Krugman: Obama One Of The Most "Consequential Presidents" In Modern HistoryBreaking News
tags: LBJ, FDR, Obama, Reagan, Krugman
HNN Editor: This interview was conducted in the wake of Paul Krugman's controversial defense of President Obama in Rolling Stone.
JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: You're offering the most full-throated defense of Obama from basically anybody who is not on the Obama payroll right now.
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Right. And it's funny, because I was critical. But that's the point, in a way. People who had this idea that Obama was going to bring a transformation of America I thought were being naive, but my god we got health reform, we got a significant financial reform. We are getting the environmental action is not everything you would have wanted, but it's more than anyone else has done for decades.
KARL: So put it in context, what are you saying? He's one of the most successful -- FDR, are you putting him in that category?
KRUGMAN: No, FDR is in a different league, right.
KARL: OK, so where are you putting him?
KRUGMAN: In the end, Reagan did not leave the structure of American society particularly different. He did not, in fact, change the basic legacy of Lyndon Johnson and FDR. I think if my ranking of consequential presidents, at least in modern history, would probably be FDR, LBJ, Obama and then Reagan....
comments powered by Disqus
- At Summit Meetings, Kremlin Often Tried to Steamroller U.S. Presidents
- How A Tariff Loving Utah Senator Became A Cautionary Tale About Protectionism
- Pompeii excavation project reveals secrets
- In Ireland, Drought and a Drone Revealed the Outline of an Ancient Henge
- Sarcophagus Found. Contents Unknown. (‘No Guessing, Please.’)
- Oxford professor counts 93 penises in Bayeux Tapestry
- Medieval Scholars Call for Transparency and Anti-Racism at Conference
- Robert Dallek's FDR Book Invites Comparisons To Trump's Presidency
- Ridley Scott to Adapt Israeli Author's "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" Into a Movie
- Partisans assail historians for judging the past by today’s standards. Here’s why they’re wrong, says classicist