The New Republic

Those are tepid endorsements. But they are endorsements.

- Nusholtz

September 9, 2011 at 8:24am

This is what Brooks says: "If he comes up with his own deficit proposal that pays for his programs with some serious entitlement reforms (and not merely with some boilerplate “let’s tax the rich” plan), then Republicans would be wise to work with him to make his growth ideas more effective." That's right. If Obama agrees to cut Medicare (that's the entitlement that Obama said he would cut) on terms acceptable to Republicans, then Republicans should support the jobs bill. When pigs fly.

- rayward

September 9, 2011 at 8:46am

Indeed, ray.

- liberalref

September 9, 2011 at 9:20am

"his most fervent enemies"?? Of course the Fire Dog Lake types are his most fervent enemies. The conservative and the GOP, especially the teabaggers (who call him a Nazi or bring guns to town hall meetings) are his best buds.

- tmmats

September 9, 2011 at 9:30am

@Nusholtz, I thought Krugman's endorsement was warm, if not passionate. "Tepid" describes Brooks's endorsement quite well, and he will no doubt find an excuse to back away from it in the next couple of weeks, but as you say--it is an endorsement. Although he and Obama are theoretically on the same side, I think Krugman's position is the more surprising one. Krugman's disdain for the Obama Administration on matters economic has been pretty consistent, so this is a notable reversal for him. If David Brooks were a superhero, he'd be Tepid-Man*, so this is nothing new. *Along with his sidekick Ross Douthat, better known as Lukewarm Boy.

- Dausuul

September 9, 2011 at 9:54am

How many people he's killed? You mean like OSAMA BIN LADEN you weakass whining MF?? Oh sorry, pardon me. A fine speech, etc etc etc.

- WandreyCer

September 9, 2011 at 10:09am

Once again, David Brooks shows himself to be politically schizophrenic and economically moronic. Here's most of what I said in the comments thread after his latest. (comment #6) "Brooks's argument about the different types of recessions makes exactly zero sense. He correctly claims that the current downturn is of a particular sort that indicates a high likelihood that it will be deeper and more long-lasting than average, but then he takes a remarkable leap of illogic to suggest that the increased severity of the recession/depression is a reason to do even LESS to ameliorate it. Strep throat and tuberculosis both respond to antibiotics, but TB responds to treatment much more slowly than strep throat and requires more agents at higher doses for much longer durations to achieve a cure. What's more, of the two infections, TB is far more likely to kill its victims if left untreated. Brooks's advice on the economy is analagous to a recommendation that because even with antibiotics a person suffering from TB will inevitably feel sicker for much longer than a person suffering from strep throat, the TB patient should forego antibiotic treatment altogether and should instead tend to his long-term health by working on lowering his cholesterol."

- AaronW

September 9, 2011 at 10:14am

Here is something to ponder about stimulus plans. Whatever you thought of the first plan, its economic effects clearly were muted by the dramatic rise in fuel prices. Whatever you think of the new plan, this morning's financial news notes that a strengthening of the dollar (in response to a weakening of the euro) clearly could mute its effects. The best laid plans of mice and men offtimes go astray. A little humility on both political sides would be appropriate, but is unlikely.

- lsernoff

September 9, 2011 at 10:46am

David Brooks is complete moron. Not at all limited to economics. He is not, however, politically schizophrenic. He is a toady of the right, court Jew and boot-licker to the plutocrats. His particular function for them is to apply anodyne words to soothe the visceral revulsion of Jewish liberals in particular for the depravities of the right. Hence the appearance of schizophrenia. He has to support slavishly whatever the reactionary agenda of the moment, but do so in a manner that nods rhetorically toward the sensibilities of Jewish liberals. I detest him. He is a completely deracinated and loathsome creature.

- roidubouloi

September 9, 2011 at 10:48am

In reference to David Brooks, I heard an interview with him on City Arts and Lectures that illuminated who he really is. Brooks the journalist aspires to be a witty, humorous columnist focusing on cultural issues. But since he isn't talented enough to pull off Maureen Dowd's schtick (his own comparison) three times a week, he writes the political columns to give himself the opportuntiy to write the cultural stuff he loves. I never expected an author to unintentionally damn his own writing as the half-hearted work of a dilettante.

- zardoz67

September 9, 2011 at 10:56am

I wouldn't talk if I were you, r. David Brooks is infinitely smarter than you are. But Jonathan Chait is right that he is far better a cultural critic than he is a political analyst.

- liberalref

September 9, 2011 at 11:05am

Actually, libref, I would talk if I were roid. David Brooks is almost objectively useless. To the extent that he is objectively bad at what he does--write on political economy--he is a moron. Which is a shame, because his own politics says that people who are unsuited for what they do should be fired. Krugman is a liberal. But he is also a knowledgeable macroeconomist. The proof of this is that his arguments derive from and contribute to a body of testable hypotheses and well-worn theories. Brooks is inconsistent and remarkably muddy on what he does believe. He has no particular training in political economy, and at his own admission is more of a sociologist. However, his sociological observations are really only apt with respect to the urban upper middle class and lower upper class. There aren't that many of these people in the US--maybe 20%--but the New York Times consistently sets this population as its target demographic. Fine. But to move from writing about bobo lifestyle to saying that the Social Security age should be uniformly raised is not just bad political economy. It's bad sociology. It's also bad Burkean conservatism--Brooks's preferred brand--and terrible Hamiltonian policy. In fact, to the extent that Brooks is trying to brand himself as a Hamiltonian (David Frum tried to move into this territory this morning as well), it's very clear that the successors of the Hamiltonian Federalists--the men of the First National Bank, infrastructure improvements, and ably managed debt that the Bank issued in order to fund infrastructure across the entire US--are the Democrats. Full stop. The Republicans somehow elided two centuries of time and are trying to rediscover the pre-Louisiana Jefferson. Small government and states' rights are ideologies best left in the 19th century, when we weren't trying to compete against modern China (strong, nationalized technocratic government) and Europe (weaker, distributed institutions but a fairer, more equal society).

- chaitless

September 9, 2011 at 11:37am

This Fire Dog Lake stuff worries me a bit. I think we need to hope that Perry wins the nomination and sufficiently frightens the far left to the point that they'll come back to Obama. But seriously, who else are you going to vote for if you're a FDL type?

- Jonas

September 9, 2011 at 11:41am

Dausuul You may be right, but I was relying on this language by Krugman:

"It’s not nearly as bold as the plan I’d want in an ideal world.

- Nusholtz

September 9, 2011 at 11:49am

Gee whiz, lib. Considering that I am many orders of magnitude smarter and better educated than you, what are you doing here? How do you have the nerve to post anything? You need more time with Sheena and less time posing and posting at TNR.

- roidubouloi

September 9, 2011 at 11:58am

"his most fervent enemies"?? Of course the Fire Dog Lake types are his most fervent enemies. The conservative and the GOP, especially the teabaggers (who call him a Nazi or bring guns to town hall meetings) are his best buds." Pointing out that FDL types are his most fervent enemies does not mean the GOP are his best buds. One can have many enemies, and indeed the FDL types are worse than the GOP, they are the enemy within.

- wkwami

September 9, 2011 at 12:11pm

How many people did O'bama kill?

- IggyPop

September 9, 2011 at 12:35pm

"Krugman is a liberal. But he is also a knowledgeable macroeconomist. The proof of this is that his arguments derive from and contribute to a body of testable hypotheses and well-worn theories." This is true, but Krugman's pronouncements is the political equivalent of a horoscope, he says things that are vague enough he can't go wrong (e.g, "It’s not nearly as bold as the plan I’d want in an ideal world", or "we need a larger stimulus"). This is also the guy who's testable hypothesis in the real world included "advising" Enron, and the Reagan Administration.

- wkwami

September 9, 2011 at 12:42pm

Jonathan Chait - Sorry to see you leave. I learned to really enjoy the way you punched those hippies in their stupid monkey faces. (But you always never mention O'bama's Versailles Treaty at the last minute of the debt negotiations, which was an incredible betrayal and alone justifies liberals concerns. It was pure luck that the Republicans didn't take it.) Very best of luck in your new role.

- IggyPop

September 9, 2011 at 12:43pm

FireDogLake all too often lapses into parody and, alas, is a frequent embarrassment to progressives. It was set up by a Hollywood producer with the money she made from Oliver Stone's feminist triumph 'Natural Born Killers'. It long employed the single most immature and child-like journalist of his generation (no small achievement when there are so many child-like like libertarians walking around) Spencer Ackerman. Despite it's commendable efforts to sympathize with the working poor it all too often reads like a discussion between provincial, privileged, none-too-bright white kids who've gorged themselves on the great political thinkers (Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo) and are now going to have a heated discussion/smackdown of Obama, one that completely ignore both the significance and political realities of his being the first black President. True, I'm writing this on the comment section of a magazine that still gives Marty Peretz's pathetic ramblings a home, but I like to think he's an exception.

- mtinora@me.com

September 9, 2011 at 12:57pm

Grimes - He is the exception is you ask me. It's refreshing to NOT have his columns over on the right-hand side of the screen anymore. What's happened to Noam by the way? I feel like I haven't seen anything from him in some time, but I don't have any recollection of him leaving either.

- Jonas

September 9, 2011 at 1:08pm

Brooks is a smart guy, and a keen observer of human behavior and trends. But he breaks all the dishes when he comments on technical subjects he knows little about. Which is why he frames all issues in non-technical terms. He is similar to similar to McArdle, also a keen observer of human behavior and trends, especially those relating to 30 something educated females, except she fancies herself an expert on the technical subject of economics about which she is very limited training and only superficial understanding (of the Ayn Rand variety), which has resulted in an almost unlimited number of blog posts and comments that reveal as much.

- rayward

September 9, 2011 at 1:39pm

Half of you can't even read. Krugman has been a critic of BHO policies as being inadequate and incoherent-- not of BHO personally or visciously.And his latest proposal really is inadequate-- Robert Reich says it best: Two cheers for the president and his America's Jobs Act. Cheer Number One: In presenting it to a joint session of Congress, he sounded as passionate and determined as he's ever sounded. Second cheer: He laid out the problem correctly and effectively. He explained why jobs and growth must be the nation's first priority now -- not the federal deficit. The economy is in crisis. People are hurting. So government must act, and act quickly. It's irresponsible at a time like this to suggest that government should simply close down. But a jeer because the jobs plan he presented isn't nearly large enough or bold enough to make a major dent in unemployment, or to restart the economy. $450 billion sounds like a lot -- and is more than I expected -- but some of this merely extends current spending (unemployment benefits) and tax cuts (in Social Security taxes), so it doesn't add to aggregate demand. The net new boost to the economy is closer to $300 billion. That doesn't approach even half the gap between what the economy is now producing and what it could produce at or near full employment. And much that $300 billion is in the form of temporary tax cuts to individuals and companies. Some of these make sense -- enlarging the Social Security tax cut, extending it to employers, and giving small businesses a tax holiday for new hires. But temporary tax cuts haven't proven to be particularly effective in stimulating new spending in times of economic stress. People tend to use them to pay off debts or increase savings. Companies use them to reduce costs, but they won't make additional hires unless they expect additional sales -- which won't occur unless consumers increase their spending. That leaves some $140 billion for infrastructure -- improving outworn school buildings, roads, bridges, ports, and so on. And $35 billion to help cash-starved states avoid more layoffs teachers. Both good and important but still small relative to the overall need. Why did the president include so many tax cuts, and why didn't he make his proposal sufficiently large to make a real impact on jobs and growth? Because he crafted it in order to appeal to Republicans. To get it enacted, he needs their votes. I'm having a dizzying sense of déjà vu. The first $800 billion stimulus (spread over two years) wasn't nearly large enough given the drop in aggregate demand. And half of it was in the form of tax cuts. The reason it wasn't bigger and contained so many tax cuts was to get Republican votes. But its apparent ineffectiveness -- it saved around 3 million jobs, but that didn't save it from appearing to fail -- made it harder for the White House to do anything more to stimulate the economy, and ward off what's likely to be a double dip. That's been the heart of Obama's dilemma. Big and bold enough to make a difference, and Republicans are certain to reject it. Small and focused on tax cuts, and maybe Republicans will bite. But even if they sign on, what's the point of the exercise if it won't have a measurable effect on jobs and growth? And why would they sign on this time, anyway? Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell scoffs "This isn't a job plan. It's a reelection plan." That's precisely the problem. McConnell and company have stated publicly that their number-one objective is to unseat Obama and regain the presidency in 2012. They don't want to give the President anything he could possibly claim as a victory. And they're not terribly worried if the economy stays awful through Election Day because that's the best way to fulfill their number-one objective. The president would have done better with a plan that was big enough to make a real difference. And then, when Republicans rejected it, campaign on it. So two cheers -- for both the president's style and his words. And one jeer: He failed on substance and strategy.

- drofnats1

September 9, 2011 at 1:51pm

Igster - don't think I didn't catch that spelling of Bam.

- WandreyCer

September 9, 2011 at 1:52pm

The man's from Offaly Wandrey. Tis a fact. Great hurling county. In his blood. See here: http://d1.stern.de/bilder/stern_5/panorama/2011/KW21/Obama_Irland/Obama_Irland_7_maxsize_735_490.jpg (Just ignore the ******* ****** of a ******* from the ******** in the background.)

- IggyPop

September 9, 2011 at 2:18pm

Oh I know it - those of us of Welsh descent (apologies in advance for my relatives) are jealous, believe me.

- WandreyCer

September 9, 2011 at 2:39pm

Iggy, I'd love to see BO take that "item" and strategically introduce it to a few of the gop at, say, Mach 2. A bit of "Rock Obama" so to speak....

- tmmats

September 9, 2011 at 3:44pm

"Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny came bearing a gift for his VIP guest on Monday – a hurling stick. President Obama liked that the gift could serve another purpose – keeping recalcitrant members of Congress in line. Showing off the hurley for the world’s media, Obama joked, "If members of Congress aren't behaving, I'll give them a little pat, a little hurl.” Republicans be warned!" If only tnmats. Would be quite a sight.

- IggyPop

September 9, 2011 at 3:54pm

Curiously enough, it seems as if Enda's personal popularity numbers are quite high in Ireland even though the government's are spiralling downward. Reminds me of something.

- ironyroad

September 9, 2011 at 6:51pm

People are just happy he's not Cowen or Bertie Irony. I have a friend who works in Govt and he tells me Kenny High Fives in the corridors with everyone he passes. The civil servants cringe everytime he does it. He's relentlessly positive in almost a niave way but crucially people understand that he's not in power and has little say over things. That's why he's popular. Wait until after the next budget.

- IggyPop

September 9, 2011 at 8:09pm

wkwami, Krugman might not directly articulate his preferences each time, but you can be reasonably sure it's a retread of New Deal programs like the WPA. Krugman is generally against tax cuts because if you're going to run a too-small stimulus, then you want to max out the Keynesian multiplier and no tax cut comes close. Unemployment insurance and aid to states are very good, but even Bruce Bartlett is pushing for direct government spending on infrastructure and the like. The curious thing is that Bartlett criticizes the president for not doing it even though he spent decades working for and intensifying the views of the very people who keep Obama from doing stuff like declaring Medicare for all with plenary powers to the IPAB to squeeze cost growth. (This would solve the long-run deficit problem.) Much less the fact that no Republican save Olympia Snowe came on record supporting the stimulus when it could have been its most liberal. Besides, Krugman just recently said we ought to have a stimulus that fills the demand gap, and the demand gap since the recession's start is around $5 billion, with nearer to $1 billion over the next fiscal year alone. I honestly don't think you are actually reading Krugman.

- chaitless

September 9, 2011 at 10:46pm