Donkasaurus Post

Paul Krugman is a Democrat, and a Liberal.  However questionable, the Atlantic ranks him as the most influential commentator in America. (Then again, it ranks Rush Limbaugh as number 2, and George “I know nothing about science” Will as number 3.)

Whatever one thinks of his politics (or his recent “debate” with Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald) Krugman has numerous accolades, and is an accomplished economist.  He has even won a Nobel prize. Often his opionions are characterized as “Liberal,” when what that really means is that he sensibly takes issue with the unofficial position of the Fox advocacy channel that masquerades under the clever guise of “Fox News.”

Whether Krugman is spot on much of the time, or often spouting knee jerk partisan positions, when it comes to Democrats and importance of framing and understanding what the national debate is imparting, he may follow the same mold as other Democrats. That is, the application of what seem to be intellectual, rationale (sometimes subjective, sometimes not) standards to the analysis of why things are the way that they are in American politics.

This is a huge, and typical, Donkey Party mistake. Krugman makes it here, yesterday:

Lately many people have been second-guessing the Obama administration’s political strategy….

The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments.

This is not the place to go into the conditions that the Obama Administration inherited when it took office, or the mistakes it has made, or the things that it has done, good and bad.  That has been debated elsewhere.

The Obama Administration’s troubles, politically, are a result of the fact that once again, the Right has controlled the debate, and done far more to define the Obama Administration, than Democrats have.

The analysis essentially starts, and stops, there.  Yet Democrats seem to live in a different world, and hold Obama to some standard of their own disappointment, rather than how Obama is being characterized to, and perceived by, the country.

The latter defines the administration. The former only defines it to a core of Democrats.  The former is not the country. Democrats often confuse it, for the country.

Yes, part of what Krugman suggests might be correct. The Obama administration has made political misjudgments. But to the extent relevant here, all of those  go to how the Obama Administration has framed and controlled (or failed to control) the debate, and thus, ultimately, the same issue. Here is a stunning example, rendered even more stunning by the response to it, from what is a mostly (but not all) Liberal site.