Great teachers make the inscrutable scrutable. And say what you will about Paul Krugman, the Princeton economist and
In this ought-to-read for both liberals (many of whom aren't as bright as Krugman) and conservatives (same reason), he displays another gift of great scholars and journalists: pulverizing conventional wisdom. Contrary to popular belief, Krugman asserts persuasively that middle-class America was not a construct over times of economic growth; income inequality existed throughout the Long Gilded Age, his term for the period from the 1870s until the New Deal. Rather, it was Franklin Roosevelt's spasm of government activism against the Great Depression that largely created, almost overnight, the middle class.
That aspect of history argues for big government today, Krugman writes, starting with providing universal health insurance, repealing recent tax cuts for the rich, raising the minimum wage, and promoting unionization. Many readers would support at least some of this. Krugman, however, candidly admits he's biding his time until the political environment would support raising taxes on the middle class to expand its safety net and further shrivel the income gap.
This is where he'd lose Bill Clinton. The former president has boasted about simultaneously raising people from poverty during his term and creating more millionaires and billionaires. Clinton was, in so many words, espousing a different philosophy: As long as the needy are guaranteed a minimally decent life, who cares if Bill Gates keeps getting richer and could buy that bar?
To his credit, Krugman acknowledges the distinction between inequality of incomes and inequality of living conditions. Living conditions improved markedly for working Americans during the Long Gilded Age, even as the income chasm grew. Still, he argues that "vast income inequality inevitably brings vast social inequality." That inequality, he says, hits us literally where we live. Rich people's super incomes buy expensive homes in neighborhoods with great schools, prompting many middle-class families to buy homes they really can't afford to get their children into those schools. But you could address those problems without leveling incomes - by tighter regulation of mortgage lending, for example, and learning from parochial schools and others that have had success in educating disadvantaged kids.
In short, the "conscience" of this book is that of a Type A liberal. Yet conscience is revealed not just by what we say, but by what we repress. And if there's any part of the federal budget he'd significantly reduce, other than tax loopholes, Krugman represses mention of it. (It's hard to believe his conscience rests easy with, say, farm subsidies, which are mainly welfare for corporate agribusiness and help impoverish Third World farmers.) It's a key omission, and not just because it's only fair to ask that the government first look for revenue by curtailing unnecessary spending before raising taxes. Most economists agree our entitlement spending is unsustainable, a problem Krugman short-shrifts.
The book also documents the rise of the leaders, ideas, think tanks, and tactics (especially exploiting racial prejudice) of what Krugman, echoing Hillary Clinton, happily calls the "vast right-wing conspiracy." Give him credit for being clear, provocative, and, on at least one matter -the goofy theology of tax cuts at any price, including medical coverage for all - dead right.
Rich Barlow writes the Globe's "Spiritual Life" column.
The Conscience of a Liberal
By Paul Krugman Norton, 296 pp., $25.95
