Difference is stark

Paul Krugman: Whether Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren, the difference between Democrats and GOP is stark 

"It’s hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided even now," he writes 

Salon Staff

Hillary Clinton just got into the race yesterday, but New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s piece today is already attacking those who would argue there’s not enough difference between the two parties.

Sounding frustrated and admitting that he is “dreading the next 18 months,” Krugman aimed his ire at those in the media who cover campaigns as a personality contest. “Those old enough to remember the 2000 election may also remember how we were assured that George W. Bush was a nice, affable fellow who would pursue moderate, bipartisan policies,” he wrote, perhaps a critique of fellow columnist Frank Bruni, who covered the Bush campaign for the Times that year.

But between the lines, Krugman also seemed to be arguing with progressives who might prefer a candidate who has been more outspoken on issues of fair trade, income inequality, Wall Street and the minimum wage.

Krugman’s take: A Democrat will preserve entitlements and Obamacare. A Republican won’t. Post-Great Recession reforms are safe under a Democrat but not a Republican. Climate change will be addressed by a Democrat and ignored by Republicans.

He writes:

As we head into 2016, each party is quite unified on major policy issues — and these unified positions are very far from each other. The huge, substantive gulf between the parties will be reflected in the policy positions of whomever they nominate, and will almost surely be reflected in the actual policies adopted by whoever wins.