This is the problem. I did not learn that much from Krugman's book. I personally feel that one of its shortcomings is that Krugman writes for only one audience (I think a great writer could appeal to many audiences). I did learn a few more historical details about past administrations' policies (Nixon's ideas about SS and Medicare). Even though a lot of fiscally conservative folks dislike Krugman, I'd say that his analysis of history is pretty non-partisan. ( )

This is the problem. I did not learn that much from Krugman's book. I personally feel that one of its shortcomings is that Krugman writes for only one audience (I think a great writer could appeal to many audiences). I did learn a few more historical details about past administrations' policies (Nixon's ideas about SS and Medicare). Even though a lot of fiscally conservative folks dislike Krugman, I'd say that his analysis of history is pretty non-partisan. ( )

The book is becomming a little dated, in that it was written before the 2008 election, and his discussion of the policies of some of the candidates in that election are no longer relevant. However, that's a very minor element, since the more relevant discussions involving the New Deal and the Reagan years aren't changing. Krugman, as an economist, does a good job of describing his views, and may reinforce these ideas among liberal and progressive readers, but is unlikely to convert many conservatives. One thing that Krugman discusses is that income inequality is rising in recent years, and while Krugman may have a desire to see that reversed, which will resonate with his liberal readers, finding the limits and way to reverse that trend is more problematic. A public policy that sounds like redistribution of wealth from the richest to the poor will not win the hearts and minds of many conservative readers. ( )

I've been a regular reader of his always-interesting New York Times columns for years, but ever since I studied his work on trade and urban geography in grad school (coincidentally, the work that would gain him the 2008 Economics Nobel Prize), I've been a huge admirer of his serious economics work as well. The Conscience of a Liberal is a response of sorts to Barry Goldwaters's highly influential 1960 book The Conscience of a Conservative, making the case that if the United States is to remain a country where everyone can pursue their own happiness in maximum liberty and peace, the Reagan-era policies that benefit the rich few at the expense of the poor many must be reversed, and a new New Deal - chiefly the establishment of universal health care - is the best way to encourage opportunity and ensure that everyone can fully participate in the ever-changing American economy. It's also an enlightening history of the modern liberal and conservative movements that does a great job of showing the direct lineage from historical states' rights segregationists to modern health care reform opponents, and how calm debate and careful thinking can and should win out over narrow self-interest and greed. A good way to tell a good book is by how much it gives you to think about after you've finished, and The Conscience of a Liberal had me thinking about it for months afterwards. ( )

Political affiliation aside, this book makes some horrible arguments. ( )