When I was in Cameroon in my tiny, pink-walled bungalow, I was the lucky beneficiary of a library of books left behind by my volunteer predecessors. Among this treasure trove (you find it, you keep it!) of literature was the book “The Great Unraveling: Losing our Way in the New Century" by New York Times columnist and Princeton economist Paul Krugman. Paging through the book --a collection of his columns--was one of the more effective means I've ever discovered of generating a big, heady dose of political righteous indignation. This was particularly effective sometime around Nov. 3 of 2004, when, whenever necessary, I could select a column and be reminded of all of the fascinating ways in which our electorate had seriously fucked up.
Though I was supposed to be glow in the dark bowling tonight with book weary law students, when I learned Krugman was here in Iowa City I had to postpone it. Bowling with me is always pretty predictable anyway: 3 games with an average between 140-160, several strikes, variety of fist pumps, several ball changes, many celebratory dances, and several times where I’m so disgusted with my shot that I walk back to the scoring area without even watching the result. (Note: this is followed by a quick look over my shoulder, EVEN THOUGH I OBVIOUSLY DO NOT CARE, to make sure that the ball that I through down the middle of the lane did not miraculously pick up that 7/10 split).
Those of you who have ever bowled with me are familiar with this routine. I can recreate it any time I want.
What I can’t recreate anytime is a live Q and A at the Englert Theatre with Paul Krugman, one of my favorite columnists of all time. Julie Englander, the regular presenter for the Prarie Lights author sessions, introduced him tonight as the "most important political columnist in America." And then there's bowling.
Krugman was fantastic. He was funny and insightful, and, oddly, despite all of the dire predictions of "The Great Unraveling," extremely optimistic about the direction of the country. People are finally seeming sensible and fed-up, he noted. . .this seems to be the inadvertent gift of George W. Bush.
The talk was basically the distillation of the thesis of his book into about a 40 minute talk, with a special emphasis on the implications of the upcoming presidential race.
His thesis:
America is regressing. We had a gilded age with robber barons and enormous disparities in wealth and privilege and power, then we had the New Deal, then the 40’s, and 50’s gave us a strong middle class with strong labor, and then came movement conservatism that essentially is seeking to put us back into the late 19th century (the return of the barons!).
While countries like Canada, France, and the Scandanavian countries (those same countries that are on the top of every standard of living index in existence) have been tweaking capitalism in an effort to benefit a the common welfare and preserve a strong entrepreneurial spirit, the conservative movement has been attempting to roll back every New Deal program they can get their hands on.
Though NYT policy forbids him from making presidential endorsements, he did speak at length about the kind of president he wanted. He said to be aware of candidates beholden to special interests (read: Hillary Clinton) and beware of overly polite "cross-the-aislers" who are looking for bipartisanship (here's looking at Obama). Since substantive differences between the candidates are negligible, he basically wants someone with some fire in his/her belly who can, above all else, really push through universal health care. Process of elimination, plus the fire in the belly qualification leads me to believe that this was a thinly veiled endorsement of John Edwards.
Interesting. Lately John Edwards has been espousing the most populist message. The other night at Jefferson Jackson he claimed that if congress didn't let him push through a health care plan he would take away government health care for the house, senate, and president. You gotta like that kind of talk.
Krugman then took questions from the audience members, a few of whom were crazy people. He proved himself to be extremely likable and great with his off the cuff analysis.
Fortunately, no one was tased throughout the talk.
Couldn't agree more. Apparently Bill O'Reilly missed out on that whole "jobless recovery" thing that everyone was talking about when this interview took place.
No comments:
Post a Comment