The Dishonesty of Paul Krugman
Returning from vacation means that one is hit over the head with reality. A brief two weeks away, and our nation went through a collective trauma after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the tragic death in particular of 9-year-old Christina Green. I was able to watch the reaction by tuning in to both CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, although I was not able to have a reliable or quick internet connection.
So everyone seems to be saying that civility must be restored, and even Roger Ailes told his Fox News people to “tone down” the rhetoric. But what seems to be happening is that to many on the left or liberal side of the spectrum, toning down means denying that there are any substantive differences about how our country is to handle its problems, and accusing those who want a real debate over the issues of being divisive.
In particular, Friday’s New York Times ran its chief liberal commentator Paul Krugman’s “A Tale of Two Moralities,” in which the Nobel laureate economist began by telling his readers how President Obama’s speech “spoke to our desire for reconciliation.” Then he said, correctly, that “the truth is that we are deeply divided nation and are likely to remain one for a long time.” So far, so good. Krugman is certainly correct about that, unlike many other commentators who want to pretend we all agree about the basics.
But then Krugman gets to his main point: that in the national debate, his side is that of morality, justice, and reason — while his opponents on the conservative side are immoral, uncaring, and actually want the poor to die or disappear. Here are Krugman’s own words about how he perceives the differences between the two sides:
One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.
The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.
Let us dissect that second paragraph about the would-be views of his conservative opponents. All conservatives, he argues, oppose taxes since they do not want their wealth to help others. Secondly, that position leads them to adopt violent rhetoric, since they believe taxation is tyranny. And unlike those of his persuasion, they oppose any social safety net and want to return to the bad old days of no regulation and cut-throat competition — “tooth and claw,” as he puts it — and let the less well-off depend entirely on their own resources.
As Krugman has it, there is no serious discussion about health reform. His side favors a “moral imperative” to give everyone universal free health care; the other side wants only those who can afford health care to have access to good care. This is, he writes, a “deep divide in American political morality.” Ah, for those wonderful days when even Republicans “accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state.” But today, Republicans see any government programs as “illegitimate,” while Democrats do not.
I do not know whom Krugman is talking about. Does he not, for example, read his colleague David Brooks’ columns? Brooks, a rather moderate among conservatives, is generally the self-styled conservative most liberals always cite as proof that they respect conservatives who are serious and moderate. He is the conservative liberals always seem to quote and to love. Yet a few days earlier, Brooks himself pointed out sharply and eloquently the serious negative effects of ObamaCare.
Actually, what surprised me about Paul Krugman’s statement is that, for the first time I can remember, he actually admitted that the Right has a philosophical agenda (other than just being too stupid to know what was good for them. Quite a contrast to his immediate post-Tucson outburst, in which there was no possible explanation other than unchained conservative rage.
This is not in any way a compliment of him. His isn’t a call for civility, it’s a demand for silence. For guys like Krugman, the only good conservative is a mute conservative.
The question I’ve been asking Liberals lately is this: Let’s suppose that an utterly fair minded, intelligent, non-racist, charitable, non-angry person is genuinely worried about the expansions of government authority and government spending? How could they express those ideas, and in a way that could lead to actual real policy changes, without being labeled biased, stupid, prejudicial, uncaring, or enraged?
The answer is, of course, that it is impossible. It’s funny to see faces when I ask questions like that. They can’t process it. For them, the mere asking of the question is proof of the ill-intent, and effective action is proof of nothing less than evil. The only way not to get labeled is to not actually oppose them. Which is what they are actually demanding in the first place.
Krugman is a rich phony.
Democrats Love The Poor Which Is Why . . .
It has been fascinating and sad to watch Krugman gradually descend from the fresh, interesting and brilliant man he was 20 years ago, into the half-crazed, hate filled weirdo he has become. The only reason to read anything he writes these days, is to psychologically study a mind that is slipping away from health and reality. I do not say this as an insult, I say this as a scientist.
Krugman is far from alone in this transformation. The old joke is that something in Manhattan’s water supply turns people who move there into hate filled mindless liberal zombies after a couple years’ exposure. But the serious reality is that Krugman (and tens of millions of other Americans) is caught in a destructive downward mental spiral that is particular to liberals.
The spiral has several causes, which feed on each other. First, all liberal leaders continuously use lies as a basic and standard tool. They lie to themselves, to their followers, and to others, literally seven days a week. This is done as an attempt to create a false reality, and it includes demeaning, dehumanizing and demonizing all outsiders (such as conservatives). There is no lie too irrational, dishonest, or immoral to be used for this purpose. The lies are large and small, subtle and gross, simple and complex, and their collective fabric becomes the thing that liberals experience as reality. This makes them highly resistant to facts, truths and reasoning that do not fit their constructed realities.
To help maintain the desired world view in their followers, liberal leaders minimize the flow of all information that goes against the constructed reality they want their followers to have. This has been done all over the world for millennia, but it has been turned into a science since the invention of electronic mass communication. The properly indoctrinated liberal will not only voluntarily censor information flow to other liberals, but they will even do it to themselves.
Two more causes of the downward mental spiral are the constant encouragement of liberals to base their world view much more on emotion than on logic and reason, and for liberals to be repeatedly told that their world view is the correct, smart, humane, moral one, and that all other world views are wrong, stupid, mean and corrupt. These things, in turn, cause them to aggressively avoid all people who do not espouse their world view. I have seen liberals be emotionally upset for days merely because they sat, by chance, near a friendly conservative individual for 15 minutes at a function. They never spoke or interacted – but just knowing that had been in the same room as a conservative was enough to throw them into a tizzy for three days.
Because of this strong tendency to isolate themselves from reality and from others that have opposing opinions, liberals constantly self-reinforce each other, and their constructed realities tend to spiral even further away from the real world. That is why one hears these jaw-dropping straw man arguments that liberals routinely put up in recent years. They are unaware that they sound as if they have lost their minds, and they are
completely unaware that they are actually hurting their cause, not helping it.
The lies, self-reinforcement and black listing of certain facts and information continue unabated in today’s liberals. It builds upon itself for years, spiraling downward. And voila, a person like Paul Krugman is created.
That’s true. “Objective” “journalists” Lawrence “Creepy Liars” O’Donnell and “Captain Dan The Newsman” Rather are perfect examples of this.
Brilliant insights!
I am often astonished how ignorant so-called liberals are. For example, they claim to know everything about RL but have never listened to him. It’s as if they considered ignorance and prejudice to be a rich source of knowledge, a sort of “liberal” epistemology all of their own.
Actually, to Mr Krugman the only good conservative is a left-leaning blue-dog Democrat.
1. Common sense says, as Rich suggests, that nutty violent talk sets a context in which genuine nuts like the Tucson nut operate.
2. Still, the only common-sense position is that there will always be nuts whatever the context, so access to semi-automatic weapons and Gargantuan 32-shot magazines ought to be outlawed. That way, the inevitable nut can only kill 2 or 3 people at a time.
3. Some sophistication about American politics suggests that there are many on the right who don’t believe in any meaningful safety net for poor people–or certainly paying taxes to pay for one.
4. Krugman is right that the big divide in American politics opened when post-Nixon the Republicans gave up on reformist New Deal positions–e.g.Moynihan-style social engineering.
5. So we have a nation where right-wingers claim that Obama is an
alien-Socialist-Nazi for pursuing policies to keep the Great Recession short of a Depression and to save the U.S. auto industry ( which incidentally is essential to national defense). The health-care bill was an irresponsible overreach, but the overall right-wing position is an ideological paranoid
response to government.
6. I don’t have much use for Krugman, but making him the villain is a cop-out.
1. I guess that your “common sense” requires no supporting data or other information to make that claim.
2. Guess what? Drugs are outlawed here also, but still available. “Common sense” tells me that if handguns were banned in the U.S., you would only be creating another illegal import from Mexico.
3. Your sophistication exceeds your “common sense”. There is a big difference between conservatives and those “on the right” that you are describing, just as there are still leftists, both in the U.S. and in Europe, that espouse communism under a totalitarian government as being the best system for society.
4. That’s when conservatives and Republicans decided that too many welfare programs instituted previously had “unintended consequences”, such as creating and rewarding single-parent households over married couples (Johnson’s Great Society programs).
5. Some argue, including many conservatives, that Obama wants to bring the U.S. form of government closer to the European socialist form. There is evidence that during his younger days he was a communist, or at the least a hard socialist, based on his associations with radicals on the far left. That is why he “saved” the auto industry, by primarily bailing out the unions, to whom he is indebted, at the expense of investors. Both heads of SEIU and AFL-CIO have recently attended communist meetings in Europe. We still have Ford, a profitable company. It would have been better to let GMC go into bankruptcy, then union contracts could have been renegotiated, then money could have been lent to a smaller, restructured but financially stronger company. As far as saving us from a depression, that is just speculation on your part, no doubt using your “common sense”. The Democrats are strongly supported by the financial industry, to whom they are also indebted. Some finance companies were allowed to fail by the Bush administration. I don’t see any bad consequences from that. What I have a problem with is our tax money going to Europe to bail out some of their banks.
6. Krugman is a liar. He uses typical leftist philosophy – attack, attack, attack, without any supporting evidence, then just walks away and hopes that conservatives try to defend themselves, such as this article. He should just be ignored. His fans are few, mainly hard leftists.
Actually, jarmo, your #2 is worse than you think. Any decent machinist can turn out a machine gun; think of the Sten submachine gun from WWII, designed to be manufactured by resistance fighters under German occupation. That includes ammunition, and the plans are available. One wonders if F.T. Last is prepared to confiscate all machine tools and cut off the hands of the machinists. Since it didn’t work for the Nazis, I doubt he’ll get it right either.
…”pursuing policies…to save the U.S. auto industry ( which incidentally is essential to national defense).
Are you serious?
What components, pray tell, of a Cadilac Escalade are interchangeable with an FA-18 fighter plane?
Show me, please, where the materials and methods of manufacture of a leather reclining seat, and say, a machine gun, are the same.
Or where radar absorbing stealth composite surface technology is the same as automoble PAINT.
The US auto industry provides ZERO in the way of defense produts, and they DESERVE to go out of business…for making inferior products, at superior prices, with an over paid Union workforce, and shitty customer service, for 30+ years….
Let them fall. There are plenty of other high quality automoble makers out there, that do NOT need billions of taxpayes funds to stay in business
Krugman is not “the villan” but he is “a villan”. There are many villans.
Federal taxation for purposes not permitted by the Constitution is indeed theft under color of authority. Lies to support that theft are indeed fraud. Government that operates outside of law because the people in the government want it to is indeed tyranny.
The auto industry was not ‘saved’, however a few large corporations that happen to manufacture automobiles were given and/or loaned some money. Think for a minute about the difference.
Lovers Of Evil, ie Leftists, are easily identified by their use of Newspeak; ie, stating the exact opposite of the truth and representing their perversions as the Truth. For example, the contention that Martin Luther King was a “Great Man”; not an adulterer, rabble rouser and plagiarist.
And their contention is that Conservatives are cold, hard, selfish people, lacking in compasion- while they, Liberals, are murdering babies, promoting homosexual perversions, weakening our national defenses, and giving american jobs to to folks in far away places with strange sounding names. Who is hard, cold, selfish, uncaring? If it speaks the opposite of the truth it speaks from the left side of the political spectrum.
“…Liberals, are murdering babies, promoting homosexual perversions, weakening our national defenses….”
Your message is getting through loud and clear, Ron.
At some point in my long-ago college days, I took a course that included logic and logical fallacies. Prejudice’s characteristics are always the same, lack of reasoning, lack of self-examination, and mentally collecting different individuals into a group. A prejudiced mind is completely closed, so appeals to thought and reasoning will not reach a person who suffers from this flawed thinking. Often, prejudice is fostered in a climate of ‘group think’, where people are reinforced by their select peers. Any person who talks about groups of people instead of individuals is possibly suffering from this.
I have often wondered if closed-minded groups within universities foster this sort of thinking, as the practice of Krugman is the identical tactic used by climatologist/environmental activists against the scientists who question their dogma about global warming. They refuse to share their data/programs with scientists outside their ideology (a basic requirement for true science), and also refuse to debate the science. Instead, they attack the people on the ‘outside’ as stupid and as deniers, even though the outsiders have the same credentials in science. Most scientists are schooled in logic, it forms the backbone of science, and to see people claiming to be scientists who behave this way, in the long run, discredit themselves.
You only think it’s important for climate scientists to follow the the “requirements of true science” because you don’t understand the necessity for post-normal science in the environmental field. Follow the links.
My takeaway lesson of the last week or so is that the left has lost its ability to control the narrative and are mad about it. They want conservatives to shut up (i.e. “be civil”) so they can dictate the narrative again. Never.
If you want truth, justice, fair play, and honesty read the Bible.
If you want treachery, duplicity, lies, half truths, and false accusations, then you might as well stick with Krugman and his gang, the New York Times.
Add murder, rape, child molestation, looting and torture, and you have Mohammed and the Koran…a perfect complement to the corrupt and despicable NYT
Most of the bible is a lie. Its entire premise is a lie. So if you want honesty it sure as hell isn’t the right place to look. Much of it is fiction. There are no gods.
I disagree, but neither of us has “proof” we are right or wrong.
My reason to support Christianity as it is WRITTEN, over Islam, as it is WRITTEN, lies in this one inarguable fact:
Jesus never commanded his followers to kill, rape, loot, plunder torture humiliate and degrade their fellow man. Quite the opposite. Even if the story IS a lie, there is nothing toxic or self condemning about it as a principal for living.
Mohamed, if he existed as THEY (not I) describe, was clearly a terrorist threat to all his neighbors. A despicable murderous thug of no redeeming value, with no positive message for the world but submission (to him, really) or death.
They both might be false stories, but if only ONE can be true, which would YOU choose?
Yeah, I thought so
That belief that everything can be explained by material causes is a delusional faith.
To read the Bible and conclude that one should hate one’s neighbor — much less hate one’s enemy — simply shows that one does not know how to read.
You make many assertions but offer no proof Phranc. Declamation is just wasting everyone’s time and showing your prejudices.
Let us know why Krugman is right in your view and then we can talk. At least that is what I infer from your post of “I hate Christianity”.
So yes, civility and dialogue is necessary.
I’m wondering if there ever comes a time that any dialogue is futile? A dialogue that merely gives credibility and legitimacy to the false and intentional-spin premise the opponent spews.
It appears to me that the left is not going to change its colors – ever. Is that the time to not retreat but only to reload? Move from defense to offense?
I don’t bother to read Krugman or listen to the Kenyan. Am I a bad, prejudiced American?
Actually, I think Mr, Krugman correctly described the stance of many on the right.
Does Mr. Radosh deny that a vocal constituency on the right believes that the fruits of their toil are being stolen by a government out of control to provide for unworthy others?
It seems to me that that sentiment runs through much of the public discourse.
That’s right. And “many on the left” want a one party, totalitarian system of government in the U.S. so that they can better redistribute our wealth through heavy taxation to the “deserving poor”, “the children”, third world nations for past plunderings under colonialism and to repair human harm done to the earth during the past 10,000 years.
I think your worthiness paradigm is wrong from the perspective of a lib gone right. It has more to do with the involuntary nature of government confiscation and the utilitarian shortcomings of beurocracy. Conservativism has a low tollerance for authoritarianism and the best way to cow a population is to control the purse hence the anti tax movement. Liberal thought does not withstand scrutiny which is why talk radio and the internet are under attack. Democracy worked in November so it is time to shut down debate. When their people are out in the in the street breaking windows and terrorizing police it is democracy in action. When the right retreats to the siberian wasteland of media to form successful AM proprietorships that is facism. Meanwhile libeeal talk fails because it can not.stand the loght of day which brings me back to my first point so I am done.
The fact that Krugman summed up the Conservative position in such a manner also neatly sums up my contention that “Nostalgie de la Boue” is one of the 3 centerpieces of liberal thought in the U.S. – the idea that it’s about race stupid. Poor is liberal Newspeak for black since poor white people, who have no racism to contend with, are simply too stupid to take advantage of white privilege.
The second thought in his very neat summation of liberal thought is that we now know he knows why we hate him so much. Before that one could only glean from Krugman that Conservatives were simply more or less in the hate through ignorance category rather than having any cogent political thought. Thanks for cleaning up the Tea Party Paul! Yes Conservatives DO hate – you and all the Robin Hoods who want to turn forklift drivers and barbers into one great Salvation Army against their will.
Frank Rich represents the other great liberal philosophy: a thing not existing or being true is no barrier to acknowledging its existence. If one believes enough that Haitians are unlucky astronauts and Nigerians snake-bit physicists then if they are in harm’s way then it must be somebody else’s fault. Hmmmmm. Let me see. Who could possibly be the cause. Hmmmmmmmm. Oh, yeah. European-Americans! Cha-ching!!!! Open yer wallets boys cuz Rev. Wright and Obama say there’s an anti-colonialist chicken that wants to roost.
The third philosophy in the liberal triumvirate is the idea that money and success equal immorality and lack of success and funds equals morality. This can be seen in everything from the Palestinian Arabs, to native Americans, to the Mexican War and only about one zillion other things. Where precisely the dividing line is remains unclear; one can only imagine that morals are grandfathered in as one’s paycheck is depleted by our own government. Not only does the gov’t want us to be good citizens, but moral to the last penny.
What I never really understood is that if Paul Krugman,the Nobel laureate economist for the New York Times, is so “brilliant,” why didn’t he predict the economic collapse of 2008? Why didn’t he warn us about what was going to happen? Oh yes, and while we were all about to go bankrupt, isn’t he the guy who actually wanted us to spend MORE money, thinking that would get us out of the recession faster? We spent well over a trillion (with a “T”) dollars on “stimulus” and various bailouts to AIG, banks, unions, and car companies, and still he wanted us to spend more, even though we’re facing a $1.4 trillion debt. And still, all of this spending has had no effect in either bringing down unemployment, fixing the housing crisis, or jump-starting the economy.
So I ask all of you out there, why is ANYBODY listening to ANYTHING this guy has to say?
We spent well over a trillion (with a “T”) dollars on “stimulus” and various bailouts to AIG, banks, unions, and car companies, and still he wanted us to spend more, even though we’re facing a $1.4 trillion debt . And still, all of this spending has had no effect in either bringing down unemployment, fixing the housing crisis, or jump-starting the economy.
Actually it’s a 1.4 trillion deficit and 14 trillion debt that we are facing. Krugman is unhinged and any attempt to improve civility and the level of discourse would start with him.
Actually, if we include our obligations to federal entitlement programs, just like every business does by accrual accounting methods, then our national debt is actually $60 trillion, this according to the GAO.
For those of you playing at home, this is approximately $190,000 for each American citizen.
Question: can Krugman multiply and divide?
I would love to se a debate on economic policies between Krugman and Thomas Sowell. I trully believe that an event like that would show Mr. Krugman to be the ABSOLUTE FOOL that he is.
Which is why the “krugman footsoldiers” AKA mindless liberal college students, always interrupt, shout down, throw pies in the face of all conservatives that show up and try to debate on ideas instead of idiology
Thomas Sowel and Clarance Thomas are “uncle toms” to be heckled, along with anyone else who diverges from ‘the narrative”, with the full support of the Krugmans
Thomas Sowell would crush Krugman, like the fetid little bug, he is. It would be fun to watch, though.
Which is why Sowell, (but also Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, etc.) have been shown such civility over the years, when they speak at public forums (i.e., they know their heroes would be crushed like paper machete toys).
It is a guy (Krugman) who doesn’t understand economics given a prize by people (The Nobel comity) who doesn’t understand economics.
It’s no different than back in the 18th century when mediocre composers like Salieri were hailed as geniuses and genuine master composers like Mozart were ridiculed by the emperor. The emperors was that periods equivalence to the our times Nobel comity.
I have yet to meet an “economist” that understands the very simple fact that capital is created by real estate. And has been since we abandoned the gold standard.
Most real estate agents understands macro economy better than the so called “economists”.
“I have yet to meet an “economist” that understands the very simple fact that capital is created by real estate.”
Maybe you can explain it to this dim economist. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Its simple:
Real estate equals “real” property, a physically real thing of value, that is transferable. A bank will lend you money for a speculative purpose (like buying a hot-dog cart) with the property as collateral to protect them, should you fail miserably selling hot-dogs.
They are much MUCH less likely to offer you a loan to buy your hot-dog cart, if the only thing you can offer them as a “value” is a cut of the FUTURE PROFITS that may (depending on many variables) NEVER HAPPEN.
Real estate creates capital.
This is a late post but I note the key words here is capital and profit and can agree on the above several posts touching on ignorant economists who would fail trying to raise a garden.
I agree with your larger point. The demonization of conservatives greatly annoys me – and I tend towards the left on a number of issues (though here in Boston, I’m a centrist).
However, citing this poll – whether Brooks or you – c’mon.
In Massachusetts, Obama-like-care (RomneyCare?) has led to about 0% of doctors forced to close their offices.
“The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn”
Oh the humanity !
Sorry about Noel.
Too bad the shooter was a communist.
Paul Krugman does not normally have to earn what he gets in life. He is living off his past earnings. The Nobel committee legitimately honored his work of many years ago. The man does not know what it is to answer hard questions. This is not normally required at the Ivy League universities. Political correctness dominates—and few dare challenge someone as powerful as Krugman. He essentially gets a free ride. The typical Ivy League individual is an intellectual whore. They are not worthy of respect.
Don’t sugar-coat it.
Agreed – Just like the current occupant in the white house.
It should be clear to EVERYONE that these calls for “civility” are nothing more than a plea that the Tea Partiers, the Republicans, and pretty much everybody to the right of Mr. Krugman and his ilk just SHUT UP.
It would have been very easy to predict, after the debacle for the left that was the November elections, that this call would come.
The murderous assault that happened was horrible, but if it hadn’t been that it would have been something else and the cry would have gone up all the same: It’s Palin’s Fault! The Fascist Right is to blame! Et cetera, et cetera.
Just like the sign we saw: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THIS SIGN SAYS YOU’LL SAY IT’S RACIST ANYWAY.
Paul Krugman and the New York Times deserve nothing but contempt. We need to continue to drive the Democrats from political power. We must continue our struggle against the Left, in all its manifestations.
Anyone, including Roger Ailes, who allows him or herself to be cowed by these people is a damn fool.
They will never change their stripes and remain what they always have been, the Blame America first, last and always crowd.
“Krugman gets to his main point: that in the national debate, his side is that of morality, justice, and reason — while his opponents on the conservative side are immoral, uncaring, and actually want the poor to die or disappear.”
Yes, Krugman certainly says things like this. Yes, he is unquestionably a hypocrite. No argument there.
Unfortunately, the right believes the same things about itself and about the left (merely inversed, of course). I see it played out on sites like this one all the time.
Ask someone on the left about the sanctimony you so clearly see played out among them. They’ll look at you as if you’re from Mars. They see no such hypocrisy on their part, though there’s plenty to be seen, they’ll assure you, on the Right.
Ask someone on the right the same question, and they’ll likewise assure you of their own side’s moral superiority.
Don’t think so? Check out the comment thread in this Althouse piece (if you can do so honestly), and watch as they hang themselves one by one. I especially enjoyed being lectured as to how the right “never assumes the worst”, even as other commenters did exactly that. How… Krugmanlike.
It’s no wonder people withdraw from the toxic echo chambers of BOTH the left AND the right. The lack of perspective and unreasoning hate that are the price of acceptance is too high a price for most people to pay. Make no mistake – it’s not the rhetoric of the right OR the rhetoric of the left that produces the poisonous political atmosphere we live in. The problem is created and perpetuated by BOTH sides.
If you hate Krugman – stop acting like him. Typically, it’s really something in yourself that you’re seeing in him anyway, and that’s what really bothers you.
Allow me, in closing, to offer you the only correct answer to this little pop quiz. It’s not “they’re worse than us, so I’m fine”. It’s certainly not “he’s a leftie, therefore we don’t have to listen to him”. The only correct answer is “this speaks to ME, and I must examine myself”.
What’s a bunch of bologna. Did anyone on the right say “if they bring a knife to the fight we’re going to bring a gun”? Or “get in their faces – I want you to be be angry”. These 2 gems from the president. Krugman and the left didn’t wait more than 30 minutes before jumping on this tragedy to exploit it. Despicipable behavior which would never be duplicated on the right. The actions of this insane shooter had nothing to do with anything other then the demons in his head. Never let a crisis got to waste – bunch of immoral thugs.
“Ask someone on the right the same question, and they’ll likewise assure you of their own side’s moral superiority”
Yes, most people believe their views are “right”, but the BIG DIFFERENCE my friend, is the way the narrative is controlled…
The left has an unbroken history of political violence in my lifetime…from the convention of ’68, to union bums breaking skulls, to animal rights activists nuts throwing blood and paint, to gay activists disrupting church services, to pies in the face of campus speakers they dont approve of….The political left is in your face, all the time, and there is never a dot connected between the ACTION and the IDIOLOGY of the left by the news media.
Smashed windows and overturned cars at the G-10 summit are never “connected” to the political message of the left.
The false charge of “the N-word, 15-times” at the heallth care vote is the SAME lie as Rev. Al & Tawanna Brawly, and it goes unpunished, undiscussed, even. Big Al is a respected Talk show host, no personal orprofessional baggage for him after creating a hateful, devisive a racist hoax, because he’s on the “their” side.
Who, on a network newscast, ever exclaimed discomfort about animal rights activists providing the public with the names, photo’s and SCHOOLS ATTENDED by the CHILDREN of people involved in animal research?
Who calls any of them, on a network news cast, “rioters” when the riot? Calls them “tree huggers” when they chain themselves to trees? Or “pirates” when they endanger lives on the high seas, harrassing ships and sailors who are LEGALLY harvesting whales?
When the Political Left in America resorts to violence, or hateful lies THEY GET THEIR OWN TV SHOW. Because they reflect the institutionalized, proper, correct political leanings, they are exempt from scrutiny by the “scribblers” who just happen to adhere to the SAME SIDE of the political coin.
That, my friend, is the dramatic, frightening difference between political camps in America….
But for web sites like this, and Fox/talk radio, there is ONLY ONE “proper” political view….and all excuses for its excesses will be enforced, ignored or denied as need be, to battle the “other” side.
When Obama said “most of you wrote stories about me, all of you voted for me” it was no joke.
A good description of the modus operandi of bullies and the violence they use because the have no reason at their disposal.
That is BS. Not everything is created equal. The truth is the truth. There is no such thing as everybody is equally right or equally wrong.
My one beef with liberals is that they wont admit that there are downsides to their policies. Their goal is equality. And any policy that works to even out differences are attributed by liberals to every positive result they can think of regardless of what actually happens in the real world. Taking money from the productive and giving them to the unproductive according to liberals also magically improves the economy (Keynes) regardless of the complete lack of logic therein and also lack of any evidence what so ever at any time in history. Why don’t they just honestly admit that their priority is equality and admit that they don’t care if their policies hurts the economy.
Conservatives know perfectly well that capitalism creates winners and losers and inequality. They don’t hide it or lie about it. They don’t act like there is no downside their policies. The upside to capitalism, the indisputable fact is that when you take funds from the unproductive and give them to the productive (which is what happens when you cut taxes) increases production. Ie the economy improves. Conservatives knows both positive and negatives to their policies and makes a conscious choice from that knowledge.
This is the last time I’m reading their newspaper.
What?!
Actually, mostly because of the folly of any kind of federal medicine, it’s a hundred trillion plus dollar debt we’re facing. Yet we hear from ostensible conservatives that the Welfare State is dead, so long live the New Welfare State?
Folks, if we’re going to self-identify as conservatives, let’s be conservative, shall we? Good idea Radosh?
All I have to say is that this really is an impressive bit of psychological projection and quite the study in mental illness.
Both by the original poster and the commentators following.
American exceptionalism indeed.
The shooter was a communist. His favorite books included the Communist Manifesto. His friends says he was a communist.
Who’s projecting? A left wing nut shoots another left wing. The left blames the right wing.
You, Krugman and your fellow liberal pals are evil, lying psychos. The proof is in the above.
Violent, eliminationist rhetoric: “Right to choose”. Fifty million eliminated since 1973.
Krugman the Keynesian has never offered a satisfactory explanation for how his policies don’t cause the economic destruction and ruin of any country that follows the prescription.
Can someone explain to me what is moral about intentionally bankrupting a nation?
While we’re at it, can someone tell me what is so superior morally in the liberal position of taking the wealth created by a persons labor and intelligence and confiscating it so that it can be appropriated for the dictates of the state, which has a limitless track record of inefficiency and maldistribution that always inevitabally leads to the destruction of society? You want examples? Start with Rome and move along to all of the former eastern block countries, with the western European nations soon to follow.
As Orwell said, it takes a very educated mind to believe certain things. The Keynesian Fabian welfare theory has a consistent record of failure that Krugman and Rich never explain or correct. I call their inability to see the lack of results a moral and intellectual disconect that disqualifies their ideas from serious consideration. Why people think they need information from the New York Times is beyond my comprehension, it so consistently advocates the things that don’t work it is embarassing.
I think the question for Keynesians is more basic: When do we stop? If deficit spending by government can cause economic growth, why limit it all? We can just keep spending and the economy will just keep growing. Won’t it?
I think the question for Keynesians is more basic: When do we stop? If deficit spending by government can cause economic growth, why limit it all? We can just keep spending and the economy will just keep growing. Won’t it?
Keynes didn’t claim that deficit spending would cause economic growth no matter when it was applied. He didn’t even claim that it would raise the average over the whole business cycle. He claimed that deficit spending during downturns and paying off of the loans during upturns would smooth the cycle, i.e., that it would make the troughs shallower and the peaks lower.
Smoking,
You are correct about the prescription. The problem is that we are now confronted with a debt burden and future obligations that our economy, even with unprecedented growth, can’t possibly fund. This is the fatal flaw in Krugmans argument. The debt burden will be so large it will cause capital to move elsewhere and there will be a snowballing effect that will unravel the economy and the ability to create wealth in the future, unless there is default or a rejection of socialism.
Krugman has never offered anything convincing that the above is incorrect. It makes me think Cloward Piven is his real goal. He is a destroyer.
What would happen if the word Krugman never again appeared in our blogs, nor escaped our lips?
It’s not like a lot of people read the Times…what were those circulation numbers again?
I would much prefer that the lexicon be amended to add the word krugmanned (viciously smeared by a liberal) as in Palin was krugmanned for 4 days before Obama spoke up.
Like your idea, Terry. And I can see another Olde English use for the verb “to krugman”. Krugman you, Frank Rich.
Ooh, yesss. I will incorporated that verb into my writing. Thanks for the idea. How many uses does a word have to get before it makes it to the OED?
When ever I hear or read of the Nobel Prize The image of Al Gore’s ‘Convenient Lie!’ and Obumer’s ‘He ain’t Bush,’ awards come to my mind. It isn’t what it had been and maybe never was. The Demagogues (they actually call themselves Democrats) are as they began, that would be lying cheaters. If you doubt check out Jefferson’s path to the Presidency.
for me it’s the PEACE PRIze going to ARAFAT-a hideous mockery, forever despoiling the value of anyone else’s award
Oh yes and Obama whoalso received samwe for ‘no peace”
To answer Tim’s question – yes, dialogue is futile. I find the most useful model to be thinking of the left as living in a totally different, parallel universe where not only the way they think, but even the world they think about, is very different from anything we experience in our universe. In their universe, for example, incandescent light bulbs are a fundamental threat to human life, but jihadists flying planes into buildings is nothing to worry about. How do you have a dialogue with someone who not only believes such a thing, but believes it to be proven scientific fact about which reasonable minds cannot differ? If you disagree with them, you are either too stupid to understand basic science, or you are an Islamophobic racist.
One of the things that really strikes me about the alternate universe where the left resides is the degree of Freudian projection on display. They routinely accuse us of everything that defines THEM. Close-mindedness, hateful rhetoric, mistaking one’s own opinions for facts and the opinions of those who disagree as “lies.” Read Krugman, and you will see that he constantly hurls these accusations against our side, while these very modes of thought are on constant display in his own writing. It is such a common phenomenon that I have invented a name for it – Oblivious Cognitive Dissonance Syndrome (“OCDS”). I posit the hypothesis that it is not possible to have a dialogue with someone suffering from OCDS.
“‘Shut up,” he explained.”
Who takes Paul Krugman seriously anymore? He’s a brain-dead Lefty, a knee-jerk Liberal, forever spouting cliches.
“In summation, let me say to Paul Krugman and Frank Rich:”
Bite me.
Ron, Brooks is no conservative. He might be a Rockefeller Republican (as opposed to a Goldwater Republican) but he’s not a conservative. No conservative could support “spread the wealth” Obama.
NYTimes used to have good columnists, such as William Safire & Russell Baker. The current crop is awful. As is the Times. They should all be shunned.
“All conservatives, he argues, oppose taxes since they do not want their wealth to help others.”
Actually, according to published research by Arthur Brooks (Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism), conservatives are far more likely to donate to charitable causes than liberals.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone, as conservatives believe that private charity is a better means to help the less fortunate than government solutions.
There’s a reason that Krugman was first out of the box with the right wing smears within 2 hours of the shootings.
Think about it. What are the odds of the top Slimes op-ed writer being the absolute first, on a Saturday, to speak on the matter?
It’s almost as if there was a mechanism in place for him to hit the ground running at the first hint of Oklahoma City.
“It’s almost as if there was a mechanism in place…”
Wasnt there? Tell me that story, except for some specifics cut and pasted in, wasnt waiting “in a desk drawer” as soon as the time was right to publish it?
Who remembers the controversy about a major news (paper/site?) that accidentally posted its ficticious “death of Teri Schivo story” before she died, complete with touching farewell words from the loving husband at her side (who fought to kill her for so long) about “keeping his promise” to her?
They are despicable propaganda ministers, nothing more.
“But so is honesty. And that is something we can no longer expect from the liberal and left columnists at the New York Times.”
Are you just not grasping this? Oh well, better late than never.
Keep turning the screws to the Left. Unmercilessly.
When have we ever expected truth from the NYT?
So… Liberals being so giving and all, who gives more of their discretionary income to charity? Answer: Not the liberals. I would bet Krugman is not aware of that, since it appears that any facts contradicting his world view do not make it in to his head. Willful ignorance. A common malady for those of his ilk.
Jeez, cut the guy some slack. It’s obvious that he’s terribly ‘whipped. It’s his wife writing these columns, and it’s sad what she’s done to a Nobel-winning economist.
Call them Crisis Pimps
I am neither on the Left nor the Right.
The fundamental lie from leftists is repugnant rhetoric is restricted to the Right. A big lie buried in the mix. A standard deceptive rhetorical devise.
The primary Marxist premise is violent revolution. There is no other kind. And historically has never been a service to the disenfranchised, poor and minorities of a nation. Witness the fate of ethic Chinese after the fall of South Vietnam.
From calling for the assassination of my Hero 9/11 Bush and a revolution to defeat the Republican regime, the Left has sung, danced and served violent rhetoric at community luncheons.
I grew queasy when Sara was cavalier with the metaphorical use of the word revolution.
I was sick when I finally saw the “Gun Sight” “metaphor” on an American map.
Her career as an interesting talker is just beginning, but her possibility of American Leadership is over.
“<I grew queasy when Sara was cavalier with the metaphorical use of the word revolution.”
You get queasy over metaphors? Wow.
“I was sick when I finally saw the “Gun Sight” “metaphor” on an American map.”
Get a grip, buttercup. Riddle me this: Who’s faces were in the ‘gun sights’ as it were (although, those were the worst gun sights I’ve ever seen)? None you say? You mean they were directed at districts on a mp, and not at a particular person?
Like said, get a grip buttercup. Your ‘concern’ is noted.
“Her career as an interesting talker is just beginning, but her possibility of American Leadership is over.”
You know, people like you keep saying that after every episode in American politics that involves her arises. And so far, you have all been spectacularly wrong.
Bite me, buttercup–your concern troll schtick is fooling no one.
I support a 120% tax on wealth (not income) of new york times opinion coumnists.
That way Krugman would have to get a job. And a house. And a bank account.
This piece clearly demonstrates how “conservatives” will lose the argument – it grants the moral premise of the “liberals” that it is the purpose of government (and social policy in general) to ease the burden of the “the poor and helpless”. It claims the conservative (OK, I will stop using quotes for these barely meaningful labels) approach will achieve this end whereas the liberal one will not, but it does nothing to challenge that this is a worthy goal.
It is not. The purpose of government is to defend the individual rights of the citizenry, full stop. Government can achieve this end because the citizenry grants it a monopoly on force, and thus the government is justified in intervening when one citizen (or a foreign aggressor) initiates force against another, but it is not justified in being the aggressor itself – in using force to compel the behavior of a peaceful citizen. When it does so, it will only achieve the destruction of the society, at a speed proportionate to how severe is its violation of rights. A glancing familiarity with history will demonstrate this, including present history. When government is constrained to the defense of individual rights, all of society does benefit, but this is simply because society is comprised of individuals, and the defense of rights ensures that each will flourish as much as possible.
Now, even though it is mostly true that conservative policies are better for the downtrodden, and even if it were true that there were such a thing as fixed class of poor and helpless citizen that would not survive if not for the compulsion of the state, this would not justify such compulsion. We are all ends in ourselves, not means to the end of some collective. What Krugman advocates is simply the use of government power to compel people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the “common good” (sorry, that is definitely an undefined term), and that is the immoral position. Just because our parents, teachers, clergy, and pundits have told us the opposite for thousands of years does not make it true.
“Now, even though it is mostly true that conservative policies are better for the downtrodden, and even if it were true that there were such a thing as fixed class of poor and helpless citizen that would not survive if not for the compulsion of the state, this would not justify such compulsion.”
True enough, but we apparently have arrived at something close to that fixed class of downtrodden underclass of the helpless…those who are economic thralls to government social welfare programs.
Of course, the programs are designed primarily for the benefit of the bureaucrats who administer those programs and the Most Favored Contractors, (see: Tony Rezko), who supply such subsidiezed goods and/or services to said wretched thralls.
It’s not much more than a scam…just another big business looking to safeguard and expand its market share.
“What Krugman advocates is simply the use of government power to compel people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the “common good” (sorry, that is definitely an undefined term), and that is the immoral position.”
And Krugman is nothing more than a lobbyist flack for the State Monopoly “Compassion Industry”,(and a fair loathsome scoundrel example of the grody breed).
Granting,
Awesomely well stated. The marxists do believe in compelling their solution. Their beliefs can not be squared with the US Constitution or the concepts of liberty espoused by the founders.
Deuteronomy 15 lays out the responsibility of the richer to the poorer. The poor will be with us always and provision was made for the rich to be rich and own their own property but they still had an individual responsibility to the poor,not a collective government sponsored responsibility. I fail to find where this has ever been modified. If the Lord has been good to us ought we not to be good to our poor neighbor? If that neighbor is poor through his own lust and poor management then, if we indulge him we also will be made poor. He has no need to be indulged and that is not what this is all about.
Ronnie: You make many valid points. If I remember correctly, Krugeman also
stacked the deck by not citing any left wing excesses, and only mentioned those
on the right. Rich, this Sunday, did give some credance to Sarah Palin
(mirable dictu), before falling into his usual wide swinging screed (with which,
as you know, I partially agree)
Look lets face facts….
The absolute vicious, insane obsession which Krugman and others leftists have for Sarah Palin is only a few degrees different than the nut in Arizona.
It takes a diseased mind for Krugman to sit down within an hour of the shootings to launch an attack on a woman 6,000 miles away with smears, slurs and lies. Good Lord, the blood wasn’t even dried, yet.
At this point, the NY Times is further down the news chain than Penthouse or the National Esquirer.
Can you imagine what it’s like to have to work with sick minded people like Krugman?
Oddly, it often turns out that leftists like Krugman are perfectly nice people in their ordinary lives. This is because many of them live their ordinary lives as if they were conservatives. They actually act as if their actions have consequences. They can think in terms of cause and effect. They wouldn’t dream of sending their own kids to the public schools they condemn other people’s kids to attend. It’s the wrierdest thing, isn’t it?
Mr. Radosh:
“As Krugman has it, there is no serious discussion about health reform. His side favors a “moral imperative” to give everyone universal free health care;”
Isn’t it odd how people who lecture the loudest and the longest against the evils of “legislating morality” are the ones that seem to leap with great alacrity at the chance to legislate their own morality upon the people they just this minute got done lecturing to?
The fact that Krugman still has a job at the New York Times says all that needs be said.
The New York Times supports those who use the Blood Libel.
Censorship, anyone? Krugman is an addled fraud. He likely believes the vomit that he spews but the source of his ideological illness is not clear. Was he anoxic at birth? Was his brain fried with drugs? Were Communists or other undesirables his mentors? Was his intelligence destroyed via education? Or is he simply being paid big bucks to promote an evil agenda to destroy this nation that he hates so badly? The reason for his libel is immaterial, however he regularly insults millions of decent American people and spurts venom over the land with impunity. His vicious, hateful screeds are far worse than anything I have ever heard from a Conservative. I wish a pox on the house of this vile creature. I wonder if Obama spoke to Krugman and told him to ‘tone down’ his incendiary rhetoric?
“The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft.”
I was wondering when the rocket scientists on the left would finally figure out that all they are is just a pack of thieves.
I know I am being absurd but a little fun never hurt anyone…
I have an idea to end all the debating once and for all – about who is more charitable has more heart loves the poor wants to end poverty … etc
If you’re a registered voting Constitutional Republican, for the last 10 (min 5) years you will only be taxed 15% of your paycheck, to keep normal government running.
If you are a registered Democrat for the last 10 (min 5) years, and since you as a Democrat, are so for the ‘redistribution of wealth’ and so charitable, and want to help the less fortunate, the arts, animals, ocean, air, health, illegal immigrants, imports, etc.. they can throw in 40% or 50% of their paycheck for their redistribution of wealth initiative and their other initiatives. And people like Paul Krugman Keith Olberman, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Liberal Artists and entertainers, Girls on the view, and their ilk can throw in 70% – 80%.
See, Now everyone is happy!
I applaud Frank Rich for decrying “antigovernment hysteria.” I too, just like him, thought that the reaction against the Patriot Act went somewhat overboard.
Krugman is quoted:
One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.
The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.
———————-
Well, we all know that Krugman has a piece of the truth here, albeit couched in his terms to make it clear which side he is on. But he chooses not to talk about the problems of financing all of the first scenario, something he did partially address in his column the next day on the problems with the Euro, Ireland, Greece, Spain etc. (He concluded that we have more wiggle room than Europe does.)
He also does not address the multitude of cultural issues which also separate the two camps, but on this narrow slice relating to the tax issue, he seems to describe fairly accurately the ethos of at least 70% of the people who comment at PJM.
To me, it is just a question of finding the number that will make our system more or less work. And the number is (if you add the numerology value of Sarah Palin and Back Obama, divide by half of the number value of Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olberman, multiply by 3.14 and take the square root)= 4-4-4. A slightly different formula (adding all middle initials) gets you to 1-1-1.
Obviously, Krugman blew it big time with his premature call of the “causes” of the shooting. For some time, I have no longer taken him any more seriously than most of the writers here whose pieces we comment on, which means, just another idea to consider in the many voices out there.
“And Rich argues as well the violence proves the need for gun control. Does he not know that Giffords herself supported the Second Amendment, and actually owned a glock gun similar to that used by the man who tried to kill her?”
Apparently RR thinks that if an opponent of gun control gets shot, that’s an argument against gun control. No wonder RR feels at home at PJM.
And, it seems, Joe believes that if there were no weapons at all, there would be no murders. I’m glad that Joe has obviously never been in prison (neither have I…yet), but many, if not most, prisoners seem able to come up with a weapon when the need or desire to kill or maim arises, even in their oft-inspected environment.
Joe’s response will probably be that if there were no weapons there would be no need for prisons. They always out-fantasize us, do they not.
The clownish economist Krugman and his enablers seem to have a slight problem with recognizing the fact that the Government as Mommy and Diddy 5-Year Plan is impossible to implement first and foremost because no nation can pay nor ever has been able to pay for it. It is all well and good to dream dreams about paradise, unfortunately there will always be dissatisfaction among those who live in its constantly changing state.
Some will like the temperature to always be set at 72 deg. f. Others will want it warmer or cooler. Still others will want it to change a little, warmer for day, cooler for night. No libruls who have ever lived will admit to this problem. The fact is the libs will never be satisfied. They will always want more. They are as insatiable as the great whales that roam the arctic and tropic seas endlessly gulping tuns (or tonnes as they say at the University of East Anglia) of basically whatever moves.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-do-whales-eat.htm
St. Augustin or somebody once said heaven will be like always thirsting and always drinking. Down here on Earth, the librul heaven is always having the existence of conservatives to blame for the Government not giving them enough water, then milk, then wine, then soup, then bread, then meat, then caviar, etc., etc., etc.
The problem with Krugman and all of the modern leftists is that as soon as they come to a conclusion on any subject, the matter is “settled”.
They wither at the thought of having to deal with anything more serious than strawmen and false attributions to defeat in an intellectual debate.
Krugman has become more and more “over the cliff” in style and wholly untethered to relevant facts, data or evidence. The “details” now seem out of his grasp. They get in the way of his “conclusion first/build an argument last” style.
This cycle of leftist logic bootstrapping is caused by AND exacerbated by the dominance of unchallenged leftism in their vast information empire. Now, after decades of abusing facts, distorting evidence, creating arguments out of whole cloth, they have grown weak and flaccid at responding to a challenge.
Krugman has become an intellectual 97 lb. weakling. So have virtually all leftist ideologues. They flinch at even the mildest Charlie Gibson/George Stephanopolous “light grilling”.
They collapse at the notion of Fox News, talk radio or PJM.
But, let’s give them credit where credit is due. They still fool a huge amount of people every day. And the damage they have done will not easily be repaired. They can still tell any lie and it will be accepted and promoted within their ranks.
Krugman is a fool. But he still has a court within which to jester.
Wow, looks like the standards needed to become a Nobel laureate have significantly been lowered recently?
When you lose an election and you are drowning, what can you do?
Well, there’s this and the race card.