Comments on: Paul Krugman Misses His Own Answer To His Question

By: Don’t Listen To The Moderates - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:24:41 +0000

[...] Bloomberg and others get attention because there is a very real sense among many people that neither party represents them. This group very well might not be any better, but I’m willing to listen to what they have to say.I’m far more annoyed by the attitude of people like Greg Sargent who go out of their way to attack them before the meeting has even taken place. It is quite premature to claim they have nothing to say before they have even met. [...]

By: Independents Embrace Liberal Values to Propel Obama to Victory - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:03:01 +0000

[...] With an occasional exception on an isolated issue, all the major Republican candidates support a continuation of the same extremist policies of the Bush administration which so greatly violate both liberal and traditional American values. One consequence was seen in the overwhelming desire of voters in a state which went for George Bush in 2004 to vote in the Democratic caucuses this year. This should also be seen in November as the Republicans are swept from power. In addition to the values which Budowsky listed, Americans oppose extremism, whether from the far right or left. The Bush/Rove strategy of governing with 50% plus 1 was doomed to fail. Democrats who have recently condemned bipartisanship in favor of a similar strategy should also keep this in mind. Written by Ron ChusidLast 5 posts by Ron ChusidQuote of the Day – January 4th, 2008David Brooks Describes the Two Earthquates in Iowa – January 4th, 2008Obama! – January 4th, 2008The Nature of Independents – January 3rd, 2008Ron Paul’s Supporters Rally in the World of Warcraft – January 3rd, 2008 [...]

By: The Blogosphere vs. Barack Obama, Or Who Wanted To Win Anyways? - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:28:56 +0000

[...] I’ve written a lot on the attacks on Obama from Paul Krugman and several liberal bloggers, including here, here, here, and here. The hatred showed towards Obama is even further surpassed by their disdain for bipartisanship, as I discussed here and here. Ben Smith notices this phenomenon with regards to Obama and makes two points which I totally agree with: [...]

By: Donklephant » Blog Archive » Why Bloomberg?

Donklephant » Blog Archive » Why Bloomberg? — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:44:20 +0000

[...] Ron Chusid of Liberal Values weighs in on what voters REALLY think and why a guy like Bloomberg might make a whole hell of a lot of sense… The current two party divide might be fine for those who hold one of the two sets of views held by the major parties, but not all of us entirely share one set or the other. In 2004 the Republicans were speaking of a permanent majority and by 2006 they were being voted out. There was not suddenly a decision by a block of far right Republicans that they were wrong on everything and therefore they would become Edwards/Krugman style Democrats, making for a new populist majority as Krugman believes exists. [...]

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:15:16 +0000

“It is a solution in search of a problem.”

No, I already outlined the problem in the post above. This might not be the right solution, but there is a problem.

“What if the “middle ground” is, as Krugman suggests, to the *left* of the Democratic Party? ”

That is not what Krugman said at all. He wrote that the middle ground is “left of the center of the Democratic Party.” Left of the center is quite different from being to the left of the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party nominates someone like Edwards who is to the left of the party, then there is room for someone in the middle.

There’s another problem with Krugman’s analysis which I got into peripherally in the post. The whole left to right spectrum is a flawed way to look at the issues. Placing the Republicans on the right and Democrats on the left and then seeing the alternative as the center would only make sense if there was one set of views on all issues.

What this analysis misses is that people might be liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues or vice versa. There are also other ways to divide the candidates including their views on civil liberties issues, church-state separation, and foreign policy.

The point is not splitting the differences between the Democrats and Republicans. The point is having another option of sets of positions if neither the Democrats or Republicans offer a choice which many of us find acceptable.

By: Chris Andersen

Chris Andersen — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:34:41 +0000

The flaw in the “unity” argument is that it assumes the “middle ground” is between the parties. Thus the need for bipartisanship becomes defacto.

But what if the “middle ground” is not between the parties? What if the “middle ground” is, as Krugman suggests, to the *left* of the Democratic Party? In such a case, a “unity” platform that splits the difference between Republicans and Democrats would, in fact, move the government further away from what the country wants. It is a solution in search of a problem.