 Million a year! Krugman, as a liberal, has no problem with CEOs being millionaires. This is likely not what most people think of as a Socialist opinion.
3. This book contains very little political philosophy or real arguments for Liberalism itself. As a result, it will not persuade any hard core conservatives to move leftward. However, I do not get the impression this book was ever even intended to do that. It was meant more as a rallying cry for Liberals, similar to Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative, which helped rally Movement Conservatives to a generation of prosperity. However, this book may convince a few people out there that they ARE actually themselves Liberal. Based on a few of the polls cited in his book, Krugman thinks this includes a substantial amount of the population.

As always, whenever reading a political book such as this, don't ever take the statistics for granted. For example, Krugman cited a questionable study from the World Health Organization about the quality of health care in the US. Make sure to have your skeptical hat on when reading this book, as well as any other "work of non-fiction."

Overall, I would recommend this book to most Liberals and Progressives, as well as any person who generally thinks income inequality in this country is not optimal. I would also recommend this book to Conservatives who want to understand a bit more about Liberalism.

.

Minority data shows a grim future for the GOP

Brookings: "America Reaches Its Demographic Tipping Point":
This is an interesting article:

The latest wave of 2010 Census data, released this week, confirms what earlier surveys have strongly hinted: virtually half of recent births in the U.S. are minorities...
Minorities now comprise at least 40 percent of infants in more than half of all states, with the white share of infants declining in all of them, with the exception of the District of Columbia. Especially large minority gains occurred in New England states, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, as well as rapidly growing states like Florida, Nevada and Georgia...

Hispanics are a large part of this dispersion. They comprise more than half of all infants in California, Texas, and New Mexico and are the largest source of births in Nevada and Arizona. Among minority births, they contribute the most in 26 states, including Midwest states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. Blacks represent the largest minority in 17 states– all in the South except for Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania...
As America’s younger population becomes more diverse and spreads to broader parts of the country, we need forward looking political and civic leaders to bridge race-generational divides that are already fuelling issues like immigration and our ongoing budget battles over revenue and government spending choices.

This needs to be a wake up call for Republicans. Although the GOP has been making gains among young white voters, their popularity among blacks has remained minuscule. It was 6% in 2008 and 8% in 2011. The black population is growing in southern states, the GOP stronghold. Merely presenting black candidates does not work. They need to actually figure out how to communicate and sell their ideas, something that might no go well when they protest the 1964 Civil Rights Movement (for whatever reason) or attempt to remove social programs minorities rely upon.
Although the GOP fares a bit better with Hispanics at 22% favorable ratings, their popularity is shrinking. It is down 6% since 2008. This likely due to the fact that Republicans focus more on restricting illegal immigration than they do to comprehensive immigration reform. This doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon within the GOP. In fact, the problem seems to be getting worse.

So far this hasn't translated into a growing share of Democratic voters. 2% fewer Americans call themselves Democrats since 1990, while 3% fewer consider themselves Republicans. Independent voters have seen a rise. However, these Independent voters have the ability to swing most elections.

What does this tell us? Unless the GOP is willing to fundamentally change a few of its sacred views, the party is in severe danger of losing support in the long term.