Paul Krugman of the New York Times is reminding Presidential candidates, especially Hillary Clinton of the need to admit mistake (via):
But back to Mrs. Clinton’s problem. For some reason she and her advisers failed to grasp just how fed up the country is with arrogant politicians who can do no wrong. I don’t think she falls in that category; but her campaign somehow thought it was still a good idea to follow Karl Rove’s playbook, which says that you should never, ever admit to a mistake. And that playbook has led them into a political trap.
For those that have not been following the current race for the 2008 Presidential election, the New York senator is under attack for refusing to admit mistake for authorizing the invasion of Iraq. As in right now, John Edwards and Barack Obama are in one way or another on the offensive as far as Iraq is concerned. That is very unlike what Hillary Clinton is experiencing right now.
The Republicans and the Democrats are the yin and yang. They balance each other in many ways. Yesterday, Paul Krugman suggests that the Democrats should stop playing a balancing role (reg. req.):
Now that the Democrats have regained some power, they have to decide what to do. One of the biggest questions is whether the party should return to Rubinomics – the doctrine, associated with former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, that placed a very high priority on reducing the budget deficit.
The answer, I believe, is no. … Rubinomics made sense in terms of pure economics, [but] it failed to take account of the ugly realities of contemporary American politics. …
In a saner political environment, the economic logic behind Rubinomics would have been compelling. … Since the 1990s were an era of peace, prosperity and favorable demographics…, it should have been a good time to put the federal budget in the black. And under Mr. Rubin, the huge deficits of the Reagan-Bush years were transformed into an impressive surplus.
But the realities of American politics ensured that it was all for naught. The second President Bush quickly squandered the surplus on tax cuts that heavily favored the wealthy, then plunged the budget deep into deficit by cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains even as he took the country into a disastrous war. And you can even argue that Mr. Rubin’s surplus was a bad thing, because it greased the rails for Mr. Bush’s irresponsibility.
The Economist’s View has a copy of the article.
Jugding from Stiglitz’s writings, Stiglitz would probably support Krugman. In the Roaring Nineties, I think, Stiglitz isn’t too supportive of Rubinomics and advocate instead more spending and investment on intangible and tangible public infrastructures. His rationale is that the returns from investment would be large enough to justify the cost.
Regardless, what Krugman says does make sense politically, but economically, I feared the worst if the Democrats choose to disturb, if I may say so, the balance in the “Force”.