It takes 213 pages for Paul Krugman to get to the end game in his new book when the economist, author and New York Times columnist starts to lay out a compelling case for universal health care.

But it's an anti-climactic, somewhat modest conclusion for a book that spends most of its pages making the case for why former first lady Hillary Clinton got it right eight years ago when she railed against "a vast right-wing conspiracy."

		"The Conscience of a Liberal" By Paul Krugman Norton ($29.95)

At its core, Krugman sees nothing but evil among members of what he terms "movement conservatism," today's neoconservatives who trace their roots to William Buckley and his 1950s ilk. Tired of Republicans accommodating and even expanding New Deal policies, they laid the groundwork to seize -- and keep -- power.

Ostensibly a book about the growing gap between the rich and poor, Krugman early on downplays the role global and domestic economic forces have played in widening this chasm back to Gilded Age levels, undoing a sharp narrowing in the 1940s through the 1960s -- a period he calls the "Great Compression."

Instead, he argues, the "radicals of the right" conspired to drive a wedge between the ruling class and everyone else -- and, in the process, unleashed economic changes that have been responsible for rising inequality, plummeting union membership and the unraveling of society's safety net.

This has been abetted, Krugman says, by deep-pocketed conservatives, including this region's Richard Mellon Scaife, who funded high-profile think tanks to spew out attacks on anything and anyone in their way, including fellow Republicans if they were too moderate and bipartisan.

Passage of the Civil Rights Act and middle America's unease with the sexual revolution, inner-city riots and the drug culture in the 1960s provided much-needed kindling, allowing movement conservatives to win over a post-segregation South and fearful, rising suburban population.

It's an interesting take on history by one of the leading liberal thinkers of our time. But when it comes to the pure economic analysis, it's lacking.

What Krugman glosses over is the simple fact that the late 1940s to mid-1960s were a period of economic nirvana for this country, when it was unfettered by foreign competitors and the Arab oil cartel. Those forces hit with a vengeance in the 1970s, fueling a period of stagflation -- stagnant growth, high inflation -- followed by the worst recession since the Great Depression and undermining the public's faith in the U.S. economy.

Moreover, attacking movement conservatives for the growing inequality seems a bit misguided if not misplaced given that most economists, and even Krugman, believe much of what happens in the economy is out of the government's hands.

It is true that taxes can act as a strong redistributive force, which Krugman argues was the case during the Great Compression years when the top individual income tax rate hit 70 percent (it's half that now) and corporate tax rates were significantly higher, providing money to expand programs to help those on the lower end of the income scale.

But lowering those high taxes in the aftermath of the 1970s helped unleash two decades of economic growth, punctuated by two brief recessions, as well as a flood of capital spending and investment that produced a surge in U.S. productivity, reinforcing the country's position as the world's economic leader.

The United States has its troubles, for sure. The decline of unions, the rising costs of health care and the growing dependence on cheaper overseas markets for labor have worked to slash pension and health benefits and hold down wages.

And it's on this front where Krugman makes his strongest case for addressing inequalities. By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010 and raising top tax rates, he argues, the country could finance a universal health care system that would ensure everyone in this country is covered.

Krugman rightfully says proponents of such coverage, including the major Democratic presidential candidates, will undoubtedly confront a strong assault from the same movement conservatives who caused President Clinton's effort to go up in smoke.

But this time around, he believes the growing numbers of people going without or with little coverage stand ready to listen, and won't be as easily dissuaded or scared. And if successful, this effort will accomplish something potentially even bigger, Krugman writes.

It will bring new life to the New Deal idea of helping those on the lower rungs of society, an idea he says movement conservatives have spent the better part of 40 years trying to destroy.