Useful

David Brooks performs a public service in tomorrow's column, "What Republicans Think." He tells us just that -- and it is clear how deranged, disconnected from actual facts, unconcerned about real suffering, locked inside bogus and disproved theories (though even calling them "theories" is far too kind) that thinking is. He claims Republicans are the big thinkers, aware of the historical inflection point at hand and ready to move into what lies on its other side, while Democrats are pettifogging tinkerers of the failed welfare state, apparatchiks of the status quo. 

Except, of course, the version of history Brooks -- thank you very much -- accurately reports from the GOP cerebral cortex is a silly fantasy with no connection to what has actually happened, and without the first idea of what is driving the economy, society, technology and the trajectories of the future. When it suits their factitious debating purposes, they purport to celebrate global integration and technological transformation, but they don't have the first idea of how those forces actually intersect and what real potential for economic prosperity and societal progress (not to mention environmental sustainability) they hold. As Krugman has been saying all along, this mixture of hand-wringing, sober beard stroking and faux philosophizing is a pretext to help plutocrats continue the plutocracy. We're in Jared Diamond territory, with hermetically sealed elites fiddling while Rome burns. 

Yes, we do need big thinking -- big, smart, fact-based thinking, accompanied by the guts to fight for a progressive future. We have lacked both for these past four years. But it is salutary to be reminded, from an unimpeachable source, what passes for thinking in the billionaires boys club.

Well, duh

Finally, a small bit of political intelligence from the Dems. Of course they're channeling Krugman -- Cassandra makes the evening news! Is it too late? We'll see.

Fascinating -- and frightening

Krugman points to a speech George Soros gave on Saturday which is remarkable for its clarity and breadth. His principles of fallibility and reflexivity constitute a true systems-thinking view of the history and likely breakup of the European Union. His notion of a "political bubble" interacting in complex ways -- generating what complex systems theory calls positive feedback loops -- with the financial bubble is particularly interesting. One candidate for nut graf is:

"While the European Union was being created, the leadership was in the forefront of further integration; but after the outbreak of the financial crisis the authorities became wedded to preserving the status quo. This has forced all those who consider the status quo unsustainable or intolerable into an anti-European posture. That is the political dynamic that makes the disintegration of the European Union just as self-reinforcing as its creation has been.  That is the political bubble I was talking about."

Among the other fascinating and frightening points Soros makes is that the accelerating (not slowing) crisis is leading toward doubling-down on previous mistakes. Thus, instead of winding down the euro while preserving the EU -- the correct course -- the opposite seems likely to happen. And he believes the moment of truth is now upon us:

"In my judgment the authorities have a three months’ window during which they could still correct their mistakes and reverse the current trends. By the authorities I mean mainly the German government and the Bundesbank because in a crisis the creditors are in the driver’s seat and nothing can be done without German support."

It may be, in a historical sense, one of the comparatively less important aspects of this that it is happening in the midst of a U.S. election. If the dream of a post-national Europe goes gaflooey, its impact will be far deeper than the replacement of an inadequate Democratic president with an inadequate Republican president. However, Soros's plausible timetable certainly does put this Fall's election home stretch into perspective. After all, it was another Fall -- the Fall of Lehman -- in September 2008 that decided that contest.

What happens now depends on what happens

With two deeply flawed candidates -- political C players who have by now squandered whatever capacity they might once have possessed to affect events -- the outcome of the presidential race will depend on those events, most importantly in Europe. If the ECB and the Germans, in their infinite wisdom, allow the EU to plunge into depression, and if that, in turn, washes over our shores in noticeable ways, then Romney probably wins. If that doesn't happen, then Obama probably wins.

In a nutshell: 

Romney's brand is now set. He is the plutocrat who only cares about rich people, and he only wants to get elected to serve their interests. There is nothing he can now do to shake this branding -- and he doesn't even have the sechel to try.

Obama's set, too. He cannot be a credible economic crusader for the middle class, because he cannot be a credible crusader. In the past I have lamented his failure to emulate FDR's "I welcome their hatred." What was I thinking? This man cannot become a believable emotional presence -- cannot deploy his feelings as a political force. He can utter populist-sounding words, but the chance for his feelings to be believed by most people on any subject has passed. It's not just that he has betrayed most of the principles and policies Democrats hold dear -- which he has -- but that he has disappeared as an actor, in both senses of the word. He has hidden in plain sight for his whole life, and now on the big stage for the past four years. We no longer credit him with caring enough about anything to fight for it. When he tries, it doesn't take.

So... now we wait.

Yet again

Yet again, Paul Krugman is a light in the darkness. One could raise a tribute to him every day, and it wouldn't be too often. He tells the truth about important things.

Gimme a break

Look, I yield to few in my conviction that Barack Obama lacks a center -- or, at least, lacks access to whatever center may be in there. But what's up with this ridiculous NY Times/CBS News poll? The findings themselves are entirely uninteresting -- what else could the outcome have been on this or any other controversial topic during a contentious campaign? The point was the question itself -- it's simply a meta-way of taking a shot at him. And it's the hypocrite calling the kettle black -- not only for the Times and CBS News, but for the poll's participants to criticize Obama for not having been a long-time supporter of gay rights. One can only assume some snark-monger decided this would be a good headline. Please.

Yes, one can only hope

As Krugman has continued to do for the past three years (more, if you count the 08 campaign), now Joe Nocera is making it clear what Obama should say -- saying it for him. Isn't that teleprompter enough?