[lbo-talk] Krugman: "The question then is why."

// ravi ravi at platosbeard.org
Wed Jul 13 11:14:37 PDT 2011


On Jul 13, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> CB: "Finally, you are ignoring the results of the 2010 elections. They have
> put the whole spectrem way to the right in a way that Obama cannot
> ignore , despite all you phony left pundits' claims to the contrary."
>
> [WS:] Yup. This is the 800-pound gorilla in the room that most on
> this list do not want to mention. I think O is quite responsive to
> his perceived constituencies, it is just the the left is not among
> them. And it is not there not because O chooses to ignore it, but
> because its impact on electoral outcomes is negligible. Believing
> otherwise borders on delusions of grandeur.
>

I think the leap of logic in the above is in the use of the word “left”, whereas what should be used is “liberals” or “progressives” (or the “poor” or “working class” or “minorities” or “youth") - whose impact on electoral outcomes is not negligible in theory. In practise of course they (liberals) vote on the least evil principle, or they (poor, youth) stay away. So Obama can count on their vote and pander to the “independents” and non-all-out-wacko right-wingers or try to win back the vote of the disenchanted (mostly the youth). The former (pandering) is more reliable.

Further, where from the idea that Obama cannot ignore election results? He was able to resist populist sentiment that elected him to power, to dole out riches to his Wall Street paymasters and steadfastly refuse to punish them in any way for their excess.

Occam’s razor says: Obama is a triangulating neo-liberal.

—ravi



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list