Submitted by Chris Andersen, Oct 10, 2007 19:49

I haven't read Mr. Krugman's book yet (I probably will) so I have to wonder if he wrote a volume that was more an advocate for Democrats than it was an advocate for Liberalism? Your review of it suggest the former while the title suggests the latter. If you Krugman does indeed advocate for the superiority of Democrats over Republicans by pointing out the black marks in Republican history then it is valid to refute that by pointing out equally black marks in Democratic history. But if his criticism was more ideological than political than pointing to the Democratic parties historical ties to racism is besides the point. After all, the whole point of the Southern Strategy was to shift those racists from being Democrats to being Republicans. Every political party has its dark moments that it would rather not talk about. But the evils of a party 50 years in the past have little bearing on the good of the party today if the party has significantly shifted its ideological foundation away from that evil. I'll have to wait for my own reading to determine the "truth" of the matter.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.