Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pampango

(24,692 posts)
43. That Paul Krugman does not know what he is talking about when he disagrees with that assertion.
Tue Apr 14, 2015, 09:40 AM
Apr 2015
... each party is quite unified on major policy issues — and these unified positions are very far from each other. The huge, substantive gulf between the parties will be reflected in the policy positions of whomever they nominate, and will almost surely be reflected in the actual policies adopted by whoever wins.

How did the parties get this far apart? Political scientists suggest that it has a lot to do with income inequality. As the wealthy grow richer compared with everyone else, their policy preferences have moved to the right — and they have pulled the Republican Party ever further in their direction. Meanwhile, the influence of big money on Democrats has at least eroded a bit, now that Wall Street, furious over regulations and modest tax hikes, has deserted the party en masse. The result is a level of political polarization not seen since the Civil War.

On one side, suppose that Ms. Clinton is indeed the Democratic nominee. If so, you can be sure that she’ll be accused, early and often, of insincerity, of not being the populist progressive she claims to be.

On the other side, suppose that the Republican nominee is a supposed moderate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. In either case we’d be sure to hear many assertions from political pundits that the candidate doesn’t believe a lot of what he says. But in their cases this alleged insincerity would be presented as a virtue, not a vice — sure, Mr. Bush is saying crazy things about health care and climate change, but he doesn’t really mean it, and he’d be reasonable once in office. Just like his brother.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html

Of course, Krugman largely discussed the difference in the parties on economic issues.

We all know how different the parties are on social issues.
I mean, duh, besides "marriage equality" as a issue Bucky Apr 2015 #1
The exclusive right for women and their doctors to make decisions regarding their bodies. ScreamingMeemie Apr 2015 #3
I don't bother. ScreamingMeemie Apr 2015 #2
anyone who says that there is almost no or no difference guillaumeb Apr 2015 #4
There IS a difference. liberalmuse Apr 2015 #5
Willfuly blind or Andy823 Apr 2015 #10
No, that's a terrible argument... telling someone I won't try to convince them? Bucky Apr 2015 #21
I have a two-word response. One starts with a B and the other with S. libdem4life Apr 2015 #6
Exactly! nt Andy823 Apr 2015 #9
What does Black Sabbath have to do with it? zappaman Apr 2015 #18
LOL...they had a Party of their very own. libdem4life Apr 2015 #20
Well, it was a convincing two word response to a serious topic... until the poster brought Black Sabbath into it. Fred Sanders Apr 2015 #76
It's true madamesilverspurs Apr 2015 #7
The 2 parties are virtual polar opposites on nearly every issue. JaneyVee Apr 2015 #8
"Go home, you're drunk" gratuitous Apr 2015 #11
My response is "Yes, I know". PeteSelman Apr 2015 #12
Marriage equality doesn't really matter?... SidDithers Apr 2015 #22
Yes, because social issues, healthcare, pro-Union justiceischeap Apr 2015 #29
now, i understand the people and how they are able to make the statement. seabeyond Apr 2015 #34
The issues on which the two parties differ the least are, in general, those which most affect nomorenomore08 Apr 2015 #49
If you are a Hetero Xtian male perhaps. For the majority of Dems bettyellen Apr 2015 #39
I don't see democrats anywhere trying to control every onecaliberal Apr 2015 #80
I tell them that's why everyone needs to vote, even if we just write-in a name. canoeist52 Apr 2015 #13
it depends on what angle you look at them from Scootaloo Apr 2015 #14
Regardless, I don't see how not voting is any kind of solution. n/t nomorenomore08 Apr 2015 #50
If you're at the bottom, voting isn't much of one, either. Scootaloo Apr 2015 #63
Speak for yourself. That is not what many us who are on the bottom see. jwirr Apr 2015 #86
How many people are you speaking for? Scootaloo Apr 2015 #87
I am totally against the TPP but there are a lot of immediate issues that effect those of us on the jwirr Apr 2015 #88
What's your response to the "There's [almost] no difference between the two parties" comment? DeSwiss Apr 2015 #15
Yes - it's a straw man. Maedhros Apr 2015 #54
not to mention the fuggin'supreme court. it is a false statement, they are both alike. seabeyond Apr 2015 #16
Well, I like women and I'm not gay. Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #24
There are some differences on gay rights and women's rights. betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #17
"Some" lol! zappaman Apr 2015 #19
You got the numero uno issue right up there in the front of the line.. The Environment. Cha Apr 2015 #23
As a gay man in a red state that refused Medicaid expansion... ashtonelijah Apr 2015 #25
You beat me to it. See my #45 below. nt stevenleser Apr 2015 #46
And this is why I will always vote Democrat LynneSin Apr 2015 #57
Reproductive rights get the red out Apr 2015 #26
The other day I repsonded to a post on FB that said "You had to be an idiot to vote for Obama" A HERETIC I AM Apr 2015 #27
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2015 #31
"Bless your heart, Naderite." aikoaiko Apr 2015 #28
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2015 #30
Just one maxrandb Apr 2015 #32
My reply: Utter Horsesh!t! blm Apr 2015 #33
Obama raised taxes on the wealthy (top 2 brackets). When did any Repug do that? progree Apr 2015 #35
Inclusion vs. exclusion. moondust Apr 2015 #36
It's immature and generally spoken by people who don't know much about policy alcibiades_mystery Apr 2015 #37
"Please go away, you ignorant dipshit." Hekate Apr 2015 #38
That'll convince them, all right Art_from_Ark Apr 2015 #40
After living through the BushCheney era, after almost 13 years at DU, sometimes.... Hekate Apr 2015 #41
I don't respond, and I never take anything they have to say seriously after that. Lil Missy Apr 2015 #42
That Paul Krugman does not know what he is talking about when he disagrees with that assertion. pampango Apr 2015 #43
I simply ignore anyone who is so uninformed as to say that. MineralMan Apr 2015 #44
I don't see many women, LGBT or people of color making that argument. Let's start there. stevenleser Apr 2015 #45
It's difficult to approach that level of ignorance. NCTraveler Apr 2015 #47
The estate tax, which only a few multi-millionaire/billionaire heirs pay... progree Apr 2015 #48
Which two parties are you thinking? Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #51
Its something I might have said wheniwasincongress Apr 2015 #52
Was there a difference between Al Gore and G.W. Bush? Motown_Johnny Apr 2015 #53
"Jebillary"? LOL, I hadn't heard that one but I love it! eom Purveyor Apr 2015 #55
I found this Jeblary picture on Facebook progree Apr 2015 #59
I don't know I always wanted to see what it was like to live during a Theocracy LynneSin Apr 2015 #56
No difference, huh? Check out our Supreme Court. demosincebirth Apr 2015 #58
I use a couple of voting record graphs eridani Apr 2015 #60
My response is that on some major issues they are the same lovemydog Apr 2015 #61
+1 nt Bonobo Apr 2015 #62
Hillary sabotages it when she brings up needing "less regulation" daredtowork Apr 2015 #64
Oh, FFS. Would you get with the program? At least she didn't say "them job-killing regulations" progree Apr 2015 #66
WTF???!!! Are those articles curated or criteria-based? daredtowork Apr 2015 #67
Maybe the "Left Column" is dedicated to Hillary's wonderfulness because it's the first week progree Apr 2015 #69
Then there should be a Primaries section - she shouldn't hijack the Left section.nt daredtowork Apr 2015 #71
From Gawker Comments: Scurrilous Apr 2015 #65
There's a lot of differences in the two Parties... kentuck Apr 2015 #68
Purgatory is far better than hell? Zorra Apr 2015 #70
I would say I agree that economically there is little difference between the two parties. liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #72
Wisconsin Republicans introduce bill to require photo IDs for food stamp recipients progree Apr 2015 #73
They don't differ much on issues that affect the 1% LittleBlue Apr 2015 #74
that whole meme is trolling to discourage voting treestar Apr 2015 #75
On issues that are important to me... 99Forever Apr 2015 #77
If there are those who says there is not any difference in the two parties, if they are speaking Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #78
On "social issues" there is a difference. hifiguy Apr 2015 #79
Sometimes it's hard to tell. hobbit709 Apr 2015 #81
Democrats can spell. kairos12 Apr 2015 #82
"Then you won't mind voting for Hillary, will ya?" rock Apr 2015 #83
Bullshit ismnotwasm Apr 2015 #84
It tells me they don't care about the lives or rights of the vast majority of Americans BainsBane Apr 2015 #85
Let's pick apart some of those reasons though... cascadiance Apr 2015 #89
Estate tax - RepubliCONs voted for repeal progree Apr 2015 #90
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What's your response to t...»Reply #43