Robert Kuttner

Robert Kuttner is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, and professor at Brandeis University's Heller School. His latest book is Debtors' Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility. He writes columns for The Huffington Post, The Boston Globe and the New York Times international edition. 

Recent Articles

Nader: Influence for Good or Ill?

Nader: Influence for Good or Ill? Part II: Kuttner rebuts Chait's review. Dear Jon, We invited you to review for the Prospect Justin Martin's recent biography of Ralph Nader and Nader's own memoir of the 2000 campaign. We didn't learn much about these books from your diatribe, but we did learn a lot about what Jon Chait thinks of Nader: His campaign appearances in 2000, you wrote, were "larded with dissembling, prevarication and demagoguery . . ." (compared to Bush? Gore? ) His disillusion with Democrats reflects "ideological absolutism," "egotism," and "stratospheric self-regard," rather than a principled challenge to a party lurching to the right. And, most astonishingly, you write that the ideological mobilization of organized business in the 1970s and 1980s occurred "largely in response to Nader and his movement." In other worse, the dominance of corporate power in American politics in our own era which so appalls Nader is actually Nader's own fault. Much of your screed is...

A Reckless Rush to War

T he suspicion will not die that the Bush administration turned to Iraq for relief from a sharp decline in its domestic political prospects. The news had been dominated for months by corporate scandals and the fall of the stock market, and the November elections were shaping up as a referendum on the Republicans' handling of domestic social and economic issues. Investigative reporters had turned their attention to Dick Cheney's role at Halliburton and George W. Bush's sale of his Harken Energy shares just before the stock collapsed. Then, like magic, these questions disappeared from the headlines as the administration refocused the nation's attention on war with Iraq. No new information about Saddam Hussein's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and no actions taken by Iraq seem to have precipitated this shift. The Iraqi regime has not changed since early in the Bush administration, when its great priority was building a missile defense shield, nor even since the 2000 election, when...

The Populist Imperative

B y all accounts, we are entering a month of great national deliberation. In the main arena, the most serious foreign-policy debate since Vietnam is unfolding, with senior members of the president's own party among those articulating the most serious qualms. It's almost what the Constitution's framers had in mind: a great debate, conducted through congressional hearings, before America goes to war -- and in this case a debate seemingly forced upon the president by public opinion. This is all but unprecedented. Prior to World War II, there was an agonizing debate over whether to re-arm and whether to aid the beleaguered British. But an actual shooting war was abruptly thrust upon us only with Pearl Harbor. During Vietnam, Sen. J. William Fulbright's famous hearings came well after Lyndon Johnson's trumped-up war escalation and his commitment of American ground troops. What will this new great debate actually be like? Will James Baker and Brent Scowcroft be called? Will they be candid...

Containment Contentment:

S addam Hussein's latest offer to readmit weapons inspectors is both a strategic gain and a political setback for the Bush administration. Iraq's apparent concession also reminds us that the basic principle of international politics is that even odious regimes get to stay in power as long as they leave their neighbors alone. Better to contain Saddam than to risk wider war, and the UN plan may yet accomplish that. Why both a gain and a loss for President Bush? Saddam's new offer is the direct result of Bush's strong UN speech and the administration's strong diplomacy, coupled with the efforts of allies and the UN secretary general. This concession would not have happened without Bush going to the brink of war. Until Bush seriously threatened an invasion, most UN members and the institution itself tolerated the status quo. Doves should admit what a dismal status quo it was. After invading Kuwait and then being clobbered on the battlefield, Iraq agreed to a truce that included a...

Comment: Revolting Elites

B y all accounts, we are entering a month of great national deliberation. In the main arena, the most serious foreign-policy debate since Vietnam is unfolding, with senior members of the president's own party among those articulating the most serious qualms. It's almost what the Constitution's framers had in mind: a great debate, conducted through congressional hearings, before America goes to war -- and in this case a debate seemingly forced upon the president by public opinion. This is all but unprecedented. Prior to World War II, there was an agonizing debate over whether to re-arm and whether to aid the beleaguered British. But an actual shooting war was abruptly thrust upon us only with Pearl Harbor. During Vietnam, Sen. J. William Fulbright's famous hearings came well after Lyndon Johnson's trumped-up war escalation and his commitment of American ground troops. What will this new great debate actually be like? Will James Baker and Brent Scowcroft be called? Will they be candid...

Pages