No mention of Fox news which coordinates the distribution of the narrative for those who need to be informed exactly what it is they think on any new issues as they arise.
12
In response to Sam Brownback leading Kansas into financial ruin and literally devastating the school system the good folk of Kansas reelected him! In response to the GOP working tirelessly on behalf of the top 1 % and making no secret about it, while cutting nearly every benefit including unemployment insurance available to those in need the good citizens of America gave them the largest majority they have had in 75 years! When will middle class working Americans vote with their brains , consciences and self interest, instead of based upon ridiculous myths and the hatred fed them by the GOP and the Tea Party?
35
George Carlin said; " Think how stupid the average person is; now consider that half the people are stupider. "
30
Whether this is the hottest year or not (since 1880, gosh) is contested, given that satellite data do not confirm it. Nevertheless, even if so, the notion that it is significant is preposterous. For Paul Krugman, who depicts himself as a numbers guy, to foist this simplistic notion that it does matter is even more preposterous. When you are at the plateau of an upward sloping one-hundred year temperature record, you HAVE to have warmest years ever so often as you bump along that curve. However, even the entire warming alarmist establishment is itself in "hot" pursuit of an explanation of what everyone recognizes as "the pause" (in rising temperatures, that is). If there were no pause, why would that be? Are you even listening?
That you start a column actually having nothing to do with this complex problem and that you display the worst sort of scientific illiteracy to segue into your usual economic-political attack on conservatives is why I do not bother reading further than your first two paragraphs here. Is this what you call promoting a debate, Paul? If so, it must be between one of your ears and the other. I have better things to do with my time.
That you start a column actually having nothing to do with this complex problem and that you display the worst sort of scientific illiteracy to segue into your usual economic-political attack on conservatives is why I do not bother reading further than your first two paragraphs here. Is this what you call promoting a debate, Paul? If so, it must be between one of your ears and the other. I have better things to do with my time.
4
Literally using the logical form attendant to this article, I am obligated to presume that the founders of Rome traveled about the Mediterranean in fossil-fuel burning catamarans.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeurope.php
Got dogma?
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/07/26/is-todays-climate-warmer-than-th...
http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeurope.php
Got dogma?
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/07/26/is-todays-climate-warmer-than-th...
Get a grip. The margin of error is 10 times greater than the increase in global temperatures.
1
They don't actually hate government spending so much, so long as they are the ones determining who gets it.
30
The idea that the lower the taxes, the higher the revenue was ridiculed, perhaps not for the first time, by PUNCH, the British humor magazine, in the run up to the Parliamentary election of 1841--you'll find the point raised in the first volume of PUNCh in a table--if I recall correctly--entitled a "Synopsis of Voting According to the Categories of Cant." So Mr. Krugman is right, the position is immune to refutation by mere facts. But facts do count, as the story of Kansas's current fiscal dilemma makes clear. The same goes for climate change. There's an old adage that says you "can't fool Mother Nature." No amount of denial will make the planet any cooler or reverse what regrettably is an accelerating trend. Considering the heat generated by the noxious gases released by the deniers' rage, it'll only make it warmer.
24
Dear Mr. Krugman,
My neighbors are nice people, keep to themselves, will babysit our two cats when we're gone and are both Tea Partiers through and through. After talking with them many times (My wife and I are, probably, the only 2 "liberals" they have any conversations with), never trying to change their minds only to open them a bit, I have come away with several observations that might help you understand why the GOP/TP "message" resonates with them.
They read and listen to ONLY conservative media outlets and firmly believe the "mainstream" media is "biased" hence spewing forth nothing but lies.
They still believe there is something "fishy" about Mr. Obama's background and are waiting for his "other programs" to come into play spearheaded by the Communistic ACA.
They believe that Rand Paul should be president and that even the GOP/TP is becoming a little too "liberal" for their liking. Mr. Boehner is anathema to them (He is to me also but for totally different reasons).
They believe "climate change" is a liberal "hoax" to garner power for those "other programs" lurking in the background.
They also do one other thing that separates them from the majority of the electorate, THEY VOTE!
The disgraceful part of this whole "democracy" is that even with storms getting worse, with the temperatures rising, with the seas rising, still only 36% of the, apparently, completely "satisfied" voting public got out and exercised their duty to vote.
There is your true culprit Mr. Krugman.
My neighbors are nice people, keep to themselves, will babysit our two cats when we're gone and are both Tea Partiers through and through. After talking with them many times (My wife and I are, probably, the only 2 "liberals" they have any conversations with), never trying to change their minds only to open them a bit, I have come away with several observations that might help you understand why the GOP/TP "message" resonates with them.
They read and listen to ONLY conservative media outlets and firmly believe the "mainstream" media is "biased" hence spewing forth nothing but lies.
They still believe there is something "fishy" about Mr. Obama's background and are waiting for his "other programs" to come into play spearheaded by the Communistic ACA.
They believe that Rand Paul should be president and that even the GOP/TP is becoming a little too "liberal" for their liking. Mr. Boehner is anathema to them (He is to me also but for totally different reasons).
They believe "climate change" is a liberal "hoax" to garner power for those "other programs" lurking in the background.
They also do one other thing that separates them from the majority of the electorate, THEY VOTE!
The disgraceful part of this whole "democracy" is that even with storms getting worse, with the temperatures rising, with the seas rising, still only 36% of the, apparently, completely "satisfied" voting public got out and exercised their duty to vote.
There is your true culprit Mr. Krugman.
81
I'm with the late Andy Rooney on this issue: "No you don't have a right to your opinion if you don't know what you're talking about." The media should stop giving these hopeless morons the legitimacy of a public forum for their quaint, if amusing, theories. "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
47
It's all about a crumbling empire. Read what George Orwell wrote about the British upper class in the 30s, it's virtually the same: when the sources of your income are unmentionable, and when your power shrinks, the only resort is stupidity.
22
The source of the problem is Fox News. They use lies and scare tactics to further their own agenda. The more intriguing question is what drives Fox News to spread their propaganda. What do they gain?
18
I'm not clear from the 1st paragraph if the writer believes that 2014 being {globally, ostensibly} the warmest year - on record [meaning out of the past 130 years or so] actually proves anything at all.
The hard, scientific truth of the matter is that climate changes processes, especially over eons of time, are far too chaotic to provide an *apodictic* answer to the question - is fossil fuel use warming the planet more than it would have been otherwise.
From solar activity, to the wobble of the earth, to undersea volcanic activity - anyone claiming that the warmth of 2014 settles the matter is guilty of not understanding what science actually is.
It does not consist in claiming to "know" something and to slander those who disagree based on what your *political* worldview happens to be.
The nutshell is there's good reason to believe fossil fuels are warming things up, so it is best to hedge our bets and act like it is true - because if it is true and we do nothing we die. I would frame it as a matter of where the best evidence is and the hedging boxes [GW is true or false over consequences in each instance of limiting fossil fuels or doing nothing]. But this requires getting the Left to understand what it seems incapable of understanding - anthropogenic climate change has NOT been "proven"
As for cherry-picking the evidence, that is literally all that economists do.
Particularly neo-Keynesians who are the veritable Sophists of today's declining West.
The hard, scientific truth of the matter is that climate changes processes, especially over eons of time, are far too chaotic to provide an *apodictic* answer to the question - is fossil fuel use warming the planet more than it would have been otherwise.
From solar activity, to the wobble of the earth, to undersea volcanic activity - anyone claiming that the warmth of 2014 settles the matter is guilty of not understanding what science actually is.
It does not consist in claiming to "know" something and to slander those who disagree based on what your *political* worldview happens to be.
The nutshell is there's good reason to believe fossil fuels are warming things up, so it is best to hedge our bets and act like it is true - because if it is true and we do nothing we die. I would frame it as a matter of where the best evidence is and the hedging boxes [GW is true or false over consequences in each instance of limiting fossil fuels or doing nothing]. But this requires getting the Left to understand what it seems incapable of understanding - anthropogenic climate change has NOT been "proven"
As for cherry-picking the evidence, that is literally all that economists do.
Particularly neo-Keynesians who are the veritable Sophists of today's declining West.
3
This is our secular brand of fundamentalism, no less dangerous than any other.
5
Good government equals the repeal of the Lincoln Amendment of Dodd-Frank in the Cromnibus bill so that Wall Street's derivative Ponzi-schemes are backed by the FDIC and taxpayers!
Also, good government means the destruction of the Bill of Rights in the name of Homeland Security. After all, "The terrorists hate our freedom." So we need to get rid of it. Mission accomplished Democrats and Republicans. Mission accomplished.
Also, good government means the destruction of the Bill of Rights in the name of Homeland Security. After all, "The terrorists hate our freedom." So we need to get rid of it. Mission accomplished Democrats and Republicans. Mission accomplished.
11
"Hint: Don’t cherry-pick your observations."
Indeed. The number of uninsured prior to Obamacare was around 5mm people. This entire edifice, including another bloated government bureaucracy, NSA-ready medical databases and wealth redistribution was because of them. There was a better way but it got in the way of leftist politics. And we still cannot get insurance from out of state providers.
Indeed. The number of uninsured prior to Obamacare was around 5mm people. This entire edifice, including another bloated government bureaucracy, NSA-ready medical databases and wealth redistribution was because of them. There was a better way but it got in the way of leftist politics. And we still cannot get insurance from out of state providers.
1
The Kansas problem is NOT that the Laffer curve, or supply-side economics, is inherently wrong. It is that money is pooling up at the top, where tax breaks at the highest income levels go to financial-only investments, and don't help anyone else.
7
Maybe the right hates government for all the lies they spread a la Jonathan gruber, Obama and pelosi re health insurance. Maybe they hate being endlessly taxed for big govt social programs that don't work except to buy votes for democrats. Maybe they hate the inefficiency and waste a la the health care website. Maybe they hate debt up to their eyeballs burdening future generations. Just a few ideas - there are many many more.
4
I saw a red-faced crowd at a weekend showing of American Sniper, a movie in which Iraqis were repeatedly referred to as "savages." In the movie, the lead actor thumped his Bible here and there and, at one point, smirked that a former comrade had been killed, not by a bullet, but because he had written a letter home to his mother expressing doubts about the war. I walked out, to hear folks standing outside gloating about how groups of their friends had bought up tickets at this theater and at others around the city. They weren't red-faced about the movie; they loved it. This group of older Anglo folks was red-faced by habit, launching into vitriol against naysayers against that war. I've been listening to their anger for years now, since American voters first elected President Obama, come to think of it. This is a fringe group, of course, but one that has sustained a sense of outrage that seems inexhaustible.
18
It is easy to cherry pick the outliers- but it happens on both sides of the political spectrum. What is needed is the type of civil servant like the Governor of Michigan- Rick Snyder. He's a CPA first and a politician last. Both poles of the party hate him- conservative republicans and liberal democrats- a good sign that he is doing something right. Too bad the closer you get to Washington the headwinds of campaign dollars prevent real public servants from gaining a foothold.
2
Besides hating good government argument of why people disagree about climate change is the psychological and spiritual argument. A real debate about climate change should also include this important dimension. This is made very clear by former Tyndall Center’s director Mike Hulme in his 2009 book “Why we disagree about climate change. Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity.”
1
It has never really been about the science of global warming, it has always been about the solutions. If you cannot bear the thought of government imposed solutions to environmental stress, it may lead you into denial of the problem.
If you view capitalism as quasi-religious, perhaps divinely inspired, you may been inclined to ignore the obvious downsides to society when it is poorly regulated.
If your beliefs, politics, fears, and prejudices are all wrapped up in the same ball, if fundamentalist religious beliefs and capitalism are two sides of the same coin, then it really is magic.
If you view capitalism as quasi-religious, perhaps divinely inspired, you may been inclined to ignore the obvious downsides to society when it is poorly regulated.
If your beliefs, politics, fears, and prejudices are all wrapped up in the same ball, if fundamentalist religious beliefs and capitalism are two sides of the same coin, then it really is magic.
10
Once again, Krugman weighs in on the TAXES GOOD side of a grossly oversimplified discussion of TAXES GOOD vs TAXES BAD.
The TAXES BAD side of the argument exploits the popular frustration with government's perceived inability to invest wisely and implement effectively.
The TAXES GOOD side of the argument blames the productive for becoming wealthy as a distraction to raise taxes on people with high salaries. Blame the billionaires, tax the hundred-thousandaires.
Taxes in reality are neither good nor bad...they are an investment. Invested wisely, they benefit the many. Invested poorly, they benefit nobody. There is no magic to either side.
There may be many reasons for the failure of Kansas to grow that have noting to do cutting taxes - just as there are many reasons why Detroit wound up bankrupt and abandoned despite high taxes.
You don't need a social scientist to tell you where the hostility against government comes from. Should everybody have affordable health care? Yeah, sure.
Would you trust your health to a hospital where the doctor promises you one thing and give you another, where the website doesn't work, where you're forced to go even if you think the hospital down the road is better? Of course not.
The implementation of Obamacare was a fiasco. And if you have a question about how it affects your taxes, the IRS won't even answer the phone. How can that be? Do I really want to shovel more of my money at these jokers?
The TAXES BAD side of the argument exploits the popular frustration with government's perceived inability to invest wisely and implement effectively.
The TAXES GOOD side of the argument blames the productive for becoming wealthy as a distraction to raise taxes on people with high salaries. Blame the billionaires, tax the hundred-thousandaires.
Taxes in reality are neither good nor bad...they are an investment. Invested wisely, they benefit the many. Invested poorly, they benefit nobody. There is no magic to either side.
There may be many reasons for the failure of Kansas to grow that have noting to do cutting taxes - just as there are many reasons why Detroit wound up bankrupt and abandoned despite high taxes.
You don't need a social scientist to tell you where the hostility against government comes from. Should everybody have affordable health care? Yeah, sure.
Would you trust your health to a hospital where the doctor promises you one thing and give you another, where the website doesn't work, where you're forced to go even if you think the hospital down the road is better? Of course not.
The implementation of Obamacare was a fiasco. And if you have a question about how it affects your taxes, the IRS won't even answer the phone. How can that be? Do I really want to shovel more of my money at these jokers?
1
The main trait running through the modern Republican Party is religious authoritarianism, which has always appealed to those averse to change, progress and complexity.
GOP authoritarians and those who flock to their empty slogans and null set of ideas are morally, politically and socially intolerant, they are uncomfortable with ambiguity and have a child's need and desire for clear and unambiguous authority - i.e., 'you're either with us or against us'.
GOP authoritarianism is that childish, naive worldview connected to a visceral sense of right and wrong and black and white - it's good for teaching young children, but not so great in a fully functional adult mind in a complicated modern world.
Besides religion itself, which the GOP politically body-surfs in, nothing is more predictive of a preference for authoritarianism than a lack of education, and the GOP has flourished by courting uneducated and religious whites by branding itself as a biblical authoritarian that is 'in charge', never mind that almost every one of their discredited social and economic theories are as believable as virgin births, partings of the sea and various other biblical fairy tales.
The GOP is constantly creating fear, denialism and fake crises for its voter base - 'Birtherism-Obamacare-Benghazi-IRS-Ebola-Immigration' - because authoritarian, religious lying still works at deceiving the uneducated religious masses, just like the 'Bible' does.
Party First - Earth and Country Last: GOP 2015
GOP authoritarians and those who flock to their empty slogans and null set of ideas are morally, politically and socially intolerant, they are uncomfortable with ambiguity and have a child's need and desire for clear and unambiguous authority - i.e., 'you're either with us or against us'.
GOP authoritarianism is that childish, naive worldview connected to a visceral sense of right and wrong and black and white - it's good for teaching young children, but not so great in a fully functional adult mind in a complicated modern world.
Besides religion itself, which the GOP politically body-surfs in, nothing is more predictive of a preference for authoritarianism than a lack of education, and the GOP has flourished by courting uneducated and religious whites by branding itself as a biblical authoritarian that is 'in charge', never mind that almost every one of their discredited social and economic theories are as believable as virgin births, partings of the sea and various other biblical fairy tales.
The GOP is constantly creating fear, denialism and fake crises for its voter base - 'Birtherism-Obamacare-Benghazi-IRS-Ebola-Immigration' - because authoritarian, religious lying still works at deceiving the uneducated religious masses, just like the 'Bible' does.
Party First - Earth and Country Last: GOP 2015
29
"If you don’t want the combination of regulation, mandates and subsidies that is needed to extend coverage to the uninsured, you want to deny that expanding coverage is even possible." So says Krugman about the Republican position on Obama care. But why does he who states so strongly that Republicans ignore the facts and cherry pick what supports their case not mention here the increased taxes that Obamacare brings with it. To make himself credible to those other than just his fans he needs to describe his enemies' entire position...not just the part that suits his argument.
There's a lot of evidence out there on this point, and it boils down to this: Red team vs. Blue team. The facts don't matter because the dispute is symbolic and almost theological. It's the same dispute that the Shia have with the Sunnis, the Protestants have with the Catholics and the Hatfields had with the McCoys.
2
Mr Krugman: Please stick to the topic you won a Nobel Prize for: Economics.
The climate always changes. The question is whether humans are causing the current climate change. The answer is: You have no reliable, predictable "signal" from human beings' activities to prove that ONLY human beings' activities are affecting the changes in the climate.
To your readers: Look to geology for answers, because that science has been around longer than "climatology". Geologists can measure climate effects going back millions of years. Climatologists have difficulty going back 1,000 years. Economists apparently have difficulty going back ten years.
Read "The Whole Story of Climate" - by E. Kirsten Peters. You'll learn more than Mr. Krugman is able to tell you.
The climate always changes. The question is whether humans are causing the current climate change. The answer is: You have no reliable, predictable "signal" from human beings' activities to prove that ONLY human beings' activities are affecting the changes in the climate.
To your readers: Look to geology for answers, because that science has been around longer than "climatology". Geologists can measure climate effects going back millions of years. Climatologists have difficulty going back 1,000 years. Economists apparently have difficulty going back ten years.
Read "The Whole Story of Climate" - by E. Kirsten Peters. You'll learn more than Mr. Krugman is able to tell you.
1
When the media presents all sides (climate change is an easy example) as equally valid and waters down facts into the false equivalencies of "he said, she said," it's easy for uninformed or undereducated people to be duped. Indeed, that's what the reactionaries bet on. So, Dr. Krugman, cast your eyes around the desks in your newsroom. The New York Times is as much to blame as ordinary citizens.
7
Of course this is all true. With Fox News to protect them, Republicans have gotten right to work reversing all kinds of helpful and progressive policies. I was encouraged by the home page/front page story today about Fox News apologizing for spreading lies about Muslims in England and France. Krugman's Op-Ed matters, but more fact-checking on the news pages would be a one-two punch. Since such a large part of the population gets its facts from Fox, the Fox agenda becomes newsworthy.
But it's not limited to Fox. I keep reminding readers of former Senator Jon Kyl's response when caught lying about Planned Parenthood. His spokesperson said that that what Kyl said was not meant to be "a factual statement." What was it meant to be then?
But it's not limited to Fox. I keep reminding readers of former Senator Jon Kyl's response when caught lying about Planned Parenthood. His spokesperson said that that what Kyl said was not meant to be "a factual statement." What was it meant to be then?
10
Dr. K derides supply side economics - meaning letting people keep more of what they earn isn't a goal in itself, and in any event, tax cuts, he claims "always" lead to a poorer economy...
But this means a dollar I spend is worth less than one the government takes and spends on a bomb dropped on a Pakistani wedding.
That doesn't make much sense to me, but then I studied physics, not economics.
Also - given that the US dollar is literally borrowed into existence by the government, which could issue the currency itself, but instead borrows from a cartel of privately held corporations [the Fed = 12 banks].... how is it that Dr. K's endless calls for MOAR printing {borrowing more, at interest, from private banks} and more deficit spending {banks and hedge funds and the wealthy buying IOUs from taxes taken from future workers} - is **anything other than** "supply side" thinking?
If your economic world view assumes as ineluctable a situation where private banks issue the public currency as a loan at interest, respectfully, it is time to go back to studying the BASICS of economic systems before delving into the abstruse research on the history of global climate change.
Sheesh.
But this means a dollar I spend is worth less than one the government takes and spends on a bomb dropped on a Pakistani wedding.
That doesn't make much sense to me, but then I studied physics, not economics.
Also - given that the US dollar is literally borrowed into existence by the government, which could issue the currency itself, but instead borrows from a cartel of privately held corporations [the Fed = 12 banks].... how is it that Dr. K's endless calls for MOAR printing {borrowing more, at interest, from private banks} and more deficit spending {banks and hedge funds and the wealthy buying IOUs from taxes taken from future workers} - is **anything other than** "supply side" thinking?
If your economic world view assumes as ineluctable a situation where private banks issue the public currency as a loan at interest, respectfully, it is time to go back to studying the BASICS of economic systems before delving into the abstruse research on the history of global climate change.
Sheesh.
We are in big trouble. I had dinner with a large group this past weekend, and when a light-hearted comment was made about the economy, one gal stated she wanted Obama impeached. (fighting words for myself.)
As she continued on about her prescription for everything from soup to nuts, and she looks like she ate all the soup and the nuts (along with the cream puffs) she mentioned the economy.
Finally, I had had all I could take, and I suggested she read your articles, telling her how much I have learned ------- oh geez ----- well, then I found out I was liberal trash and so was this newspaper and I didn't know anything, and her daddy worked in Washington.
Professor, we are doomed. Are only hope is a condensed handout version of your past columns and teachings. (I am looking for your best column to drop on her --- any suggestions?)
Then, her husband, who looks like there wasn't a cream puff or a cracker left in the house for him, states he carries a gun. We are out to dinner at a restaurant in a town of 9000 ---- honestly, I'm starting to get a little scared. The people have gone nuts!
As she continued on about her prescription for everything from soup to nuts, and she looks like she ate all the soup and the nuts (along with the cream puffs) she mentioned the economy.
Finally, I had had all I could take, and I suggested she read your articles, telling her how much I have learned ------- oh geez ----- well, then I found out I was liberal trash and so was this newspaper and I didn't know anything, and her daddy worked in Washington.
Professor, we are doomed. Are only hope is a condensed handout version of your past columns and teachings. (I am looking for your best column to drop on her --- any suggestions?)
Then, her husband, who looks like there wasn't a cream puff or a cracker left in the house for him, states he carries a gun. We are out to dinner at a restaurant in a town of 9000 ---- honestly, I'm starting to get a little scared. The people have gone nuts!
12
Actually these "red-faced ragers" are acting out their juvenile resentment of authority. Then there are those who press the rager buttons for their pecuniary purposes.
10
All that I see on here are self proclaimed educated idiots blindly backing cheap con men with no proof other than insults and feelings. If you don't blindly believe in climate change, that there is no real proof of you are an uneducated Republican that hates the world and loves God. I don't believe in God, I am not a Republican, and I absolutely can't stand the government or all the worthless lawyers running it. I don't buy into Global warming either. What I do believe in is Charles Darwin's survival of the fittest. All you liberal nerds have to make your selves fill like someone because no one else will. The simple fact is that strong, good looking people are populating the world while you idiots gloom and doom on the internet. If by some miracle you dorks get someone better looking than you, you can bet it is one of those strong good looking people that they are cheating on you with. Now keep being pathetic it's pretty much all you have at this point.
If you ask me, I would rather the government run policies than than Wall street crooks or the one percent. The government must be a government that is for the people and not oppresses them like a lot of conservatives states.
7
I agree with Krugman, but would add another factor; the press and their
inability to hold those who are wrong accountable. The only media outlet
who does is Jon Stewart's Daily Show.
inability to hold those who are wrong accountable. The only media outlet
who does is Jon Stewart's Daily Show.
8
There is faith and there is reason, and the two can't coexist unless the faithful have faith in the value of reason. Is it reasonable to describe reactionaries as those who lack faith in reason? Or alternatively, does it just make their heads hurt a little too much to think about the really hard, important problems of the world?
4
Krugman just loves big government, so long as he doesn't have to participate. He's a 1%er, so big government programs for thee but not for me.
Typical leftist elitist jerk.
Typical leftist elitist jerk.
2
Claiming 2014 as the warmest year, Paul is just one more false prophet from the Climate Cultists. Even the data sources, NASA & NOAA, admit that 2014's "average" temperature based on their own fudging of the numbers is statistically indistinguishable from 2005 & 2010. So you can run a straight, horizontal line through these supposed increases and demonstrate that the pause in warming has continued for yet another year. But apparently economists either don't understand numbers or can't be bothered to report the true facts.
2
I know it's not PC to quote facts but to paraphrase a passage from "1491", the anthropologist, Clifford Geertz suggested there are four types of governments: "pluralist" which people think has legitimacy, "populist" which reflects the will of the people, "great beast" in which rulers use force to keep the population cowed, and "great fraud" in which the elite use smoke and mirrors to convince the people of its inherent authority. Guess which form of government the 1% is pushing?
3
It´s about government or clan society - US oligarks are fighting the final battle for power and will not let facts coming in their way.If they win,all of us will become servants to new rulers.
2
How "good" is a government with $17 Trillion in debt, massive annual deficits, and a retiring Baby Boom generation ready to bankrupt the entire entitlement system.
1
COMMON SENSE
I announce my candidacy for President of the United States in this commentary, to honor PROFESSOR PAUL KRUGMAN.
Common Sense rejects the ultra-rich candidate running for President. Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Hillary Clinton, billionaires jousting for the top seat in America. We need an American President who is not rich, not poor, but honest, with no debts, and not beholden to anyone or any party.
Friends have urged me to run for President in 2016. I hereby accept. I am running as an independent, write-in candidate. I stand for the redistribution of wealth without taxing the rich. I stand for the reduction of military bases and the increase of military spending. I stand for funding all Americans who want to further their educations lifelong.
Yes. I have a Common Sense plan that has been tested in America, proven, and forgotten. My "COMMON SENSE" plan is to give every American Citizen an annual cash grant. Every year 10% of America's National Income (GDP) will be redistributed equally among all Americans by Social Security Number. Grants were given equally to American Citizens in 2008 and it worked to save the American Economy and the World Economy.
Then the cash grant stimulus was eliminated. As President, I will veto every bill, not sign one into law, until Congress gives me a cash-grant-stimulus bill that issues 10% of American National Income as a yearly grant divided equally among ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
[email protected]
www.gtvnn.net
I announce my candidacy for President of the United States in this commentary, to honor PROFESSOR PAUL KRUGMAN.
Common Sense rejects the ultra-rich candidate running for President. Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Hillary Clinton, billionaires jousting for the top seat in America. We need an American President who is not rich, not poor, but honest, with no debts, and not beholden to anyone or any party.
Friends have urged me to run for President in 2016. I hereby accept. I am running as an independent, write-in candidate. I stand for the redistribution of wealth without taxing the rich. I stand for the reduction of military bases and the increase of military spending. I stand for funding all Americans who want to further their educations lifelong.
Yes. I have a Common Sense plan that has been tested in America, proven, and forgotten. My "COMMON SENSE" plan is to give every American Citizen an annual cash grant. Every year 10% of America's National Income (GDP) will be redistributed equally among all Americans by Social Security Number. Grants were given equally to American Citizens in 2008 and it worked to save the American Economy and the World Economy.
Then the cash grant stimulus was eliminated. As President, I will veto every bill, not sign one into law, until Congress gives me a cash-grant-stimulus bill that issues 10% of American National Income as a yearly grant divided equally among ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
[email protected]
www.gtvnn.net
The right maintains its holy grail: eliminate taxes for the wealthy.
Real evidence will undermine this goal.
Real evidence will undermine this goal.
4
LOL…the climate change hype continues. The liberals have a real problem. First, cases have already been proven where the data supporting their position has been found to be falsified. Second, follow the money. How many liberals, including Krugman himself, stand to make millions on the belief that climate change is real? Third, the data represents a blip in time, if it is even factual data., and everything is cyclical. Fourth, the arrogance that if you don't believe us on this you must be of less intelligence.
Krugman cites the "success" of Obamacare but ignores the cost the nation is incurring to maintain such a program.
Krugman cites the "success" of Obamacare but ignores the cost the nation is incurring to maintain such a program.
1
I think it is fairly clear why people hate the government. All you have to do is look at which congressional districts are red and which are blue or purple. For most people in red districs, GOVERNMENT is the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, the school bus, and the black clerk at the DMV, who might have a better job than they do.
The rich don't hate the government at all, so long they hold it captive to their interests. But they know how to stir up the hatred of it to keep its benefits flowing their way.
The rich don't hate the government at all, so long they hold it captive to their interests. But they know how to stir up the hatred of it to keep its benefits flowing their way.
4
Krugman is projecting even more than usual in this piece.
Just to examine his first claim, that 2014 was the hottest year on record, NASA, the source of the claim, has issued a clarification in which it, among other things, admits to only 35% confidence in a figure that is higher by a statistically insignificant amount. Back when Krugman was an economist, did he ever publish a conclusion on any subject in which he could demonstrate only 35% confidence?
This column, like most of Krugman's, is aggressively fact-free.
Just to examine his first claim, that 2014 was the hottest year on record, NASA, the source of the claim, has issued a clarification in which it, among other things, admits to only 35% confidence in a figure that is higher by a statistically insignificant amount. Back when Krugman was an economist, did he ever publish a conclusion on any subject in which he could demonstrate only 35% confidence?
This column, like most of Krugman's, is aggressively fact-free.
1
Dear Dr Krugman,
Another part of the explanation of the rejection of inconvenient facts (or even most of reality) is probably the authoritarian mindset (see link):
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
See especially chapter 6.
Another part of the explanation of the rejection of inconvenient facts (or even most of reality) is probably the authoritarian mindset (see link):
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
See especially chapter 6.
2
In their book, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts (Harcourt, Inc. 2007), psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson explore and explain why it is so hard for presidents, bishops, police and prosecutors – and all the rest of us – to admit mistakes.
"Most people, when directly confronted by evidence that they are wrong, do not change their point of view or course of action but justify it even more tenaciously. Even irrefutable evidence is rarely enough to pierce the mental armor of self-justification."
"Most people, when directly confronted by evidence that they are wrong, do not change their point of view or course of action but justify it even more tenaciously. Even irrefutable evidence is rarely enough to pierce the mental armor of self-justification."
8
Paul, where is it that you find 'good' government? I have been looking for such for seventy years and I have not found it. Perhaps I am looking on the wrong planet.
Ignoring facts and evidence, part the 1000th. Facts have no meaning
to today's GOP and its right wing. They aren't conservatives, they
are reactionaries.
The headline is a tad misleading, they hate government. The idea
is to throw a bat in the spokes of the bike and when it crashes,
blame the rider for not knowing how to ride a bike.
We need a media that tells the truth. HAH
to today's GOP and its right wing. They aren't conservatives, they
are reactionaries.
The headline is a tad misleading, they hate government. The idea
is to throw a bat in the spokes of the bike and when it crashes,
blame the rider for not knowing how to ride a bike.
We need a media that tells the truth. HAH
6
Thanks for the explanation - I just thought most of our Congressional people were involved in a criminal enterprise.
14
"...why this hatred of government in the public interest?"
I don't think this is at all surprising. Most Americans are low information voters. People work hard and are not given to spending leisure time seeking out political information. But most of all, the public is the target of an unprecedented and determined propaganda campaign emanating from the infinitely wealthy Murdoch news empire and from the evangelical pulpits across the nation. If you need any confirmation of this, tune into any of your local "Christian" radio stations and sample the unending stream of vitriol.
I don't think this is at all surprising. Most Americans are low information voters. People work hard and are not given to spending leisure time seeking out political information. But most of all, the public is the target of an unprecedented and determined propaganda campaign emanating from the infinitely wealthy Murdoch news empire and from the evangelical pulpits across the nation. If you need any confirmation of this, tune into any of your local "Christian" radio stations and sample the unending stream of vitriol.
18
Speaking of cherry-picking, the ''warmest year'' speculation is coming into disrepute as well. However, your liberal creds are extended thereby.
Had the writer any familiarity with outgoing Senator Tom Coburn the headline would have been different. Coburn regularly regaled us with his current examples of th most fatuous, hopelessly stupid spending mistakes. His fave seemed to be from whatever liberal had just finished crying over supposed cuts - actually, cuts in hoped-for increases in budgets.
We can't even trust the word ''cuts'' any more from out glittering fools in the federal government. But at least we don't have to eat on the Michelle public school diet once we are too old for school.
Had the writer any familiarity with outgoing Senator Tom Coburn the headline would have been different. Coburn regularly regaled us with his current examples of th most fatuous, hopelessly stupid spending mistakes. His fave seemed to be from whatever liberal had just finished crying over supposed cuts - actually, cuts in hoped-for increases in budgets.
We can't even trust the word ''cuts'' any more from out glittering fools in the federal government. But at least we don't have to eat on the Michelle public school diet once we are too old for school.
2
Mr. Krugman, evidence doesn't matter because this is all about identity. The GOP has become synonymous with one's religion, race, region, class, etc. to too many Americans. If your identity requires that you at least pretend to believe certain "truths," no matter how ridiculous or illogical, most people will go along. We may be heading for global disaster, but it doesn't matter to most Americans in the short run. What matters is what you neighbors and reference groups think of you.
12
Simply put, our government for the past 200 years has always been a government "Of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy". All indications now are that it will continue to be so.
7
Mr. Krugman isn' this simply an example of herd mentality that has caused so much catastrophy throughout history? Examples of it go back century after century. The capability to mesmerize large blocs of people and channel their thinking whether for good or for evil is by no means new.
What is good and hopefully will ultimately prevail are persons like yourself that persevere in pointing out benefit raher than the suggested adverse consequences.
What is good and hopefully will ultimately prevail are persons like yourself that persevere in pointing out benefit raher than the suggested adverse consequences.
2
@"...most self-proclaimed Conservatives are actuall reactionaries...defenders of traditional hierarchy..."
The Conservative agenda is a mirror image of the Islamist agenda. Both prefer Theocracy to Democracy, see women's rightful role as wife and mother and her "domain" as the home, both favour censorship of those who oppose them and of art they find "offensive", approve of capital punishment for a variety of offenses, oppose abortion even in cases of rape or incest, and both are 100% certain they are "right". Both groups are, in fact, reactionary. They seek to re-create a way of life free of ambiguity where nothing is debatable. They prize obedience over autonomy, control over consent. Theirs is a world of perpetual enslavement to the arbitrary, not the freedom of the rational life. They seek a form of hierarchy that they believe will protect them from their overwhelming fear of the uncontrollable, the ultimate form of which is their death. Even the suicide bombers are not exempt from this overpowering fear: by choosing the day and manner of their deaths they seek to control the uncontrollable, the surprise of an unplanned death. That is why both groups are so enraged so easily by anything they see as an attempt to remove "control" from the equation. If non-believers can "blaspheme" with no apparent consequences, perhaps all of their assumptions about the will of "god" are wrong.
The Conservative agenda is a mirror image of the Islamist agenda. Both prefer Theocracy to Democracy, see women's rightful role as wife and mother and her "domain" as the home, both favour censorship of those who oppose them and of art they find "offensive", approve of capital punishment for a variety of offenses, oppose abortion even in cases of rape or incest, and both are 100% certain they are "right". Both groups are, in fact, reactionary. They seek to re-create a way of life free of ambiguity where nothing is debatable. They prize obedience over autonomy, control over consent. Theirs is a world of perpetual enslavement to the arbitrary, not the freedom of the rational life. They seek a form of hierarchy that they believe will protect them from their overwhelming fear of the uncontrollable, the ultimate form of which is their death. Even the suicide bombers are not exempt from this overpowering fear: by choosing the day and manner of their deaths they seek to control the uncontrollable, the surprise of an unplanned death. That is why both groups are so enraged so easily by anything they see as an attempt to remove "control" from the equation. If non-believers can "blaspheme" with no apparent consequences, perhaps all of their assumptions about the will of "god" are wrong.
7
What's implied here is that, in contrast to the political right, the left is always rational and fact based. But that simply isn't true. Yes, the left looks at data and expert consensus when it comes to global warming and Obamacare. But it gets just as red in the face and ignores data and expert consensus when it comes to a host of other issues, including genetically modified foods, fracking, the Keystone pipeline, and the economic viability of a massive switchover to alternative energy. I could make the equivalent logical leap of Krugman and state that the reason the left behaves the way it does is that it has an irrational hatred of corporations. The point is that facts, data and expert consensus are both willfully ignored and abused by both the left and right in today's political climate. We believe what we believe, data be damned. The finger should be pointed at Krugman's friends and enemies both.
2
Obama sold out to the hospital industry, the drug industry and the AMA. The reason health care costs are moderating is because the insurance companies raised deductibles and out of pocket costs. For some middle class people these out of pocket costs can be up to $12,000. That is not affordable health care.
Most voters don't want amnesty for illegal immigrants. Most Americans were appalled when Obama had Al Sharpton a notorious race hustler as his go to guy on racial relations.
The Republicans are for the rich and the Democrats are for the poor. The middle class has no one protecting their interests.
Most voters don't want amnesty for illegal immigrants. Most Americans were appalled when Obama had Al Sharpton a notorious race hustler as his go to guy on racial relations.
The Republicans are for the rich and the Democrats are for the poor. The middle class has no one protecting their interests.
3
..."they’re red-faced angry, with special rage directed at know-it-alls who snootily point out that the facts don’t support their position."
Oh yes, the inconvenience of facts. The biggest fact of our age, however, isn't the absence of facts, but the fact that so many can whip out, at will, their own facts produced by their own think tanks, their own "experts."
It's scary when a country is run on two competing views of reality. Because reality isn't a "view": there is only one reality, one set of facts, one set of data that points to a conclusion. Sure, these facts may change with additional evidence, but to prove a trend, there has to be an abundance of evidence.
The denial by the right of any consensus on facts is perturbing for the simple reason that they're able to sway so many to their side with distracting issues that don't depend on facts alone: gay marriage, religious "liberties" including the right to ban legal abortion in a secular nation, gun laws, and immigration.
All you need is a bunch of voters who vote on one or two issues to propel those with anti-environment, anti-government, pro-oligarchy, pro-carbon agendas to work their tired, weary, "magical thinking" theories over and over like a demented cow who keeps butting its head against a corral.
Sad for our children, sad for our country, sad for the world-- since we're still a leader in international science policy.
Oh yes, the inconvenience of facts. The biggest fact of our age, however, isn't the absence of facts, but the fact that so many can whip out, at will, their own facts produced by their own think tanks, their own "experts."
It's scary when a country is run on two competing views of reality. Because reality isn't a "view": there is only one reality, one set of facts, one set of data that points to a conclusion. Sure, these facts may change with additional evidence, but to prove a trend, there has to be an abundance of evidence.
The denial by the right of any consensus on facts is perturbing for the simple reason that they're able to sway so many to their side with distracting issues that don't depend on facts alone: gay marriage, religious "liberties" including the right to ban legal abortion in a secular nation, gun laws, and immigration.
All you need is a bunch of voters who vote on one or two issues to propel those with anti-environment, anti-government, pro-oligarchy, pro-carbon agendas to work their tired, weary, "magical thinking" theories over and over like a demented cow who keeps butting its head against a corral.
Sad for our children, sad for our country, sad for the world-- since we're still a leader in international science policy.
8
The trouble the Democrats and, indeed, the whole country have is that low info voters have been sold a bill of goods on many issues especially on the economy which is really the whole ball game.
There are 2 main problems with the economy. The first is inequality which takes money from the people who need it & will spend it and gives it to the people who do not need it, spend a much smaller percentage, and use the rest to speculate.
The low info voter is in favor of reducing inequality, but to a large extant opposed to the methods to do so. Many are opposed to raising taxes on the rich because they have been told that all taxes are evil. A dollar sent to DC will be swallowed up by some horrible monster, never to be seen again. They have been taught that unions are evil in spite of what we saw after WWII or see today in countries like Germany.
The second way to help the economy is more federal deficit spending, but people are unable to understand that federal spending is income for the private sector, people & businesses. If you use tax dollars, all you do is to put back money you have already taken out of the private sector; deficits can get NEW money to the people who need it.
The lo info voter believes that all debt is bad because it may be bad for him. He cannot see the difference between himself and a huge country that lasts a long time and can print the currency its debt are in.
From many comments in the Times, I have learned that data will change not his mind
There are 2 main problems with the economy. The first is inequality which takes money from the people who need it & will spend it and gives it to the people who do not need it, spend a much smaller percentage, and use the rest to speculate.
The low info voter is in favor of reducing inequality, but to a large extant opposed to the methods to do so. Many are opposed to raising taxes on the rich because they have been told that all taxes are evil. A dollar sent to DC will be swallowed up by some horrible monster, never to be seen again. They have been taught that unions are evil in spite of what we saw after WWII or see today in countries like Germany.
The second way to help the economy is more federal deficit spending, but people are unable to understand that federal spending is income for the private sector, people & businesses. If you use tax dollars, all you do is to put back money you have already taken out of the private sector; deficits can get NEW money to the people who need it.
The lo info voter believes that all debt is bad because it may be bad for him. He cannot see the difference between himself and a huge country that lasts a long time and can print the currency its debt are in.
From many comments in the Times, I have learned that data will change not his mind
11
One of the fears of the "stupid" voters is "socialism" - and, unfortunately, I don't believe they would understand what socialism really is, because they mainly grew up with the fear of communism and were taught to equate that with socialism. I have read comments in the NY Times columns from readers who claim that Europe's current problems are due to "socialism" and, hence, it is something to be avoided at all costs.
Until America can educate its populace well enough to understand the differences between socialism, communism, laissez-faire capitalism, and regulated capitalism, and also the differences between American-style "democracy", parliamentary democracy, and true democracy this state of affairs is likely to continue, to the detriment of the country as a whole.
Until America can educate its populace well enough to understand the differences between socialism, communism, laissez-faire capitalism, and regulated capitalism, and also the differences between American-style "democracy", parliamentary democracy, and true democracy this state of affairs is likely to continue, to the detriment of the country as a whole.
15
In trying to explain the behavior of today's conservatives, I have settled on the "cult" theory. It goes like this:
Today's working class conservatives have essentially been brought onto the cult of movement conservatism. The commandeering of their brains starts with controlling their news/information sources. First, they've been indoctrinated to believe that the entire media is liberally biased, then are steered towards conservative sources who continually reinforce this belief to keep them from considering anything but "approved" sources.
Within the Republican party, strict orthodoxy is ruthlessly enforced- just ask former Republican senators Dick Lugar and Robert Bennett. Most republicans are terrified of showing even a tiny bit of independence for fear of being ostracized. The opinion-for-hire think tanks and front groups produce bogus research and communications, which are fed to the masses through the conservative media machine. These "facts" will be taken as gospel by the believers and disseminated through their social networks. These people become so conditioned to ignore information from outside the cult, the literally just tune out facts that don't reinforce the GOP party line. Very cult-like behavior, I think.
Today's working class conservatives have essentially been brought onto the cult of movement conservatism. The commandeering of their brains starts with controlling their news/information sources. First, they've been indoctrinated to believe that the entire media is liberally biased, then are steered towards conservative sources who continually reinforce this belief to keep them from considering anything but "approved" sources.
Within the Republican party, strict orthodoxy is ruthlessly enforced- just ask former Republican senators Dick Lugar and Robert Bennett. Most republicans are terrified of showing even a tiny bit of independence for fear of being ostracized. The opinion-for-hire think tanks and front groups produce bogus research and communications, which are fed to the masses through the conservative media machine. These "facts" will be taken as gospel by the believers and disseminated through their social networks. These people become so conditioned to ignore information from outside the cult, the literally just tune out facts that don't reinforce the GOP party line. Very cult-like behavior, I think.
19
Excellent article, but many questions remain unanswered. Most of the right-wing reactionaries who I know are working class and lower middle class white people. These people are often the beneficiaries of progressive policies, such as Medicare, unemployment or disability benefits. They often suffer from conservative economic policies. The only hierarchy that might attract them to the populist reactionary movement would be "traditional racial hierarchy". In other words, the Republicans have played this game by exploiting white racial fears.
But what an effective model...the rich get richer, while the working class whites focus on issues of race, religion, guns and gay rights.
But what an effective model...the rich get richer, while the working class whites focus on issues of race, religion, guns and gay rights.
20
The hatred by Republicans of government, their rejection of science and their resentment of anyone outside their group is a character disorder. Ultimately, the pendulum of history will swing, and people will look back on this current crop of Republicans will amazement and disgust. Such eventual vindication of reason is certain, but that is small comfort to the millions of Americans who have suffered unnecessarily from the selfish meanderings of the right wing.
6
While I almost always agree with Prof. Krugman, I think he's a bit off-base here--optimistic, even.
It isn't that this unreasonable swath of people just resists government intervention. If that were the case, they might be more honest libertarians. Instead, it is often these same conservatives who are more than happy to have the government intrude when it comes to social issues, from gay marriage to abortion to immigration. They don't want the government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but they want the government to prevent abortions and even to restrict other forms of family planning; they don't want the government to impose a minimum wage, but they're happy for it to dictate whom one can or can't marry.
It's tempting to impute some sort of overriding principle to the conservative movement (such as Prof. Krugman's hypothesis of government-hating), other than just a rosy-colored remembrance of the past. But political and cultural values probably lack even that much reason: they're simply markers of tribal identity. In the end, we're still left scratching our heads and wondering: What's the matter with Kansas?
It isn't that this unreasonable swath of people just resists government intervention. If that were the case, they might be more honest libertarians. Instead, it is often these same conservatives who are more than happy to have the government intrude when it comes to social issues, from gay marriage to abortion to immigration. They don't want the government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but they want the government to prevent abortions and even to restrict other forms of family planning; they don't want the government to impose a minimum wage, but they're happy for it to dictate whom one can or can't marry.
It's tempting to impute some sort of overriding principle to the conservative movement (such as Prof. Krugman's hypothesis of government-hating), other than just a rosy-colored remembrance of the past. But political and cultural values probably lack even that much reason: they're simply markers of tribal identity. In the end, we're still left scratching our heads and wondering: What's the matter with Kansas?
2
I noticed the change in the Republican party starting with Ronald Reagan. They went from being conservatives, who mostly liked things the way they were and didn't want them to change, to being reactionaries who wanted to bring back the "good old days," those halcyon days of yore that never existed except in their rose colored memories; the Leave It To Beaver days, although without all the accompanying unpleasantness, such as the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, Joseph McCarthy, the threat of nuclear war, bomb shelters in the backyard, Jim Crow, etc. etc. etc.
7
I have a hard time why these science deniers want more an more of their "science" in expanding our military, the Keystone Pipeline, NSA controls, keeping Guantanamo Bay open, NASA, etc. It appears that where science supports their ideology they blindly accept it, but where science does not support their ideology, then science rather than their warped views is at fault. Ergo, ideology beats all opponents. Reminds me a bit like Nazis philosophy or communism, both of which the GOP ideologues despise, yet they don't want acknowledge the similarities. To me, pure capitalism without controls is just as evil as pure communism with controls.
3
It seems as though there is a group of climate change deniers who sift through the news sites and immediately pounce on any article that mentions climate change. The arguments are all the same old tired -- and false -- ones:
- CO2 doesn't affect temperatures (if it didn't, the average temperature of the Earth would be -1 degree Fahrenheit)
- there has been a "pause" in global warming that the models do not predict (there has been no "pause", just a temporary reduction in the rate of increase, which the models do predict)
- warming has occurred before (yes, but not at this rate)
- scientists are lying in order to get more grant money (as someone who publishes and peer-review papers in another scientific field, I can say that this is pure nonsense)
What it all boils down to is this: if you don't understand the basic physics (Stefan-Boltzmann law, Planck radiation law, absorption spectra of CO2 and methane -- and let's not forget conservation of energy) you are not entitled to dispute the science. As Isaac Asimov once wrote:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
- CO2 doesn't affect temperatures (if it didn't, the average temperature of the Earth would be -1 degree Fahrenheit)
- there has been a "pause" in global warming that the models do not predict (there has been no "pause", just a temporary reduction in the rate of increase, which the models do predict)
- warming has occurred before (yes, but not at this rate)
- scientists are lying in order to get more grant money (as someone who publishes and peer-review papers in another scientific field, I can say that this is pure nonsense)
What it all boils down to is this: if you don't understand the basic physics (Stefan-Boltzmann law, Planck radiation law, absorption spectra of CO2 and methane -- and let's not forget conservation of energy) you are not entitled to dispute the science. As Isaac Asimov once wrote:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
10
Yes Paul, I think the Corey Robin finding that the self-proclaimed conservatives are actually reactionaries who defend the existing hierarchy, which in the context of your column, is concerned with economics and a belief in as little science as possible - unless one of them suddenly wants advanced medical care.
I believe that further study would show that they fiercely believe in the hierarchy that is called "The American Racial Order". There can only be one so called "race" at the top, and we know which one that is.
We see this dramatically in Sweden because the Hitlerian SD party is sure that only a subset of ethnic Swedes can be at the top of the Swedish social order (race is only used by the Hitler gang). In the multi-party system the SDs can say this loud and clear. In the US two-party system the same thinking is veiled.
If you could see the expressions of pure hatred we see every Monday in the Swedish TV series Blå ögon, I think this would make clear that reactionaries become professional haters, always adding yet another object to hate, where hatred of government is high on their list. I hope Blå ögon comes to PBS sometime soon, preferably with English subtitles not dubbed.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
I believe that further study would show that they fiercely believe in the hierarchy that is called "The American Racial Order". There can only be one so called "race" at the top, and we know which one that is.
We see this dramatically in Sweden because the Hitlerian SD party is sure that only a subset of ethnic Swedes can be at the top of the Swedish social order (race is only used by the Hitler gang). In the multi-party system the SDs can say this loud and clear. In the US two-party system the same thinking is veiled.
If you could see the expressions of pure hatred we see every Monday in the Swedish TV series Blå ögon, I think this would make clear that reactionaries become professional haters, always adding yet another object to hate, where hatred of government is high on their list. I hope Blå ögon comes to PBS sometime soon, preferably with English subtitles not dubbed.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
2
Mr. Krugman, have you no skepticism? NOAA and NASA have reported a 1.3 deg F and a 1.8 deg F rise, respectively, as compared to the last century's average of about 57 deg F. On an absolute temperature basis, that's 0.2% and 0.3%, respectively. Now, there's no mention of the other hundred or so centuries that have occurred since the last great ice age. Don't you wonder how 2014 compared to them? Or how about the many hundreds of centuries that have occurred between the last several ice ages? Is 2014's average temperature statistically significantly different than all those other centuries? Why is there no discussion about these comparisons? Give me something to allay my skepticism here, and I'll be on board with this. Don't just tell me I'm stupid for being a healthy skeptic.
7
Government always has to make its case for intervention in our relatively free market. This requires a certain amount of credibility. However, this was damaged severely by the Iraq misadventure, bailouts of the banks without similar bailouts for households, the continued existence of “too big to fail” banks, the bungled roll-out of Obamacare, the obvious influence of money in our politics, and massive deficit spending ($8 trillion more debt since 9/2008) with few visible improvements to show for it.
We liberals assume that folks will see reason; for example, that record income inequality will prompt higher taxes on the rich and subsidies for the middle class. However, what will stop prices from rising when those subsidies go into effect? Will a price control regime be required to keep college costs from rising if government pays for it?
Further, many folks don’t want to help others they perceive as “takers” or from a different race, and are partial to conservative arguments that appeal to this sentiment, as Reagan showed in his “A Time for Choosing” speech of 1964. It is no accident that the Southern Democrats shifted to Republicans after the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Pledges to not help "them" are at the core of the GOP platform.
Government can start by building back its credibility. Breakup the big banks; pass a Constitutional Amendment to get the money out of politics; and start treating income from capital just like income from labor.
We liberals assume that folks will see reason; for example, that record income inequality will prompt higher taxes on the rich and subsidies for the middle class. However, what will stop prices from rising when those subsidies go into effect? Will a price control regime be required to keep college costs from rising if government pays for it?
Further, many folks don’t want to help others they perceive as “takers” or from a different race, and are partial to conservative arguments that appeal to this sentiment, as Reagan showed in his “A Time for Choosing” speech of 1964. It is no accident that the Southern Democrats shifted to Republicans after the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Pledges to not help "them" are at the core of the GOP platform.
Government can start by building back its credibility. Breakup the big banks; pass a Constitutional Amendment to get the money out of politics; and start treating income from capital just like income from labor.
6
Yes, self-proclaimed conservatives are reactionary true-believers in disinformation. These true-believers are uncritically thinking, gullible consumers of an unrelenting flood of right-wing disinformation designed to stir-up true-believer dogmatism and rage—all paid for by a small band of misanthropic sociopath billionaires—Koch brothers, Rupert Murdock of Fox “News”, and their cronies.
This false rage has been effectively transformed into a deluded and disenfranchised populist support for puppets hand-picked by this small band of billionaire cronies. These right-wing puppets are elected to congress by the true-believers--effectively, elected by a blind hysterical mob, fomented by misanthropic sociopaths.
Once elected, they deny the success of Obamacare, deny climate change, and are willing to repeal citizen’s rights, safety nets, environmental protections, and much more established during the past 100 years--in short, they are attempting to devolve our republic to a plutocratic corporatocracy closely resembling a fascist state.
Why? To enable increasingly big profits for a few irresponsible corporations and this small band of irresponsible billionaires, who are happy to rape the planet and devalue millions of people’s lives just to maximize their personal wealth.
The 2016 elections are likely to be the last chance to get Big Money and Small Brains out of Politics--that's so much simpler than letting them wreck our country and then dealing with the consequences.
This false rage has been effectively transformed into a deluded and disenfranchised populist support for puppets hand-picked by this small band of billionaire cronies. These right-wing puppets are elected to congress by the true-believers--effectively, elected by a blind hysterical mob, fomented by misanthropic sociopaths.
Once elected, they deny the success of Obamacare, deny climate change, and are willing to repeal citizen’s rights, safety nets, environmental protections, and much more established during the past 100 years--in short, they are attempting to devolve our republic to a plutocratic corporatocracy closely resembling a fascist state.
Why? To enable increasingly big profits for a few irresponsible corporations and this small band of irresponsible billionaires, who are happy to rape the planet and devalue millions of people’s lives just to maximize their personal wealth.
The 2016 elections are likely to be the last chance to get Big Money and Small Brains out of Politics--that's so much simpler than letting them wreck our country and then dealing with the consequences.
7
Another very wealthy man who is upset that the price of heating oil and gasoline has plummeted because they "pollute." One would think that someone who brands himself as the "conscious of a liberal" would be very pleased that working-class people, especially those in the northeast who rely on heating oil, just got the biggest tax cut in their lifetime.
Apparently not.
Apparently not.
Professor, I think you need to accept that, as humans, beliefs trump facts, both for better and for worse.
All of us guide are lives by myths, not facts. We all believe, no matter which religion we follow, things that are contradicted by, or unsupported by, facts. We believe in God, love, fidelity, heaven and hell. Beliefs that we follow in life in spite of inconvenient facts.
Religious wars everywhere are about beliefs, not facts.
Let's not forget that Kansas just re-elected Mr. Brownback and the Republicans, despite the contempt they are supposedly held in because of the shutdown and assorted idiocies, still prevailed in election after election.
Belief trumps facts. We can all see that in other people's religions.
All of us guide are lives by myths, not facts. We all believe, no matter which religion we follow, things that are contradicted by, or unsupported by, facts. We believe in God, love, fidelity, heaven and hell. Beliefs that we follow in life in spite of inconvenient facts.
Religious wars everywhere are about beliefs, not facts.
Let's not forget that Kansas just re-elected Mr. Brownback and the Republicans, despite the contempt they are supposedly held in because of the shutdown and assorted idiocies, still prevailed in election after election.
Belief trumps facts. We can all see that in other people's religions.
4
It would seem your comprehension of underlying trends also needs some brushing up ... the threshold for warmest year was "broken" by a few hundredths of a degree... yet those very measurements claim a 0.1 degree margin of error.
The climate models cannot account for the 17 year plateau .... and yet you want to spend untold trillions of dollars based on what those same useless models predict 100 hence? Sorry.
Speaking cherry picking, that is almost certainly why these model are universally useless. The creators of these models crafted them based on what they WANT to see rather than what they HAVE seen.
Climate on Earth is not static, it is at any given time either warming or cooling as it shifts in and out of ice ages & inter glacial warming periods. Until an experiment is conducted with sufficient controls to isolate humanity's impact from natural fluctuations there are massive swaths of reasonable persons who maintain that our finite resources be better directed to causes where the benefit will be certain rather that GW which at best may conceivably have some marginal benefit in 2115 (so say the ususes models).
Drinking water, malaria mitigation. .. real problems with real solutions that will impart real benefit immediately. I suggest you pick one of these noble causes to champion.
The climate models cannot account for the 17 year plateau .... and yet you want to spend untold trillions of dollars based on what those same useless models predict 100 hence? Sorry.
Speaking cherry picking, that is almost certainly why these model are universally useless. The creators of these models crafted them based on what they WANT to see rather than what they HAVE seen.
Climate on Earth is not static, it is at any given time either warming or cooling as it shifts in and out of ice ages & inter glacial warming periods. Until an experiment is conducted with sufficient controls to isolate humanity's impact from natural fluctuations there are massive swaths of reasonable persons who maintain that our finite resources be better directed to causes where the benefit will be certain rather that GW which at best may conceivably have some marginal benefit in 2115 (so say the ususes models).
Drinking water, malaria mitigation. .. real problems with real solutions that will impart real benefit immediately. I suggest you pick one of these noble causes to champion.
Dogma suggests thought and convictions, but the real issue is much simpler, it is graft.
Graft has been formalized and integrated into our government. It is called "campaign contributions".
Special interests and oligarchs buy customized laws that conflict with the public interest. Science and facts are irrelevant, when votes are bought.......
Graft has been formalized and integrated into our government. It is called "campaign contributions".
Special interests and oligarchs buy customized laws that conflict with the public interest. Science and facts are irrelevant, when votes are bought.......
3
Ignorance is bliss to too many Americans these days.
1
We haven't had "good government" in this country in decades. What we're hating is the bad government we're saddled with.
2
Regarding the Kansas experiment, Governor Brownback was reelected in spite of the "resounding failure" of his supply-side economics. Go figure. It appears that our citizenry is becoming less and less capable of learning from mistakes in the traditional sense. How do we get people to look at the facts and to reason there from the obvious truths of climate change, ACA, austerity on economic growth and all the rest?
6
It's simply essential that the political center finds a way to break the hold of Fox News and reactionary radio on the American heartland. Those sources are a disservice to democracy and a disgrace to journalism. Their success is why facts no longer matter to so many...too many people just never even hear a "fact" on many issues, only propaganda.
24
Ever since the Republican god, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed at his 1981 inaugural, “Government is not a solution to our problem government is the problem,” it became the 12th commandment of conservatives. Reagan was also the author of the 11th commandment, but I digress.
Back in 1981, conservatives probably had some empirical evidence to back up their distaste for the government leviathan, which had grown steadily for decades first under FDR’s New Deal programs and then under LBJ’s Great Society programs. But despite Reagan’s rant against government, he was less successful at trimming it down because of his dramatic increase in defense spending, which he considered as “good” government. In fact, it was President Bill Clinton, who in the 1990s actually reduced the size of the overall government, including signing welfare reform into law. Ironically, it was Republican George W. Bush, who then dramatically exploded the size of government in the 2000s with two costly wars.
So as with the conservatives’ absolutism on the benefits of tax cuts regardless of the macroeconomic circumstances, they have a similar absolute belief in the aforementioned 12th commandment with its “good” government exception. As far as conservatives are concerned, any good that might come out of government because of social programs and/or liberal causes is an illusion, regardless of what the empirical evidence might conclude.
Back in 1981, conservatives probably had some empirical evidence to back up their distaste for the government leviathan, which had grown steadily for decades first under FDR’s New Deal programs and then under LBJ’s Great Society programs. But despite Reagan’s rant against government, he was less successful at trimming it down because of his dramatic increase in defense spending, which he considered as “good” government. In fact, it was President Bill Clinton, who in the 1990s actually reduced the size of the overall government, including signing welfare reform into law. Ironically, it was Republican George W. Bush, who then dramatically exploded the size of government in the 2000s with two costly wars.
So as with the conservatives’ absolutism on the benefits of tax cuts regardless of the macroeconomic circumstances, they have a similar absolute belief in the aforementioned 12th commandment with its “good” government exception. As far as conservatives are concerned, any good that might come out of government because of social programs and/or liberal causes is an illusion, regardless of what the empirical evidence might conclude.
16
Thank you, Mr. Krugman for voicing what I've been saying for years, now. The label Reactionary has no meaning to most Americans these days simply because no one uses or understands the difference between a true Conservative and a Reactionary. And the majority of the brainwashed don't care. If only the people who COULD make a difference would make their case instead of running in fear away from these Reactionaries and being complicit in their silence! Ms. Warren is in a VERY lonely place.
10
Political fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists are resistant to facts and tend to be the same demographic in the US. They hold similar negative views on labor unions, public education, science, immigration, gay marriage, and family planning.
I think reactionary doesn't carry enough oomph. I prefer fascist, which describes a situation where corporate interests are tie prime mover.
I think reactionary doesn't carry enough oomph. I prefer fascist, which describes a situation where corporate interests are tie prime mover.
12
One overlooked and crucial aspect ... the food these folks eat.
Modern industrialized diets are highly pro-inflammatory for a variety of reasons. The regulation-in-name-only of industrial chemicals and the infiltration of those substances into the food supply of the most reactionary members of our society literally rots their brains.
Google "cingulate gyrus." This thin, easily damaged structure mediates between the two halves of the pre-frontal cortex, enabling us to adapt our thinking, play well with others. When it's damaged it gives rise to "us-vs-them" and "with-me-or-against-me" thinking.
It's a well-documented fact in psychotherapy that toxicity creates anger and rage. Cf: your closest alcoholic. Which ... unlike your apocryphal laid back lefty pothead ... is much more likely be a Republican.
John Boehner for example.
Modern industrialized diets are highly pro-inflammatory for a variety of reasons. The regulation-in-name-only of industrial chemicals and the infiltration of those substances into the food supply of the most reactionary members of our society literally rots their brains.
Google "cingulate gyrus." This thin, easily damaged structure mediates between the two halves of the pre-frontal cortex, enabling us to adapt our thinking, play well with others. When it's damaged it gives rise to "us-vs-them" and "with-me-or-against-me" thinking.
It's a well-documented fact in psychotherapy that toxicity creates anger and rage. Cf: your closest alcoholic. Which ... unlike your apocryphal laid back lefty pothead ... is much more likely be a Republican.
John Boehner for example.
7
Mr.Krugman lecturing about cherrypicking and dishonest debate, that is rich.
If 2014 was a warm year it is just one year, to quote Mr.Krugman, which has no meaning in the debate, but he uses it as evidence. Curious.
Mr.Krugman has been pushing large deficits as a cure to the economy. Instead deficits have been falling and the economy is recovering, but he ignores these facts. Curious.
If you believe Mr. Krugman everyone is a fool but himself. Honest debate means giving some respect to whom you are debating. You may want to look back at Patrick Moynihan or William F. Buckley. Now there was honest, intellectual debate. Mr.Krugman is not in their league, he spits out vituperative bile, with anger and to little effect, except to the already converted making his writing largely irrelevant.
If 2014 was a warm year it is just one year, to quote Mr.Krugman, which has no meaning in the debate, but he uses it as evidence. Curious.
Mr.Krugman has been pushing large deficits as a cure to the economy. Instead deficits have been falling and the economy is recovering, but he ignores these facts. Curious.
If you believe Mr. Krugman everyone is a fool but himself. Honest debate means giving some respect to whom you are debating. You may want to look back at Patrick Moynihan or William F. Buckley. Now there was honest, intellectual debate. Mr.Krugman is not in their league, he spits out vituperative bile, with anger and to little effect, except to the already converted making his writing largely irrelevant.
1
More shameless strawmanery from Krugman. Go read WattsUpWithThat and see if the moderates and skeptics are saying what Krugtron The Inconceivable says they are.
I think the reason for rejection of fact-based arguments is that there is no connection between the facts and the man in the street. There are two kinds of empiricists: first-hand, and second-hand. First-hand empiricists do experiments, make their own measurements, and collect their own data; second-hand empiricists read about experiments in a journal or in the newspaper (perhaps reading about facts in a newspaper should count as third-hand empiricism). Very few people are first-hand empiricists.
There was a time when people believed what they read in the newspaper, in spite of the celebrated admonition not to believe it all. But now our media is fragmented into separate domains, each with its own epistemology and set of facts and assumptions. Just as I don't believe without independent confirmation anything that is said on Fox News or written in the Washington Times, there are many people who believe a priori that this and every other Krugman column is a pack of lies.
So, it is not so much a rejection of facts or of fact-based arguments as it is a rejection of sources of information other than those in one's own epistemological domain. It's sad, really.
There was a time when people believed what they read in the newspaper, in spite of the celebrated admonition not to believe it all. But now our media is fragmented into separate domains, each with its own epistemology and set of facts and assumptions. Just as I don't believe without independent confirmation anything that is said on Fox News or written in the Washington Times, there are many people who believe a priori that this and every other Krugman column is a pack of lies.
So, it is not so much a rejection of facts or of fact-based arguments as it is a rejection of sources of information other than those in one's own epistemological domain. It's sad, really.
12
"You can't reason a man out of a position that he didn't arrive at through reason to begin with.
20
The reason people hate the government is because they transferred our wealth with globalist trade, print trillions which makes our dollars worth less and then attempts to make up for it with welfare. And now they will use force and redistribution to control what is left. Guys like krugman want global socialism and they will get it, it just depends how bloody the transition to that will be.
4
Your last sentence was pretty discouraging- be realistic and "not expect the most decisive evidence to make much difference". I hate the thought of that, but most days I think you're right. Bribery and corruption are now "legal".
If facts and truth don't matter how do you fight back? I think we have to become louder and harsher and more challenging to the extremes that now run the country. We have to use their fear tactics against them. Call them out, call a liar a liar, call them stupid when they act stupid, expose who backs them and why.
The trick is not to become "them".
If facts and truth don't matter how do you fight back? I think we have to become louder and harsher and more challenging to the extremes that now run the country. We have to use their fear tactics against them. Call them out, call a liar a liar, call them stupid when they act stupid, expose who backs them and why.
The trick is not to become "them".
171
One cannot have a discussion, much lest a "debate" if beliefs trump facts. If I believe that "......, therefore, it must be true". These "beliefs" are probably not real beliefs, only denials of realities perceived to be a threat to power. And power is what it is all about. It has always been thus in the course of human history.
Lawrence Abbott
Lawrence Abbott
103
Dogma and irrationality is not limited to the right wingers. Try to have a rational discussion with Naturopaths about vacinatiing children. Or try to convince the hard core lefties that George Bush was not behind 9/11.
109
Is it hatred of government, or love of plutocracy? Both. The great masters with most of the money, and most of the power, the self-described, and self-flattering “philanthropists” have made them so.
People have been conditioned, their brains have been written on inside, as if they were books. They were instructed to hate the Public, and the effrontery that Public feels that it has a right to have a government it elects freely. The weakening of public schools have helped that way. Once a brain is imprinted, it is very difficult to change it.
The tragedy that was Germany, for generations, is a case in point. Generation after generation, Germans, although the most literate people in the world, got massively misprogrammed in the most basic human ways. After seeing this, and analyzing in detail, it’s clear that civilized behavior is an extremely fragile thing.
Existentialist philosophy insisted on the notion of authenticity and its opposite, Bad Faith. Bad Faith can be imprinted. Yet, human beings are made to be truth machines. The constructive interference of these two opposite moods brings out a strange psychological dissonance: a rush to violence, even if it means masochistic violence. This is why the Nazis started a war they could only lose.
Our plutocrats feel that they can win. And history indicates they may well be right: after all, most of the time, humanity has lived in plutocracy, not democracy. It got there by believing systems of thought packed up with lies
People have been conditioned, their brains have been written on inside, as if they were books. They were instructed to hate the Public, and the effrontery that Public feels that it has a right to have a government it elects freely. The weakening of public schools have helped that way. Once a brain is imprinted, it is very difficult to change it.
The tragedy that was Germany, for generations, is a case in point. Generation after generation, Germans, although the most literate people in the world, got massively misprogrammed in the most basic human ways. After seeing this, and analyzing in detail, it’s clear that civilized behavior is an extremely fragile thing.
Existentialist philosophy insisted on the notion of authenticity and its opposite, Bad Faith. Bad Faith can be imprinted. Yet, human beings are made to be truth machines. The constructive interference of these two opposite moods brings out a strange psychological dissonance: a rush to violence, even if it means masochistic violence. This is why the Nazis started a war they could only lose.
Our plutocrats feel that they can win. And history indicates they may well be right: after all, most of the time, humanity has lived in plutocracy, not democracy. It got there by believing systems of thought packed up with lies
40
Your ability to give both sides to the story are interesting.
4
It's quite simple actually. If you want good government and governance, you do not put people in charge who dislike government. Then you get things like Brownie in charge of FEMA.
Btw, that famous Reagan quote, "i'm hear from the gov't to help you" or something. In what possible instance would that apply? A hurricane maybe?
Btw, that famous Reagan quote, "i'm hear from the gov't to help you" or something. In what possible instance would that apply? A hurricane maybe?
29
You'd think a 'conservative' might want to conserve or preserve the earth ?
Not when there's profit and propaganda to be made.
You'd think a 'conservative' might care what kind of environment their grandchildren grow up in ?
Not when the 'Good Lord' and the 'Bible' will provide all of the magical answers.
You'd think a 'conservative' would notice that science and technology and innovation - having provided modern man with his 2014 standard of modern living - would have a modicum of respect for science and technology ?
Not when it might interfere with the Grand Old Propaganda party's award-winning master plan at duping the religious masses in order to further decrease the plantation owner's record low income tax rates.
You'd think 'conservatives' would have some conscience about reciting falsities for a living ?
Not when 'conservative' lost all its meaning in American English about 35 years ago and was replaced with intellectually bankrupt poppycock hellbent on cashing in the future on the present.
You'd think a few 'conservatives would have read Jeremiah 2:7 and stumbled across "God's" words in this doozy -- "And I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in, you defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination." ?
Not when personal greed supersedes the Bible.
There are no American 'conservatives'.
There are only Know Nothing Nihilists committed to maintaining the Up Is Down propaganda and tax cut campaign.
Not when there's profit and propaganda to be made.
You'd think a 'conservative' might care what kind of environment their grandchildren grow up in ?
Not when the 'Good Lord' and the 'Bible' will provide all of the magical answers.
You'd think a 'conservative' would notice that science and technology and innovation - having provided modern man with his 2014 standard of modern living - would have a modicum of respect for science and technology ?
Not when it might interfere with the Grand Old Propaganda party's award-winning master plan at duping the religious masses in order to further decrease the plantation owner's record low income tax rates.
You'd think 'conservatives' would have some conscience about reciting falsities for a living ?
Not when 'conservative' lost all its meaning in American English about 35 years ago and was replaced with intellectually bankrupt poppycock hellbent on cashing in the future on the present.
You'd think a few 'conservatives would have read Jeremiah 2:7 and stumbled across "God's" words in this doozy -- "And I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in, you defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination." ?
Not when personal greed supersedes the Bible.
There are no American 'conservatives'.
There are only Know Nothing Nihilists committed to maintaining the Up Is Down propaganda and tax cut campaign.
286
I can understand why wealthy people want to increase their wealth and keep everything they have. But I cannot comprehend why so many middle class people continue to vote for Republican candidates. It's one thing to believe strongly in an ideology. But it is just plain stupid to cling to that oligarchic ideology when you and your family are being squashed by it.
303
"Reactionary" – that's a word I've hardly seen or heard in decades. Another underused word is "oligopoly." Both speak powerfully to contemporary problems. They've deserved more usage in American political and economic discourse.
74
I re-state Paul Krugman's earlier claim that (words to the effect) "a society that believes that government is always bad will always have bad government."
If we want to understand American politics, that sentiment is a keeper never to forget. We are the living proof of its truth.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
If we want to understand American politics, that sentiment is a keeper never to forget. We are the living proof of its truth.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
113
Propaganda along with...
"This disposition to admire, and almost worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiment."
--Adam Smith (moral philosopher and the father of capitalism)
"TTheory of Moral Sentiments, " Adam Smith 3 Section 3, Chapter 3
"This disposition to admire, and almost worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiment."
--Adam Smith (moral philosopher and the father of capitalism)
"TTheory of Moral Sentiments, " Adam Smith 3 Section 3, Chapter 3
157
It is common to confuse Catholicism before the conversion of Constantine with Catholicism afterwards. With the conversion, the Church became a state institution with all the apparatus of Roman law dictating belief. Plus ça change...
36
Again on climate change, Dr. Krugman proves he's no climate scientist. This so-called warmest year on record averaged 1/100th of a degree higher than 2005. Come on Dr. -- you must still know how to run a linear regression analysis. Things have been flat for at least 20 years now even the graphs over 100 years aren't looking so dire anymore. And while you're hammering on bad outcomes in Kansas from policies that you don't like, you might try looking again at Japan, which you were cheering a year ago for its easy money and massive government spending -- before it fell back into the same downward spiral its been in for more than twp decades. It seems to me that when you accuse others of taking the view that facts don't matter, you should note that in your column the only facts that matter are the ones that support your political views.
71
When you look at blue states vs red states you notice that the states that have to deal with the rest of the world are more sympathetic to the role of Federal government.
When you have to deal with multiple nations you need a common basis of consensus, which some of us would call reality. You can't pitch your ideology as a basis for agreement.
When you have to deal with multiple nations you need a common basis of consensus, which some of us would call reality. You can't pitch your ideology as a basis for agreement.
25
Employer-based health-insurance is largely an accident of history—its origins lie in World War II, when business offered it as a way to recruit workers—and it has some major shortcomings as a means of providing access to healthcare.
Although I can’t prove it, I suspect the reason we still rely on employer-based coverage is because a large segment of the American population is unable or unwilling to contemplate delivering healthcare to all citizens. As inefficient and problematic employer-based coverage is, it provides a means to “kick the can down the road”, heading off the difficult conversation about what level of healthcare everyone should have access to, and how to pay for it.
Although I can’t prove it, I suspect the reason we still rely on employer-based coverage is because a large segment of the American population is unable or unwilling to contemplate delivering healthcare to all citizens. As inefficient and problematic employer-based coverage is, it provides a means to “kick the can down the road”, heading off the difficult conversation about what level of healthcare everyone should have access to, and how to pay for it.
35
The GOP can say Climate Change is a hoax because they pay any willing stooge to parrot whatever bogus information they tell them. Somehow these .1% quacks take precedence over the facts from the 99% who are true scientists. They did it during the IRAQ war with much success and they do it whenever they need cover and a decoy. Of course, the Dems never question their puppets or their expertise. That might destroy their phony deception and ruin their ruse.
The GOP use the same strategy when attacking our government. Find a bunch of radical right-wingers and give them legitimacy by saying they are like average Americans. Inundate the airwaves 24/7 and repeat the story until it becomes gospel. People may or may not believe it but they can’t refute it because they is no counter response from the other side so it must be true. Eventually, they tune out, but the damage is already done. Perception becomes reality… and the GOP win - again.
The GOP use the same strategy when attacking our government. Find a bunch of radical right-wingers and give them legitimacy by saying they are like average Americans. Inundate the airwaves 24/7 and repeat the story until it becomes gospel. People may or may not believe it but they can’t refute it because they is no counter response from the other side so it must be true. Eventually, they tune out, but the damage is already done. Perception becomes reality… and the GOP win - again.
21
What I don't understand is why so many people who have so much power to help stop climate change (oil companies, the Koch Brothers...) are so unconcerned that their behavior could destroy planet as we know it.
They have more money than they will ever need, so it's not like they're desperately fending off the possibility of financial discomfort.
And couldn't they make just a few exceptions to support the public good -- when climate change will affect their own children/grandchildren?
Does anyone understand this?
They have more money than they will ever need, so it's not like they're desperately fending off the possibility of financial discomfort.
And couldn't they make just a few exceptions to support the public good -- when climate change will affect their own children/grandchildren?
Does anyone understand this?
47
'Reactionary'--good old word with a great ring to it.
17
I think it’s all to do with the grip religion has over this this country. Eighty percent of us profess to be Christians (a higher percentage than Jews in Israel). So when the republicans frame an issue, any issue, along Christian values they have an instant bloc of ‘unthinking’ supporters.
Climate science doesn’t matter when the prophetic end of the world is going to happen soon – for 40 percent of us in our lifetime. This is not serious enough for us believers.
When the fossil fuel industry fights climate science they have an edge over science amongst religious believers.
This applies to almost all of our contentious issues of the day – abortion, contraception, sex… you name it. Conservatives have adopted them all en-masse because they have a huge ‘bloc’ that agrees with them based on faith alone. Nothing else.
Crazy comments like ‘legitimate rape’, etc., have an instant group of supporters. Liberals may call them stupid, but these ‘crazies’ are not really stupid.
Climate science doesn’t matter when the prophetic end of the world is going to happen soon – for 40 percent of us in our lifetime. This is not serious enough for us believers.
When the fossil fuel industry fights climate science they have an edge over science amongst religious believers.
This applies to almost all of our contentious issues of the day – abortion, contraception, sex… you name it. Conservatives have adopted them all en-masse because they have a huge ‘bloc’ that agrees with them based on faith alone. Nothing else.
Crazy comments like ‘legitimate rape’, etc., have an instant group of supporters. Liberals may call them stupid, but these ‘crazies’ are not really stupid.
45
Dr. K,
The "debate" should be about what can we do to head off Global Warming, even if we know the consequences will probably not be experienced by current living generations. We should not put this off because the permafrost may irreversibly release its methane.
Realistically, options for shifting an economy away from fossil fuel emissions will be economically disruptive. So a thoughtful government will need to enact policies to replace the millions of workers & huge fortunes made from carbon fuel combustion.
It is difficult to formulate options that can make the current wealth and job holders richer & more financially secure. I also know that the fix must be global.
I know that if Government will test & demonstrate 2nd generation superconducting Maglev transport technology invented by Powell & Danby, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkB_1QAADgE , it will attract lots of investors because its 300 mph speed & capability to carry trucks as well as passengers at very competitive fares will transform the US & World economy.
The same technology used to propel a payload in a vacuum tunnel can be used to place solar technology in orbit & beam low cost electricity to grids on Earth. At 2 cents per kwhr for wholesale electricity, Earth based grids can make a handsome profit by providing cheap electricity to industry & homes. This cheap electricity will make it economically feasible to make gasoline, diesel and jet fuels from carbon dioxide in air & hydrogen in water.
The "debate" should be about what can we do to head off Global Warming, even if we know the consequences will probably not be experienced by current living generations. We should not put this off because the permafrost may irreversibly release its methane.
Realistically, options for shifting an economy away from fossil fuel emissions will be economically disruptive. So a thoughtful government will need to enact policies to replace the millions of workers & huge fortunes made from carbon fuel combustion.
It is difficult to formulate options that can make the current wealth and job holders richer & more financially secure. I also know that the fix must be global.
I know that if Government will test & demonstrate 2nd generation superconducting Maglev transport technology invented by Powell & Danby, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkB_1QAADgE , it will attract lots of investors because its 300 mph speed & capability to carry trucks as well as passengers at very competitive fares will transform the US & World economy.
The same technology used to propel a payload in a vacuum tunnel can be used to place solar technology in orbit & beam low cost electricity to grids on Earth. At 2 cents per kwhr for wholesale electricity, Earth based grids can make a handsome profit by providing cheap electricity to industry & homes. This cheap electricity will make it economically feasible to make gasoline, diesel and jet fuels from carbon dioxide in air & hydrogen in water.
11
"Meanwhile, the news on health reform keeps coming in, and it keeps being more favorable than even the supporters expected. We already knew that the number of Americans without insurance is dropping fast, even as the growth in health care costs moderates. Now we have evidence that the number of Americans experiencing financial distress due to medical expenses is also dropping fast."
Hmm... How's that single-payer thingee working out in Vermont? Too bad facts get in the way of your narrative.
Hmm... How's that single-payer thingee working out in Vermont? Too bad facts get in the way of your narrative.
15
I perfectly understand why a profit-maximizing corporation wants us to believe anything that would prevent them from having to pay taxes or regulate their behavior. I get that. And I get why their politician shills will say anything they have to to promote the same. But I still don't understand why the average person on the street is so easily manipulated into believing obvious lies. Are there really that many people who are so tied to "their America," or who live in constant fear of change, or others getting their stuff, that they'll vote against their very own interests? It just boggles the mind.
145
I agree that many self-proclaimed conservatives are reactionaries who say they resent government actions, but I think their resentment is actually the result of abject fears that go much deeper. Reactionaries see life in general (of which “government” is only one part), as some kind of zero sum game. If someone wins, then someone else must lose. Most reactionaries, especially that White, high school educated, working class, Fox news-watching demographic, fear somehow losing their place in the socio-economic line when any marginalized or disenfranchised groups begin succeeding. The traditionally marginalized groups include women, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, LGBT people, immigrants, or really anyone who looks, acts, or thinks differently than the reactionaries. The reason that these people are immune to “facts” is that their world view is based on emotional reactions to what they see as their ‘way of life” slipping away into the hands of “the others,” rather than being based on any kind rational analysis
199
"Evidence" is a tricky theme. "Governance" is trickier yet. Seven plus billion of us just trying to find the "memes" to keep it all going. The reactionaries would have the winners win and the rest be damned, for the sake of the "race", which in their case is very narrowly defined. They're very good at it, have been for some time, and are neither myopic (parochial) nor short term (profit driven) in their strategic planning. They have a primordial advantage, which might be termed "paranoia" and the mastery of its manipulation, and in order to cut that down, you have to seduce the populace with exotic potentials. Nothing short of a magically enticing interaction, which holds forth a promise of better things to come, can ever transcend our innate moribund inclination to believe the worst of our fellow men; especially if they're poor, a minority, or foreign.
33
I've always said that I'm constitutionally incapable of being a conservative (I really don't respect authority), and Dr. Krugman has just reinforced that for me.
- A true liberal
- A true liberal
9
A group whose 'beliefs' are centered around 'facts' that are at least 2000 years old, do not accept the 'facts' of climate change..and we are surprised. Part of that same group has claimed for themselves 'the chosen people' label of the OT that clearly cannot apply to them, and 'believe' that the world will come to an end any day, they will be saved and non-believers will not - and they reject the facts of these non-believers who want help saving this earth..really Paul, it should not be a mystery to you.
15
The Republicans are traitors, subversives, who want to destroy our government. It is that simple. Their politicians are in the pay of plutocrats, and their "base" is a bigoted, fearful group of reactionaries. There is no debate about the issues mentioned in this column. One of the main problems is the media's presenting every issue as debatable. "Now, let's here the other side of the debate," intones the commentator on CNN or the hack on Fox or the milquetoast anchor on a TV network. Except that there is no "other side." You might as well have a debate as to whether the moon revolves around the Earth, or the oceans are composed of salt water. Those are facts. By enabling liars and con men to dispense with facts, the media takes a wrecking ball to our democracy. Which, since one citizen-one vote is now a joke, is no longer a real democracy. And the people who control the press do so for a reason. Prof. Krugman is right: you cannot argue with people who deny all underlying facts. The hope they will be exposed and dismantled as a political force seems more unlikely by the day. They are destroying this country, and for no good reason except that the greedy want even more, and more. The so-called tea party, which is just another name for the Republican Party, is revolting at this point in its racism, misogyny and nihilism, an affront to decent Americans.
34
Why do Republican’s think the way they do? They’ve been telling us for 30 yrs. All you have to do to understand the Republican mind is listen: Government doesn’t solve problems; government is the problem. We have to get the government off our backs. It’s your money and you know how to spend it better than the government does. Government produces nothing, and forcing you to pay taxes is extortion. Helping the poor makes them lazy and does more harm than good. The problem is the left-wing, socialist, tax-and-spend, intellectual, liberal elites who think they’re better than you. They promote feminism, abortion, and homosexuality. They’ve taken God out of our schools, are destroying the family, and are bringing our country to ruin! In the name of God, mother, country, all of humanity, and your family pet these feminist homosexuals must be stopped! And the only way to stop these Godless, baby killing abortionists is to privatize Social Security, Medicare, and education; eliminate Medicaid and other programs that make the freeloading poor dependent; get rid of the government programs that supposedly promote the general Welfare; expand the military to spread freedom throughout the world; and—above all—cut taxes on the wealthy; increase taxes on the not so wealthy, and eliminate government regulation!
When you look at it this way—their way—it’s just simple logic. It all makes sense!
...That is, if you don’t think about it, which, of course, they don’t. www.rwEconomics.com
When you look at it this way—their way—it’s just simple logic. It all makes sense!
...That is, if you don’t think about it, which, of course, they don’t. www.rwEconomics.com
49
These are some nasty people - they were even enthralled with hitler.
9
The GOP don’t hate the government per se, they hate the government when it doesn’t exclusively work for them.
They are the party of endless wars ($6+ trillion), Wall St Bailouts, tax cuts/tax loopholes for corporations/ wealthy. On the other hand, they will use said government to penalize all Americans through Austerity, government shutdown and weaken Entitlements.
So the obvious question becomes, how can they do this year after year? Simple, when there is no accountability or pushback from the media or Dems, the GOP controls the debate and the narrative with impunity. They have carte blanche to execute their platform regardless of any facts to the contrary as they drown out all opposition.
Part of their strategy is to make the government look incompetent and useless like during the last recession. This feeds into people’s perception that the government is the problem, not the GOP who control it: not renewing long-term unemployment, not fixing our infrastructure, laying off police/ teachers, not raising taxes on the wealthy/Wall St, and basically ignoring the people’s wishes when it comes to endless wars, income inequality, immigration and higher minimum wage.
Instead, America sees an MIA Congress who bicker to pass the most routine legislation while taking extended holidays. The last Congress was the 2nd least productive ever.
You want to fix the problem. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and hold Congress liable for their boneheaded actions. Anything less is useless…
They are the party of endless wars ($6+ trillion), Wall St Bailouts, tax cuts/tax loopholes for corporations/ wealthy. On the other hand, they will use said government to penalize all Americans through Austerity, government shutdown and weaken Entitlements.
So the obvious question becomes, how can they do this year after year? Simple, when there is no accountability or pushback from the media or Dems, the GOP controls the debate and the narrative with impunity. They have carte blanche to execute their platform regardless of any facts to the contrary as they drown out all opposition.
Part of their strategy is to make the government look incompetent and useless like during the last recession. This feeds into people’s perception that the government is the problem, not the GOP who control it: not renewing long-term unemployment, not fixing our infrastructure, laying off police/ teachers, not raising taxes on the wealthy/Wall St, and basically ignoring the people’s wishes when it comes to endless wars, income inequality, immigration and higher minimum wage.
Instead, America sees an MIA Congress who bicker to pass the most routine legislation while taking extended holidays. The last Congress was the 2nd least productive ever.
You want to fix the problem. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and hold Congress liable for their boneheaded actions. Anything less is useless…
30
It's clear why the political Right
Prefer to use money and might
The main repercussion
Of considered discussion
Is to show that
They're not very bright.
Prefer to use money and might
The main repercussion
Of considered discussion
Is to show that
They're not very bright.
26
None dare call it racism.
13
Sadly, you are right. Science, data, intelligence, long term studies, all make no difference to the GOP. But, it is all going to change now in the coming election. The GOP is going to outdo itself. Already Romney has basically said"the poor ain't so bad", poverty is a problem, people MATTER now. well, it is all grandstanding politics, because what else have they got. This will be the year of the reversal: immigrants are good, Cuban immigrants will be even better, women's health and working moms will take priority, wages will start to rise and lo and behold, Kansas will levy some new taxes---sin taxes to be sure--but it will be made to seem like we need to tax out of existence smokers and anyone who might derive some pleasure from something other that POT.
The GOP knows that Warren is on to something big and soon it will start to filter down to the ignorant voters. We haven't had a woman president so we might as give it a try (Hillary would do nicely as VP) and I hope the Warren runs. She's my kind of gal.
If the climate starts to matter it won't be because there is a real crisis, but the GOP will figure out a way to get in on it and save face at the same time. I think we are in for one heckuva ride. They've blamed Obama for just about everything, but now they are in control and Obama will sign GOOD legislation that works for the average citizen. do we have 'em by the short and curlies?
The GOP knows that Warren is on to something big and soon it will start to filter down to the ignorant voters. We haven't had a woman president so we might as give it a try (Hillary would do nicely as VP) and I hope the Warren runs. She's my kind of gal.
If the climate starts to matter it won't be because there is a real crisis, but the GOP will figure out a way to get in on it and save face at the same time. I think we are in for one heckuva ride. They've blamed Obama for just about everything, but now they are in control and Obama will sign GOOD legislation that works for the average citizen. do we have 'em by the short and curlies?
8
The GOP just can't stand not being "Right", even when they are Wrong. And facts, they just seem to get in the way.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
11
It's all very simple, the Conservatives and the GOP are the Right Wing, which, of course, means they are always right. So please don't bother them with any of those pesky facts and those phony science "hoaxes" like Evolution and Climate Change. They know what they know because they know it, and that's that! How dare anyone question what they know!
15
"And the list goes on. On issues that range from monetary policy to the control of infectious disease, a big chunk of America’s body politic holds views that are completely at odds with, and completely unmovable by, actual experience."
Have you asked those working class folks about their experiences with the liberal policies of the Democrats and how they affected their day to day lives in terms of schools, neighborhoods, the investment in their houses ... etc ... Oh, I forgot, Krugman deals with macroeconomics. The rest is just collateral damage.
Have you asked those working class folks about their experiences with the liberal policies of the Democrats and how they affected their day to day lives in terms of schools, neighborhoods, the investment in their houses ... etc ... Oh, I forgot, Krugman deals with macroeconomics. The rest is just collateral damage.
10
Today's 64 million dollar question.............
If Republican statesmen so revile government and raise hatred of the Government among those who follow them, why are they always wanting a place in Government, running for elective office and rallying the support of their followers?
Because hatred is a great motivator and assures their success in elections. It's all really a hoax to win elections. The Republican statesmen really do like government and all it's perks.
They are not exactly resigning in droves.
If Republican statesmen so revile government and raise hatred of the Government among those who follow them, why are they always wanting a place in Government, running for elective office and rallying the support of their followers?
Because hatred is a great motivator and assures their success in elections. It's all really a hoax to win elections. The Republican statesmen really do like government and all it's perks.
They are not exactly resigning in droves.
23
Wait wait wait:
Unemployment is the highest it has ever been since the Paleolithic Recession.
Obama is wholly responsible for the national debt.
Undocumented immigrants are responsible for the common cold.
and they have taken every good paying job in the country.
Jesus will not let mankind be wiped out.
Life begins at masturbation.
Putin is a much better leader than some Kenyan.
Darwinism only applies to poor people.
America has the best medical system in the world.
Americans are the smartest people ever.
Americans are willing to pick fruit.
Discrimination against Blacks no longer exists.
The check is in the mail......
Unemployment is the highest it has ever been since the Paleolithic Recession.
Obama is wholly responsible for the national debt.
Undocumented immigrants are responsible for the common cold.
and they have taken every good paying job in the country.
Jesus will not let mankind be wiped out.
Life begins at masturbation.
Putin is a much better leader than some Kenyan.
Darwinism only applies to poor people.
America has the best medical system in the world.
Americans are the smartest people ever.
Americans are willing to pick fruit.
Discrimination against Blacks no longer exists.
The check is in the mail......
107
To be fair, Dr. Krugman the liberal left has its share of such "facts don't matter" foibles (I agree that the conservatives are the masters though).
Take oh, fracking or that pipeline you discussed recently, or relaxing building codes so ordinary citizens of liberal states could live affordably rather than take a hike to Texas or Florida or Georgia, or that single parenthood is a loser economically and for the development of the offspring.
In all of these NIMBY, or anti fossil liberals for example don't consider the facts or try to do cost/benefits, which might likely show that you should frack for gas in upstate NY (which at the margin helps get rid of some coal plants). Rather, the liberal base up wells in emotional rages, and the leading lights who write in newspapers either keep quiet about it or they find ways to justify these pro-liberal policies (sometimes by blaming Republicans for being worse).
So, justification against facts isnt unique to the Right, they just have more of the facts against them than liberals do. I think you are right on why - it is because they are more often the incumbents, but the nature of progress is change.
Take oh, fracking or that pipeline you discussed recently, or relaxing building codes so ordinary citizens of liberal states could live affordably rather than take a hike to Texas or Florida or Georgia, or that single parenthood is a loser economically and for the development of the offspring.
In all of these NIMBY, or anti fossil liberals for example don't consider the facts or try to do cost/benefits, which might likely show that you should frack for gas in upstate NY (which at the margin helps get rid of some coal plants). Rather, the liberal base up wells in emotional rages, and the leading lights who write in newspapers either keep quiet about it or they find ways to justify these pro-liberal policies (sometimes by blaming Republicans for being worse).
So, justification against facts isnt unique to the Right, they just have more of the facts against them than liberals do. I think you are right on why - it is because they are more often the incumbents, but the nature of progress is change.
20
The government is the people. Why would anyone despise the people? Except those who make their living by manipulating the people for their own gain. Dismantle the government and the corporations will run wild. Which is exactly what the low tax small government folks want.
81
But my great-aunt Thelma froze to death without health insurance last Tuesday. That's proof that Obamacare is a sham and global warming is a myth!
18
Speaking of "good" government:
How is LBJ's War on Poverty going after 50 years? Did we not spend enough money?
How is LBJ's War on Poverty going after 50 years? Did we not spend enough money?
19
Sooner than later, the second law of thermodynamics will have the last word with the climate denial dead-enders.
29
Keep your government out of my Medicare and Social Security?
41
Accepting Mr. Krugman's premise the logical response to these reactionaries is not to argue with them. Argument with someone who is determined to oppose you no matter what is pointless. No, the logical response is to defeat them, to confront at every point of conflict, and, eventually, to sweep them aside.
And, that cannot be done without organization. Democrats and those who don't buy into the Fox mentality need to stop agonizing over the wrong-headedness of their opposition and, above all, they need to stop trying to persuade them of the incorrectness of their ideas. Ignore their blather. Rather, organize those who support you. Poll after poll shows that progressives in this society command majority support on a host of issues. Progressives need to speak clearly and forthrightly to everyone BUT the Fox crowd, and their efforts should be devoted to organizing to defeat their enemies.
And, that cannot be done without organization. Democrats and those who don't buy into the Fox mentality need to stop agonizing over the wrong-headedness of their opposition and, above all, they need to stop trying to persuade them of the incorrectness of their ideas. Ignore their blather. Rather, organize those who support you. Poll after poll shows that progressives in this society command majority support on a host of issues. Progressives need to speak clearly and forthrightly to everyone BUT the Fox crowd, and their efforts should be devoted to organizing to defeat their enemies.
307
Krugman is usually very good with providing links to support his opinions in his columns.
I didn’t see any here. Although he made quite a number of claims:
1) “So will the deniers now concede that climate change is real?”
No. He just wrote a bunch of words. That is his opinion. Fine, this is an OpEd. But no links to prove his words.
2) “The economy of Kansas, far from booming, has lagged the economies of neighboring states, and Kansas is now in fiscal crisis.”
Again, no links. Is Kansas in a fiscal crisis? What I do know is that tax cuts take a while to reverberate throughout the economy. Maybe Krugman just hasn’t waited, long enough.
3) About health care coverage, “We already knew that the number of Americans without insurance is dropping fast, even as the growth in health care costs moderates.”
Again, how does Krugman know? No links, he is just making this up.
Finally Krugman says:
“And why do these issues go together, with the set of people insisting that climate change is a hoax pretty much the same as the set of people insisting that any attempt at providing universal health insurance must lead to disaster and tyranny?”
I have to answer to that; because we have the facts.
Everything Krugman believes is Progressive fantasy.
I didn’t see any here. Although he made quite a number of claims:
1) “So will the deniers now concede that climate change is real?”
No. He just wrote a bunch of words. That is his opinion. Fine, this is an OpEd. But no links to prove his words.
2) “The economy of Kansas, far from booming, has lagged the economies of neighboring states, and Kansas is now in fiscal crisis.”
Again, no links. Is Kansas in a fiscal crisis? What I do know is that tax cuts take a while to reverberate throughout the economy. Maybe Krugman just hasn’t waited, long enough.
3) About health care coverage, “We already knew that the number of Americans without insurance is dropping fast, even as the growth in health care costs moderates.”
Again, how does Krugman know? No links, he is just making this up.
Finally Krugman says:
“And why do these issues go together, with the set of people insisting that climate change is a hoax pretty much the same as the set of people insisting that any attempt at providing universal health insurance must lead to disaster and tyranny?”
I have to answer to that; because we have the facts.
Everything Krugman believes is Progressive fantasy.
13
Read an article today about the one year anniversary of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado.
Amazingly they had quotes from some local politicians who have changed their minds (at least partially) based on what has actually happened during the first year.
Apparently an exception to the rule.
Amazingly they had quotes from some local politicians who have changed their minds (at least partially) based on what has actually happened during the first year.
Apparently an exception to the rule.
8
Paul,
Kansas a failure? Then why haven't Kansans been fleeing and heading to New Jersey or New York where taxes are sky high?
Maybe they know something a Princeton professor doesn't which is why the Democrats went down in flames last November despite their high hopes and massive investments.
Typical liberal. People aren't buying what they are selling so it's their fault.
Kansas a failure? Then why haven't Kansans been fleeing and heading to New Jersey or New York where taxes are sky high?
Maybe they know something a Princeton professor doesn't which is why the Democrats went down in flames last November despite their high hopes and massive investments.
Typical liberal. People aren't buying what they are selling so it's their fault.
14
Paul,
Ronald Reagan's tax cuts created an economic boom that has lasted for three decades plus despite the best efforts of Obama to turn us into a workers paradise.
Ronald Reagan's tax cuts created an economic boom that has lasted for three decades plus despite the best efforts of Obama to turn us into a workers paradise.
15
You've done it ,Dr. Krugman! You've become a psychohistorian!
8
Healthcare costs have moderated? Have you had surgery lately?
14
The reason the Republican Party will have so many candidates for President is that there are so many wealthy conservatives that have become even filthier rich during the past 6 years of the Obama administration and are so darn angry about it that they can't wait to spread billions around for Bush, Romney, Perry, Cruz, Christie, Santorum, Huckabee, Paul, and whoever else that is willing to amplify their pouting.
29
In many cases the desire for the traditional hierarchy is an outgrowth of the traditional hierarchies of high school, where jocks, cheerleaders, mean girls, and the popular kids in general ruled, while the nerds, newspaper staff, orchestra and theater kids, etc., were the ones ignored or looked down upon.
Jump ahead, where being smart does count for something in the adult world, these high school jocks et al are taking out their loss of status and resentment that the smart kids have taken over, and are resisting or refusing to believe or debate in terms of the fact and data based world.
Jump ahead, where being smart does count for something in the adult world, these high school jocks et al are taking out their loss of status and resentment that the smart kids have taken over, and are resisting or refusing to believe or debate in terms of the fact and data based world.
11
To make us distrust our own govt is one of the great PR coups in political history.
The US electorate is in a weakened mental state, left with little defenses against Gop rw messages, and made gullible to whatever the gop rw wants to spread for their own advantage.
It’s the Gullibola Virus in politics, taking it’s toll on our grasp of facts and our own self interest. There are no emergency rooms trained to deal with this epidemic. And there’s no big profit for a vaccine—in fact the profits are in the disease, not the cure.
One of the main ways to spread this virus is appeal to the Founding Fathers American ideals---freedom, individualism, small govt, thus deregulation. This leaves voters unprotected from big corporatism which can be just as coercive as any govt. But no need for violence—just PR.
We are left to pay the taxes the wealthy don’t pay, while we get ever less representation from lawmakers we elect. And elect from the choices set up for us by the wealthy donors. And with the platforms they keep within the parameters that enable their Return on Investment. Like ACA, no single payer.
A cure for our disease of democracy is beyond current political science. The Supreme Court equating donor money with free speech has muffled most speech not backed by big money. And if there are any cures, the news media keeps mum about it, less it disturb the huge profits they make from paid political ads---our biggest expense in the world’s costliest election system.
The US electorate is in a weakened mental state, left with little defenses against Gop rw messages, and made gullible to whatever the gop rw wants to spread for their own advantage.
It’s the Gullibola Virus in politics, taking it’s toll on our grasp of facts and our own self interest. There are no emergency rooms trained to deal with this epidemic. And there’s no big profit for a vaccine—in fact the profits are in the disease, not the cure.
One of the main ways to spread this virus is appeal to the Founding Fathers American ideals---freedom, individualism, small govt, thus deregulation. This leaves voters unprotected from big corporatism which can be just as coercive as any govt. But no need for violence—just PR.
We are left to pay the taxes the wealthy don’t pay, while we get ever less representation from lawmakers we elect. And elect from the choices set up for us by the wealthy donors. And with the platforms they keep within the parameters that enable their Return on Investment. Like ACA, no single payer.
A cure for our disease of democracy is beyond current political science. The Supreme Court equating donor money with free speech has muffled most speech not backed by big money. And if there are any cures, the news media keeps mum about it, less it disturb the huge profits they make from paid political ads---our biggest expense in the world’s costliest election system.
49
The problem we have here is the definition of the word "fact", for many folks a fact is something that has been proven to be true. But on the Right, with help from Fox TV, if you repeat something enough times it becomes a "fact".
57
The GOP is still in deep denial about everything. The entire fiscal Conservative movement is based on the continual ignorance of facts, history, research, science, education and evidence to the contrary. Their platform embraces “Faith” based set of ideologies/beliefs where they are intellectually incurious, dogmatic, inflexible, and seemingly unable to grasp shades/ nuances of meaning, preferring instead to view everything in black-or-white absolutes.
• Deregulation lead to the financial crisis
• Austerity - Failing across the world, but making the .1% wealthier than ever.
• Trickle down is trickling up. Look at income inequality between the top .1% and everyone else.
• Austerity – penalize the middle/working class for the transgressions of the plutocracy/GOP
• War is good. Cronyism and corruption serve to pay back the MIC
• Climate Change is a hoax because 1% say it is
• The GOP don’t want to govern people, but subvert our Democracy to push their radical agendas (ALEC, Women’s womb, Death Panels, wars, voter suppression, tax loopholes and tax havens)
The GOP clings to these discredited policies and continue their dereliction of duty (government shutdown, Debt ceiling, Fiscal Cliff) while trying to turn the populace against the Dems at the ballot box.
These ideologies have all been debunked -- but are still propagated because there is little push back to the bullies and they serve Conservatives, the plutocracy and 1-2%ers so well...
• Deregulation lead to the financial crisis
• Austerity - Failing across the world, but making the .1% wealthier than ever.
• Trickle down is trickling up. Look at income inequality between the top .1% and everyone else.
• Austerity – penalize the middle/working class for the transgressions of the plutocracy/GOP
• War is good. Cronyism and corruption serve to pay back the MIC
• Climate Change is a hoax because 1% say it is
• The GOP don’t want to govern people, but subvert our Democracy to push their radical agendas (ALEC, Women’s womb, Death Panels, wars, voter suppression, tax loopholes and tax havens)
The GOP clings to these discredited policies and continue their dereliction of duty (government shutdown, Debt ceiling, Fiscal Cliff) while trying to turn the populace against the Dems at the ballot box.
These ideologies have all been debunked -- but are still propagated because there is little push back to the bullies and they serve Conservatives, the plutocracy and 1-2%ers so well...
52
Best argument against government: Capital punishment. Would YOU trust the government with your life? I wouldn't.
2
"Indeed, at this point it’s hard to think of a major policy dispute where facts actually do matter; it’s unshakable dogma, across the board. And the real question is why."
It's not difficult. The rich who don't want taxes or regulation make up nonsensical propaganda to justify lower taxes and regulation, broadcast the lies around the clock on fake news channels, and the imbecile public believes them.
It's not difficult. The rich who don't want taxes or regulation make up nonsensical propaganda to justify lower taxes and regulation, broadcast the lies around the clock on fake news channels, and the imbecile public believes them.
58
The Left (because many Dems represent the Right) need to fight fire with fire. The Left needs to build their own propaganda machine. Without one, no information gets past the vitriol and hatred of Right-wing media. This is Warfare 101. This is why the Dems got clobbered in two mid-terms and why they lost the South.
Reality DOES NOT matter. It’s all about perception. Facts can be spun away and twisted through Right-wing propaganda. Perception is reality… When will the Dems learn this, if ever? If you don't fight back, you cede the debate 24/7/365 and elections as people are duped in voting against their best interests.
Reality DOES NOT matter. It’s all about perception. Facts can be spun away and twisted through Right-wing propaganda. Perception is reality… When will the Dems learn this, if ever? If you don't fight back, you cede the debate 24/7/365 and elections as people are duped in voting against their best interests.
41
Hate and love are part of democratic process . The reality is life, light , gases and gravity do not have biological organism to ask them How are they doing. Higher number of medical needs and services is the sign of environmental change. We should protect ourselves from self destruction change, because we are moving very slow towards change.
5
Why all this dogmatism and rage? Short answer, because it works for them in the context of the nauseating right wing propaganda that overwhelmed even MSM. They have buid it last 40 years and are now enjoying the fruits.
For the political junkies we all are here, nothing is set in stone. The political alliances may change in a hearbeat, and if only 10% of those hard working Americans that have been fooled by this propaganda will see it through, we may have a new day relatively soon.
For the political junkies we all are here, nothing is set in stone. The political alliances may change in a hearbeat, and if only 10% of those hard working Americans that have been fooled by this propaganda will see it through, we may have a new day relatively soon.
39
And yet these same people are all for regulations when they're about women being forced to have ultrasound probes or laws about who you can and can't have sex with.
They're also fairly uniformly in favor of massive government spending on the military and wars.
I don't think you can break it down to "they're against government". They're in favor of government bailing out Wall Street when Wall Street demands it.
They just want government to serve their people, and they know who that means, certainly not the actual poor or working class, and not even the middle class.
None of what you describe will be big news the way it should be, by the way, because for the most part the news media is the same as they are, serving the interests of the rich. Even the New York Times, supposedly a bastion of liberal thought, presents me every day with yet another Republican opinion, be it Ross Douthat, David Brooks, Frank Bruni-- and those are just the regulars. There's you, of course, but that's starting to feel like the rare exception rather than the rule.
A large part of what becomes a big story or not is a matter of the news media that presents it, or doesn't. As long as that media is largely something corporate serving the interesting of the wealthy, Republican opinions will rule the roost. They certainly do as it stands right now.
They're also fairly uniformly in favor of massive government spending on the military and wars.
I don't think you can break it down to "they're against government". They're in favor of government bailing out Wall Street when Wall Street demands it.
They just want government to serve their people, and they know who that means, certainly not the actual poor or working class, and not even the middle class.
None of what you describe will be big news the way it should be, by the way, because for the most part the news media is the same as they are, serving the interests of the rich. Even the New York Times, supposedly a bastion of liberal thought, presents me every day with yet another Republican opinion, be it Ross Douthat, David Brooks, Frank Bruni-- and those are just the regulars. There's you, of course, but that's starting to feel like the rare exception rather than the rule.
A large part of what becomes a big story or not is a matter of the news media that presents it, or doesn't. As long as that media is largely something corporate serving the interesting of the wealthy, Republican opinions will rule the roost. They certainly do as it stands right now.
113
"That is, they’re defenders of traditional hierarchy."
That old white men should have all the money and power? Probably spot on.
That old white men should have all the money and power? Probably spot on.
57
I largely am with Paul on his thoughts.
I am dealing with a USG office pertaining to my continued health care coverage after my divorce from a federal employee. It has been pure hell.
The service this office provides is essential for all USG retirees, their spouses, and former spouses with regard to health care and pensions.
The office is rife with slugs. I have tried to work with the office since last August, I do not get phone calls returned, emails responded to, any letters weeks after I have provided necessary information.
My issues are pretty straightforward. The lack of a customer service attitude by this USG office is appalling.
In support of Paul's polemic, this experience I am going through is an example of what is affecting regular people that apparently is missed by those who hold court on Capitol Hill.
I am dealing with a USG office pertaining to my continued health care coverage after my divorce from a federal employee. It has been pure hell.
The service this office provides is essential for all USG retirees, their spouses, and former spouses with regard to health care and pensions.
The office is rife with slugs. I have tried to work with the office since last August, I do not get phone calls returned, emails responded to, any letters weeks after I have provided necessary information.
My issues are pretty straightforward. The lack of a customer service attitude by this USG office is appalling.
In support of Paul's polemic, this experience I am going through is an example of what is affecting regular people that apparently is missed by those who hold court on Capitol Hill.
25
Thank goodness I'm a dual citizen.
7
Krugman: "...(T)he fact is that we’re living in a political era in which facts don’t matter."
The problem regarding the disregard of "facts" that Dr. Krugman has called to our attention in a number of his op-ed articles can likely be traced to the confusion of opinion with facts, a problem lamented by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Politicians like Gov. Brownback of Kansas and Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma deal with facts regarding economics and the environment in the same way Alice in Wonderland dealt with reality and facts: "Things are what I say they are."
The problem regarding the disregard of "facts" that Dr. Krugman has called to our attention in a number of his op-ed articles can likely be traced to the confusion of opinion with facts, a problem lamented by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Politicians like Gov. Brownback of Kansas and Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma deal with facts regarding economics and the environment in the same way Alice in Wonderland dealt with reality and facts: "Things are what I say they are."
140
I would bet that many of those who don't believe in global warming, hate Obamacare, and do believe in trickle-down economics also refuse to believe in evolution, which has little to do with big vs. small government. So a dislike of government maybe be one factor, but there is a deeper reactionary streak in there as well.
192
If you want to see dogmatism and rage just read 90% of the comments on the opinions page. Both sides on the political spectrum are well dug in.
Dr. Krugman appears to equate good government with more government, and believes that there is no problem that more government can't solve.
Dr. Krugman appears to equate good government with more government, and believes that there is no problem that more government can't solve.
31
Engels and later Marxists described "false consciousness" in detail and explained its origins, but in terms that no white southern working-class Bush voter would understand. Engels et al. did not fully explain this concept but in my opinion they made great progress. They don't offer much hope that poorly informed and economically poor conservatives will ever en mass recognize their error and become liberal revolutionaries.
52
it is interesting how evidence does not seem to matter to a myth believing follower of the holy grail seeking GOP. Cruise the various web platforms: Yahoo, Bloomberg are a couple of notables and you will find the same counter arguments flogged in the talk radio sphere. The list is long. And then there is Kansas, the state my dad grew up in. Hot, dry, flat, pumping their aquifer dry to grow corn to raise beef, done on the backs of immigrant labor from south of the border. If this society surveys I predict there will be a Kansas exhibit in a government run, free museum called the Smithsonian. It will show how a society steeped in ignorance, greed and the unwillingness to change destroyed their environment, while the sinners next door who changed survived.
89
In the paragraphs about health care, Dr. Krugman may be guilty of the cherry picking he eschews in paragraph one. Sure, more people are insured and prices for insurance haven't "soared." But the price of health care is not under control. Certain segments of the health industry are reaping huge benefits at the expense of average citizens and insurance companies, thus exacerbating the income gap rather than alleviating it. The Affordable Care Act is looking more and more like a supply side policy, which is not surprising since it was originally a Republican idea. You can cherry pick a few benefits the policy has engendered, but to call it a complete success... I don't know.
40
Facts? What are they? Based on observation, the sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is flat, and based on the good book, the Earth is 6000 years old?
As for liberals wanting to "throttle capitalism" as one commenter suggested, I wonder where that idea came from, Fox News?
As for regulations, who needs them? Throw away your seat belts, throw away your television (oops, that is from a song by the Red Hot Chili Peppers) whatever. And don't forget to light up a Camel or a Lucky Strike, inhale deeply, and get cancer. Who cares?
As for liberals wanting to "throttle capitalism" as one commenter suggested, I wonder where that idea came from, Fox News?
As for regulations, who needs them? Throw away your seat belts, throw away your television (oops, that is from a song by the Red Hot Chili Peppers) whatever. And don't forget to light up a Camel or a Lucky Strike, inhale deeply, and get cancer. Who cares?
46
"And the list goes on". And evidence and facts don't matter in this day and age when the Republicans have won both houses of Congress and who knows what they're planning to spring on us - the people who didn't vote them in - the people who appreciate good government and a President of whom we can be proud to have elected to two terms of office. Kansas is in fiscal crisis thanks to Brownback who still doesn't know cabbages from shinola about reducing taxes or the failing economy of his state. Health care reform - Obamacare - is working to the dismay and rage of the GOP naysayers and brickbat slingers against President Obama since the day he took office. The angry GOP politicians and their base are working themselves into a fever pitch for their gargantuan presidential effort of 2016, insisting that climate change is a hoax, affordable health care is a disaster and any expansion of government that aids the well-being of ordinary citizens -the less fortunate among us, the poor among us - is awful. The richest sliver of our plutocracy - we don't need a laundry list of the very wealthy benefactors and donors to the Republican and Tea Party - are hawking denial, denial and more denial. As if they have the inside track on the truth. Denial of climate science and health economics, when the proof is blatantly obvious, is what motivates the GOP reactionaries today. Hatred of good government is not democratic.
77
As an economist, you ask "Why the dogmatism? Why the rage?" As a psychologist I can answer that we are dealing with an extremist group--the new Tea Party formerly known as the Republican Party of ideologues who feel marginalized and threatened and angry by change especially the browning of the population represented by President Obama. These rigid "dogmatic" personality types are also misogynists who hate most non-white, non-male people--that is the majority aka "We, the people" or our government. Allied with this group are wealthy conservative business elites who are often amoral sociopaths who also feel threatened by any change as with higher taxes or reducing carbon emissions that would diminish their power. The combination of these two nihilistic personality types is toxic to our democracy and, as we have seen, equally toxic abroad in its other authoritarian guises be it communism, fascism, or now radical Islam. Their inner rage is directed outward at others and demands an incessant battle like "the War on Terror." But the psychological truth is that the terror they are projecting on others is the terror within that they are unable to contain.
427
The main problem with the government is that it's a corporation that was created in 1850-1860 so its main purpose is to make money and just like any business the people in charge don't want to spend it. Anyone doubts this should do a search for "United States Corporation." There are good and wise and considerate people in the government but there are also the opposite and they don't have the ability to care about people who for some reason are not as healthy or successful and don't want to help them. Only when the Republic of the united States of America is up and running will the situation change. People should look it up and decide if they want to get involved. Of course it's very possible that the corporate people will try to stop this from happening.
6
The only reason growth of government is acceptable here in the U.S. is because we are living in a period where the U.S. still enjoys superpower status. This has served to keep the U.S. Dollar supreme among world currencies. Without that, the U.S. would be unable to keep borrowing money.
And without borrowing money, there could be no more big government as we know it. Without that, there could be no amount of welfare, including support for the needy, unemployment benefits, or healthcare like Medicare and now the A.C.A. law. There could be no amount of regulation that substantially reduces industry profits, because other countries, could be more efficient, and with free trade, economic competitiveness for the U.S. would disappear, and so its economy would suffer even more than it does already. It would become counterproductive to retain minimum wages laws. There could be less support in the form of pensions or Social Security for those retired from the workforce.
That is, unless the whole industrialized world also were providing all such things for the people. We've been taught to think we need all that and more.
Yet the only people who can maintain the superpower status, don't agree with all superfluities being demanded.
The system is getting so unless you work for the govt. or for 'crony capitalist' companies that are being supported unfairly at expense of anyone not part of this, means socialism is here. Who then is fighting for freedom for the people?
And without borrowing money, there could be no more big government as we know it. Without that, there could be no amount of welfare, including support for the needy, unemployment benefits, or healthcare like Medicare and now the A.C.A. law. There could be no amount of regulation that substantially reduces industry profits, because other countries, could be more efficient, and with free trade, economic competitiveness for the U.S. would disappear, and so its economy would suffer even more than it does already. It would become counterproductive to retain minimum wages laws. There could be less support in the form of pensions or Social Security for those retired from the workforce.
That is, unless the whole industrialized world also were providing all such things for the people. We've been taught to think we need all that and more.
Yet the only people who can maintain the superpower status, don't agree with all superfluities being demanded.
The system is getting so unless you work for the govt. or for 'crony capitalist' companies that are being supported unfairly at expense of anyone not part of this, means socialism is here. Who then is fighting for freedom for the people?
2
To me, it's simple. Those currently in control want to stay that way, motivated as they are and have been by power and the money needed to buy power. But, in our country, we still pretend to practice democracy, and with demographic change it is clear to control interests that a mechanism is still needed to manage the electoral process, to lure the masses - those that still bother to vote, that is. Enter the appeal to macho. The one consistent characteristic of right wing political positions is machismo. Fear of climate change is for sissies, guns are for tough, aggressive types willing to use them - stand your ground, don't let anyone else tell you what to do, decide for yourself when you will (or will not) purchase medical insurance, work for a living, ask no quarter and give none. In short, might makes right, I have the might and I alone determine my right. Don't tread on me. Heck, you don't even need a constitution for that, much less government. You just need a jungle.
113
If reducing taxes is good, eliminating them is better. If reducing government is good, eliminating it is better. More healthcare for the poor and middle class means higher taxes for the rich. With taxes eliminated, free or subsidized healthcare will end. What's so hard to understand here?
13
Where do you fit? Reality or Fantasy? Take the test.
True or False
1. Significantly (say, no deficits for more than 3 years) paying down the federal debt has usually been good for the economy.
2. The single payer health care systems of other developed countries produce no better results at not much lower costs.
3. The very high top tax rates after WWII combined with high real (ratio of taxes actually paid to GDP) corporate taxes stifled economic growth.
4. The devastation of WWII caused the output of Europe to stay low for many (>10) years.
5. A small ratio of federal debt to GDP has always insured prosperity.
6. Inequality such as we have today (Gini about ,50) has usually encouraged entrepreneurship thus helping the economy.
7. Our ratio of our corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is among the highest of all developed countries.
8. Since WWI, the cause of severe inflation in developed countries has usually been the printing of money.
9. As a percentage of GDP, today's federal debt service is the highest in many years.
10. Inequality such as we have today is an aberration; the history of capitalism has shown that periods like 1946 - 1973 with low inequality are the norm.
True or False
1. Significantly (say, no deficits for more than 3 years) paying down the federal debt has usually been good for the economy.
2. The single payer health care systems of other developed countries produce no better results at not much lower costs.
3. The very high top tax rates after WWII combined with high real (ratio of taxes actually paid to GDP) corporate taxes stifled economic growth.
4. The devastation of WWII caused the output of Europe to stay low for many (>10) years.
5. A small ratio of federal debt to GDP has always insured prosperity.
6. Inequality such as we have today (Gini about ,50) has usually encouraged entrepreneurship thus helping the economy.
7. Our ratio of our corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is among the highest of all developed countries.
8. Since WWI, the cause of severe inflation in developed countries has usually been the printing of money.
9. As a percentage of GDP, today's federal debt service is the highest in many years.
10. Inequality such as we have today is an aberration; the history of capitalism has shown that periods like 1946 - 1973 with low inequality are the norm.
32
Setting aside the accuracy of each point, I have found that when someone numbers his reasons, the driving purpose is not on the list.
I know that about 10 cents of every tax dollar already goes to pay the *interest* on existing debt.
I also know how compounding interest works, and what the debt ceiling really is.
Do you?
I also know how compounding interest works, and what the debt ceiling really is.
Do you?
Why don't facts matter? It seems to me that we have somehow replaced government with a partisan industry. There are certain monied elites who profit very handsomely from the disinformation that is the main product of this industry. I was on an airplane last summer, on a trip to the "real America" (Idaho Falls) and behind me sat a couple in their early 20s. Across from them was a middle-aged man who was clearly not stupid, and neither were they. All three were white. Stupid and ignorant are different things. They were discussing the mess in Washington and seemed to come to the conclusion that it was the Tea Party that was messing things up. The middle-aged gentleman posited the notion that the way to subvert that faction was by supporting libertarians, oblivious to the relationship between Tea Partiers and libertarians. In their discussion of Congress, none knew how many members were in the House—the older of them thought the number was about 200. I very much wanted to join—or perhaps enjoin—their conversation, but more, I wanted to hear what "real Americans" were thinking. On the Senate side, they also weren't sure, but again, they figured it had to be around 50. These were college-educated people. They vote. They evidently haven't much of a clue whom or what they're voting for. Facts didn't seem to matter at all. I gathered they considered themselves conservative. The partisan industry creates so much noise that the signal gets lost, and it does its job well.
42
Just a quick observation on the American electorate after spending a few years abroad. Overall, the American electorate does not fare well in terms or their factual knowledge or sophistication in making or assessing arguments. However, I have come to appreciate that the American public is more intuitively tuned than most of their international counterparts. It actually gives me some hope that the deciding votes in US Presidential elections swing towards the candidates that are "intuitively" more credible. In the end, I can live with this type of intuitive intelligence among the American electorate.
2
Your conclusion that conservatives are "...defenders of traditional hierarchy — the kind of hierarchy that is threatened by any expansion of government, even (or perhaps especially) when that expansion makes the lives of ordinary citizens better and more secure" rings true in another area of political "debate": public education. The "reformers" are not interested in expanding government services to the 50+% of children who are in public schools and qualify for free and reduced lunches because to do so would make the lives of those children "better and more secure" and might increase their social mobility. Indeed, the "reformers" are interested in eliminating "government schools" in favor of privatized schools that transfer more money to the top of the hierarchy. And facts clearly don't matter in this debate because all evidence indicates that the low test scores are linked to poverty and NOT "bad teaching" and the test scores in "government schools" are no different than the test scores in charter schools.
52
Paul, it certainly appears that the ideology of hating government was reborn with Reagan - who hawked an ideology, as happily as he hawked Borax on Death Valley Days, that government was the problem and not a part of any solution.
But inasmuch as America is a democracy, a government "of the people, by the people, for the people", if government is indeed the problem, then the real problem must lie with the people - who yearly elect it, participate in it, and far too often seek to corrupt it.
Paul, the fact is that becoming a prisoner of any ideology makes one an idiot - inasmuch as ideology is not self-correcting, and idiocy is pretty what we're dealing with on the right.
This is not to say that everything that originates on the left is either wise or sure to work. For instance, quite a number of us on the left remain unhappy with the ACA - which was hardly the best way to address America's healthcare costs. IMHO, the only real virtue of the ACA was that it was doable by our Congressional "coalition of the bribed", given the almost total refusal of the Republicans to cooperate in the creation of something better.
But we are the left are at least willing to admit this. On the right, a magical belief in markets permeates everything, even when experience conclusively demonstrates that markets are as every bit as corruptible as the human being whom routinely manipulate them - and hence not much of a real world solution in essential areas like healthcare at all.
But inasmuch as America is a democracy, a government "of the people, by the people, for the people", if government is indeed the problem, then the real problem must lie with the people - who yearly elect it, participate in it, and far too often seek to corrupt it.
Paul, the fact is that becoming a prisoner of any ideology makes one an idiot - inasmuch as ideology is not self-correcting, and idiocy is pretty what we're dealing with on the right.
This is not to say that everything that originates on the left is either wise or sure to work. For instance, quite a number of us on the left remain unhappy with the ACA - which was hardly the best way to address America's healthcare costs. IMHO, the only real virtue of the ACA was that it was doable by our Congressional "coalition of the bribed", given the almost total refusal of the Republicans to cooperate in the creation of something better.
But we are the left are at least willing to admit this. On the right, a magical belief in markets permeates everything, even when experience conclusively demonstrates that markets are as every bit as corruptible as the human being whom routinely manipulate them - and hence not much of a real world solution in essential areas like healthcare at all.
77
You really nailed it, in my opinion. I believe that Reagan said that the nine most dangerous words in the English language were: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." The Republicans have governed ever since to make government fail and to turn the people against the one institution--the government which theoretically represents us--that can and should balance the power of corporations.
54
I know Conservatives who believe in UFO's, I know Liberals who believe in UFO's.
I know Conservatives who believe in Big Foot, I know Liberals who believe in Big Foot.
I know Conservatives who believe in ghosts. I know Liberals who believe in ghosts.
But somehow, only Liberals believe in global warming--and that should tell you everything you need to know. Despite the fact that the majority of manufacturing companies are run by Conservatives--many of which are based on science and technology, somehow Conservatives are anti-science--or are just too thick to understand it. Imagine that.
The truth is, there would be no need for all of these brilliant "climate scientists" to keep their results secret--or to fudge their results and hide their conspiratorial e-mails from the outside world--or to get emotional when other scientists refuse to walk in lock-step. Scientists are not supposed to get emotionally involved in their results--if science is science, every scientist submits results to the scientific community to be replicated or not. The scientific community does not demand complete obedience to one result--in any other subject other than "climate change".
The truth is, Liberals are interested in throttling Capitalism--which they despise.
Twenty years from now, "global warming" will be seen as the greatest example of mass hysteria in human history. And it will have as much legitimacy as the other big Liberal ideas that didn't work--Communism and Socialism.
I know Conservatives who believe in Big Foot, I know Liberals who believe in Big Foot.
I know Conservatives who believe in ghosts. I know Liberals who believe in ghosts.
But somehow, only Liberals believe in global warming--and that should tell you everything you need to know. Despite the fact that the majority of manufacturing companies are run by Conservatives--many of which are based on science and technology, somehow Conservatives are anti-science--or are just too thick to understand it. Imagine that.
The truth is, there would be no need for all of these brilliant "climate scientists" to keep their results secret--or to fudge their results and hide their conspiratorial e-mails from the outside world--or to get emotional when other scientists refuse to walk in lock-step. Scientists are not supposed to get emotionally involved in their results--if science is science, every scientist submits results to the scientific community to be replicated or not. The scientific community does not demand complete obedience to one result--in any other subject other than "climate change".
The truth is, Liberals are interested in throttling Capitalism--which they despise.
Twenty years from now, "global warming" will be seen as the greatest example of mass hysteria in human history. And it will have as much legitimacy as the other big Liberal ideas that didn't work--Communism and Socialism.
14
Well, in any event, when the giant, hyperintelligent space aliens of the future sift through the ashes of our long defunct global civilization, they are much, much more likely to find that it was nuclear weapons, and not some dog-paddling polar bears, wot did us in.
5
Nonsense on so many levels. Science makes testable assertions based on facts, regardless of their motivations - and the data just keeps lining up, whether it is ice sheets in the arctic and antarctic, temperature data or volatility in climactic patterns. Liberals aren't interested in "throttling capitalism". We are interested in ensuring that people like the Koch brothers - who use their enormous wealth to fund propaganda for their oil and gas self-interest - do not call the shots. Why do conservatives not get this? Whether it is big tobacco, big oil, or big box stores, there is wisdom in not allowing monopolies and endless propaganda? Even Adam Smith wanted of it strongly - and he was hardly someone trying to "throttle capitalism." I'm will to bet 100 capitalist dollars that in 20 years you look like a fool.
46
And here we have one of the most perfect examples of cognitive denial published today. Only Liberals "believe" it therefore is must be false because all those uber-smart business people, who just happen to be conservative (?), don't. And of course, business people would never ever do anything against the interests of people, right? Just ask all the cigarette makers, BP Oil and all those nice investment bankers in 2008.
99
Good article. And now we have Mitt Romney directly implying that it is President O'bama's fault that income equality is continuing to grow, completely ignoring the long slide away from progressive taxation that began under Reagan and has been promoted by every Republican administration.
50
Sometimes I think that this kind of analysis--that there is some underlying hatred of Big Government that drives conservatives down the blind alley of denial--is still beside the point. I've come to think that mere membership in this deniers club is the point. In other words tribalism, belonging to an easily identified group. Supporting your team.
Membership in the club bestows many benefits, including the relief of having your biases confirmed without lifting an intellectual finger. There is safety in numbers and there is an enemy to fight. The mantra could be, "Don't confuse me with the facts." The goal is the continued unity of the tribe through blind adherence to the bylaws.
Membership in the club bestows many benefits, including the relief of having your biases confirmed without lifting an intellectual finger. There is safety in numbers and there is an enemy to fight. The mantra could be, "Don't confuse me with the facts." The goal is the continued unity of the tribe through blind adherence to the bylaws.
73
and hatred of 'the other.'
1
The author and those providing commentary try to make the case that truth and evidence are always on the side of liberal democrats and that conservative republicans are never evidence-based. Although this may be a feel-good pat on the back for most readers of the Times (which I do enjoy as well), it is utterly delusional to believe that your party has a lock on evidence and facts. My concern is actually that this article is Exhibit A for why interparty dialogue has become so pathetic in the US. Becoming a slave to party lines and demonizing an opposing party does not lead typically to better outcomes. Whatever happened to politicians and voters who could cross party lines based on new evidence and applications of principles? This article looks like nothing more than a purely political piece, avoiding any possibility that liberal democrats have ever made an error in judgment or facts. Let's just say that my experience in the Middle East would not support the view that Democrats cannot make policy mistakes.
11
The issue is not policy mistakes; the issue is science denial. Much scarier and far less prone to the kinds of errors in judgment and politics in the policy world. Reasonable people can indeed disagree about what to do with the intractable problems of the Middle East. Science is different: the facts either line up and become replicable and triangulated or they don't.
41
Ok, then. Statistically speaking, reality has a liberal bias. Now we can argue about the percentages.
The article dealt with three specific issues in which evidence doesn't seem to matter to people on one side of the issue. You conclude that the arguments offered are to support "liberal democrats", although the thrust of the points were about specific issues, not specific parties. But your response doesn't offer any examples of issues in which Republicans have the evidence on their side but the Democrats don't. And I wouldn't bring up the Middle East to point out the mistakes of Democrats. I first think of Iraq when I think of policy mistakes in the Middle East. Weapons of mass destruction? A cake walk? Disbanding the Iraqi military? The deaths of over 4000 soldiers? More than $2 trillion wasted?
Damaged people have limitations, which from within themselves they might not even be aware of. But they act them out and observers can see them. They may not want to change, may not want to examine their damage and its consequences. That requires willingness, that's the one thing no one can supply for another.
Have we asked these angry people why they are so angry? Have we helped them learn to diffuse their anger, so that they can process information more clearly? Anger interferes with most mental processes, including rational thinking. I think our culture rewards certain unhealthy emotional profiles, although I am not sure why.
Have we asked these angry people why they are so angry? Have we helped them learn to diffuse their anger, so that they can process information more clearly? Anger interferes with most mental processes, including rational thinking. I think our culture rewards certain unhealthy emotional profiles, although I am not sure why.
14
Well said! As a professor, you may have noticed a "carriage before the horse" tendency in those who criticize the liberalism of scholars. Their argument boils down to the idea that professors are biased because they tend to be liberal.
But the real situation is this: liberals are much more likely than conservatives to respect the findings of scholars, and, therefore, liberal policies tend to align closely with the findings of the professoriat.
Scholars don't, as a matter of course, accept liberal ideas; people with liberal ideas tend to accept the work of competent scholars.
In the meantime, you have on the right, people like conservative Senator Inhofe claiming, in defiance of the findings of science, that climate warming is a hoax.
We don't have a "scholars are too liberal situation;" what we have is a "too many conservatives refuse to respect the findings of competent scholars" situation.
But the real situation is this: liberals are much more likely than conservatives to respect the findings of scholars, and, therefore, liberal policies tend to align closely with the findings of the professoriat.
Scholars don't, as a matter of course, accept liberal ideas; people with liberal ideas tend to accept the work of competent scholars.
In the meantime, you have on the right, people like conservative Senator Inhofe claiming, in defiance of the findings of science, that climate warming is a hoax.
We don't have a "scholars are too liberal situation;" what we have is a "too many conservatives refuse to respect the findings of competent scholars" situation.
51
The one exception to the claim that liberals are more likely to accept the findings of science is vaccines. From what I read people refusing to vaccinate are more likely to be liberals. Granted these people are not even close to the majority of liberals but it is an example with serious consequences. This belief is rooted in a belief that natural things are always better than artificial, ignoring the fact that many naturally occurring things like poison mushrooms, arsenic and diseases are deadly.
9
Those "conservatives" in power do not want to relinquish it, which is to be expected. By those in power I do not mean Republican elected officials. I am talking about the people who bankroll them, who provide the campaign contributions, the paid speaking engagements and the high paying jobs when they retire or loose an election. They provide the same for Democrats, just look at the schedule of Hillary Clinton. And therein lies the problem.
The people who vote for these "conservative" politicans are rightfully angry and the Democratic Party has only itself to blame. It stands for just a little bit different than the Republican Party - a little bit different economic policy but one that still favors the wealthy and the financial industry, a little bit different welfare policy but one that still punishes the poor and does not encourage social mobility. I could add much more, but there isn't room.
Until we more liberal leaning folks either start a new party or push forward people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders instead of Wall Street apologists like the Clintons, we can expect the angry Americans who are actually frightened and feeling hopeless, to vote for the people who sound just as angry. Its a shame they don't look behind the slogans, but we don't even have the right kind of slogans on our side. Just the same old slightly different but certainly not threatening to the powerful "me too" from our so-called Democrats.
The people who vote for these "conservative" politicans are rightfully angry and the Democratic Party has only itself to blame. It stands for just a little bit different than the Republican Party - a little bit different economic policy but one that still favors the wealthy and the financial industry, a little bit different welfare policy but one that still punishes the poor and does not encourage social mobility. I could add much more, but there isn't room.
Until we more liberal leaning folks either start a new party or push forward people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders instead of Wall Street apologists like the Clintons, we can expect the angry Americans who are actually frightened and feeling hopeless, to vote for the people who sound just as angry. Its a shame they don't look behind the slogans, but we don't even have the right kind of slogans on our side. Just the same old slightly different but certainly not threatening to the powerful "me too" from our so-called Democrats.
48
You have hit the nail on the head. Those castigating voters for not getting out and voting enthusiastically for Republican lite - Democrats - are taking the I-voted, self-righteous, easy way out. Until we do the hard work of reforming voting and campaign finance, and even though I vote holding my nose every single time, I don't blame apathetic non-voters one bit. We need a none-of-the-above-until-someone-represents-me option. Keep voting 'til we get representation.
9
Krugman is being deceptive in his global warming comments. If he knew anything about science, he would know that even ardent global warming supporters are backing away from the idea that 2014 was the "warmest" on record. Categorically, it was not. The carbon tax pushers refused to use satellite data and cherry picked the ground stations without correction from population encroachment and even then they came up with 4 thousands of a degree which is not measurable. What the data did prove is that there has been no warming in 18 years even though CO2 levels have risen.
The Texas experiment proved a runaway success and Krugman will surely ignore that fact. The oil and gas industry has dealt OPEC a huge blow and is removing our dependency on Middle East oil. When the money is cut to the Saudis ,the funders of terrorists, the less they will have to pay for ISIL and other Islamic terrorists. Krugman won't mention this ever.
Government provided medical care is typified by the VA. Government administrated is typified by the OBAMACARE roll out and the absolute lies and deceptions told by this administration to get it passed. I just wonder if Krugman was one of those fooled or was he in on the scam? His buddy Gruber explained it so well. Krugman tries to fool folks by equating "having insurance" with having medical care ignoring massive deductibles. Remember when a family's cost was going to be reduce $2500/yr and Obamacare was revenue neutral? It was all a lie.
The Texas experiment proved a runaway success and Krugman will surely ignore that fact. The oil and gas industry has dealt OPEC a huge blow and is removing our dependency on Middle East oil. When the money is cut to the Saudis ,the funders of terrorists, the less they will have to pay for ISIL and other Islamic terrorists. Krugman won't mention this ever.
Government provided medical care is typified by the VA. Government administrated is typified by the OBAMACARE roll out and the absolute lies and deceptions told by this administration to get it passed. I just wonder if Krugman was one of those fooled or was he in on the scam? His buddy Gruber explained it so well. Krugman tries to fool folks by equating "having insurance" with having medical care ignoring massive deductibles. Remember when a family's cost was going to be reduce $2500/yr and Obamacare was revenue neutral? It was all a lie.
16
Give it up. Climate change is real. Carbon is the driver. It's just true.
1
I get excellent care at my VA Medical Center!
Yesterday I walked under one of the three major bridges in my town. The concrete and metal that supports it is literally crumbling and badly corroded in places. You can see it clearly from the walking path.
My state chose to send two Republicans to Washington, two men so conservative that I'm sure they will never vote for investments in America's infrastructure. Let's just hope that the two of them are driving over that bridge when it collapses. Maybe that's the kind of evidence they need.
My state chose to send two Republicans to Washington, two men so conservative that I'm sure they will never vote for investments in America's infrastructure. Let's just hope that the two of them are driving over that bridge when it collapses. Maybe that's the kind of evidence they need.
102
I agree. I have often hoped that if one of the bridges goes down, that their are legislators driving on them when it happens.
To paraphrase a popular axiom, don't exepect a radical conservative reactionary to facts when their thinly disguised prejudices and biases demand they remain unconvinced.
Whether the issue is global warming, health care insurance, marriage equality or immigration reform there is a substantial number of people who espouse vague concepts like small government, individual liberty, religious conscience or free markets as acceptable cover for a wide array of public policies which undermine the very essence of reasoned debate on those issues.
The Republican Party has made it a hallmark of their political agenda disengenous denials of facts and anti scientific bias. Republican state officials have demanded school books put religious beliefs about the progress of life on the planet on the same level as evolution. The Republican's reactionary conservative wing will not acknowledge global warming until they are standing in water up to their waist.
Whether the issue is global warming, health care insurance, marriage equality or immigration reform there is a substantial number of people who espouse vague concepts like small government, individual liberty, religious conscience or free markets as acceptable cover for a wide array of public policies which undermine the very essence of reasoned debate on those issues.
The Republican Party has made it a hallmark of their political agenda disengenous denials of facts and anti scientific bias. Republican state officials have demanded school books put religious beliefs about the progress of life on the planet on the same level as evolution. The Republican's reactionary conservative wing will not acknowledge global warming until they are standing in water up to their waist.
34
"individual liberty" is a vague concept?
I tremble at the thought of a government, or indeed, a university faculty, comprised of people who think as you do.
Good grief.
I tremble at the thought of a government, or indeed, a university faculty, comprised of people who think as you do.
Good grief.
I have always said that you should not elect people who hate the government, to run the government. They will do their best to knowingly try to make certain that the government does not run well, just to further their ideology. They will actively take steps to undermine the functioning of government agencies in order to either privatize an agency or eliminate it all together.
67
One good example is the GOP's relentless cutting of the IRS budget.
One good example is the GOP's relentless cutting of the IRS budget.
Both wings in political debates cherry pick statistics to make their point. Now Krugman says statistics are fact and then cherry picks that 2014 was the hottest year on record. Conveniently, temperatures weren't recorded during the age of volcanism. Should we take comfort in the fact that when our sun runs out of hydrogen in 4.5 billion years, it will get very cold and we can repeal the carbon tax. It's tax season and we can all enjoy the mayhem of our tax code that reflects social engineering at its zenith.
7
Talk about cherry picking! Dr. Krugman said "on record," which means direct measurements since 1850, with the highest temperatures clustered around the past twelve years. Proxy measurements go back 2,000 years and tell pretty much the same story -- unprecedented global warning. When your grandkids get turned away at the Canadian border as illegals, remember your swiftian logic.
For people who would like to answer the inevitable Denialist comments on climate with their repeated false memes (there are a few already):
1. Science predicts climate change based on the (irrefutable, non-controversial) fact that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas-- trapping energy that would otherwise escape to space.
2. The global average temp *confirms* the theory, it is *not the basis* of the theory. There are many indicators, like global ice volume loss (not sea ice extent, not how the local pond freezes) that also confirm it. GAT is one metric, one output of a complex non-linear system.
3. To question the theory, you must provide an explanation for what is happening to the increased energy. It is not valid to say: "maybe cosmic rays are causing the increase". What about the energy trapped by CO2?
4. The meme about a 'pause' is silly. Here is what we know from a neutral, data-only source. The graph uses both satellite and surface data:
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
The claim of a 'pause' is based on cherrypicking data. Well, OK, then the last six years' trend tells us that we *are* on track for what those wacky scientists predicted, right?
No, it doesn't-- the "most correct" trend is the one using all the data. Not from 1998, or any other arbitrary point.
Short term variations will occur. But that has no bearing on the simple, settled, fact-- that CO2 is trapping energy that will create problems in the near and far future.
1. Science predicts climate change based on the (irrefutable, non-controversial) fact that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas-- trapping energy that would otherwise escape to space.
2. The global average temp *confirms* the theory, it is *not the basis* of the theory. There are many indicators, like global ice volume loss (not sea ice extent, not how the local pond freezes) that also confirm it. GAT is one metric, one output of a complex non-linear system.
3. To question the theory, you must provide an explanation for what is happening to the increased energy. It is not valid to say: "maybe cosmic rays are causing the increase". What about the energy trapped by CO2?
4. The meme about a 'pause' is silly. Here is what we know from a neutral, data-only source. The graph uses both satellite and surface data:
http://tinyurl.com/n4hngwj
The claim of a 'pause' is based on cherrypicking data. Well, OK, then the last six years' trend tells us that we *are* on track for what those wacky scientists predicted, right?
No, it doesn't-- the "most correct" trend is the one using all the data. Not from 1998, or any other arbitrary point.
Short term variations will occur. But that has no bearing on the simple, settled, fact-- that CO2 is trapping energy that will create problems in the near and far future.
25
Sure, no problem. But it is also a fact that we are in an ice age, and have been for the last 500,000 years. It has been punctuated by a half-dozen "interglacials," lasting less than 10,000 years each. We are currently 10,000 years into the present interglacial. Toward the end of each previous interglacial, ice-core samples show that atmospheric CO2 sharply increased, just as it is doing now. Yes, we are augmenting it, yes! It is getting hotter, sure, but then ... the ice sheets will return. Could be quite soon!
5
Richard Conn Henry,
CO2 is increasing as a result of humans burning fossil fuels. We know that with absolute certainty. What happened under different conditions is different.
CO2 is increasing as a result of humans burning fossil fuels. We know that with absolute certainty. What happened under different conditions is different.
22
There are too many of us, and we own too many internal combustion slaves, each eating poison and spewing poisonous wastes. We are fouling our nest. Think of cities as scabs on the skin of the shiny blue marble that we call home. They were tiny zits a mere 200 years ago. Now they're vast inflammations called "heat islands". Look at night time satellite photos of earth and every bright spot is giving off man made heat.
4
On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, let's speak the truth: Government has been the enemy in the racist precincts of the South ever since the "carpetbaggers" and the formation of the Klan. As Rick Perlstein chronicles in "Before the Storm," the organizers of a devil's bargain starting with the Draft Goldwater movement in the early 1960's may not have been racist but they knew a winning issue when they saw one: One faction proposed pairing the conservative Arizona senator with Orval Faubus, the segregationist Democratic Governor of Arkansas, into whose capital city President Eisenhower had had to send Federal troops to protect the lives of African-American schoolchildren.
In 1964, the Deep South flipped to the Republican Party.
The story continues with an alliance with White Christians, some of whom reject evidence that doesn't jibe with a certain tome, but the die was cast in the early '60's.
The synergy was dynamic: America had held its black citizens in bondage for hundreds of years; after Emancipation, laws were enacted that kept African-Americans from sharing in America's growth. Later, in the 1960's, the possibility that the government might help African-Americans (and others who had been pushed to the margins) to feed and educate their kids, build careers, and buy houses anywhere they wanted turned many toward the party that could accomplish pleasantly racist ends by "limiting government."
Rising temperatures. Cops killing black kids. Nothing to see here, folks.
In 1964, the Deep South flipped to the Republican Party.
The story continues with an alliance with White Christians, some of whom reject evidence that doesn't jibe with a certain tome, but the die was cast in the early '60's.
The synergy was dynamic: America had held its black citizens in bondage for hundreds of years; after Emancipation, laws were enacted that kept African-Americans from sharing in America's growth. Later, in the 1960's, the possibility that the government might help African-Americans (and others who had been pushed to the margins) to feed and educate their kids, build careers, and buy houses anywhere they wanted turned many toward the party that could accomplish pleasantly racist ends by "limiting government."
Rising temperatures. Cops killing black kids. Nothing to see here, folks.
35
Anyone who believes this country should be ruled by the "invisible hand of the free market" and works to remove laws that govern business and lower taxes on businesses is not merely a reactionary, but an anarchist.
We need to regard government as a force for good. It helps us produce as a society the things we cannot create as individuals. Government creates infrastructure, provides systems for education, health care, scientific research, environmental protection, emergency aid, and a host of other activities and services that improve the lives of our people. We need to support those aspects of government and promote efficiency and effectiveness in those areas.
Government is also a force for correcting abuses, but that area of our government has been abused. We incarcerate more of our own people than any other industrialized nation, yet we fail to punish those who commit the highest crimes - financial crimes - that destroy the lives of tens of thousands of people both here and abroad. We are currently fighting two wars to support the interests of many of these criminals.
We need to regard government as a force for good. It helps us produce as a society the things we cannot create as individuals. Government creates infrastructure, provides systems for education, health care, scientific research, environmental protection, emergency aid, and a host of other activities and services that improve the lives of our people. We need to support those aspects of government and promote efficiency and effectiveness in those areas.
Government is also a force for correcting abuses, but that area of our government has been abused. We incarcerate more of our own people than any other industrialized nation, yet we fail to punish those who commit the highest crimes - financial crimes - that destroy the lives of tens of thousands of people both here and abroad. We are currently fighting two wars to support the interests of many of these criminals.
43
Regarding Kansas and other similar major "reforms", it would be interesting if politicians enacting financial reforms had to specify metrics and timeframes for their envisioned results so that the public and the press could hold them somewhat accountable. As a citizen, I want to know when should we expect to see the positive impact of any enacted legislation.
13
Actually, the Republicans do have their own metrics. One of them is "dynamic scoring," which is basically a fancy term for "magical thinking." Rather than simply adding up the projected revenue increases and decreases attributable to a piece of fiscal legislation, the GOP, with the help of their economic witch doctors, factor in the anticipated boost in economic activity that would be brought about by said legislation. This is the same sort of tap dance performed by Gov. Brownback in Kansas. He told the good people of Kansas that implementing the largest tax cuts in state history would produce a veritable tsunami of economic activity that would actually boost the state's revenue. We all know how that turned out.
24
What we need is responsible media that will give the debacle in Kansas the coverage and prominent placement it deserves, while there's still Net neutrality.
True but changes need to come through elections and democrats should not run away from a good fight.Not leveraging over the good results seeing in the economy and in the health plan is really hard to understand and therefore the results of the midterm elections.
19
It's good to know that the working families faced with $10,000+ deductibles via their Bronze Plans are nevertheless finding a reduction in the effect that the cost of medical care has upon their proximity to bankruptcy. That has had me worried.
6
A $10,000 deductible is better than a $50,000 hospital bill. Anyone who has been faced with illness or injury more serious then a broken bone or the flu is grateful for any thing that will lower the cost of medical care. I can work to pay off $10,000. A diagnoses of cancer or something that requires multiple surgeries can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
15
I'm not sure that for the right wing maintaining "hierarchy" is the point unless by hierarchy you mean pecking order in general.
From what I can tell on the Tea Party blogs most of them are deeply steeped in a vision of America which is profoundly individualistic ("no one can tell me what to do" and "I alone have to protect my family/property from the very threatening 'other'"). They yean for the past, but not, say, the "halcyon days" of the 1950s (which I recognize is a delusion anyway). What they yearn for is some mystic view of the early days of the nation when "citizen legislators" rode into the capital, did the business of government, and rode home again with their rifles at the ready across their saddle.
Although they spend energy assuring each other that "racism" is the delusion of hated liberals and they have a few black bloggers among them willing to agree with that view, it is plain that their "real" America is Christian, white dominated, and the man is the head of the household even if they accept some female politicians.
They cannot seem to touch down in the reality that it takes much more government to maintain a nation of 50 states and 300 million people than it did a government of what were recently 13 sparsely populated colonies.
From what I can tell on the Tea Party blogs most of them are deeply steeped in a vision of America which is profoundly individualistic ("no one can tell me what to do" and "I alone have to protect my family/property from the very threatening 'other'"). They yean for the past, but not, say, the "halcyon days" of the 1950s (which I recognize is a delusion anyway). What they yearn for is some mystic view of the early days of the nation when "citizen legislators" rode into the capital, did the business of government, and rode home again with their rifles at the ready across their saddle.
Although they spend energy assuring each other that "racism" is the delusion of hated liberals and they have a few black bloggers among them willing to agree with that view, it is plain that their "real" America is Christian, white dominated, and the man is the head of the household even if they accept some female politicians.
They cannot seem to touch down in the reality that it takes much more government to maintain a nation of 50 states and 300 million people than it did a government of what were recently 13 sparsely populated colonies.
52
And the Left seems loathe to consider that power corrupts, and that the Constitution was meant to delegate power to the federal government, *from* the Several States, and to limit the enumerated powers thereof.
After hiding behind projectile ad hominems, it seems that what the Left wants is really a much more powerful government, forcing people to do what the Left thinks they ought to do.
The right may have its racism, but the left... perpetually flirts with totalitarianism, and an Orwellian vision of the future.
After hiding behind projectile ad hominems, it seems that what the Left wants is really a much more powerful government, forcing people to do what the Left thinks they ought to do.
The right may have its racism, but the left... perpetually flirts with totalitarianism, and an Orwellian vision of the future.
12
Anne Marie,
That's an excellent analysis, but it's doubtful that any of them are independent and individualistic in real life. These people have and do live 'corporate' lives complete with top-down hierarchies, in work, religion, and social status. Racism is the outlet for resentment about the reality of their own station in life.
That's an excellent analysis, but it's doubtful that any of them are independent and individualistic in real life. These people have and do live 'corporate' lives complete with top-down hierarchies, in work, religion, and social status. Racism is the outlet for resentment about the reality of their own station in life.
21
A very valid point with one flaw.
The assumption is made that a general understanding of our nation's history is common knowledge.
Sadly, that isn't the case. Reports of "historic illiteracy" are a regular feature of the news.
I blame another conservative agenda item for our nation's lack of historic and civic knowledge; standardized testing.
Billions are spent on language arts and math testing while history education is increasingly marginalized; especially in the elementary grades.
PARCC testing will put more pressure on the instructional time devoted to history education.
Sadly, we now live in a nation where you can have your own facts AND a manufactured history to support them.
In my experience, few people will know the difference.
Happy MLK Day.
The assumption is made that a general understanding of our nation's history is common knowledge.
Sadly, that isn't the case. Reports of "historic illiteracy" are a regular feature of the news.
I blame another conservative agenda item for our nation's lack of historic and civic knowledge; standardized testing.
Billions are spent on language arts and math testing while history education is increasingly marginalized; especially in the elementary grades.
PARCC testing will put more pressure on the instructional time devoted to history education.
Sadly, we now live in a nation where you can have your own facts AND a manufactured history to support them.
In my experience, few people will know the difference.
Happy MLK Day.
8
".....the political scientist Corey Robin argues that most self-proclaimed conservatives are actually reactionaries." JUst a note, I have been saying this for over twenty years. Unfortunately, I use a thing called a Dictionary when seeking the definition of a term. If one reads Webster's the reality of what I call the "Radical Reactionaries" becomes clear. The right in this country are so fact-phobic that they simply redefine the terms that describe them so as to avoid the REALITY of what they actually stand for.
Most unfortunately, we now live in a land of the "special kind of stupid". Voters vote against their own economic well being because they are too stupid to even think, let alone digest factual information.
Our Republic is in the hands of the Radical Reactionaries now that the Republicans control both houses of Congress. Many of the "red" states have seen these Radical Reactionaries gerrymander districts in such a way that we now have one party rule in many of those states. The Kansas economy collapses and the "special kind of stupid" voters re-elect the man whose policies have cause the debacle in the first place. We have seen the price of Oil fall over 50% in six months (in large part due to excessive production) and the Radical Reactionaries, in payback to their Oligarchic masters, stomp their feet and pass the Keystone Pipeline. We will NEVER be rid of the Radical Reactionaries until we find a cure for the "special kind of stupid" voter.
Most unfortunately, we now live in a land of the "special kind of stupid". Voters vote against their own economic well being because they are too stupid to even think, let alone digest factual information.
Our Republic is in the hands of the Radical Reactionaries now that the Republicans control both houses of Congress. Many of the "red" states have seen these Radical Reactionaries gerrymander districts in such a way that we now have one party rule in many of those states. The Kansas economy collapses and the "special kind of stupid" voters re-elect the man whose policies have cause the debacle in the first place. We have seen the price of Oil fall over 50% in six months (in large part due to excessive production) and the Radical Reactionaries, in payback to their Oligarchic masters, stomp their feet and pass the Keystone Pipeline. We will NEVER be rid of the Radical Reactionaries until we find a cure for the "special kind of stupid" voter.
44
Those on the left, e.g. Democrats, have to learn how to talk persuasively to these people. Republicans have done that. Dems still floundering.
Sad but true. Thanks for a great article. Sadder still is the apparent fact that many of the people who could benefit directly from government extension are opposed to it. There is some kind of confusion there or mistrust or unwillingness to grow up, or something.
22
Or something. The value that many of these folks place on their position in the social "hierarchy" (willingly demonstrating obeisance to those above them and happy about being patted on the head by the same) exceeds the value of whatever economic benefit they may derive from legislative measures. For those of us who grew up outside hierarchies or oblivious to them this is a stretch but it's the only one of very few possible explanations why "they" do what they do.
8
The rage is because all the hate they can muster, all the ignorance they can bandy about and all their magical thinking is STILL not making their lives any better or making them any happier.
It's cognitive dissonance pure and simple.
It's cognitive dissonance pure and simple.
39
Yep. They've no clue at all that the hate will eat them and not what they believe they hate.
2
I can suggest another reason why many people reject evidence for political positions they don't like. Many, though not all, of the people who reject government health care and climate regulation are part of the religious right. They've been taught to value faith in the absence of, or contrary to, evidence. They simply extend their faith to other domains, including, for example, rejection of Darwinian evolution and big bang cosmology.
47
And I believe it is the churches that have kept the people blind to facts and truth and they are also responsible for keeping hatred alive and kicking. Not only are they using fear for political advantage, I'm convinced many of our churches are in on the deal.
It's time to change dualist system of democracy to Human Fealty.
1
Racism trumps every logic and rationale, and even self-interest. The "debates" in the US are really that simple to explain, even if very few are willing to say so explicitly.
9
Richard Leuttgen says in a comment,"How reliable are next week's weather forecasts? There are MANY such questions and claims. But what's not in doubt is that Democrats' solutions will cost jobs and severe economic disruption."
The conclusion he claims to be accepted without doubt is highly questionable to me. Some coal mining and oil field jobs will be lost. And there may not be a need for as many personal bankers for petroleum industry executives. But developing, manufacturing, marketing, installing, and maintaining renewable energy technology will eclipse any number of jobs lost in the wasteful and poisonous process of extraction and burning fossil fuels.
The point at which renewable and cleaner energy is cheaper than fossil fuels has already been reached in solar electric production. As the same becomes the case for wind, tide, geothermal, and other technologies, many jobs will be enabled by the cost savings.
When the indisputable answer to the skeptics' questions is written with a $ before a large figure, then a certain significant segment of reactionaries will see the truth. But probably not before then.
The conclusion he claims to be accepted without doubt is highly questionable to me. Some coal mining and oil field jobs will be lost. And there may not be a need for as many personal bankers for petroleum industry executives. But developing, manufacturing, marketing, installing, and maintaining renewable energy technology will eclipse any number of jobs lost in the wasteful and poisonous process of extraction and burning fossil fuels.
The point at which renewable and cleaner energy is cheaper than fossil fuels has already been reached in solar electric production. As the same becomes the case for wind, tide, geothermal, and other technologies, many jobs will be enabled by the cost savings.
When the indisputable answer to the skeptics' questions is written with a $ before a large figure, then a certain significant segment of reactionaries will see the truth. But probably not before then.
33
Is there anyone on the political scene who is loudly and clearly explaining what a future with less burning of fossil fuels will look like? Explaining it in clear, simple terms that people who are not climate scientists can understand? Through media which will reach these people? No, you say? That's right!
This is the brave new age of robotic computerized centralized mass economized globalized production.
We need more paid leisure time.
We need more paid leisure time.
I have an alternative explanation: It's the Internet, stupid. As in the Internet is making us more stupid. Let me explain.
Research shows that exposure to alternative ideas leads to a softening of extreme opinions. Perhaps the most infamous example is "My black friend", but the ACTUAL point underlying the joke is that having a RANGE of black friends will make it hard for you to cling to the extreme position that "Black people are ".
Here is where the Internet comes in and makes us stupid. Our time is limited, but the Internet can saturate it. If you want to believe something crazy, such as "Climate change is a myth" (or "President Obama was born in Kenya"), then the power of today's Internet can fill up all of your time with stupidity. If FAUX "news" tells you there are "no-go zones" only for Muslims, then the reality doesn't matter. (In this case, the reality is that FAUX "news" is a no-brain zone.) Just do a search for whatever crazy thing you want to believe, and you can find all the "evidence" you have time for.
For whatever it's worth, I can say I predicted this problem at least 10 years ago. I called it "pandering to the users", though the sanitized propaganda labels are more like user customization and catering to the users' tastes.
"And if I think that Kirk is a Denebian slime devil, well, that's my opinion, too." Just let me check on the Internet and I can find all the "proof" I need.
Research shows that exposure to alternative ideas leads to a softening of extreme opinions. Perhaps the most infamous example is "My black friend", but the ACTUAL point underlying the joke is that having a RANGE of black friends will make it hard for you to cling to the extreme position that "Black people are ".
Here is where the Internet comes in and makes us stupid. Our time is limited, but the Internet can saturate it. If you want to believe something crazy, such as "Climate change is a myth" (or "President Obama was born in Kenya"), then the power of today's Internet can fill up all of your time with stupidity. If FAUX "news" tells you there are "no-go zones" only for Muslims, then the reality doesn't matter. (In this case, the reality is that FAUX "news" is a no-brain zone.) Just do a search for whatever crazy thing you want to believe, and you can find all the "evidence" you have time for.
For whatever it's worth, I can say I predicted this problem at least 10 years ago. I called it "pandering to the users", though the sanitized propaganda labels are more like user customization and catering to the users' tastes.
"And if I think that Kirk is a Denebian slime devil, well, that's my opinion, too." Just let me check on the Internet and I can find all the "proof" I need.
15
How about talk radio, e.g. CSPAN, where the uninformed and ignorant can call in and share their mindless opinions without opposition? I think we need talk-back radio where people can call in the get push-back from a well-informed person as to why their beliefs are nonsense.
It all keeps circling back to preposterous public policy that gives credibility to people who claim to know what "God" thinks about human concerns.
The inability to learn form experience is inherent in the human species. History has demonstrated that it possesses neither the intellectual ability nor the emotional stability to learn from experience or profit by it. Sadly, now that weapons of mass destruction provide the ability to totally annihilate our species, I'll give ourselves perhaps 100 more years before our inability to eschew wars removes homo sapiens from the planet, leaving it to the cockroaches.
7
There is no more software-driven animal on this planet than us.
I was puzzled a few days ago when op-ed contributor Peter Wehner chided conservatives for not having the proper disposition. Conservatives, he said, should not show rage and inflexibility; instead, they should show "magnanimity, winsomeness and grace." His view that temperament is at the base of tensions among conservative politicians seemed to me to be a fairly shallow take on what's gone wrong for Republicans. Prof. Krugman's explanation makes more sense. It's hard to show "grace" when one feels threatened. Mr Wehner's "graceful" conservatives -- those even willing to compromise in the appropriate case -- are the traditionalists. Too bad for him that the reactionaries have stolen the party.
22
I think they are venal. They probably know very well what the science shows -- they just don't care. It profits them to trumpet the positions they trumpet and that's all they care about.
They just go for fire and brimstone.
Another rich Democrat mystified at why people suspect his posturing as a leader of some crusade against the established oligarchy of which he himself is a member in very good standing. The rich Democrat demands taxes and sacrifice of course- for the common good which he and his fellow rich Democrats are especially qualified to determine from statistics.
This is an oligarchy. Krugman is part of it. There is no reason to presume he even knows what the interests of his inferiors are.
The world belongs to the rich. The people have chosen to reinforce them and try to become rich individually, rather than enlisting in some liberal crusade that will just leave them more broke and the likes of Hillary Clinton (or Krugman) braying cooked economic stats at them telling them they're happy.
This is an oligarchy. Krugman is part of it. There is no reason to presume he even knows what the interests of his inferiors are.
The world belongs to the rich. The people have chosen to reinforce them and try to become rich individually, rather than enlisting in some liberal crusade that will just leave them more broke and the likes of Hillary Clinton (or Krugman) braying cooked economic stats at them telling them they're happy.
9
I am afraid I have really bad news for those whose thinking can be characterized by "The people have chosen to reinforce them and try to become rich individually" statement.
Being rich is a relative thing. By definition, not everyone can be rich. If everyone were "rich", no one would be "rich". If most people were "rich" those people would be middle class. That's just how "rich" works. Of course, starting out as rich enables one to become richer relative to people who aren't rich. Clearly they can leverage their existing wealth to create more wealth.
The everyman for himself philosophy works great for the .1 %.
Being rich is a relative thing. By definition, not everyone can be rich. If everyone were "rich", no one would be "rich". If most people were "rich" those people would be middle class. That's just how "rich" works. Of course, starting out as rich enables one to become richer relative to people who aren't rich. Clearly they can leverage their existing wealth to create more wealth.
The everyman for himself philosophy works great for the .1 %.
26
I could not have said it better myself. You are so right about Chairman Mao Krugman. Look, no one is denying climate change is occurring. The fact is we are exhausting our supply of fossil fuels and by 2050 will probably have done so. What the Krugmanistas need to do is look at the big picture instead of painting every picture with the taxation brush. Toyota is about to introduce their hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Within ten years these vehicles will be quite main stream. Electrical generation will move away from polluting fuel sources to relatively clean sources. My point here is that the man-made constituent of climate change will become less and less.
5
Only because we liberals are pushing so hard for it.
As Thomas Paine explained in "Common Sense" the necessity of government is to benefit society by addressing man's moral failure, curbing man's wickedness.
We live in a society that is divided. Most people recognize the need of government to regulate, set limits, and act for the good of all. A smaller element hates government because it gets in the way of their pursuit of self interests (mostly accumulating wealth), often harming others.
Denial of global warming, the success of the ACA, economic facts, reality itself, is necessary for government haters. Only government can deal with such major issues and if too many people recognize evidence, facts and reality they will support government to do something on their behalf. And that is what government haters fear.
Government haters don't want any curbs on their wickedness.
We live in a society that is divided. Most people recognize the need of government to regulate, set limits, and act for the good of all. A smaller element hates government because it gets in the way of their pursuit of self interests (mostly accumulating wealth), often harming others.
Denial of global warming, the success of the ACA, economic facts, reality itself, is necessary for government haters. Only government can deal with such major issues and if too many people recognize evidence, facts and reality they will support government to do something on their behalf. And that is what government haters fear.
Government haters don't want any curbs on their wickedness.
46
Tom Paine was an atheist, and would probably object to the word "wickedness" to describe the behavior of a competitive animal struggling to survive in a jungle. He would rather say that the advent of civilization motivates government by creating a common need to limit the depravity necessary to survive, to better enjoy the blessings of civilization.
7
I too am distressed by the entrenched positions in US politics. I was distressed by it before I left for Europe, but my time abroad and participation in debates here highlights how irrational the discussion has become. It's not even a discussion, a propos of Krugman's "debate" in quotes; it's diatribes launched by the intransigent.
But not ALL such entrenched thinking is on the right. Because my wife is in the public health care field, I have come across many Americans on the left who hold beliefs on vaccination and pasteurized milk (among other topics) that are demonstrably counter-factual.
It isn't just a question of being on the left or the right. It's about knowing how to interpret facts.
But not ALL such entrenched thinking is on the right. Because my wife is in the public health care field, I have come across many Americans on the left who hold beliefs on vaccination and pasteurized milk (among other topics) that are demonstrably counter-factual.
It isn't just a question of being on the left or the right. It's about knowing how to interpret facts.
23
Listen to the media carefully. The President hasn't even given his State of the Union address and the media is broadcasting the Republican critique of the tax changes that the President will propose. Marco Rubio already knows what this is and is being given ample press time. It's so tiring. The media doesn't even bother to investigate and broadcast why the President has chosen to promote the policies he is going to introduce. It is unbelievably empty.
9
You are right. Contemporary American politics could not exist in a country with a competent public education system that inculcated critical thinking in every citizen. To see where it will lead, study the history of the Weimar Republic.
There are too many people trying to prove faith to gods and too few teaching the ways of reason.
The shame and sadness of our current duality is that everyone is right ...and everyone is wrong. It is not one-or-the-other philosophy that is needed. It is both. There are two kinds of wealth in this country: private wealth and common wealth. They are not mutually exclusive and needn't be in competition. Our common wealth, which is embodied by our growing infrastructure and economic mobility, has accumulated over time, largely THANKS to those who set out to build their own private wealth. Nevertheless, that same private wealth is ENABLED and PROTECTED by what we now own in common: roads, schools, communications, the legal system, armed forces, and even health. Enabling and helping government to grow and maintain our commonly owned infrastructure is to everyone's advantage - especially to those who desire and are able to pursue private wealth. Taxes to support infrastructure do not need to be considered a penalty for success. They are a usage fee for the many systems that allow society to function in such a way that private wealth CAN be defined, grown, and protected. For private wealth to turn its back on common wealth is self-destructive in the extreme.
At the same time, an economy that allows an accumulation of capital in the hands of capable individuals and productive institutions - including government itself - moves us forward as a society and makes us better prepared to meet large-scale challenges and trends, such as climate change, disease, or population growth.
At the same time, an economy that allows an accumulation of capital in the hands of capable individuals and productive institutions - including government itself - moves us forward as a society and makes us better prepared to meet large-scale challenges and trends, such as climate change, disease, or population growth.
20
One side publicly adheres to a philosophy that says that "gov't should be starved of funds until it is so small that it can be drowned in the bathtub". As far as I can tell, the other side has no faction of any consequence whatsoever that advocates the abolition of private wealth, property, or enterprise.
Given the observable truth of the foregoing, how can we believe the oft heard nonsensical statement that , "....everyone is right ...and everyone is wrong."?
Given the observable truth of the foregoing, how can we believe the oft heard nonsensical statement that , "....everyone is right ...and everyone is wrong."?
2
Too much money tends to becomes a substitute for thinking at the CEO level these days.
1
Spot on.
Just stop it already. Stop the perceived evil association with organized investment and action for the common good - AKA: Government.
Just stop it already. Stop the perceived evil association with organized investment and action for the common good - AKA: Government.
One has to refer to the field of psychology in order to get a decent list of hypotheses as to why the "reactionaries" think the way they do. Unfortunately, psychology is not a science, but that's probably the closest we'll ever get. This should make the reactionaries more comfortable, by the way, since they hate everything about science unless it bears their zany ideas out. They prefer clinging to their tin-foil hats, bibles, fringe economists, etc. They circle the wagons against the onslaught of the real world. And we keep voting for them. What does that say about us?
21
What do you mean 'we'? Democratic Party candidates for the House got more votes in 2014 than Republicans, but gerrymandering successfully countered that.
The reason the right is so unrelenting, vicious, visceral, and angry is because they are factually, provably wrong on all of the issues Dr. Krugman raises and their leaders know it. Their only hope is to raise the fear level of their constituencies, and hope that the electorate doesn't wake up. Fear is a wonderful elixir for maintaining power. Look at its effects in past history in countries like Germany pre WWII, or America in the pre and post Civil War eras.
So the right demands that we fear gays and immigrants and blacks and the poor and the uninsured, all of whom are, apparently, trying to steal our wealth. They want us to hate government, and trust corporations, because government stomps out our freedom, whereas we all know that corporations only have our best interests at heart? They disparage any reference to man caused global climate change as if environmental science were a plot against humanity and attack those who produce the studies as enemies of the people.
It is about money and power. That is all it is about. Those who hold the money and the power don't want to relinquish any of it for any reason to anyone. And until we find a way to convince voters of their avarice and greed, and manipulations, we are stuck.
So the right demands that we fear gays and immigrants and blacks and the poor and the uninsured, all of whom are, apparently, trying to steal our wealth. They want us to hate government, and trust corporations, because government stomps out our freedom, whereas we all know that corporations only have our best interests at heart? They disparage any reference to man caused global climate change as if environmental science were a plot against humanity and attack those who produce the studies as enemies of the people.
It is about money and power. That is all it is about. Those who hold the money and the power don't want to relinquish any of it for any reason to anyone. And until we find a way to convince voters of their avarice and greed, and manipulations, we are stuck.
59
Don't leave fear of independent women off the list. No threat to their power is more frightening to these reactionaries than the one from within their own little domestic realms.
1
And fear is used as a misdirection in hopes that no one notices that the fear mongers are actually very bad Opera singers. They only know one note,ME ME ME.
1
People on both sides of the political spectrum are being played by the political operatives - no doubt about that.
Hard to discuss our politics at all though, or possible useful legislation, without bringing up the money that is now legally allowed to influence all, shown most spectacularly by Jamie Dimon's getting his way in CRomnibus.
Facts don't matter, neither do parties if they don't dovetail with needs of that .01% who are not generally philanthropic toward the planet, other people or anything cutting into profits. Usually reactionaries.
What are realistic expectations when we're dealing with the degree of inequality that's occurring, abetted by the elite reactionaries and their lobbyists as well as backed by SCOTUS?
It seems a different revolutionary kind of revolution is called for, to upset this applecart that owns the world. No idea what it will be, but I hope better minds are working on it. Truth and morality have to return to their rightful place in power, instead of money. Then maybe facts will again matter.
Facts don't matter, neither do parties if they don't dovetail with needs of that .01% who are not generally philanthropic toward the planet, other people or anything cutting into profits. Usually reactionaries.
What are realistic expectations when we're dealing with the degree of inequality that's occurring, abetted by the elite reactionaries and their lobbyists as well as backed by SCOTUS?
It seems a different revolutionary kind of revolution is called for, to upset this applecart that owns the world. No idea what it will be, but I hope better minds are working on it. Truth and morality have to return to their rightful place in power, instead of money. Then maybe facts will again matter.
30
By the time the Republicans wake up, it may be too late for the rest of us, and for them as well. With the oceans on the verge of collapse and enormous amounts of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere, America cannot afford to be ruled by climate science-deniers who can't absorb obvious environmental facts. One wonders how they get through school and college with these attitudes. And in fact when you look at the backgrounds of many of them: Rove, Bush, Cheney, and so many others of them they've clearly had a big problem with school. And when they're not failing or doing mediocrely at school as in the last batch, they are denouncing the colleges (commentator Roger Kimball Tenured Radicals), re-segregating the schools (the Roberts Court decision banning voluntary state and local efforts to integrate the schools, as the Louisville and Seattle cases show), and adopting racial conservatism to prevent the integration of blacks in the schools (all Republican leaders since Barry Goldwater, the racial Conservative Right). Dr. King, who is rolling over in his grave, would have much to say about it today! Republicans may solve the economic problem through military Keynesianism: stimulating the economy through expenditure on the military and homeland security. Just as long as the people don't see a dime of it, Republicans will be happy. Yet global warming and the extinction of the oceans proceed inexorable beyond the point of no return and hope for the future slips away.
28
In considering this question, I think one should remember the place that religion holds in the lives of many of these people. They already have a strong, powerful, emotional belief in many religious and spiritual mythologies that have no basis in fact or reasoned thought. The leap to climate change denial and the other baseless positions in the public realm is an easy one.
Bertrand Russell said, "What we need is not the will to believe but the will to find out."
Bertrand Russell said, "What we need is not the will to believe but the will to find out."
34
So what about those whose religion motivates them to fight the injustices supported by well-funded government haters?
Virulent hatred and resistance to science in the face of irreducible global warming evidence is no surprise. Just as there are millions of anti-biotic resistant microbes, many humans are immune to the appeal of reason. There are many people who willingly swallow the amalgam of unreason and hatred that they receive in weekly doses as "religion" and use their highly honed skills to deflect the appeal of rationality in any and all of its forms and manifestations. Yet most of the same people would want a medical intervention made on their behalf if, heaven forbid, some crisis should precipitate this need. One can attribute the blame to propaganda spewing from the mouths of Fox News and even our idiotic local Trib, pronounced "Trip" by many Chicagoans, which supports this irrational and fierce resistance.
23
Yes, today's conservative elites are "defenders of traditional hierarchy." To put it another way -- they are class warriors, out to protect the prerogatives of the very wealthy. Today's conservative elites believe that the best society is more or less feudal, with an aristocracy who call the shots, and serfs who do and die as we are told. It really is that simple.
30
Those who reject our government, who advocate for lower taxes for the rich, who want government to de-regulate, who consider government "the problem" offer an alternative: oligarchy. Corporations, wealthy individuals are more efficient, more practical, more representative of their ideals and goals than democracy. They trust corporations more than they trust the collective will of the American people. Fascist-corporatists hate our government and are actively working to use democratic principles to destroy democracy.
The rights of all individuals are not a concern to the fascist-corporatists. Only the rich matter. In fact 47% are considered parasites. Government cannot help the majority according to them. Only the "job creators" can improve the plight of Americans according to Corporate-fascists, that despite the fact that they have failed to create jobs.
It is time for America to recognize and reject fascism, oligarchy, and restore our historical revulsion of aristocracy and provisions to prevent inherited privilege. The vast wealth acquired by the 0.01% must be redistributed to the American people as has been our history.
The rights of all individuals are not a concern to the fascist-corporatists. Only the rich matter. In fact 47% are considered parasites. Government cannot help the majority according to them. Only the "job creators" can improve the plight of Americans according to Corporate-fascists, that despite the fact that they have failed to create jobs.
It is time for America to recognize and reject fascism, oligarchy, and restore our historical revulsion of aristocracy and provisions to prevent inherited privilege. The vast wealth acquired by the 0.01% must be redistributed to the American people as has been our history.
53
All first world governments have conservative parties and opinion makers, but none are quite as contemptuous of evidence and facts as our American brands. The British Conservative party is highly green, for example. In most other nations holding the beliefs of American conservatives would make you an object of public ridicule and humiliation. But here you can build a lucrative career on wilful ignorance.
56
How does one rationalize with a mindset that consistently bases it's worldview on wishful thinking and fantasy?
The majority of conservatives deny global warming and evolution not because they are factually invalid , but because they don't want them to be . So they invent an alternative reality where these empirically supported premises are merely an evil conspiracy threatening to destroy their way of life.
Frankly, I can't imagine a meaningful existence living in conservative denial world. To me it's too much of an intellectual compromise I simply couldn't abide by, but it's peculiarly appealing to an unusually large swath of my fellow Americans.
Once again, I ask. How does one deal with a mindset where rationality, empirical facts and scientific knowledge are viewed with skepticism and hostility?
Good luck with that.
The majority of conservatives deny global warming and evolution not because they are factually invalid , but because they don't want them to be . So they invent an alternative reality where these empirically supported premises are merely an evil conspiracy threatening to destroy their way of life.
Frankly, I can't imagine a meaningful existence living in conservative denial world. To me it's too much of an intellectual compromise I simply couldn't abide by, but it's peculiarly appealing to an unusually large swath of my fellow Americans.
Once again, I ask. How does one deal with a mindset where rationality, empirical facts and scientific knowledge are viewed with skepticism and hostility?
Good luck with that.
31
We are the government. We make collective decisions via elections to create and enforce laws. We pool our money (taxes) to pay for the things we could otherwise not afford unless we were wealthy, e.g. Military, police and fire, drinking water conveyance and treatment, airline safety enforcement etc. If we did not all chip in a little to each if these and hundreds of other services (e.g. Dog catcher), most of us would experience a much more difficult and likely shorter existence.
Every day I am grateful for governemnt. In my town, a fire truck is only 2 minutes away. Safe water comes from the tap. Airplanes do not usually crash. Bridges do not fall down. Unlike my childhood, the air is safe to breath. Why? Because of laws and government enforcement.
No institution is perfect. What we need is a commitment from our elected leaders to improve the function of the very government we count on to ensure that the 99% has access to the same protections that the wealthy can afford. Republican efforts to gut versus improve government, if successful, will result in lower quality of life and shorter lifespans for most Americans.
The Republican desire to slash any government not military or law enforcement denies the conservatives of bipartisan efforts to improving government. Not only is this position bad for most Americans, it denies the reality that government is fundamental to a democracy by providing service otherwise unaffordable to most.
Every day I am grateful for governemnt. In my town, a fire truck is only 2 minutes away. Safe water comes from the tap. Airplanes do not usually crash. Bridges do not fall down. Unlike my childhood, the air is safe to breath. Why? Because of laws and government enforcement.
No institution is perfect. What we need is a commitment from our elected leaders to improve the function of the very government we count on to ensure that the 99% has access to the same protections that the wealthy can afford. Republican efforts to gut versus improve government, if successful, will result in lower quality of life and shorter lifespans for most Americans.
The Republican desire to slash any government not military or law enforcement denies the conservatives of bipartisan efforts to improving government. Not only is this position bad for most Americans, it denies the reality that government is fundamental to a democracy by providing service otherwise unaffordable to most.
52
A lovely utopian view. Unfortunately, there is not a word of truth in it. If we are the Government, when did we authorize the NSA to snoop on every one of our telephone calls? You could make a list a mile long. The only truth is that those in Government by their nature are out for themselves, some are more honest about it than others. So nice that the Clintons were Democrats, now she makes more than $200G per speech and they are multi-millionaires, even without needing Whitewater or HRC's brilliant stock strategy.
I think human caused climate change is probable, but only because most scientists seem to agree - I don't pretend to understand the science, therefore, don't feel I have the right to sternly lecture, let alone issue hackneyed ad hominems, people who might disagree.
Especially because 5 minutes on google should convince anyone that 2014 was not, after all, the warmest year on record.
And there is no question, from an abundance of scientific data on ice cores, fossils, etc that 2014 is absolutely, positively, nowhere near the warmest year ever.
To claim otherwise is to be, well, ignorant of the facts.
Especially because 5 minutes on google should convince anyone that 2014 was not, after all, the warmest year on record.
And there is no question, from an abundance of scientific data on ice cores, fossils, etc that 2014 is absolutely, positively, nowhere near the warmest year ever.
To claim otherwise is to be, well, ignorant of the facts.
5
To have good government you need to have involved citizens. The fact is that we simply do not and this very failure has a most profound effect on our government and its policies.
Voter turnout - abysmal! Gerrymandering - a plague! Candidates and elected officials - become full time fund raising machines! Special interest, PAC, and SuperPAC donations - dominate campaign funding. Quality of candidates - poor!
The above is a sure recipe for hating good government and for having poor quality candidates, which in turn means the poor candidates promote bad government policies that eventually become accepted as the "truth" and "what Americans want and need" all while furthest from the truth.
Sadly, the next two years leading up to the 2016 Presidential election election will be lead by a chorus of candidates who will miss lead, lie, twist the facts, ignore the facts and spew more nonsense all while hating government!
Voter turnout - abysmal! Gerrymandering - a plague! Candidates and elected officials - become full time fund raising machines! Special interest, PAC, and SuperPAC donations - dominate campaign funding. Quality of candidates - poor!
The above is a sure recipe for hating good government and for having poor quality candidates, which in turn means the poor candidates promote bad government policies that eventually become accepted as the "truth" and "what Americans want and need" all while furthest from the truth.
Sadly, the next two years leading up to the 2016 Presidential election election will be lead by a chorus of candidates who will miss lead, lie, twist the facts, ignore the facts and spew more nonsense all while hating government!
24
Maybe the root of the problem lies in the fact that the US constitution needs to be modernized. When the Supreme Court can base its verdict that "corporations are people" on the Constitution, it's high time the Constitution is brought into the 21st century. The US constitution was a state of the art constitution in 1783, but even with 'amendments' it still reflects society as it looked in the 18th century. Especially the voting system is hopelessly out of date. Most modern countries avoid the enormous waste of votes by having proportional representation. Don't look to Britain for comparisons!
No European country is hobbled by a 200-year-old constitution. The present constitution of Denmark, for example, dates from 1953, and has been brought up to date several times since.
No European country is hobbled by a 200-year-old constitution. The present constitution of Denmark, for example, dates from 1953, and has been brought up to date several times since.
18
At the time the Constitution was ratified, nobody with any stature trusted "incorporation," and those who wished to incorporate had to convince the state government that their incorporation would profit the public.
I recall the old adage "We have the best politicians money can buy."
Money corrupts American politics. The Citizens United decision allows for unlimited money in American politics, which will result in unlimited corruption.
Money corrupts American politics. The Citizens United decision allows for unlimited money in American politics, which will result in unlimited corruption.
I agree on all of your political points. I am a liberal and I threw away my 1980's Chicago School Economics degree a long time ago. I also consider myself someone who doesn't deny science.; rather I believe in it more than religion
But global warming? That's where my scientific brain starts to be in conflict. Has the earth warmed over the last 120 years? I believe the answer is yes. The sample size is where I have a problem. Valid weather records have only existed since the late 19th century. Other methods of weather temp are extrapolated from Ice core samples. But they just measure the volume of carbon emissions. That requires a causation argument between carbon emissions and temp
1. Mankind has been living within an ice age
2. The last one - glaciers receding - began about 12,000 years ago
3. All science believes the glaciers will return in the next 20,000 years and bury New York City under a mile of ice; regardless of carbon emissions
4. As someone who has lived along the Gulf of Mexico and travels world-wide; there are no historical changes in coast lines. I can't deny glacial retreat and calving. But it is not adding any significant volume of water in the oceans. Perhaps the skeptic of my thinking would say the ocean volume expansion is being offset by the warming of the water. But I can't find any data to support precipitation increase
Raising any skepticism to GW, is heresy. The opposite of scientific debate. Just the very thing we are supposed to be fighting for.
But global warming? That's where my scientific brain starts to be in conflict. Has the earth warmed over the last 120 years? I believe the answer is yes. The sample size is where I have a problem. Valid weather records have only existed since the late 19th century. Other methods of weather temp are extrapolated from Ice core samples. But they just measure the volume of carbon emissions. That requires a causation argument between carbon emissions and temp
1. Mankind has been living within an ice age
2. The last one - glaciers receding - began about 12,000 years ago
3. All science believes the glaciers will return in the next 20,000 years and bury New York City under a mile of ice; regardless of carbon emissions
4. As someone who has lived along the Gulf of Mexico and travels world-wide; there are no historical changes in coast lines. I can't deny glacial retreat and calving. But it is not adding any significant volume of water in the oceans. Perhaps the skeptic of my thinking would say the ocean volume expansion is being offset by the warming of the water. But I can't find any data to support precipitation increase
Raising any skepticism to GW, is heresy. The opposite of scientific debate. Just the very thing we are supposed to be fighting for.
6
Shouldn't we be concerned about what is likely to happen because of global warming in the next few hundred years rather than what is predicted to happen sometime in the next 20,000 years? I concur with the thousands of scientists who have reached the conclusion that the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to that warming by burning fossil fuels. Based on what I've read, your conclusions are at odds with those of climate-change scientists.
12
As long as the debate is scientific, I really don't think anyone objects. But it isn't a debate based on science. On the coast of Virgina, near where I live, there is flooding caused by sea-level rise and it is causing real harm to real live homeowners whose homes are at risk. It's been reported in the media with photos. So the statement "There are no historical changes in coast lines" simply defies reality and doesn't contribute to a sensible debate on the issue.
11
Apparently you are not aware of the methodical climate records kept in New England and England since the later 18th century. I suggest you go to Google Scholar and download the climate records of Dr. Holyoke, of Salem, MA. He measured temperature and related climatological data twice a day from 1786 to 1829. Other multi-yearoverlapping series of careful climate records were kept in nearby locations in every year since 1800, from the Boston area to the Connecticut and Merrimack Rivers. Alternatively, you could take a look at the "Annotated Bibliography of Meteorological Observations in the United States, 1715-1818" published in 1958 by the US Department of Agriculture.
I've been telling people they are Reactionaries for years.
We learned about Reactionaries in ninth grade, that was 1966.
We learned that Reactionaries are dangerous extremists and a threat to a civil society.
Maybe we need to educate the public about Reactionaries because if we don't know about our enemy we will be sure to lose the war.
We learned about Reactionaries in ninth grade, that was 1966.
We learned that Reactionaries are dangerous extremists and a threat to a civil society.
Maybe we need to educate the public about Reactionaries because if we don't know about our enemy we will be sure to lose the war.
29
Sixty years ago, Richard Hofstadter called them pseudo-conservatives, using a term from Theodor Adorno. Here is the article:
https://theamericanscholar.org/the-pseudo-conservative-revolt/#.VLzodMko7qA
https://theamericanscholar.org/the-pseudo-conservative-revolt/#.VLzodMko7qA
Climate change denial..........benefits the fossil fuel industry and big polluters.
Tax Cuts..............benefits all wealthy individuals and businesses.
Fighting Health reform...............benefits the wealthy insurance and medical people.
You wrote the answer on the wall; serving big money gets big contributions and power in Government.
It's quite simply blatant payola corruption.
Tax Cuts..............benefits all wealthy individuals and businesses.
Fighting Health reform...............benefits the wealthy insurance and medical people.
You wrote the answer on the wall; serving big money gets big contributions and power in Government.
It's quite simply blatant payola corruption.
37
And they all benefit hardcore advocates of laissez-faire, which means let us do as we please.
Fundamentalism, religious, economic, or regarding science, is a human trait which leads people to reject evidence contrary to their fundamental dogma.
17
Exactly, And it is no coincidence that the current of Republican political philosophy has as its source religious fundamentalism. Like the bumper sticker says: "God did it, the Bible says it, that settles it." How is any meaningful dialogue possible with people who refuse to listen to reason?
“They’re red-faced angry, with special rage directed at know-it-alls who snootily point out that the facts don’t support their position”.
It almost makes you believe that the degradation of our schools has been intentional to produce so many people without any critical thinking skills who are incapable of engaging in a genuine argument about the facts. Has it always been this way or are Americans truly getting stupider?
It almost makes you believe that the degradation of our schools has been intentional to produce so many people without any critical thinking skills who are incapable of engaging in a genuine argument about the facts. Has it always been this way or are Americans truly getting stupider?
45
Curious if Krugman gets dizzy bouncing from topic to topic. Let's give it a shot:
1. Environment - Liberals keep pushing this extreme agenda led by billionaires Tom Steyer. But the public isn't buying it. See link below. In the recent Pew survey, Global Warming came in dead last out of 21 issues. For my own 2 cents, I don't think liberals have answered all the questions. And that doesn't mean rejecting science. There's also the cost of "going green". For example, the cost of producing energy from wind is 21% more expensive than nat gas and solar is twice as expensive.
http://climateshiftproject.org/2013/01/24/global-warming-ranks-last-as-a...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
2. States - He may not like it, but States and their citizens have the right to different views on the correct level of taxes and redistribution. In 10 liberal states, for example, welfare recipients can get over $35,000/ yr. That's tax free. Not surprisingly, these States also have the highest tax burdens in the country led by NY and NJ (over 12.4% each and that's without adding City taxes)
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare
1. Environment - Liberals keep pushing this extreme agenda led by billionaires Tom Steyer. But the public isn't buying it. See link below. In the recent Pew survey, Global Warming came in dead last out of 21 issues. For my own 2 cents, I don't think liberals have answered all the questions. And that doesn't mean rejecting science. There's also the cost of "going green". For example, the cost of producing energy from wind is 21% more expensive than nat gas and solar is twice as expensive.
http://climateshiftproject.org/2013/01/24/global-warming-ranks-last-as-a...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
2. States - He may not like it, but States and their citizens have the right to different views on the correct level of taxes and redistribution. In 10 liberal states, for example, welfare recipients can get over $35,000/ yr. That's tax free. Not surprisingly, these States also have the highest tax burdens in the country led by NY and NJ (over 12.4% each and that's without adding City taxes)
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare
9
A perfect example of what Krugman is talking about. Nothing can possibly change the mind of someone who is convinced he is right. Taking apart his claims is pointless even though they are easily refuted.
25
alanbackman: Pew and Cato? You might as well quote Laurel & Hardy.
And unless Steyer has super-human powers, I doubt he has the ability to manipulate the behavior of the mercury in thermometers and fold it in his "conspiracy." The only "extreme" activity concerning efforts to curb climate change is the extreme ignorance among conservatives trying to claim it's not happening.
And unless Steyer has super-human powers, I doubt he has the ability to manipulate the behavior of the mercury in thermometers and fold it in his "conspiracy." The only "extreme" activity concerning efforts to curb climate change is the extreme ignorance among conservatives trying to claim it's not happening.
1
It's always all about taxes isn't it? What you've written is a perfect example of what Dr. Krugman is talking about: In the face of overwhelming evidence supplied by thousands of scientists worldwide, you choose to believe otherwise without presenting any "evidence" to support your position. Your words are those of a true reactionary.
Well one thing is for sure - academic economics is far less of a science than climate science. And yet we allow academics to meddle deeply into an economy, taking credit for the good, and blaming the bad on "capitalism" and corporations.
I wish I could remember who it was that said that "a conclusion is the place where one got tired of thinking."
Dr. Krugman, who's slavish devotion to Keynesian dogma will be ridiculed in more than one future PhD thesis, I promise, loves to conflate the political with the scientific.
Here's the thing - 2014 was not the warmest year on record.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/not-so-hot-2014-was-only-34th...
This doesn't disprove anthropogenic global warming, pardon me, climate change. Nor does the fact that almost all the models from 10 and 15 years ago predicted warming trends that absolutely failed to materialize. The models weren't just off - they were wildly inaccurate.
That doesn't disprove anthropogenic climate change either, but it ought to give pause to people who are ardent social liberals, but armchair scientists, to be a little less fanatical in their devotion to their chosen dogma.
In science, you continually try to prove a hypothesis wrong.
Don't politicize things and declare that there is no room for doubt, or for revision, because all that does is show the point at which you got tired of people disagreeing with you - perhaps even people with a stronger scientific background.
I wish I could remember who it was that said that "a conclusion is the place where one got tired of thinking."
Dr. Krugman, who's slavish devotion to Keynesian dogma will be ridiculed in more than one future PhD thesis, I promise, loves to conflate the political with the scientific.
Here's the thing - 2014 was not the warmest year on record.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/not-so-hot-2014-was-only-34th...
This doesn't disprove anthropogenic global warming, pardon me, climate change. Nor does the fact that almost all the models from 10 and 15 years ago predicted warming trends that absolutely failed to materialize. The models weren't just off - they were wildly inaccurate.
That doesn't disprove anthropogenic climate change either, but it ought to give pause to people who are ardent social liberals, but armchair scientists, to be a little less fanatical in their devotion to their chosen dogma.
In science, you continually try to prove a hypothesis wrong.
Don't politicize things and declare that there is no room for doubt, or for revision, because all that does is show the point at which you got tired of people disagreeing with you - perhaps even people with a stronger scientific background.
6
Reading the article, it was not the warmest for the U.S. but it WAS the warmest for the rest of the world. The unusually cold weather in the east last year affected our figures. It still stands as the warmest year on record for the planet as a whole. This is a perfect example of how two people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.
32
Make a distinction. It's 34th warmest in the States, but globally it's the warmest on record - as the NBC article notes.
Your response proves Krugman's point.
Your response proves Krugman's point.
1
You do not seem to have actually read that NBC News link you gave. 2014 was not the warmest year on record for the USA, which is only 2% of the Earth's surface. Globally it was the warmest year.
1
Prof. Corey is on to it, though his view is hardly original. I too and many writers before me and others have noted that dogmas and ideologies and the bigotry that they inspire support hierarchies of wealth and power and, more generally, that they are the justification, support, and defense of any thing that a group and/or a person holds dear, whether it be wealth, power, the understanding that makes their world comforting, their group and individual identity, indeed so many things that people, as groups and individuals, necessarily construct to serve their most vital interests.
The foregoing is a very human thing that afflicts both the right and left equally, when and wherever the truth or the search for it endangers a philosophy that is psychologically and/or politically essential to protecting their power, wealth, their sense of comprehensible reality, and/or their identity. And so facts, sound epistemology, and proven knowledge are cast aside by everyone, once those thing threaten what is essential to the self. There is no exceptions to this principles for any person or faction.
I just saw a excellent artistic treatment of the foregoing principle in the film "The Name Of The Rose," which is base on Umberto Eco's novel of the same name. I recommend both the novel and the film, where the extremes of right and left clash, and the advocate of reason is nearly destroyed by that clash and is left to wander alone, for truth is simply what it is and is not on anyone's side.
The foregoing is a very human thing that afflicts both the right and left equally, when and wherever the truth or the search for it endangers a philosophy that is psychologically and/or politically essential to protecting their power, wealth, their sense of comprehensible reality, and/or their identity. And so facts, sound epistemology, and proven knowledge are cast aside by everyone, once those thing threaten what is essential to the self. There is no exceptions to this principles for any person or faction.
I just saw a excellent artistic treatment of the foregoing principle in the film "The Name Of The Rose," which is base on Umberto Eco's novel of the same name. I recommend both the novel and the film, where the extremes of right and left clash, and the advocate of reason is nearly destroyed by that clash and is left to wander alone, for truth is simply what it is and is not on anyone's side.
12
The logical conclusion is that it will be in the short run, rather than the long run, that we are all dead.
Although in most European countries political landscapes are very different from the US, the fact denial phenomenon is very recognizable. To me, this is based in large part on individualization and emancipation. The individual is the smallest minority, and feels he should have a say in things. However, what's the use of having that right if you're always told that you have no knowledge of the topic (any topic - and in most cases actually don't have it)? Well, cast a doubt on the facts and science, particularly on the people who bring you these, like scientists and journalists. You "prove" your own position by being selective in your "evidence". This happens in The Netherlands in many areas e.g. vaccination programs, prisoner release criteria, in Germany with the press ("Luegenpresse") etc. Knowledge built up in decades of research is swept away by casting doubts on the integrity of researchers.
Now, Prof. Krugman may think that this is a fact of life and we'll have to live with it and adjust to it, but I think this is an "either/or" choice (being well aware that not everything can be dealt with from a rational perspective only). If we do not strive for knowledge and facts as the basis for our collective decision making, a lot of bad policies will be the result.
Now, Prof. Krugman may think that this is a fact of life and we'll have to live with it and adjust to it, but I think this is an "either/or" choice (being well aware that not everything can be dealt with from a rational perspective only). If we do not strive for knowledge and facts as the basis for our collective decision making, a lot of bad policies will be the result.
9
A hyper-connected world has given us access to not only an abundance of information, but an abundance of attention from and towards others in which we try to influence, or many times bully, into accepting ideas that many believe is their right to have prevail as a form of 'boutique democracy'. Many want it 'their way' and their way alone, as if the world were near empty, instead of a crowded place where the grease of courtesy is needed more than ever. We have an abundance of knowledge, but a paucity of wisdom of how to use it responsibly.
Peel away the surface wrapper of right-wing economic dogma, and you'll see that the "traditional hierarchy" under attack is male dominance -- and in America that should be read as white, male dominance.
The hatred of gvernment that Krugman correctly identifies is based on fear that government will help all those "lesser" folk -- that is, women, people of color, the poor, and in so doing, undermine white, male dominance.
We are hard-wired for male dominance, a survival trait that served us well over millions of yers of evolution, but that is increasingly at odds with modern civilization.
You doubt this thesis? Look only at the intensity of opposition to women's reproductive freedom, or the recent spate of killings by white police officers of young black males.
The threat to white, male dominance by a proactive, socially responsible government, is what provokes the rage and hatred of which Krugman writes.
The hatred of gvernment that Krugman correctly identifies is based on fear that government will help all those "lesser" folk -- that is, women, people of color, the poor, and in so doing, undermine white, male dominance.
We are hard-wired for male dominance, a survival trait that served us well over millions of yers of evolution, but that is increasingly at odds with modern civilization.
You doubt this thesis? Look only at the intensity of opposition to women's reproductive freedom, or the recent spate of killings by white police officers of young black males.
The threat to white, male dominance by a proactive, socially responsible government, is what provokes the rage and hatred of which Krugman writes.
37
It is refreshing to read a defense of white male domination and white male rage as couched in a tradition of white males. The poor, females, brown and black, have an opportunity to recognize that they have an enemy: white reactionary men.
7
So white males are the bad guys. I thought we were interested in equality for all.
By the way what is white? It is not a race nor is it an ethnic affiliation. My ethnic background is predominately Irish yet under the category white I am lumped with the British who perpetuated genocide against the Irish. Google "Great hunger".
What is the difference between blaming problems on people of color and blaming problems on white males?
By the way what is white? It is not a race nor is it an ethnic affiliation. My ethnic background is predominately Irish yet under the category white I am lumped with the British who perpetuated genocide against the Irish. Google "Great hunger".
What is the difference between blaming problems on people of color and blaming problems on white males?
7
The difference is, white males have all the power. Apples and oranges.
What does hate have to do with it? Some people question the efficiency of government programs and compare expenditures to outcomes. Others want more government programs and believe the state can change society for the better. Some see the world as more or less threatening and have disagreements about the use of military force. Some people look at the myriad of factors which influence the environment and find some parts of the equation more or less causation for one or the other or several. Men have struggled at great personal risk through the ages with greater or less success for the right of individuals to argue, to say the state is wrong, to put forth contrary notions. It is disheartening, then, when those who do so are described as irrational or hate filled just because they hold ideas which an individual (in this case Mr. Krugman) finds wrong headed. The idea one side of the political debate has a monopoly on truth is not reason, it is the reflexive argument of the demagogue.
5
"The idea one side of the political debate has a monopoly on truth is not reason, it is the reflexive argument of the demagogue." DTB, I think you just unintentionally, but succinctly made the Professor's point. I see no place in your reply an actual rebuttal to the facts that Professor Krugman points uses to illustrate his point. But as he said, we shouldn't expect facts to make much difference in certain circles.
14
I suggest you step outside the well-mannered, civil forum of the NY Times and see how liberal comment is responded to in other media forums. You will soon understand what Professor Krugman is talking about. The rage is there, and it is real.
But both sides need to work from evidence. When one side chooses to dismiss any and all evidence in favor of shrill propaganda, this has stopped being a rational debate as your elegant post would suggest and has devolved into a shouting match where the loudest voice wins.
Another more simple reason is that whatever liberals (anyone not a conservative) believe, conservatives do not. Fact then do not matter. If anyone I suspect of being a liberal is for it, then I am obligated to be against it or I am not longer conservative.
It should be no surprise that most of these people are also extremely religious as it requires much of the same thought process.
It should be no surprise that most of these people are also extremely religious as it requires much of the same thought process.
18
That applies to both sides. You are obviously one of the Liberals those on the right hate, and by the sound of it rightfully so.
Your a hypocrite, and as see through as your hollow head.
Your a hypocrite, and as see through as your hollow head.
Evidently facts don't matter to Krugman either. He attributes the reduction in growth of healthcare costs to the ACA, but the fall began before the ACA had any effects on the ground. It is attributable largely to the recesssion of 2008 and the aggressive new rules imposed by Medicare that have terrified insurers, hospitals and physicians alike and imposed a huge new administrative burden that has actually reduced permissable hospital admissions.
6
I naively ask----Has anyone confronted these rw phobic, irrational reactionaries with the realistic consequences of reducing their fear of govt regulation and taxes? Wouldn’t they survive quite well even if govt was not vilified, and crippled, but was more a partner? Why do they have this compulsion for total control?
Suppose govt resumed the larger role it had generations ago when the middle class was rising? We didn’t have to wait for trickle down, we were getting the fruits of productivity. Big business accepted higher taxes, regulations, unions, and rising wages/benefits--yet were were profitable.
The rich were rich but also the 90 percent had more security and dignity--and purchasing power to drive the economy.
Now the rich suffer an anxiety disorder, needing reality therapy, to fight a phantom enemy, dragging the country down.
We need to restore perspective. So what if the elites had reduced income, lifestyles, and power, if respect for govt--that's all of us---made a comeback in our politics? They’d be rich but not such excessive, hoggish, hoarding rich, and they could no longer call the tune to our govt. Monopolies could be broken up. The majority could be restored to the dignity
of what was once the world’s most successful middle class.
We need an updated Magna Carta, where our US nobility must share rights and privileges with the masses who would get the benefits from the huge productivity gains, withheld from us for decades.
Suppose govt resumed the larger role it had generations ago when the middle class was rising? We didn’t have to wait for trickle down, we were getting the fruits of productivity. Big business accepted higher taxes, regulations, unions, and rising wages/benefits--yet were were profitable.
The rich were rich but also the 90 percent had more security and dignity--and purchasing power to drive the economy.
Now the rich suffer an anxiety disorder, needing reality therapy, to fight a phantom enemy, dragging the country down.
We need to restore perspective. So what if the elites had reduced income, lifestyles, and power, if respect for govt--that's all of us---made a comeback in our politics? They’d be rich but not such excessive, hoggish, hoarding rich, and they could no longer call the tune to our govt. Monopolies could be broken up. The majority could be restored to the dignity
of what was once the world’s most successful middle class.
We need an updated Magna Carta, where our US nobility must share rights and privileges with the masses who would get the benefits from the huge productivity gains, withheld from us for decades.
22
By signing Grover Norquest's pledge to shrink the size of the government, Republicans became enraged by anything the government did in terms of the public interest.
Norquest and his followers couldn't care less about climate change the economy or reform of our immigration laws. The evidence for this is that when legislation is introduced by the Republican leadership it always contains provisions for eliminating or reducing government funding and regulations.
This is the only way they can shrink the government short of eliminating departments.
Want to do a good shrink? Start and end with defunding the Department of Defense.
Norquest and his followers couldn't care less about climate change the economy or reform of our immigration laws. The evidence for this is that when legislation is introduced by the Republican leadership it always contains provisions for eliminating or reducing government funding and regulations.
This is the only way they can shrink the government short of eliminating departments.
Want to do a good shrink? Start and end with defunding the Department of Defense.
14
Remember the vice-presidential debate in which Sarah Palin said there's nothing patriotic about paying taxes to fund wars you approve of? That was a weirdly hilarious moment of truth.
The republican world is a faith based world, facts and data are not allowed to intrude except when picking cherries. The Moral Majority though now in the past has taught republicans that the world is less than 10,000 years old and is in a steady state. Men and Tyrannosaurus rex shared the planet just a few thousand years ago. Now here is the interesting part and why today's editorial though interesting is a waste of ink and in this case bits. You cannot alter faith based conclusions with data and facts. In fact the more evidence you present to those of faith the more they dig in.
Right wingers in Houston for example will still deny the earth is warming even as they stand neck deep in the Gulf of Mexico with their feet firmly planted on the corner of Wentworth and Main.
Right wingers in Houston for example will still deny the earth is warming even as they stand neck deep in the Gulf of Mexico with their feet firmly planted on the corner of Wentworth and Main.
27
And this is why all religion is evil--its purpose since the beginning is to keep the ordinary man ignorant and compliant. And most Americans nowdays really enjoy being ignorant--it's so much easier than learning to think. And that is exactly how the power structure wants it.
Quite simply, there are too many examples of bad governance, and when it becomes obvious that a given policy is bad, it is difficult to get it removed.
An example: mandated corn ethanol as a fuel additive. After a few short years, it was obvious this was bad policy, it was bad for the environment, it was bad for car engines, it was bad for taxpayers. It was also bad for consumers of food, who faced higher prices as more acreage was devoted to growing corn for ethanol production and other food products were taken out of production. And yet, an obviously bad policy has persisted for years.
As an economist, you are also well aware of many other policy issues in which large majorities of economists agree: for example, eliminating tariffs and taxes on imports and encouraging free trade. Most professional economists are on board, but government is way behind the curve.
So, as soon as the government gts on board and does a better job, maybe we won't hate it as much...
An example: mandated corn ethanol as a fuel additive. After a few short years, it was obvious this was bad policy, it was bad for the environment, it was bad for car engines, it was bad for taxpayers. It was also bad for consumers of food, who faced higher prices as more acreage was devoted to growing corn for ethanol production and other food products were taken out of production. And yet, an obviously bad policy has persisted for years.
As an economist, you are also well aware of many other policy issues in which large majorities of economists agree: for example, eliminating tariffs and taxes on imports and encouraging free trade. Most professional economists are on board, but government is way behind the curve.
So, as soon as the government gts on board and does a better job, maybe we won't hate it as much...
4
Yes, and who are the biggest backers of these subsidies? Farm-state reactionary Republicans. And you'll find this basic pattern on about a half-dozen other policies; farm-state reactionaries, Wall Street reactionaries, weapons contractor reactionaries, fossil fuel reactionaries, trust fund reactionaries, moral values reactionaries, all in an unholy alliance for keeping what they've got at everyone else's expense. They own the Republican Party to the point that it would be delisted from the stock market were it a company, and they've got enough of a toehold in the Democratic Party to blunt its effectiveness and force voters to pick very carefully at primary time. It's all OK with the reactionaries if they get to use government as their personal piggy bank or tool of repression; what they hate is sharing government in a way that boosts the overall economy and helps everyone.
Actual honest-to-goodness, non reactionary, conservatives have a particularly tough choice to make; they need to learn how not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Blind anti-government sentiment merely plays into the reactionaries' hands, letting them control it for their own purposes.
Actual honest-to-goodness, non reactionary, conservatives have a particularly tough choice to make; they need to learn how not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Blind anti-government sentiment merely plays into the reactionaries' hands, letting them control it for their own purposes.
48
Dear Krugman,
If I may be allowed to so gently point out a more logical explanation for Hatred and Skepticism toward government using actually events and facts, rather than some half-baked traditionalist ad-hominem argument which is waffle-y at best.
Over the course of the 21st Century the Government both Dems. And Reps. have been party to some of the most astounding and head-throbbing blunders known to modern governance. Here is a list including blunders across both isles.
Bail Outs/ To Big to Fail
The Iraq War
Obama's Drone War
The signing of the NDAA
The patriot act
The IRS scandal
The VA scandal
Funding and giving arms to Radical groups in the middle east which contributed to the formation of ISIS (Do some research, they have our guns)
The Militarization of Police
The Prison industrial complex
The Military Industrial complex
I could literally go on and on. You see Mr. Krugman, people don't hate government because they want to live in some fantasy traditionalist world, they hate it because its a constant and utter failure. They hate it, because they waste our money purely to grow their own budgets. They hate it, because it is corrupt down to the very core. They hate it, because career politicians only care about money, and behind closed doors democrats and republicans are living like fat-cats eating dinner together laughing at us all the way to the bank. Open up your eyes, the rest of America is starting too.
Good day sir!
If I may be allowed to so gently point out a more logical explanation for Hatred and Skepticism toward government using actually events and facts, rather than some half-baked traditionalist ad-hominem argument which is waffle-y at best.
Over the course of the 21st Century the Government both Dems. And Reps. have been party to some of the most astounding and head-throbbing blunders known to modern governance. Here is a list including blunders across both isles.
Bail Outs/ To Big to Fail
The Iraq War
Obama's Drone War
The signing of the NDAA
The patriot act
The IRS scandal
The VA scandal
Funding and giving arms to Radical groups in the middle east which contributed to the formation of ISIS (Do some research, they have our guns)
The Militarization of Police
The Prison industrial complex
The Military Industrial complex
I could literally go on and on. You see Mr. Krugman, people don't hate government because they want to live in some fantasy traditionalist world, they hate it because its a constant and utter failure. They hate it, because they waste our money purely to grow their own budgets. They hate it, because it is corrupt down to the very core. They hate it, because career politicians only care about money, and behind closed doors democrats and republicans are living like fat-cats eating dinner together laughing at us all the way to the bank. Open up your eyes, the rest of America is starting too.
Good day sir!
13
The IRS scandal turned out to be not a scandal at all; it was sheer misdirection by interested parties.
The militarization of police and the prison industrial complex are largely products of the kind of small (state, local) government initiatives and legislation loved by Republicans as well as cultural factors (lax gun laws, double standards in applying drug laws according to race and economic class) not Federal policy.
One foreign policy, I agree, we'd be better served by less government and we shouldn't be where we are in the world. Civil rights have been slowly encroached upon as a direct result of our foreign policy adventures. But foreign policy is also an area where both Rs and Ds work together in bipartisan comity, for the most part, and is highly unlikely to change.
The militarization of police and the prison industrial complex are largely products of the kind of small (state, local) government initiatives and legislation loved by Republicans as well as cultural factors (lax gun laws, double standards in applying drug laws according to race and economic class) not Federal policy.
One foreign policy, I agree, we'd be better served by less government and we shouldn't be where we are in the world. Civil rights have been slowly encroached upon as a direct result of our foreign policy adventures. But foreign policy is also an area where both Rs and Ds work together in bipartisan comity, for the most part, and is highly unlikely to change.
20
And yet the list of positive results from government programs is too long to list here,so your solution is to cripple the ability of the government to function because of a few percieved wrongs? Every situation in life has positives and negatives, and there are very few absolutes. The country that conservatives so vociferously claim is the greatest on earth is largely a product of our governmental policies and institutions. Get over it and help us make things better for the benefit of all citizens, not just those who are already well off.
16
The national highway system? Yep, constant and utter failure. No one uses that white elephant.
The Clean Air Act? Complete constant and utter failure. We would all be so much better off if that commons were fully exploited for short term gain even if we all die as a result.
Jack: I gotta thank you for proving Paul's point: Hatred of government comes from the loony wacky reactionary fringe.
The Clean Air Act? Complete constant and utter failure. We would all be so much better off if that commons were fully exploited for short term gain even if we all die as a result.
Jack: I gotta thank you for proving Paul's point: Hatred of government comes from the loony wacky reactionary fringe.
The unfortunate reality is that the right simply is not influenced by data. If they were, nobody would ever vote Republican- http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php
Republicans got incredibly excited about various predictions about the ACA, for example, and when they all turned out to be false, they didn't pause for a second. A huge swath of Republicans believed passionately that Benghazi was the scandal to end all scandals, but when their own Representatives finally admitted that they had nothing, I doubt even one Republican thought through how they had gone so wrong on the issue. Economic data is the clearest, and on that front, as the link above shows, Democrats consistently don't just beat Republicans, but they totally obliterate them, yet practically no Republicans absorb that fact. This is the difference between ideologues and empiricists and, to say the least, it is alarming how far from reality the ideologues are willing to travel.
Republicans got incredibly excited about various predictions about the ACA, for example, and when they all turned out to be false, they didn't pause for a second. A huge swath of Republicans believed passionately that Benghazi was the scandal to end all scandals, but when their own Representatives finally admitted that they had nothing, I doubt even one Republican thought through how they had gone so wrong on the issue. Economic data is the clearest, and on that front, as the link above shows, Democrats consistently don't just beat Republicans, but they totally obliterate them, yet practically no Republicans absorb that fact. This is the difference between ideologues and empiricists and, to say the least, it is alarming how far from reality the ideologues are willing to travel.
26
It's wonderfully liberating to not be tied down by pesky facts. Opens up the entire playbook!
Hell, they still believe in Death Panels!
This is all about power and prerogative, and the self-styled conservatives, reactionaries if you will, are really talking about the power of unaccountable money. This means the ways in which money is accumulated, and of course, how it is spent. In their lexicon, money equals power: political, economic, social, it doesn't matter. It is a form of totalitarianism grounded on the power that economic wealth can dictate, whether through outright purchase, intimidation, bribery, or co-opting others through envy and greed.
What is missing from the equation is a sense of legitimacy regarding the manner in which such enormous wealth is acquired, held, and dispensed. Political power is wealth's handmaiden. The two are inseparable, but given the choice between having political power without wealth, and having wealth with diminished political power, wealth is the easy favorite. Political power must be earned and re-earned in ways that wealth rarely has to face.
The disdain that the wealthy exhibit towards political power, i.e., governance, is only in proportion to government's ability to rein in the appetites of the wealthy for riches, and anything that money can buy. We've done that before, and we can do it again, but it takes a strong will to put the public interest first and to treat our politics as something more than a fungible commodity. We instinctively know when political power and economic advantage are used legitimately, and when they are not. People vote, money does not.
What is missing from the equation is a sense of legitimacy regarding the manner in which such enormous wealth is acquired, held, and dispensed. Political power is wealth's handmaiden. The two are inseparable, but given the choice between having political power without wealth, and having wealth with diminished political power, wealth is the easy favorite. Political power must be earned and re-earned in ways that wealth rarely has to face.
The disdain that the wealthy exhibit towards political power, i.e., governance, is only in proportion to government's ability to rein in the appetites of the wealthy for riches, and anything that money can buy. We've done that before, and we can do it again, but it takes a strong will to put the public interest first and to treat our politics as something more than a fungible commodity. We instinctively know when political power and economic advantage are used legitimately, and when they are not. People vote, money does not.
23
All people do this, the most famous case being the bishops not seeing the moons through Galileo's telescope. It is called confirmation bias, meaning that incoming information is evaluated, that which supports our existing belief is highlighted, that which conflicts is discounted.
Don't underestimate the Dunning-Kruger effect in the climate debate. People who know very little about something think they are experts.
The real problem is that the human mind is not constructed change in response to new information. It is constructed to seek pleasure, think well of itself, and seek tribal approval. For politics to work well would require a very different brain structure, and we wouldn't be humans. Humanity is in our prejudice, our hostility, our errors of thought, our emotions. Without all the screwups, we would be ants, or bees, or computers.
Who would watch a movie or tv show where everybody got along and everything went well.
Don't underestimate the Dunning-Kruger effect in the climate debate. People who know very little about something think they are experts.
The real problem is that the human mind is not constructed change in response to new information. It is constructed to seek pleasure, think well of itself, and seek tribal approval. For politics to work well would require a very different brain structure, and we wouldn't be humans. Humanity is in our prejudice, our hostility, our errors of thought, our emotions. Without all the screwups, we would be ants, or bees, or computers.
Who would watch a movie or tv show where everybody got along and everything went well.
19
Jim, your remarks are highly intelligent and to the point.
However, if that's all there is to the human mind - infinite stupidity, to quote Einstein - it follows that both the human race and our wonderful planet are irrevocably doomed. And, at the present rate, it won't be long till the train runs over the edge of the precipice.
I'm an old man, old enough to remember WW2 and what it was like to be bombed. I was in London on the evening when the first V1 rockets fell. But I don't recall a time when madness was as rife as now - it's everywhere, and worse with every passing day - or when politicians were, at best, so inadequate. (Inadequate, because politics, politicians, the State and the citizen have all become subordinate to corporate power, Big Money and short-sighted greed.)
One colossal problem has to do with blind faith - and not just blind faith in this religion or that, but blind belief in values that are totally incompatible, like God and Mammon. That way lies madness. Schizophrenia...
Man is endowed with other capacities of mind and spirit. His intelligence does not HAVE to be at the exclusive service of ignorance, greed and stupidity. We don't HAVE to be governed by the rags and tatters of outworn philosophies. But there's precious little room for wisdom or simple human kindness in our current outlook, and unless those qualities can be returned to their proper place, there's not a hope in hell for posterity.
However, if that's all there is to the human mind - infinite stupidity, to quote Einstein - it follows that both the human race and our wonderful planet are irrevocably doomed. And, at the present rate, it won't be long till the train runs over the edge of the precipice.
I'm an old man, old enough to remember WW2 and what it was like to be bombed. I was in London on the evening when the first V1 rockets fell. But I don't recall a time when madness was as rife as now - it's everywhere, and worse with every passing day - or when politicians were, at best, so inadequate. (Inadequate, because politics, politicians, the State and the citizen have all become subordinate to corporate power, Big Money and short-sighted greed.)
One colossal problem has to do with blind faith - and not just blind faith in this religion or that, but blind belief in values that are totally incompatible, like God and Mammon. That way lies madness. Schizophrenia...
Man is endowed with other capacities of mind and spirit. His intelligence does not HAVE to be at the exclusive service of ignorance, greed and stupidity. We don't HAVE to be governed by the rags and tatters of outworn philosophies. But there's precious little room for wisdom or simple human kindness in our current outlook, and unless those qualities can be returned to their proper place, there's not a hope in hell for posterity.
1
That's why we have movies and entertainment. Doesn't mean it has to be that way in the real world. But I agree with most of what you say.
I think there's another possible answer, even though I don't necessarily favour it except at my most cynical: that is, the division of R and D serves a tiny elite. As long as the public is focussed on the R vs. D wars, it won't focus its attention on the people behind the curtain as we head into the sixth extinction.
Unless we're the movie for the universal consciousness or something like that, the way nature gets to see itself is by divvying up it's consciousness into little meat robots that try to figure why we're here.
I think there's another possible answer, even though I don't necessarily favour it except at my most cynical: that is, the division of R and D serves a tiny elite. As long as the public is focussed on the R vs. D wars, it won't focus its attention on the people behind the curtain as we head into the sixth extinction.
Unless we're the movie for the universal consciousness or something like that, the way nature gets to see itself is by divvying up it's consciousness into little meat robots that try to figure why we're here.
I'm a bit surprised that Professor Krugman does not identify the reason that the anti-government ideology has taken off and continues to be supported by the majority of rich people in the US and across the globe: it benefits the plutocracy, the wealthiest people, the billionaires!
When you weaken government and pit people against each other, remove barriers and regulations preventing abuse and rapaciousness, and so on, you see both the kind of wealth creation for the rich and powerful we're witnessing today, and, as tends to happen, spectacular national and global crashes as we saw in 1929-1930 and 2007-8.
This provides no answer to why people who are deeply harmed by the policies outright and by their effects support those who push for and enact these policies, but wealthy elites are sure working pretty hard to ensure they retain power, whether they have to rely on billions of dollars in "speech" to influence votes, spying and police forces to crush dissidents, or rigging the game, even if there's a collapse and mass suffering, as we saw with the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the deregulation of banks and the horrific crash the global financial system experienced as a result. And guess who ended up with even more money and more power?
Does anyone stick up for the 99% consistently?
When you weaken government and pit people against each other, remove barriers and regulations preventing abuse and rapaciousness, and so on, you see both the kind of wealth creation for the rich and powerful we're witnessing today, and, as tends to happen, spectacular national and global crashes as we saw in 1929-1930 and 2007-8.
This provides no answer to why people who are deeply harmed by the policies outright and by their effects support those who push for and enact these policies, but wealthy elites are sure working pretty hard to ensure they retain power, whether they have to rely on billions of dollars in "speech" to influence votes, spying and police forces to crush dissidents, or rigging the game, even if there's a collapse and mass suffering, as we saw with the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the deregulation of banks and the horrific crash the global financial system experienced as a result. And guess who ended up with even more money and more power?
Does anyone stick up for the 99% consistently?
48
I guess those of us who make up the 99% are going to have to stick up for ourselves. The rapacious 1 percenters are clearly vastly outnumbered. The 1 percent really must rely on our continued cooperation, such as continuing to supply the revenue streams to keep their 1000 + trillion dollar derivative black hole inflated, which is parked over the global economy and sucking all the vitality out global commerce. Suppose those revenue streams start to dry up? We got a pretty good idea of what would happen in 2008 when massive subprime mortgage defaults flayed the economy. The big banks had to be bailed out. The crash is coming. Bail outs may not be possible this time around.
You have an astounding misunderstanding of how corruption works and how wealthy people benefit from government. The truth is actually the direct opposite. The wealthiest individuals and organizations get MORE control and power as the government grows. Have you been living under a rock? The bailouts...helloo who got bailed out? The wealthy, why? because big government decided it was good to give your money to them. And that is just off the top of my head...
Its interesting to be able to be an independent and view the pure idiocy and hypocrisy liberals and conservatives throw at each other, while the wealthy run off with all their money because they are too stupid to see its all a game to distract you from whats really taking place.
Its interesting to be able to be an independent and view the pure idiocy and hypocrisy liberals and conservatives throw at each other, while the wealthy run off with all their money because they are too stupid to see its all a game to distract you from whats really taking place.
Does anyone stick up for the 99% consistently? No.
Of course none of this has to do with climate change, economics, or any form of accepted science. I don't believe for a second that republican leaders, many of whom are highly educated and know exactly what is going on, actually buy the lies that they're spreading. In the end, it's all about protecting the rents of the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
I think that Gov. Brownback's response to his state's self-inflicted fiscal crisis is telling. He now admits that the state has a revenue problem. Good for him. But rather than increase income taxes, which would take money out of the pockets of the wealthy, he has instead doubled down on eliminating income taxes and instead is pushing to raise revenues through higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. That seems politically salient, as everyone can agree that people should smoke and drink less. But who precisely is most impacted by these "sin taxes"? The poor of course! So once again, the Republicans get to stick to their ideological guns, promising that the tax cut fairy will generate magical economic growth, when in reality the poor once again are asked to pay for a government that provides them with less and less services while subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich.
I think that Gov. Brownback's response to his state's self-inflicted fiscal crisis is telling. He now admits that the state has a revenue problem. Good for him. But rather than increase income taxes, which would take money out of the pockets of the wealthy, he has instead doubled down on eliminating income taxes and instead is pushing to raise revenues through higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. That seems politically salient, as everyone can agree that people should smoke and drink less. But who precisely is most impacted by these "sin taxes"? The poor of course! So once again, the Republicans get to stick to their ideological guns, promising that the tax cut fairy will generate magical economic growth, when in reality the poor once again are asked to pay for a government that provides them with less and less services while subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich.
72
The rage exists because right wing think tanks have worked very hard to make people enraged. Rage is what drives politics. Rage is what wins converts, and creates true believers. It's also what pumps up ratings for radio talk shows, political TV, and newspapers editorials. The rage comes from a barrage of antidotes and half-truths that go from think tank to talk show to conservative. For example, conservatives are told that health care will diminish their health care by making it hard to find a doctor, that it takes money from Medicare, that it prevents the economy from recovering, that it converts full-time jobs into part-time jobs, that the government will make medical decisions instead of your doctor. For poverty, they're told that poor people in 2015 live better than the middle class of 1970 because they are more likely to have an air conditioner and a freezer, and that food is much cheaper, that people can't be overweight and poor, that their poverty is caused by laziness and moral decay. Liberals can't debate this effectively because they tune it out, ignore it, and usually can't respond to it. Liberals have their own set of issues their angry about (the 1%). So the arguments liberals hear don't overlap with the propaganda that conservatives swim in, and there really is no debate. Liberals need to engage more with what the right is lying about, and they must not only debate conservatives, but deprogram them by destroying the credibility of the right and their factoids.
34
" Whether this is the right explanation or not, the fact is that we’re living in a political era in which facts don’t matter."
Perhaps the statement above is true for the US. All over the world, societies are changing rapidly but policy makers can still distinguish good from bad economic policies. Otherwise pay the price delivered by financial markets.
Nowadays, financial markets deliver swift penalties to bad economic policies and reward good ones. Take the case of the eurozone and the current fiscal adjustment programs under way in Greece, Portugal and Spain.
Brazil is another case study of a president guided by bad economic ideas facing an economic reality check. Recently re elected president Dilma Rousseff is changing course and emending economic policy mistakes made in her first administration.
Despite her own brand of ideology -- similar to Cristina Kirchner in Argentina and Maduro in Venezuela -- reality and good sense have prevailed and change is under way.
It remains to be seen, however, whether Ms. Rousseff will persist with sound economic policy (contrary to her own beliefs) or regress to old misguided ideas of economic development of last century. Ideas, that incidentally, have led to serious macroeconomic imbalances and ineffective sectoral policies, particularly in the areas of energy and industry.
Perhaps the statement above is true for the US. All over the world, societies are changing rapidly but policy makers can still distinguish good from bad economic policies. Otherwise pay the price delivered by financial markets.
Nowadays, financial markets deliver swift penalties to bad economic policies and reward good ones. Take the case of the eurozone and the current fiscal adjustment programs under way in Greece, Portugal and Spain.
Brazil is another case study of a president guided by bad economic ideas facing an economic reality check. Recently re elected president Dilma Rousseff is changing course and emending economic policy mistakes made in her first administration.
Despite her own brand of ideology -- similar to Cristina Kirchner in Argentina and Maduro in Venezuela -- reality and good sense have prevailed and change is under way.
It remains to be seen, however, whether Ms. Rousseff will persist with sound economic policy (contrary to her own beliefs) or regress to old misguided ideas of economic development of last century. Ideas, that incidentally, have led to serious macroeconomic imbalances and ineffective sectoral policies, particularly in the areas of energy and industry.
4
It's very easy to do as Krugman and many commenters do- blame. It is easy to blame the Republicans for thwarting Obama's agenda, it is easy to blame others. The truth is people can always do more to promote their own position rather than blaming others for failures.
It is not that I disagree with climate change, or the ACA, and so on... it just that people are not making their case well enough. If you want to make the case for climate change and how our species is affecting things negatively, make a better case, keep making a better case, make it more understandable to more people- don't suffer the arrogance of expecting everyone to understand what you do.
Yes, there are bunch of chumps out there, all lot of them under the banner of the Republican party, but this just means you have to work harder. Create a message, and re-craft the message so it speaks to those who would otherwise be influenced by these chumps. Speak to their grass-roots and cause them to ask questions of those who they would elect.
In essence, what I am saying is blame is a very negative vehicle to deliver a message, it needs a more positive, not spin, but telling. Deliver the facts, make it more understandable to the audience, and keep doing the same.
Blame is easy, but real change is not easy. It took time, but even Catholicism now admits that the Earth is an orb.
It is not that I disagree with climate change, or the ACA, and so on... it just that people are not making their case well enough. If you want to make the case for climate change and how our species is affecting things negatively, make a better case, keep making a better case, make it more understandable to more people- don't suffer the arrogance of expecting everyone to understand what you do.
Yes, there are bunch of chumps out there, all lot of them under the banner of the Republican party, but this just means you have to work harder. Create a message, and re-craft the message so it speaks to those who would otherwise be influenced by these chumps. Speak to their grass-roots and cause them to ask questions of those who they would elect.
In essence, what I am saying is blame is a very negative vehicle to deliver a message, it needs a more positive, not spin, but telling. Deliver the facts, make it more understandable to the audience, and keep doing the same.
Blame is easy, but real change is not easy. It took time, but even Catholicism now admits that the Earth is an orb.
8
That reason and logic can lead a group to do anything and say anything to refute, negate, minimalize the impact of carbon release is not surprising. Consider that it is entirely rational and logical for those who own fossil fuel, to do anything they can to preserve the value of their property. When you talk about trillions of dollars of resource wealth, considerations of morality and common good just get in the way. Or so it seems when I follow the "debate".
12
The traditional hierarchy includes some parts of government, including the military and any policies that subsidize the wealthy or industry in general or enable private fortunes to be built. Conservatives see government as a dispenser of favors to interest groups, and if favors must be distributed then they should go to the right sort of people. But they claim to want small government that cannot distribute favors, so they are ignoring or excusing the favors they get.
Many of them also dislike and mistrust at least some large private enterprises. They deny that such enterprises need to be regulated by anything other than the market itself, and claim that misbehaviors are caused by government intervention in the market that stops the market from fixing its problems.
The hatred of government in the public interest is justified by a faith that the free market will solve all problems. It is a very American cry of rage and frustration with the external world that limits our freedom to do what we want with our property. But it has been expertly manipulated by the oligarchy, which sees arguing about the problem as a war of advertising and marketing in which truth is defined as effective marketing. And they have been very effective.
In reality our problems are technical and scientific, but much of the public sees them as a battle of values and lifestyles in which the other side are expert hucksters. Their beliefs have the rationality of simple ideology or faith
Many of them also dislike and mistrust at least some large private enterprises. They deny that such enterprises need to be regulated by anything other than the market itself, and claim that misbehaviors are caused by government intervention in the market that stops the market from fixing its problems.
The hatred of government in the public interest is justified by a faith that the free market will solve all problems. It is a very American cry of rage and frustration with the external world that limits our freedom to do what we want with our property. But it has been expertly manipulated by the oligarchy, which sees arguing about the problem as a war of advertising and marketing in which truth is defined as effective marketing. And they have been very effective.
In reality our problems are technical and scientific, but much of the public sees them as a battle of values and lifestyles in which the other side are expert hucksters. Their beliefs have the rationality of simple ideology or faith
10
Another article just published here states that an Oxfam study concluded that the top 1 percent of wealthy people will own half the global wealth by 2016.
Now I know why the Republican political plants object to printing money.
Therein lies the solution to world inequality; Print lots of dollars and hand them out to the lower portion of the population so it devalues the wealthy's wealth and helps the poor.
How I wish we could!
Now I know why the Republican political plants object to printing money.
Therein lies the solution to world inequality; Print lots of dollars and hand them out to the lower portion of the population so it devalues the wealthy's wealth and helps the poor.
How I wish we could!
12
Some basic human habits of mind could be one reason for the denial and anger. We concoct stories to explain the world, then believe them and hold fast to them. Emotion often trumps reason.
Information and stories that conflict with our cherished beliefs cause cognitive dissonance, which is uncomfortable. We dislike discomfort. We tend to reject anything that conflicts with our beliefs as false, which rewards us with cognitive ease. We tend to unquestioningly accept anything that's consistent with our beliefs as true.
Republicans have Democrats beat hands down when it comes to strategically manipulating minds and emotions. They hire gurus like Frank Luntz to select their words, frame their talking points, spin their stories, and test them for emotional impact. They understand basic human habits of mind.
Democrats like to trot out facts and statistics, thinking that evidence will cause people to change their minds. All too often, the opposite happens, when evidence contrary to a person's beliefs causes them to become even more extreme in their views.
It's possible that information and ideas that threaten one's cherished notions may activate the same brain areas that are activated by being physically threatened by another person, hence the rage response and the urge to strike out or strike back. Instinctive responses that served our ancestors well in their circumstances are maladaptive in dealing with threats like global climate change.
Information and stories that conflict with our cherished beliefs cause cognitive dissonance, which is uncomfortable. We dislike discomfort. We tend to reject anything that conflicts with our beliefs as false, which rewards us with cognitive ease. We tend to unquestioningly accept anything that's consistent with our beliefs as true.
Republicans have Democrats beat hands down when it comes to strategically manipulating minds and emotions. They hire gurus like Frank Luntz to select their words, frame their talking points, spin their stories, and test them for emotional impact. They understand basic human habits of mind.
Democrats like to trot out facts and statistics, thinking that evidence will cause people to change their minds. All too often, the opposite happens, when evidence contrary to a person's beliefs causes them to become even more extreme in their views.
It's possible that information and ideas that threaten one's cherished notions may activate the same brain areas that are activated by being physically threatened by another person, hence the rage response and the urge to strike out or strike back. Instinctive responses that served our ancestors well in their circumstances are maladaptive in dealing with threats like global climate change.
15
Regarding this hatred about which Dr. Krugman writes today:
" Well, the political scientist Corey Robin argues that most self-proclaimed conservatives are actually reactionaries. That is, they’re defenders of traditional hierarchy — the kind of hierarchy that is threatened by any expansion of government, ..." Not necessarily.
The problem is: government has been catering to the interests of the wrong kinds of business. They were unable to stop the creation of vast new industries, like big oil (late 19th Century), that began dominating, leading to demise of a once agrarian society. It was called progress.
With people buying into products of, and jobs created, by the new monopolies, it's been a curse upon America ... even as it helped create some things of benefit ... like in health care, new inventions, which can enrich peoples' lives.
Sadly, attempts to 'equalize outcomes' have turned America into a nation unable to meet its own needs. Then when that led to economic crisis (2008), the exact wrong 'solutions' were applied: expanding government, and borrowing money, in effect, to take over whole industries.
This process amounts to, but isn't so overt as, nationalizing the main industries. But it is pure socialism. It means people's attempts at being business people is subverted. Pres. Obama had said something like how people can't anymore, do much by themselves. And then the foxes get into the hen houses: there are revolving doors & 'crony capitalism'.
" Well, the political scientist Corey Robin argues that most self-proclaimed conservatives are actually reactionaries. That is, they’re defenders of traditional hierarchy — the kind of hierarchy that is threatened by any expansion of government, ..." Not necessarily.
The problem is: government has been catering to the interests of the wrong kinds of business. They were unable to stop the creation of vast new industries, like big oil (late 19th Century), that began dominating, leading to demise of a once agrarian society. It was called progress.
With people buying into products of, and jobs created, by the new monopolies, it's been a curse upon America ... even as it helped create some things of benefit ... like in health care, new inventions, which can enrich peoples' lives.
Sadly, attempts to 'equalize outcomes' have turned America into a nation unable to meet its own needs. Then when that led to economic crisis (2008), the exact wrong 'solutions' were applied: expanding government, and borrowing money, in effect, to take over whole industries.
This process amounts to, but isn't so overt as, nationalizing the main industries. But it is pure socialism. It means people's attempts at being business people is subverted. Pres. Obama had said something like how people can't anymore, do much by themselves. And then the foxes get into the hen houses: there are revolving doors & 'crony capitalism'.
1
"It’s now official: 2014 was the warmest year on record."
By an amount so much smaller than than the margin of error that only an East Anglia apologist would cite it. And, by the way, that assertion is refuted by satellite measurements which are considerably more accurate.
Once again, the Chicken Littles of the Left are trying to cook the data and suppress results that don't confirm their propaganda.
By an amount so much smaller than than the margin of error that only an East Anglia apologist would cite it. And, by the way, that assertion is refuted by satellite measurements which are considerably more accurate.
Once again, the Chicken Littles of the Left are trying to cook the data and suppress results that don't confirm their propaganda.
2
Me thinks the first three commenters here protest too much. Are the Conservatives now running a scam of belittling Paul Krugman's often accurate observations? It seems that Republicans run on deception, untruth, and just outright lies to keep the their worn out, unjust, ludicrous agenda front and center. Witness the remarks of those lining up for the presidency. Please spare us from two more years of nothingism in the name of the people. Please, please, conservatives come up with someone who actually cares about the American people enough to improve education, healthcare, social security and retirement.
19
When the last glacier has melted, and Greenland is bare of any ice sheet, and the great cities of the world are inundated, and a good part of the world is rendered uninhabitable, and food riots have toppled governments, I have no doubt that you and others just like you will be crowing about how climate change is a farcical hoax.
And the frogs on the right are doing the backstroke as the pot continues to warm.
"I call it lying to refuse to see what one sees, or to refuse to see it as it is: whether the lie be uttered before witnesses, or not before witnesses, is of no consequence. The most common sort of lie is that by which a man deceives himself: the deception of others is a relatively rare offence. Now, this "will," not to see what one sees, this "will" not to see it as it is, is almost the first requisite for all who belong to a party of whatever sort: the party man becomes inevitably a liar."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Modern Conservatism if full of lying, lying as not talking about what has happened, or lying by talking about something that never has happened, whether that's pretending there is no global warming or pretending that supply side economics works.
More inisidious is that the entire Republican Party is in the process of selecting a candidate to contend for the presidency in 2 years and a requisite for holding that seat of power is to be the king of liars in the Republican Party.
Even more scary? Betting that a majority of Americans will favor that king of liars over anyone who believes otherwise.
That's where America is now.
Reasonable people may laugh when they hear the following about FOX News:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/uks-cameron-calls-fox-pundit-com...
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-apologizes-for-labeling-parts-of...
But sadly, most Republican candidates aren't put into office by reasonable people.
.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Modern Conservatism if full of lying, lying as not talking about what has happened, or lying by talking about something that never has happened, whether that's pretending there is no global warming or pretending that supply side economics works.
More inisidious is that the entire Republican Party is in the process of selecting a candidate to contend for the presidency in 2 years and a requisite for holding that seat of power is to be the king of liars in the Republican Party.
Even more scary? Betting that a majority of Americans will favor that king of liars over anyone who believes otherwise.
That's where America is now.
Reasonable people may laugh when they hear the following about FOX News:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/uks-cameron-calls-fox-pundit-com...
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-apologizes-for-labeling-parts-of...
But sadly, most Republican candidates aren't put into office by reasonable people.
.
28
Is your 'reactionary' explanation for the behaviour of conservatives a deep seated part of human nature PK? Years ago I joined a group of residents aiming to reduce through-traffic in our neighborhood by lobbying local government to install traffic-calming measures (such as speed humps). We had a vision of our suburb as peaceful and child-friendly. A counter-group arose to oppose us and as far as I could tell they had no vision at all for the area, they just wanted to oppose us. Maybe the world can be divided into 'pushers' (liberals) and 'pushers-back' (conservatives)?
12
Or maybe they didn't want the bottoms of their cars scraped up and had a "vision" of the area remaining the same as it was when they bought their houses.
Speed bumps are simply a bad idea. That's why people oppose them.
The point is that any pushing should be based on facts.
Yes, realistic expectations. Or more precisely, realistic expectations of the possible outcomes(of bipartisanship). Please let's not make the tired old mistake of "making our expectations realistic", meaning a lowering of our expectations.
That would be another form of acceptance of the Republican game of moving the goal posts to advance their agenda. I say move relentlessly forward and leave them behind. Maybe their children or grandchildren will try and catch up.
That would be another form of acceptance of the Republican game of moving the goal posts to advance their agenda. I say move relentlessly forward and leave them behind. Maybe their children or grandchildren will try and catch up.
4
The solution lies more in cognitive science than in politics. Republicans have been better at using the techniques of cognitive science, honed by advertisers that are wonderful at selling us bad products that we didn't know we wanted. They can discourage the majority of voters from voting, while keeping a certain minority of red-faced and angry reliable voters to secure the outcome of the primaries.
17
Exactly. Stop and think a moment about how many slogans the repubs have vs how many slogans the dems have. Notice how the repubs have everyone keep repeating the slogans over and over, and the slogans are composed of words that are jarring and evoke emotional reactions, like war on ..., over-reach, failure of leadership, etc. The idea of the slogans is to provoke a reaction, not engender thought.
If I were a movie producer I'd talk with Mr. Krugman about developing an "Inconvenient Truth"-style feature--a sort of high-quality Powerpoint for mass audiences focused on the gap between realities and "debates" referenced in this editorial.
However, since I am not a movie producer, I can only say to anyone in that position that this would be a fairly cheap movie to make and there are so many people--myself included--who would eagerly go see it.
However, since I am not a movie producer, I can only say to anyone in that position that this would be a fairly cheap movie to make and there are so many people--myself included--who would eagerly go see it.
9
Yes, specific groups of elites are feigning ignorance to push an agenda that favors certain vested interests while engaging in a massive propaganda campaign to mislead and manipulate the average voter. Instead of shaking our heads and saying "here they go again" every time we receive a new edition of some propaganda sound-bite (ie. lie), we need to go further and begin to organize and push back to see how much we can undue the enormous damage already done to our populace, politics, policy-making and democracy.
16
There is no more support for the efficacy of supply side economics than there is for the existence of the Unicorn. Or Bigfoot. Or UFOs. But if you want to believe in those things, facts don't matter. You'll believe all the sightings, and eventually will convince yourself that you, too, have seen one.
But it is worse than that. The Republicans have managed to convince working class people that government--not wealthy elitists--are their enemy, when it is vividly clear that Republican policies gut the middle class. It is no exaggeration to say that many conservatives would prefer that the middle class simply go away.
Thank Karl Rove for creating that Unicorn--the belief by many middle class voters that they are better off sacrificing their economic well-being for the ephemeral joy of adopting Republican social values (whatever those are). Watching middle class families swallow Fox News hook, line and sinker makes one believe he has indeed seen BigFoot.
But it is worse than that. The Republicans have managed to convince working class people that government--not wealthy elitists--are their enemy, when it is vividly clear that Republican policies gut the middle class. It is no exaggeration to say that many conservatives would prefer that the middle class simply go away.
Thank Karl Rove for creating that Unicorn--the belief by many middle class voters that they are better off sacrificing their economic well-being for the ephemeral joy of adopting Republican social values (whatever those are). Watching middle class families swallow Fox News hook, line and sinker makes one believe he has indeed seen BigFoot.
35
Well put, although I think there may actually be more evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot than the efficacy of Supply-Side economics.
I suppose we shouldn't wonder that so many Americans are content with an educational system that all too often works to prevent students developing critical thinking skills. A populace with such skills would send the fact-free, detached-from-reality party (the GOP) into its ignorance cave to stay.
I suppose we shouldn't wonder that so many Americans are content with an educational system that all too often works to prevent students developing critical thinking skills. A populace with such skills would send the fact-free, detached-from-reality party (the GOP) into its ignorance cave to stay.
14
Americans (the 99%) do not think they are middle or working class. "Class" is a word reserved for socialist/commie provocateurs. (ask Karl Rove) Americans see themselves as "just average folks". They see themselves as either above, at, or below "average" in terms of earnings, debt, social status, etc. The truly filthy rich are just very well off "average" Americans to most of the 99%. The filthy rich are just average folks that got lucky. Any average person can get lucky, just work hard and buy a lottery ticket. do not listen to those egghead intellectuals.
Middle Class means "someone else" to "average" Americans. Since most Americans are significantly less "well off" than the USA income mean, complaints about middle class economics to the "great unwashed" falls on deaf ears. Conservatives serve up Bread and Circuses for these average folks. Fox TV, Bigfoot, UFOs, etc., are the modern "opiate" of this plebeian class. If you are an economic slave and you know it "clap your hands", you are one of very few who do.
Middle Class means "someone else" to "average" Americans. Since most Americans are significantly less "well off" than the USA income mean, complaints about middle class economics to the "great unwashed" falls on deaf ears. Conservatives serve up Bread and Circuses for these average folks. Fox TV, Bigfoot, UFOs, etc., are the modern "opiate" of this plebeian class. If you are an economic slave and you know it "clap your hands", you are one of very few who do.
1
Let us not forget that the issues at stake affect some of the richest and most powerful segments of the economy, and so negatively threaten the wealth and income of some of the most moneyed people in society. Naturally, they're going to fight with disinformation campaigns, propaganda, and organized political resistance. Without them, we would of had universal health care long ago, and would be well on the way in heading off destructive levels of manmade global warming. The many shall suffer so the very few can make astronomical profits.
27
The right-wing is inured to facts. I once got into an argument with a person I met in a casual encounter. She was cursing President Obama because "Obamacare was going to put her and her family out of work." I asked her why she thought so, and she said, "Everyone knows that unemployment was going to 20% as soon as Obamacare was implemented!" I asked her where she was getting her information, since unemployment was dropping at that point, and she got defensive immediately and scurried away with her daughter, clapping her hands over her daughter's ears, shouting over her shoulder: "I don't want to expose my daughter to your lies about Obama!" (Sheesh!) This left me both confused and sorry.
I don't travel in that woman's circles, obviously, but this encounter left me wondering how many more like her are out there. Plenty, I would guess, judging from the sad mid-term elections that returned Governor Brownback to office despite the fact that he has ruined the Kansas economy, and Kansas' education system in particular. I went to a fine elementary school in Johnson County. Returning there last year, classroom sizes had swelled, art and music were gone and teachers were short on supplies. The school was an armed camp and a shell of its former self.
What's the Matter with Kansas, indeed? What's the matter with the rest of the nation?
I don't travel in that woman's circles, obviously, but this encounter left me wondering how many more like her are out there. Plenty, I would guess, judging from the sad mid-term elections that returned Governor Brownback to office despite the fact that he has ruined the Kansas economy, and Kansas' education system in particular. I went to a fine elementary school in Johnson County. Returning there last year, classroom sizes had swelled, art and music were gone and teachers were short on supplies. The school was an armed camp and a shell of its former self.
What's the Matter with Kansas, indeed? What's the matter with the rest of the nation?
428
The repubs have rebranded anything but their views as evil. Socialism is evil. Obama is evil and out to destroy the country. You can't even ask them what they base their belief on because they see even questioning them as just another example of evil. They've wrapped themselves in the flag as defenders of the country, the only ones with the truth and values. How is it possible to even discuss things never mind work on things with people who don't care to question or seek facts?
15
Prof. Krugman's latest theme of the willful ignorance of the right has it spot on. I have been questioning a lot of my (left-wing) politics over the last few years and tried to find common ground with Republicans. The problem is that there is no common ground when willful ignorance is part of a political platform. We cannot have a functioning pluralistic society without a foundation of objectivity for the debate. The Republican tent is basically one of hate the government bogeyman.
So what happens when Prof. Krugman mentions the news that 2014 was, by one measure, the hottest on record? Climate change deniers come onto the comment thread and try to write the 2014 data off by a technicality, proving the very point of this article: some people have no interest in reaching an agreement even on reality. Folks, the point is not the confidence level of the 2014 average surface temperature measurement; the point is that politicians and average people saying "the science is wrong" or even "I am not a scientist" is morally wrong because it is a deception for ideological reasons. If you have a good argument about how the science is flawed, submit it to peer-review, or publish it in detail. Otherwise, trust the 90+% of experts who say that the globe is warming and anthropogenic global climate change is a real threat. Think of your grandchildren.
So what happens when Prof. Krugman mentions the news that 2014 was, by one measure, the hottest on record? Climate change deniers come onto the comment thread and try to write the 2014 data off by a technicality, proving the very point of this article: some people have no interest in reaching an agreement even on reality. Folks, the point is not the confidence level of the 2014 average surface temperature measurement; the point is that politicians and average people saying "the science is wrong" or even "I am not a scientist" is morally wrong because it is a deception for ideological reasons. If you have a good argument about how the science is flawed, submit it to peer-review, or publish it in detail. Otherwise, trust the 90+% of experts who say that the globe is warming and anthropogenic global climate change is a real threat. Think of your grandchildren.
52
NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record
Posted Jan. 16, 2015
The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.
One of the complaints about the study is that the data has a margin of error of +/- 0.1 degree C. It may be that the mean is lower by 0.1degree C , but it may also be that it is higher by the same. The mean has gone up 0.6 degree C since 1980.
The imminent disaster scenario from climate change might be over blown, but do we need to take that risk? I think we are risking the disaster if we do not begin to take climate change seriously as a nation.
Posted Jan. 16, 2015
The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.
One of the complaints about the study is that the data has a margin of error of +/- 0.1 degree C. It may be that the mean is lower by 0.1degree C , but it may also be that it is higher by the same. The mean has gone up 0.6 degree C since 1980.
The imminent disaster scenario from climate change might be over blown, but do we need to take that risk? I think we are risking the disaster if we do not begin to take climate change seriously as a nation.
16
You have gone eighteen years with no trend either way in climate temperatures. During this same time man has pumped a full third of all the CO2 he has ever pumped into the atmosphere. No climate models show a 20 year pause , less than 4% of them show a fifteen year pause. I am not willing to completely reorder societies energy use based on such a shaky theory. If you want to see a real disaster and see people die wholesale then walk away from fossil fuels and the benefits they have provided. There is no way we carry a population this large without them.
1
How many trillions of bucks do you want to bet on a result that's rendered utterly insignificant by its margin of error? And which is refuted by other observational methods, satellites?
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21613161-mystery-pa...
Have you adjudged anthropogenic climate change to be entirely erroneous based on such trivialities, inaccuracies, and irrelevancies? Civilization isn't abandoning fossil fuels in the immediate future; doing so isn't practicable. The argument is a straw man, but you knew that before you formulated it.
You're not an idiot. And you're not Freeman Dyson. Let's at least acknowledge what is evident: We have a problem. Every intelligent person should be on board. We have to change the way we produce energy; and time is of the essence.
Have you adjudged anthropogenic climate change to be entirely erroneous based on such trivialities, inaccuracies, and irrelevancies? Civilization isn't abandoning fossil fuels in the immediate future; doing so isn't practicable. The argument is a straw man, but you knew that before you formulated it.
You're not an idiot. And you're not Freeman Dyson. Let's at least acknowledge what is evident: We have a problem. Every intelligent person should be on board. We have to change the way we produce energy; and time is of the essence.
Dr. Krugman is correct about today's conservatives favoring a hierarchy that disdains decent living standards for most folks But they don't hate all government. They love those areas of government that put the fix in for their pals the banks, oil companies, hedge fun managers, etc. They also love those areas of government that oppress the 99 percent and deny them a fair shake.
27
The global warming trends since 1997 is startling. I really think it's out of the range for a statistical oscillation within the norms of historical context. At what point, after 2015, 2016, 2020, 2030, 2050, 2100 are we going to acknowledge the patterns, if indeed this is the beginning of an abnormal trend. Global warming is a fact, but it may not be the accelerator on the climate changes, in my opinion. Rather, I think it's more like gun powder. When left alone, it's inert. This is because the of Earth's great capacity to neutralize volatility and regulate its thermostat. Earth's greatest heat-cold buffer is in its ocean. After all, water is the greatest buffer of all things, including the acid-base of life. It's a good thing that the earth is covered 75% by water, which helps to regulate the thermostat. Earth didn't get to this point overnight, but rather by a cooling process over billions of years. While gun powder is inert, when there is a spark, it can trigger a combustion and a chain reaction to the last molecule. Major events in nature, such as the death of the dinosaurs, the Ice Age, happened because there were catalytic events. It usually has to do with the disruption of the ocean. No scientists have yet to connect all the dots but I believe it started in the Pacific Ocean. It's circulation is clockwise. For me this explains why Alaska and Siberia had been the hottest point on record for 2014. Let's see where the focal points of deviation are if 2015 is warmer.
4
Lack of evidence hasn't deterred Republicans and their followers, alas. We've been practicing trickle-down economics since 1981 and the promised boom has largely yet to materialize.
So far, economic growth has typically been propelled by Keynesian fiscal policy-- witness America's economic success from1945-80. But try explaining that to the Republican Party, it's supporters and Fox News.
So far, economic growth has typically been propelled by Keynesian fiscal policy-- witness America's economic success from1945-80. But try explaining that to the Republican Party, it's supporters and Fox News.
19
"With special rage directed at know-it-alls who snootily point out that the facts don't support their positions. "
I am a student studying radiologic technology. Part of our program is hands on experience. We are assigned to specific hospitals. It became known at my particular clinical sight that I am a liberal ( I cannot imagine what would have been the reaction if they had known that I am actually a socialist). The reaction was terrible. Multiple people harassed me. One technologist became irate and irrationally ranted for a while. Within 24 hours of my reporting the incident I was transferred to a different site. I was told by the chair of our department to keep my opinions to myself as I am different from East Texans.
Conservatives don't just want to ignore facts, they want to ignore everyone who has a different opinion.
I am a student studying radiologic technology. Part of our program is hands on experience. We are assigned to specific hospitals. It became known at my particular clinical sight that I am a liberal ( I cannot imagine what would have been the reaction if they had known that I am actually a socialist). The reaction was terrible. Multiple people harassed me. One technologist became irate and irrationally ranted for a while. Within 24 hours of my reporting the incident I was transferred to a different site. I was told by the chair of our department to keep my opinions to myself as I am different from East Texans.
Conservatives don't just want to ignore facts, they want to ignore everyone who has a different opinion.
47
Having grown up in East Texas, quite possibly the most conservative region in the US, I have no doubt that you encountered this type of reaction.
You have to understand that for these types of conservatives, "liberals" are not just people who disagree politically. "Liberals" are evil, godless, immoral communists (or socialists -- they don't distinguish) who want to destroy everything they hold dear and take everything they own in order to redistribute it to moochers. For them, it is just a given that Obama is un-American and wants to take down America. And they believe this with all their hearts.
Thus, liberals are not just those holding different political beliefs, but bad people. Against this fervor, data and facts from "the evil liberal conspiracy" carry no weight.
You have to understand that for these types of conservatives, "liberals" are not just people who disagree politically. "Liberals" are evil, godless, immoral communists (or socialists -- they don't distinguish) who want to destroy everything they hold dear and take everything they own in order to redistribute it to moochers. For them, it is just a given that Obama is un-American and wants to take down America. And they believe this with all their hearts.
Thus, liberals are not just those holding different political beliefs, but bad people. Against this fervor, data and facts from "the evil liberal conspiracy" carry no weight.
Why do fact free arguments used by Republicans work with so many voters? The motivation for using the arguments is one thing (reactionary? maybe), but why would anybody believe stuff that is so clearly contradicted by easily available facts. The answer, I fear, is that the majority of American voters are simply not smart enough to put facts and ideas together in any kind of coherent system. Science requires the ability to form hypotheses and look to data to see if they are supported or falsified. Most people can't do that. Best data I know says only about half the adult population can understand why things float or sink in water. How many people could actually follow Professor Krugman's refutation of the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves that he published a while back and that required systematic thinking more complex than grasping density? Maybe a quarter of the population? I fear less. How many people can think in statistics? Not many. As the world has become more complex, fewer people can deal with the issues in any realistic way and so are subject to scamming. Sadly, the people who have the money to pay for the scams are well motivated by self interest, and of course, the Supreme Court says they have a right to scam away without limit or disclosure. Democrats keep losing elections because they cannot believe people would vote against their self interests when, in fact, most people can't comprehend where their interests lie.
185
It requires mental effort to do something. Were as it's easy as watching TV to just not care.
The dems do not message well at all. The repubs have their points distilled into sharp emotion-provoking slogans which every repub repeats over and over. It is like corporate marketing and advertising jiggles, and serves the same purpose...to have the people buy what you are trying to sell them.
The difference is also that many of these concepts are complex....like why is the nation's budget not comparable to your personal one. The repubs actually link the two because more people understand their personal budget and not macroeconomics.
They also link whatever they want to do to what people want....freedom, less taxes, and jobs, even when it isn't true.
The difference is also that many of these concepts are complex....like why is the nation's budget not comparable to your personal one. The repubs actually link the two because more people understand their personal budget and not macroeconomics.
They also link whatever they want to do to what people want....freedom, less taxes, and jobs, even when it isn't true.
Half the population has an IQ between 0 and 100 according to the test manuals of Wechsler and all other widely used IQ tests.
Dr. Krugman sounds tired, as many of us are. His well formed arguments fall on the deaf ears of those who need to hear them most. Logic does not rule, but power and greed does.
The reactionaries are those on top with the most money, and now, due to Citizens Untied, they also have the most speech. Of course those on top want to remain on top, even if it means crushing the people below them. If they could, these people would return to feudalism.
The reactionaries are those on top with the most money, and now, due to Citizens Untied, they also have the most speech. Of course those on top want to remain on top, even if it means crushing the people below them. If they could, these people would return to feudalism.
30
The most extreme member of a cult gets the attention. In the case of the Republicans, for the past three decades at least, their reason to exist has been constantly defined by the loudest and angriest among them. Never positive, never pragmatic, always they have been against things. What a joke it was when so many of them parroted a call to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. When asked "replace with what?" they had nothing, and needed nothing, because they wanted destruction - destruction of Obama - as their only goal.
The monster grows. Fox News and Limbaugh and the rest of Hate Media manufacture the outrage and feed it to the rubes. That gets them the eyeballs and ears to keep their income streams flowing, which is all they care about. The topic of the outrage (Obamacare, global warming, taxes, etc.) is whatever's hot (Benghazi!!!) Meanwhile among the faithful the tower of dogma builds, brick by twisted brick.
Long ago it became unwieldy, but now it's downright insane.
I suspect there are Republican officeholders who are terrified of their supporters. Remember the videos of the town hall meetings where Republicans like former Senator Spector of Pennsylvania was confronted by seething mobs? He left the Republican Party before being defeated. I saw a hate filled mob at a debate featuring our local Congress member in 2010 just before the Tea Party wave election, and it's a wonder that we escaped with no violence.
It all reminds me of the admonition about riding the tiger.
The monster grows. Fox News and Limbaugh and the rest of Hate Media manufacture the outrage and feed it to the rubes. That gets them the eyeballs and ears to keep their income streams flowing, which is all they care about. The topic of the outrage (Obamacare, global warming, taxes, etc.) is whatever's hot (Benghazi!!!) Meanwhile among the faithful the tower of dogma builds, brick by twisted brick.
Long ago it became unwieldy, but now it's downright insane.
I suspect there are Republican officeholders who are terrified of their supporters. Remember the videos of the town hall meetings where Republicans like former Senator Spector of Pennsylvania was confronted by seething mobs? He left the Republican Party before being defeated. I saw a hate filled mob at a debate featuring our local Congress member in 2010 just before the Tea Party wave election, and it's a wonder that we escaped with no violence.
It all reminds me of the admonition about riding the tiger.
24
I think a lot of the white rage and deliberate obtuseness and government hating that the GOP both exploits and is imprisoned by will magically, if gradually, subside as soon as "that black man" in the White House no longer "rules" and a comforting white face, no matter how incompetent or feckless, brings the political planets back into proper alignment (as seen from the wrong end of the telescope.)
7
"subside as soon as "that black man" in the White House no longer "rules" "
No, it is more fundamental than that. They did it to Clinton, all the way to impeachment. They'll do it to the next Democrat, no matter who it is. It is their method, not grounded in fact nor stopped by lack of fact.
No, it is more fundamental than that. They did it to Clinton, all the way to impeachment. They'll do it to the next Democrat, no matter who it is. It is their method, not grounded in fact nor stopped by lack of fact.
27
Indeed. President Obama's non-whiteness just amplified the racism of many in the fact-free coalition. It was always there, of course, but it wasn't as blatantly paraded as long as there were only white Presidents. (They impeached Clinton for his sex life -- under the absurd premise that Republicans mostly don't commit adultery and it is forgivable among those who do. It's like the deficit and the national debt -- irrelevant when the President is Republican, fatal to the nation when the President is a Democrat. If Hillary Clinton is elected next time, the public bigotry shrieking will shift to concentrate more on misogyny -- in which the GOP is also deeply steeped.)
14
But that "comforting white face" will more than likely be that of Hillary Clinton. Do you really think the hate will diminish?
Great column. This nonsense of supply side mumbo jumbo is the same as a denial of science of climate or evolution. But people except it because it's easier to just not care than take a stand.
But that not caring after a while wears out the mind the same way cults brainwash their vulnerable followers. Our nation is plagued with an epidemic of mental illness. We seem bent on disregarding millions of lives for the sake of a few thousand.
Stop drinking the kool aid. It's never too late to start spreading the word to people around us: the facts do matter. The nation only thrives as more people succeed. This nation is about more at the middle. Which is only possible when we are in growth mode which trickle down has taken away from us for the entire 21st century.
But that not caring after a while wears out the mind the same way cults brainwash their vulnerable followers. Our nation is plagued with an epidemic of mental illness. We seem bent on disregarding millions of lives for the sake of a few thousand.
Stop drinking the kool aid. It's never too late to start spreading the word to people around us: the facts do matter. The nation only thrives as more people succeed. This nation is about more at the middle. Which is only possible when we are in growth mode which trickle down has taken away from us for the entire 21st century.
17
Those who hate government believe their rights/freedoms are too controlled. Those who are reactionaries don't necessarily hate government, but do prefer keeping "things the way they were." Those who feel intimidated by the facts of experts tend to turn to mocking the climatologists or environmentalists and any other expert. And then there is the well to do who oppose government restrictions and take advantage of the government whenever possible because it is all about money. These are the one's to most fear. They are the bankers who want to make plenty of money, but also to have the public bail them out. There are those business people who like operating community systems like water or sewer, but don't want to own the business when it is time for maintenance. When profits dwindle these anti-government people become pro government. Let the government take care of infrastructure spending. Finally, there are oil business people who have much invested in their pipelines and wells and do not want green energy sources interfering with their carbon producing businesses.With all of these groups from those who hate government to those who want government to pay for everything (when a business is not profitable)to those who want government to let their polluting businesses alone it is difficult to change even for the sake of the health of the planet or ourselves.
9
It appears Mr. Krugman has finally gotten religion and come to his senses that we can't reason with these people. Arguments don't matter. Facts don't matter. All that matters is the belief.
I have been pounding my keyboard for years now claiming that conservative politics functions exactly as a faith based religion. Things are so because people believe they are so.
For example, Sam Brownback stated in his state of the state speech, that the ultimate goal is to drive the Kansas income tax rate to zero. OK, fine. So what is the state going to use for money? He is blindly chasing a belief without any regard to the real world consequences of that belief. Yet, he is supposed to be taken seriously as a policy maker.
Many believe in miracles. People claim that the tornado did not kill them because of divine intervention. Perhaps it was the path the storm took which killed their neighbor and spared them.
Supply side economics it treated the same way. So is austerity and all the rest of of the dogma.
The only way to combat belief oriented thinking is with emotional arguments instead of a factual ones. Conserving oil is patriotic. National security requires healthy citizens. The Lord wants us to take care of planet and not tear it up. Liberty is community based with people looking out for each other instead of me first.
If people refuse to accept factual information, the only way to sway them is through emotion.
I have been pounding my keyboard for years now claiming that conservative politics functions exactly as a faith based religion. Things are so because people believe they are so.
For example, Sam Brownback stated in his state of the state speech, that the ultimate goal is to drive the Kansas income tax rate to zero. OK, fine. So what is the state going to use for money? He is blindly chasing a belief without any regard to the real world consequences of that belief. Yet, he is supposed to be taken seriously as a policy maker.
Many believe in miracles. People claim that the tornado did not kill them because of divine intervention. Perhaps it was the path the storm took which killed their neighbor and spared them.
Supply side economics it treated the same way. So is austerity and all the rest of of the dogma.
The only way to combat belief oriented thinking is with emotional arguments instead of a factual ones. Conserving oil is patriotic. National security requires healthy citizens. The Lord wants us to take care of planet and not tear it up. Liberty is community based with people looking out for each other instead of me first.
If people refuse to accept factual information, the only way to sway them is through emotion.
63
In the 1940s and 50' there was a popular radio “quiz” program called “It Pays to be Ignorant.” It certainly does if you are a Republican politician. They need to stop collecting data on weather and climate and economic data should be classified. The Republicans know that lack of statistical data, facts and information benefits the Republican party so they can make their own facts without fear of contradiction.
The GOP budget has cut back on funding for the IRS and for every million dollars in spending cuts there is 6 million in loss of revenue. The GOP by encouraging tax evasion has cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations and it would be convenient if there was no way that the public could access that by public information, T he more money the GOP squanders or misdirects the less transparency and the greater potential for lies, deception and fraud.
Destroying the ability of the government to benefit the people by rendering it weak and penny-less somehow is connected with freedom and individual rights. The idea is to become rich and strong on your own so that the strongest can use their power to destroy the less strong until freedom becomes a zero sum game where as the wealthiest gain freedom the everyone else loses and the people the GOP represents would like to conceal just how much their greed for money and power is costing the nation.
The GOP budget has cut back on funding for the IRS and for every million dollars in spending cuts there is 6 million in loss of revenue. The GOP by encouraging tax evasion has cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations and it would be convenient if there was no way that the public could access that by public information, T he more money the GOP squanders or misdirects the less transparency and the greater potential for lies, deception and fraud.
Destroying the ability of the government to benefit the people by rendering it weak and penny-less somehow is connected with freedom and individual rights. The idea is to become rich and strong on your own so that the strongest can use their power to destroy the less strong until freedom becomes a zero sum game where as the wealthiest gain freedom the everyone else loses and the people the GOP represents would like to conceal just how much their greed for money and power is costing the nation.
21
Kansas is a very good example because it is a showcase for the failed economic policy and the reckless conservative attitude. Massive tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economic activity and they miserably failed. This case will become a case study for irresponsible economic experiment applied to real situation in Econ 101 in years to come.
16
Climate change caused by increased emission of CO2 was first calculated in 1895, by Arrhenius, ( Nobel Prize 1903), in a paper presented at Stockholm's Physical Society, titled “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.”
After calculating the temperature rise he noted that the effect was "disappointingly small". What he had hoped to find a way to increase the length of the growing season in Sweden to that of Southern Europe.
To Arrhenius, a man from Northern Europe, to increase carbon emissions was to to make the earth climate “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population.
Climate change has both negative and positive aspects.
The latter are never discussed, a curious omission, as science generally evaluates both sides of an issue.
After calculating the temperature rise he noted that the effect was "disappointingly small". What he had hoped to find a way to increase the length of the growing season in Sweden to that of Southern Europe.
To Arrhenius, a man from Northern Europe, to increase carbon emissions was to to make the earth climate “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population.
Climate change has both negative and positive aspects.
The latter are never discussed, a curious omission, as science generally evaluates both sides of an issue.
2
Your example is akin to alchemy.
Also, destruction of coastal cities and the extremes in precipitation, drought and temperatures will outweigh any gains in the growing season.
Also, destruction of coastal cities and the extremes in precipitation, drought and temperatures will outweigh any gains in the growing season.
8
I am curious why you would say that "[positive aspects] are never discuss." Even the latest IPCC "Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability" report summary for policymakers includes statements like "individual locations may benefit" with respect to food production.
Research does consider the positives as well as the negatives, but the predicted negatives strongly outweigh the positives.
Research does consider the positives as well as the negatives, but the predicted negatives strongly outweigh the positives.
14
It is a funny thing, unintended consequences. What we do know at this time is that, at least, the earth is habitable. If we let green house emissions continue will that remain true? Perhaps Sweden will have a longer growing season. The down side is that this implies virtually no ice on the Arctic and Antarctic poles. At least that is what simulations suggest. Yes, there is uncertainty about exactly what would happen in a much warmer world, but there is something that should have meaning. At least at this point of time, the earth is habitable. The other alternative is not really somewhere that we want to go.
10
There are many possible responses to the potential challenges of climate change.
One for example would be to have the US government make research grants for planet-scale CO2 scrubbing, high altitude heat reflecting spraying, and other technologies that could mitigate temperature rises, without penalizing development, growth, material wealth, and important sectors of our economy (like carbon energy and transportation).
When climate alarmists, Dr. Krugman, Democrats, refuse to even discuss those alternatives, and want to push carbon energy penalties exclusively, they reveal their true intent. That intent is to use the climate change threat as a way to advance a laundry list of liberal aspirations that can't be advanced any other way on their merits: public transportation, high taxes on fuels, multi-country governance, growth restriction, etc.
Understanding the true intentions of the left, it is not only understandable, but actually a relief, to have the right pushing back against it with equal determination.
One for example would be to have the US government make research grants for planet-scale CO2 scrubbing, high altitude heat reflecting spraying, and other technologies that could mitigate temperature rises, without penalizing development, growth, material wealth, and important sectors of our economy (like carbon energy and transportation).
When climate alarmists, Dr. Krugman, Democrats, refuse to even discuss those alternatives, and want to push carbon energy penalties exclusively, they reveal their true intent. That intent is to use the climate change threat as a way to advance a laundry list of liberal aspirations that can't be advanced any other way on their merits: public transportation, high taxes on fuels, multi-country governance, growth restriction, etc.
Understanding the true intentions of the left, it is not only understandable, but actually a relief, to have the right pushing back against it with equal determination.
3
"One for example would be to have the US government make research grants for planet-scale CO2 scrubbing, high altitude heat reflecting spraying, and other technologies that could mitigate temperature rises, without penalizing development, growth, material wealth, and important sectors of our economy (like carbon energy and transportation)."
Baron95:
Ever see cartoons drawn by Rube Goldberg?
The simplest solution to a problem (and There Is a Problem) is usually the most direct solution. If the bed is getting soiled, change your diet.
Baron95:
Ever see cartoons drawn by Rube Goldberg?
The simplest solution to a problem (and There Is a Problem) is usually the most direct solution. If the bed is getting soiled, change your diet.
8
Speaking of Rube Goldberg, another ridiculously complex and roundabout way for disparate groups who advocate unrelated "aspirations" such as growth restriction and fuel taxes to enact their combined "laundry list" would be to join forces and take over an unrelated scientific discipline (i.e. climate science) in order to enact a huge conspiracy.
In other words, thousands of people around the globe spent 10+ years of their life earning a PhD in climate science because they want more public transportation? Or because they hate urban sprawl? Or because they have a sadistic love of taxes? And I suppose the scientists from countries with good public transportation and dense population just can't stand to see other countries who don't? So they decide to study the climate?
Or is it more likely that the handful of denialist scientists, who are funded by oil companies with a direct connection to CO2, are the ones with their own agenda?
You conflate the cause-and-effect of advocacy on "the left." The reason we support public transportation is because it produces less pollution, not the reverse. Public transportation is the means, not the ends. No one supports higher fuel taxes just because they love high taxes, but rather because it reduces consumption, which reduces pollution. Is it more likely that a global conspiracy of scientists makes up pollution because they like light-rail trains, or that these scientists like light-rail trains because they lessen pollution?
In other words, thousands of people around the globe spent 10+ years of their life earning a PhD in climate science because they want more public transportation? Or because they hate urban sprawl? Or because they have a sadistic love of taxes? And I suppose the scientists from countries with good public transportation and dense population just can't stand to see other countries who don't? So they decide to study the climate?
Or is it more likely that the handful of denialist scientists, who are funded by oil companies with a direct connection to CO2, are the ones with their own agenda?
You conflate the cause-and-effect of advocacy on "the left." The reason we support public transportation is because it produces less pollution, not the reverse. Public transportation is the means, not the ends. No one supports higher fuel taxes just because they love high taxes, but rather because it reduces consumption, which reduces pollution. Is it more likely that a global conspiracy of scientists makes up pollution because they like light-rail trains, or that these scientists like light-rail trains because they lessen pollution?
9
Yet another "honest response" from a climate-change denier who is proudly "not a scientist" ....
According to a recent Gallup Poll, only 25% of Americans call themselves Republican. Yet, in the last election, Republicans carried both Chambers of Congress. Apparently the Republican message appeals more to the 42% who consider themselves Independent than the Democratic one, even though 36% of all Americans consider themselves Democrats. Of the 33 states in play last year, 2/3 (22) went Republican. On the Congressional side, 57% of the country also voted Republican. Actually if you look at the map, geographically, the US was almost 90% red, with only blue on the coasts. http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/house/. Clearly the Republican message resounds with a vast swath of the country. Can they possibly all be ideologues?
According to a recent Pew Center Study (http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-ame... 92% of Republicans are the right of Democrats, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of Republicans. Only 20% of Republicans consider themselves consistently Conservative; 23% of Democrats say they consistently liberal. Where does that leave the center?
They are left without representatives who feel the mandate to compromise. At a time when the country needs to move forward, it will remain impossible to do so as long as the most politically active only speak to, and with, those who agree with them. Despite his undoubtedly good intentions, Prof. K's column is symptomatic of the problem.
According to a recent Pew Center Study (http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-ame... 92% of Republicans are the right of Democrats, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of Republicans. Only 20% of Republicans consider themselves consistently Conservative; 23% of Democrats say they consistently liberal. Where does that leave the center?
They are left without representatives who feel the mandate to compromise. At a time when the country needs to move forward, it will remain impossible to do so as long as the most politically active only speak to, and with, those who agree with them. Despite his undoubtedly good intentions, Prof. K's column is symptomatic of the problem.
2
What is lost in many of these numbers is the amount and type of messaging that is broadcast at people. The amount of spending against the ACA was 15 to 1. ALEC, a right wing organization bankrolled by billionaires is working at the level of towns to further its agenda, not just at state level.
Trying to speak to and compromise with those that deny facts or believe facts are lies gets one almost nowhere unfortunately. And when their mantra is 'no compromise' it basically also leads us nowhere.
Trying to speak to and compromise with those that deny facts or believe facts are lies gets one almost nowhere unfortunately. And when their mantra is 'no compromise' it basically also leads us nowhere.
What does make a difference in changing public attitudes is advertising, marketing, public relations, propaganda, whatever you want to call it. It can persuade a quarter of the population to addict themselves to a substance that will give them cancer; to sacrifice their happiness now in the hope of gaining happiness after they die; to kill worshippers of a rival god. Facts are irrelevant. People can be persuaded to do anything if the propaganda is good enough. Marketing drives public opinion, which drives politics, which drives public policy. Someone should tell the Dems.
13
kbaa,
Some people just don't want to spin, lie and frame a simplistic view of any particular issue, nor do they tolerate being fed those constructs. Life has a lot of detail, and the devil in any solution is in those details. If the presentation of an issue is streamlined to the point of losing it's pertinent facts, that presentation loses it's credibility, at least in the eyes of anyone capable of acting on those facts. Unfortunately a lot of those same folks are not particularly interested in voting, especially if it involves wading through a mass of prepackaged, low calorie political "product" in the media.
Some people just don't want to spin, lie and frame a simplistic view of any particular issue, nor do they tolerate being fed those constructs. Life has a lot of detail, and the devil in any solution is in those details. If the presentation of an issue is streamlined to the point of losing it's pertinent facts, that presentation loses it's credibility, at least in the eyes of anyone capable of acting on those facts. Unfortunately a lot of those same folks are not particularly interested in voting, especially if it involves wading through a mass of prepackaged, low calorie political "product" in the media.
1
Think elevator speech. If you don't distill your position into a terse emotional bite, you will lose. That is how the repubs win and the dems lose. Unfortunately most people don't have the time, take the time, or are capable of researching an issue.
Think 'the 1%'. A lot of people know what it means and what the issues are surrounding it. Those who don't can grasp its meaning pretty quickly, and it has an emotional punch. I saw a poll that had inequality far down the list of issues that people care about. That is because the dems have not clearly articulated what such inequality does to the country and to each person personally.
Think 'the 1%'. A lot of people know what it means and what the issues are surrounding it. Those who don't can grasp its meaning pretty quickly, and it has an emotional punch. I saw a poll that had inequality far down the list of issues that people care about. That is because the dems have not clearly articulated what such inequality does to the country and to each person personally.
5
Once upon a time, civilized discourse about politics referred to a political spectrum. Conservatives were to the right, liberals to the left. Radicals were farther to the left, reactionaries were farther to the right. Beyond those, there were even more severe extremes: communists vs. fascists, with all sorts of subgroups as well, especially of those on the left--Trotskyists, Leninists, Progressive Labor, etc. Everyone accepted this nomenclature. But beginning with Goldwater, those on the right began to hone their skills at propaganda by copying the tactics of left-wing radicals, and they have practiced that propaganda masterfully and relentlessly ever since. Meanwhile, until Elizabeth Warren came along, Democrats for the most part simply ignored the facts; they have been too cowardly to call themselves liberals, and they have refused to fight back. They themselves have bought into the right-wing propaganda as well. Indeed today all political definitions are shaped by right-wing propaganda, and the media parrots it daily. The Republican party has become the reactionary party, but until Paul Krugman wrote this column, hardy anybody other than noble people like Chris Hedges and Corey Robbin has been willing to say it. Three cheers for Krugman, and let us hope that the Times might consider adding a few more equally courageous columnists to their editorial pages.
51
"It’s now official: 2014 was the warmest year on record."
Right, what they don't tell you, and Krugman doesn't either, is their confidence level in that statement is 38% and the 2014 calculates in as the warmest by 0.01 degrees. Which is fine except the margin of error on these measurements is 0.1 degree a full order of magnitude greater than the measurement itself. To think that such a statement could be issued from a scientific institution is gobsmacking to anyone with any scientific training.
Mrs. Krugman inadvertently supplies the reason many of us feel ill towards the government. We don't trust it, it has been shown to lie to us in the most childish fashion nearly every time we turn around.
Right, what they don't tell you, and Krugman doesn't either, is their confidence level in that statement is 38% and the 2014 calculates in as the warmest by 0.01 degrees. Which is fine except the margin of error on these measurements is 0.1 degree a full order of magnitude greater than the measurement itself. To think that such a statement could be issued from a scientific institution is gobsmacking to anyone with any scientific training.
Mrs. Krugman inadvertently supplies the reason many of us feel ill towards the government. We don't trust it, it has been shown to lie to us in the most childish fashion nearly every time we turn around.
9
Couldn't the margin of error also mean that the average increase is actually higher by 0.1 degree C as well?
13
The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. The effects are clear. Shrinking glaciers, wildlife migrations, changes in growing seasons, crops growing at higher elevations. It all fits.
11
I wish the glaciers and snowpack accumulation and water tables and Colorado pine beetles, and arctic tundra and migrating birds would only pay attention to these exposures of government lives. It'd save so many headaches.
12
"Hint: Don’t cherry-pick your observations."
Perhaps Dr. Krugman should follow his own admonition.
Why not be straight and say that 2014 temperatures were in the margin of error as the temperatures of 1998 (16 years ago), but also within the margin of error of the last 10 years. And was only marginally the warmest by one measure only. By other (satellite measurements) it was not.
When climate change alarmists feel the need to cherry pick and jump on any little thing that apparently goes their way, they undermine their credibility.
Hyping 2014 as the warmest year on record, without telling readers that is global temperatures have been virtually the same (within the margin of error) for over a decade, is disingenuous, dishonest, and counterproductive.
Perhaps Dr. Krugman should follow his own admonition.
Why not be straight and say that 2014 temperatures were in the margin of error as the temperatures of 1998 (16 years ago), but also within the margin of error of the last 10 years. And was only marginally the warmest by one measure only. By other (satellite measurements) it was not.
When climate change alarmists feel the need to cherry pick and jump on any little thing that apparently goes their way, they undermine their credibility.
Hyping 2014 as the warmest year on record, without telling readers that is global temperatures have been virtually the same (within the margin of error) for over a decade, is disingenuous, dishonest, and counterproductive.
13
Please explain why this makes any difference to the main point.
2
NOAA disagrees.
2
Let's assume you have a point, to be gracious.
If we assess a WMD attack in NYC to be of very low probability, that does not mean we don't fully fund efforts to keep such probability as low as possible.
Why not apply same logic to man-made climate change? It's good business.
If we assess a WMD attack in NYC to be of very low probability, that does not mean we don't fully fund efforts to keep such probability as low as possible.
Why not apply same logic to man-made climate change? It's good business.
To define the defenders of traditional hierarchy further look at a map of the US and exclude all land that is controlled by any level of government. The rest of the land and the property on it is private capital wealth. Modern conservative ideology represents the owners of that wealth (as well as those that stand to inherit it) by isisting that taxing capital is a form of theft even though a large share of the proceeds pay to protect it and maintain the physical and institutional infrastructure that makes it valuable. In other words, the owners of capital are the primary beneficiary of government but want to convince the rest of us that they are the government's primary victim.
If they are simply reactionaries it is in hysterical defense of that undefendable hypocrisy.
If they are simply reactionaries it is in hysterical defense of that undefendable hypocrisy.
17
The Republican party seems to be split between two factions; the faction Krugman describes, that hates the government viscerally (the Tea Party types), and the Wall St. (and other "connected" types, such as defense contractors), who profess many anti-government feelings, but are actually crony capitalists, who simply use the government to eliminate the competition and line their own pockets.
22
Thank heavens the Democrats are immune from dealing with crony capitalists where it serves their interests, like the emerging health care oligopoly, climate change grants, or, for that matter, Wall St., where the too-big-to-fail banks are larger than they were even 6 years ago.
Remember, that this expansion in the rolls of the insured came about despite states such as Texas, where the most uninsured are, not even allowing their people to enroll. How many more would have benefited if only John Roberts's muddled supreme court judgment had not given gave that carte blanche power to state governors to block the enforcement of federal law in certain state of the country? As Hubert Humphrey said once, we need to move from the shadows of states' rights to the sunlit land of human rights.
16
"the fact is that we’re living in a political era in which facts don’t matter"
We need not look any further than changes in our media.
With the end of the Fairness Doctrine, with the end of real supervision of the public interest, with the rise of corporate ownership of media, they can't and don't report the facts, and they can't and don't call out blatant lies.
Big money has purchased the ability to get away with this, by long and careful design, and now they do get away with it.
Policy divorced from reality, serving only private interests of greed, can only lead to disaster. It just isn't possible to remain disconnected from reality. Reality catches up. Reality bites.
We need not look any further than changes in our media.
With the end of the Fairness Doctrine, with the end of real supervision of the public interest, with the rise of corporate ownership of media, they can't and don't report the facts, and they can't and don't call out blatant lies.
Big money has purchased the ability to get away with this, by long and careful design, and now they do get away with it.
Policy divorced from reality, serving only private interests of greed, can only lead to disaster. It just isn't possible to remain disconnected from reality. Reality catches up. Reality bites.
316
It ain't greed.
It's just business.
It's just the law of the jungle, violent conquest, calcified hierarchies and all those other things we banded into democratic societies to get away from.
It's just business.
It's just the law of the jungle, violent conquest, calcified hierarchies and all those other things we banded into democratic societies to get away from.
"And why this hatred of government in the public interest? Well, the political scientist Corey Robin argues that most self-proclaimed conservatives are actually reactionaries."
That explains the behavior of maybe 10% of the population that has a stake in maintaining the status quo. But what about the other 40% who do all they can to frustrate attempts to use government for public good? I don't particularly like this idea - but the word brainwashing leaps to mind.
That explains the behavior of maybe 10% of the population that has a stake in maintaining the status quo. But what about the other 40% who do all they can to frustrate attempts to use government for public good? I don't particularly like this idea - but the word brainwashing leaps to mind.
15
It is depressing to realize that bizarrely the people who claim to love America the most have nothing but disdain for most of the people who live in America, not coincidentally largely the same people with the same need to declare how much they love Jesus while in reality having having nothing but contempt for his explicit teachings.
And with bona fide "moderate" Republicans having been driven out of the party, what's left are pretty self-evidently banana Republicans whose major goal is to turn the U.S. of A. into a banana republic.
And with bona fide "moderate" Republicans having been driven out of the party, what's left are pretty self-evidently banana Republicans whose major goal is to turn the U.S. of A. into a banana republic.
137
The answer is race. Growing up in the South in the 1950s, with "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards on the highways, I was constantly reminded that Brown v. Board of Education was proof that the federal government was evil. The federal courts repeatedly sided with bus boycotters, integrators, and freedom riders. Finally, Lyndon Johnson betrayed his roots and his race with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. And now, we have a president with an African father and an African name. The rage has been building for over half a century, egged on lately by Fox News and billionaire Republicans who need the votes of angry white men in their quest to own everything.
693
I appreciate this perspective greatly.
However, these anti-federal government rage goes back to before the Civil War. My experiences in the Deep South have made it clear to me that not only is the Civil War not over, but that the South is winning the war, big time.
Bankers and the petrochemical and mining industries have happily financed these view so that they have a clear field in which to operate and extract their profits from the public commons.
However, these anti-federal government rage goes back to before the Civil War. My experiences in the Deep South have made it clear to me that not only is the Civil War not over, but that the South is winning the war, big time.
Bankers and the petrochemical and mining industries have happily financed these view so that they have a clear field in which to operate and extract their profits from the public commons.
12
As a kid I constantly heard the refrain 'the south gona rise again".
Looking at solidly red states thru the south, considering penury, low health and education rates, unplanned pregnancies, no prenatal or abortion care it looks like this is going to be a dubious 'rise'.
And rampant drug use facilitated by big pharma getting FDA approval for opioids 100 times stronger than morphine, seems to me there is a new slave trade starting in the south. Except this time the slaves won't all be black. Hillbilly heroin's taking it's toll on a generation of our young people and the people charged with protecting us are, in reality, our tormentors. We've been sold out.
Looking at solidly red states thru the south, considering penury, low health and education rates, unplanned pregnancies, no prenatal or abortion care it looks like this is going to be a dubious 'rise'.
And rampant drug use facilitated by big pharma getting FDA approval for opioids 100 times stronger than morphine, seems to me there is a new slave trade starting in the south. Except this time the slaves won't all be black. Hillbilly heroin's taking it's toll on a generation of our young people and the people charged with protecting us are, in reality, our tormentors. We've been sold out.
10
Indeed. Opposition to Medicare in the south was strong because the hospitals had to be desegregated to receive funds.
1
Yes, the climate change deniers and opponents of the ACA are reactionaries. Yes, rational argument based on empirical evidence doesn't matter them. I think we should recognize that we are in a class war, and have been for some time, with plutocrats and oligarchs funding the Grand Old Tea Party hoping to prevent any change that means less wealth and power for themselves. Tea Partiers themselves are hardly plutocrats, who exploit them shamelessly. Their anger and ignorance are fed by a steady barrage of propaganda, and not only from Fox News. How else explain the irrationality and hostility which infect conservatism these days.
28
Much of the tea party is backed by the billionaire Kochs. They may have even started it.
Timely article, to the point when confronting believers in 'voodoo' economics, and in make-believe magic, who are willfully ignorant of empiric evidence, incontrovertible by science and common sense, and the ill-effects we are already experimenting with climate warming; a hoax, says the G.O.P.. The harm is here and only getting worse. Could it be that, at least part of this rigidity stems from religious dogma, given that not even a discussion is allowed about their crazy and unsubstantiated beliefs, contrary to basic facts available if they only open their minds. We as a society have elected to allow government to take care of basic services we deem not only necessary but enjoyable, and freeing us for better things to do, free of the shackles of uncertainty regarding our treasures: freedom of speech and action (provided it does not harm anybody), free education to teach us how to think for and by ourselves, universal health care to eliminate the worry of bankruptcy if really ill, and strong support of the sciences and the technology derived from it, and the moral compass that allows us to know right from wrong, where the government is free from religious interference, so all citizens are embraced, whether they believe or not in a god of our own making. Reactionary forces will, unfortunately, try to distort the truth, and beauty, whenever they can. Accordingly, one must remain vigilant and continue to work for humanity's well-being and its values. Again, education is key.
9
Maybe it's time, Paul, to write a column on the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, the first of which is, "Once you have their money, you never give it back."
This week, however, Ferengi-in-Chief, Mitt Romney, in testing the waters for yet another run, told a group of Republicans gathered in San Diego, that under President Obama, "the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse, and there are more people in poverty than ever before." Was he saying this was a bad thing?
For the last three election cycles, we have listened to GOP reassure its moneyed constituents that nothing was going to invade their coffers. Instead they made it increasingly clear the cost of government would be strapped to the backs the working poor and nouveau poor. Congress has continually attempted to do just that.
The last three lame duck presidents have all had oppositions congresses, and all three have turned to executive order and presidential prerogative to get stuff done. If this congress is as interested in preserving the Rules of Acquisition as the last two, is there a better choice?
Congress is pretty much a joke. After 6 years of incredibly bad behavior on both sides, we're suddenly supposed to believe they are now going to represent Everyman? Sure.
Enough people voted for those clowns to get them in the door. What they do is what we have asked them to do. And none of it is about what's good for 98% of the population.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
This week, however, Ferengi-in-Chief, Mitt Romney, in testing the waters for yet another run, told a group of Republicans gathered in San Diego, that under President Obama, "the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse, and there are more people in poverty than ever before." Was he saying this was a bad thing?
For the last three election cycles, we have listened to GOP reassure its moneyed constituents that nothing was going to invade their coffers. Instead they made it increasingly clear the cost of government would be strapped to the backs the working poor and nouveau poor. Congress has continually attempted to do just that.
The last three lame duck presidents have all had oppositions congresses, and all three have turned to executive order and presidential prerogative to get stuff done. If this congress is as interested in preserving the Rules of Acquisition as the last two, is there a better choice?
Congress is pretty much a joke. After 6 years of incredibly bad behavior on both sides, we're suddenly supposed to believe they are now going to represent Everyman? Sure.
Enough people voted for those clowns to get them in the door. What they do is what we have asked them to do. And none of it is about what's good for 98% of the population.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
18
"Instead they made it increasingly clear the cost of government would be strapped to the backs the working poor and nouveau poor."
The argument for this is that the less wealthy take more from government's largess than the wealthy do.
Given the government's direct financial support for large businesses, not to mention government subsidies enabling underpaid workers to meet basic living needs, I don't think this argument has much merit.
The argument for this is that the less wealthy take more from government's largess than the wealthy do.
Given the government's direct financial support for large businesses, not to mention government subsidies enabling underpaid workers to meet basic living needs, I don't think this argument has much merit.
2
You didn't rebut Romney's assertions, presumably because they're scathing indictments of liberal economics in practice.
On Friday the Southern Education Foundation reported a majority of public school students came from poor families. ("Government schools" is right-rage-speak.)
On Sunday, in a mass before three million in Manila, Pope Francis said God “created the world as a beautiful garden and asked us to care for it, Through sin, man has disfigured that natural beauty. Through sin, man has also destroyed the unity and beauty of our human family, creating social structures that perpetuate poverty, ignorance and corruption.”
A year ago, the Pope denounced the economy of exclusion as inhuman, specifically condemning "trickle-down economics."
All major economies are engaged in the sin of exclusion, none more so than the most class-stratified society, America.
How far and how rapidly the U.S. has degenerated can be seen in the real policies of Richard Nixon: He contemplated true national health insurance, he instituted the earned-income tax benefit; he founded the EPA and OSHA, his minimum wage was 40 per cent higher than today.
The economy, society and polity of today are so conquered by plutocrats that liberal Dems do not propose half of what Nixon achieved.
The 99 per cent serve the one per cent and that's the entire truth.
Friedman and Martin Luther King were agreed on a guaranteed income as the solution to poverty. But the subsequent hammering of the poor did not content the forces of ultra-right hate, but inflamed their rage in seeking full neofeudalism.
The U.S. is morally repulsive.
On Sunday, in a mass before three million in Manila, Pope Francis said God “created the world as a beautiful garden and asked us to care for it, Through sin, man has disfigured that natural beauty. Through sin, man has also destroyed the unity and beauty of our human family, creating social structures that perpetuate poverty, ignorance and corruption.”
A year ago, the Pope denounced the economy of exclusion as inhuman, specifically condemning "trickle-down economics."
All major economies are engaged in the sin of exclusion, none more so than the most class-stratified society, America.
How far and how rapidly the U.S. has degenerated can be seen in the real policies of Richard Nixon: He contemplated true national health insurance, he instituted the earned-income tax benefit; he founded the EPA and OSHA, his minimum wage was 40 per cent higher than today.
The economy, society and polity of today are so conquered by plutocrats that liberal Dems do not propose half of what Nixon achieved.
The 99 per cent serve the one per cent and that's the entire truth.
Friedman and Martin Luther King were agreed on a guaranteed income as the solution to poverty. But the subsequent hammering of the poor did not content the forces of ultra-right hate, but inflamed their rage in seeking full neofeudalism.
The U.S. is morally repulsive.
220
It's not so much that "The U.S. is morally repulsive" as that the situation many of us are forced to live in is morally repulsive.
5
I remember talking to a number of the people later called Neo-cons etc. in the early 1970s. They were rigid but not unintelligent. Many of them were accomplished critics and artists. Some were even coaches to me as a young student and I enjoyed their intensity. What I think you miss here Dr. Krugman and you don't miss much but I think you are missing here. You are missing the shudder that went through the wealthy at the time of the Civil Rights marches and the Vietnam war. The drugs took their children and turned them into mush and the rebellion of the left against politics in the Democratic convention against a good man Hubert Humphrey, was only matched by their silence once they got the draft cancelled and a military established they wouldn't have to serve in. Indeed they wouldn't even have to talk to people not of their class. I can remember speaking to a prominent publisher about the sexual promiscuity and the re-programming of the minds of their young by LSD and other drugs. By the 1970s, their bodies had been damaged and we were into crack cocaine and worse. We had all kinds of wealthy responses to that in the Rockefeller laws and little is said about this being a class war waged by the wealthy to protect their kids and their heirs. Since that time the rule has been "Art for Art's sake" by people who used to be talking about music but for the sake of their position and families their art for arts sake is now the creation of surplus profit.
4
Dr. Krugman wrote: "Meanwhile, the news on health reform keeps coming in, and it keeps being more favorable than even the supporters expected. We already knew that the number of Americans without insurance is dropping fast, even as the growth in health care costs moderates."
So what's really new? What's so 'favorable' aside from the number of people 'covered'. And what is the actual increase in the medical help that's being provided on average, compared with before?
I read how many people now, when they actually have to pay a non-negligible amount for their health insurance, are avoiding seeing their doctor at all ... less and less. This is because their premiums have being going up and up.
And doctors aren't getting paid as much when 'serving' people who are government-subsidized. So doctors aren't so happy about this new kind of 'Care' they now are forced to deliver, and according to onerous rules from ACA, which abuse their rights in practicing medicine
Even as Dr. Krugman claims "growth in health care costs moderates", this is absolutely untrue for people who aren't getting the subsidized health care, the almost-free health insurance. The middle class is being unfairly punished for the sake of an agenda: the Affordable Care Act , which is now being exposed as just another scheme.
It's just another way the Democratic party tries to claim it's doing anything good for the country.
And, the jury is still out on how badly this new Act has been acting.
So what's really new? What's so 'favorable' aside from the number of people 'covered'. And what is the actual increase in the medical help that's being provided on average, compared with before?
I read how many people now, when they actually have to pay a non-negligible amount for their health insurance, are avoiding seeing their doctor at all ... less and less. This is because their premiums have being going up and up.
And doctors aren't getting paid as much when 'serving' people who are government-subsidized. So doctors aren't so happy about this new kind of 'Care' they now are forced to deliver, and according to onerous rules from ACA, which abuse their rights in practicing medicine
Even as Dr. Krugman claims "growth in health care costs moderates", this is absolutely untrue for people who aren't getting the subsidized health care, the almost-free health insurance. The middle class is being unfairly punished for the sake of an agenda: the Affordable Care Act , which is now being exposed as just another scheme.
It's just another way the Democratic party tries to claim it's doing anything good for the country.
And, the jury is still out on how badly this new Act has been acting.
7
@R. Karch: You might be more persuasive if you told us where you're getting your facts from considering how substantially they differ from Dr. Krugman's. The increase in my own health insurance premiums has been quite manageable since the Act was implemented. Friends of mine who've signed up on the state exchanges have been more than satisfied, especially in comparison with what they experienced previously. There are, of course, exceptions. Let's hear about yours.
84
I can only speak for myself but Obama care has been a blessing. I pay $28 a month premium and my deductible is a doable $1,500. I finally had an operation I needed. Without it I was confined to a walker. As for your belief that doctors aren't happy about being forced to deliver care, my doctor said, "Hurray for Obamacare!" when my insurance finally came through and I could have my operation. Maybe some people think the Affordable Care Act is a failure. For me, it is a miracle.
617
Looks a bit like you just proved Krugman's point. An awful lot of
unsubstantiated assertions being presented as "facts". A lot like
Fx news.
unsubstantiated assertions being presented as "facts". A lot like
Fx news.
27
Mesaaging, Messaging, Messaging - it's all about Messaging!
I am beginning to think the modern American psyche is now much less able to tell reality from myth, fact from fiction, and objective reality & results from dogged belief. It's as if the intensity of unified message repetition brings about almost a type of "mental muscle memory," wiring patterns in the brain as real and established as any caused by actual reality, past events, or the school of hard knocks.
The fact that the Right has made even the concept of poverty so repellent may also help. Even if you are poor, even if it's through no fault of your own, the Right has many convinced that to be a poor person is the ultimate personal shame: a sign of laziness, lack of worth, and God's disfavor - all rolled into one. Now, not only does the Poor Man have to struugle with his poverty and all related diffuculties, he must also face all his profound personal failings that put him there. Oddly, the Right may be partially correct: "Tough Love" does work - by helping the Poor to deny their own poverty, and even themselves. How else to explain the way so many of those hurt by Right Wing Policies come back meekly into the fold, to drink their Kool-Aid again and again?
I am beginning to think the modern American psyche is now much less able to tell reality from myth, fact from fiction, and objective reality & results from dogged belief. It's as if the intensity of unified message repetition brings about almost a type of "mental muscle memory," wiring patterns in the brain as real and established as any caused by actual reality, past events, or the school of hard knocks.
The fact that the Right has made even the concept of poverty so repellent may also help. Even if you are poor, even if it's through no fault of your own, the Right has many convinced that to be a poor person is the ultimate personal shame: a sign of laziness, lack of worth, and God's disfavor - all rolled into one. Now, not only does the Poor Man have to struugle with his poverty and all related diffuculties, he must also face all his profound personal failings that put him there. Oddly, the Right may be partially correct: "Tough Love" does work - by helping the Poor to deny their own poverty, and even themselves. How else to explain the way so many of those hurt by Right Wing Policies come back meekly into the fold, to drink their Kool-Aid again and again?
15
You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too damn greedy."
--Herbert Hoover
Capitalists love to hate those from which thy steal.
--Herbert Hoover
Capitalists love to hate those from which thy steal.
We is no real debate on climate change. There is an angry argument, on both sides, and arguments are about winning. When people think they are losing, they just get angrier.
All of our public discussions are emotional binges. That's what captures and holds an audience. And the ability to create an audience for advertisers is what picks the winners in our public marketplace.
The professionals who manage political discussions understand that very well. They do all sorts of focus groups and testing to understand what will create an emotional appeal that promotes their clients' interests.
As for why facts and experience don't change people's minds. You might ask why anyone still believes they do. That belief is certainly contradicted by facts and experience.
All of our public discussions are emotional binges. That's what captures and holds an audience. And the ability to create an audience for advertisers is what picks the winners in our public marketplace.
The professionals who manage political discussions understand that very well. They do all sorts of focus groups and testing to understand what will create an emotional appeal that promotes their clients' interests.
As for why facts and experience don't change people's minds. You might ask why anyone still believes they do. That belief is certainly contradicted by facts and experience.
6
"As for why facts and experience don't change people's minds. You might ask why anyone still believes they do. That belief is certainly contradicted by facts and experience."
At least as the body politic is characterized in the media.
In my daily life, facts and experience inform every decision I make.
And I avoid interacting with people who present themselves and their work/products as disembodied objects in a commercial market. When people act this way, the pleasure in speaking with them melts away - I realize I have little chance of having a spontaneous conversation, and that their only interest in me is coming from my wallet.
With such folks, genuine conversation on political topics never has enough space to happen.
Such conversation is not professional, I suppose.
It seems a shame to banish our oldest form of communication from public life, and farm it out to a one-way deluge of canned media, especially when the political content is shaping the way we'll live for the next few hundred years.
At least as the body politic is characterized in the media.
In my daily life, facts and experience inform every decision I make.
And I avoid interacting with people who present themselves and their work/products as disembodied objects in a commercial market. When people act this way, the pleasure in speaking with them melts away - I realize I have little chance of having a spontaneous conversation, and that their only interest in me is coming from my wallet.
With such folks, genuine conversation on political topics never has enough space to happen.
Such conversation is not professional, I suppose.
It seems a shame to banish our oldest form of communication from public life, and farm it out to a one-way deluge of canned media, especially when the political content is shaping the way we'll live for the next few hundred years.
2
I subscribe to the WSJ for news of the economy and the stock market. However their editorial section is virtually a collection of propaganda.
There are constant articles by someone who has a gripe with the ACA, how Obama is doing something that hurts the economy, and articles by people from the American Enterprise Institute, and the Hoover Institute.
The general theme of the right wing, is the Constitution is being violated, you are losing your freedoms, regulation is taking away your rights, and the big one is:
Your money is being taken and given to people who do not deserve it.
It is said, people who get govt aid do not want to work, the wealth is being distributed, it is socialism, taxing the wealthy takes money away from investing in jobs.
All themes that appeals to those who are struggling to get by, who are easy prey to political charlatans, who listen to those who say what they want to hear. Such as it is the fault of "The Liberal Elites," the govt is wasting your money. As we know, it is in the interest of certain groups to keep people misinformed, there is money to be made. They appeal to jealousy and feelings of inadequacy among those who are stuck in the system. Convincing them, all they have to do, is shrink the govt and their problems will go away. A high percentage of small business owners believe this also.
If not for all those pesky regulations, they too would become rich, instead of just being millionaires.
They need followers to gain the throne.
There are constant articles by someone who has a gripe with the ACA, how Obama is doing something that hurts the economy, and articles by people from the American Enterprise Institute, and the Hoover Institute.
The general theme of the right wing, is the Constitution is being violated, you are losing your freedoms, regulation is taking away your rights, and the big one is:
Your money is being taken and given to people who do not deserve it.
It is said, people who get govt aid do not want to work, the wealth is being distributed, it is socialism, taxing the wealthy takes money away from investing in jobs.
All themes that appeals to those who are struggling to get by, who are easy prey to political charlatans, who listen to those who say what they want to hear. Such as it is the fault of "The Liberal Elites," the govt is wasting your money. As we know, it is in the interest of certain groups to keep people misinformed, there is money to be made. They appeal to jealousy and feelings of inadequacy among those who are stuck in the system. Convincing them, all they have to do, is shrink the govt and their problems will go away. A high percentage of small business owners believe this also.
If not for all those pesky regulations, they too would become rich, instead of just being millionaires.
They need followers to gain the throne.
39
When you live next door to the people who are taking your money you understand what the WSJ is saying.
"They appeal to jealousy and feelings of inadequacy among those who are stuck in the system."
That sounds like the Democratic Party.
"They appeal to jealousy and feelings of inadequacy among those who are stuck in the system."
That sounds like the Democratic Party.
So you freely admit your Liberal bias. In a study published by The Economist, only the WSJ was judged to be trustworthy by readers at every point along the political spectrum. You're, uh, left to guess how the NYT fared.
These rw Gop messages add up to one of the great PR coups in political history, to make us distrust and vilify our own govt--that's us--while the elites laugh all the way to the bank, as they convince millions to identify with them.
The US electorate is being put in a weakened mental state, left with little defenses against political media conditioning, and made gullible to whatever the gop wants to spread for their own advantage.
Thus we're plagued by an electoral Gullibola Virus in politics, taking it’s toll on our grasp of facts and our own self interest. There are no emergency rooms to deal with this epidemic. And there’s no big profit for a vaccine—in fact the profits are in the disease, not the cure.
One of the main ways to spread this virus is appeal to the Founding Fathers American ideals---freedom, individualism, small govt, thus deregulation. This leaves voters delivered into the hands of big corporatism which can be just as coercive as any govt, while pretending it's not. But no need for violence—just PR.
We are left to suffer the taxation, while we get ever less representation. Then we elect leaders from the choices set up by the big donors, with the platforms they keep within their parameters for good ROI. Many voters seem quite happy with this arrangement.
The US electorate is being put in a weakened mental state, left with little defenses against political media conditioning, and made gullible to whatever the gop wants to spread for their own advantage.
Thus we're plagued by an electoral Gullibola Virus in politics, taking it’s toll on our grasp of facts and our own self interest. There are no emergency rooms to deal with this epidemic. And there’s no big profit for a vaccine—in fact the profits are in the disease, not the cure.
One of the main ways to spread this virus is appeal to the Founding Fathers American ideals---freedom, individualism, small govt, thus deregulation. This leaves voters delivered into the hands of big corporatism which can be just as coercive as any govt, while pretending it's not. But no need for violence—just PR.
We are left to suffer the taxation, while we get ever less representation. Then we elect leaders from the choices set up by the big donors, with the platforms they keep within their parameters for good ROI. Many voters seem quite happy with this arrangement.
What constitutes good government is a value judgment on which reasonable people will differ.
For example, some think a good government is one that puts more money into workers pockets. This is not an unreasonable position for working, lower middle class people.
Head leadline of the NY TImes January 17 was:
"Lower Oil Prices Provide Benefits to U.S. Workers"
All economists agree that the lower oil price is a result of fracking, Fracking is a contentious technique, that is opposed by most Democrats, supported by most Republicans. Personally, I oppose it.
And again, from NY Times, January 3rd
"Driven by oil, the fracking boom and exurban sprawl, many of the red state economies are experiencing a vigorous ,,,,spurt of growth. "
Hint: To select a single state, Kansas, from all all red States, is to cherry-pick your data .
For example, some think a good government is one that puts more money into workers pockets. This is not an unreasonable position for working, lower middle class people.
Head leadline of the NY TImes January 17 was:
"Lower Oil Prices Provide Benefits to U.S. Workers"
All economists agree that the lower oil price is a result of fracking, Fracking is a contentious technique, that is opposed by most Democrats, supported by most Republicans. Personally, I oppose it.
And again, from NY Times, January 3rd
"Driven by oil, the fracking boom and exurban sprawl, many of the red state economies are experiencing a vigorous ,,,,spurt of growth. "
Hint: To select a single state, Kansas, from all all red States, is to cherry-pick your data .
4
The other state where tax cuts failed miserably is North Carolina, and I think are few more. The point is that those states are clear cut examples for failed philosophy of tax cuts. Fracking may worked to benefit other states, but that wasn't the subject here, was it?
14
No it is Sammy Brownback who made all the clucking noises about what his "reforms" would do; KP is just reporting that the chickens come home to roost, and they got no features.
Dr. K. has been right before when he has pointed out that these reactionaries are having their message pushed by ' movement conservatism ', which sees nothing at all wrong with the feudal age, as they imagine themselves occupying the manor houses and feudal castles.
It is up to the rest of us to keep them from constructing an economy of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%; an economy for them instead of for all of us.
Besides, after watching the financial melt-down, they are delusional, since we know beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they cannot restrain greedy human nature that kills the goose who lays the golden egg - which is why we regulate them through government " of the people, by the people, and for the people ".
Bill Moyers says it well:
" We are just this close (I'm squeezing my index finger and thumb tightly) from oligarchy -- the rule of the wealthy few for the purpose of increasing their wealth. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/bill-moyers-on-lbj-and-se_b_64...
It is up to the rest of us to keep them from constructing an economy of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%; an economy for them instead of for all of us.
Besides, after watching the financial melt-down, they are delusional, since we know beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they cannot restrain greedy human nature that kills the goose who lays the golden egg - which is why we regulate them through government " of the people, by the people, and for the people ".
Bill Moyers says it well:
" We are just this close (I'm squeezing my index finger and thumb tightly) from oligarchy -- the rule of the wealthy few for the purpose of increasing their wealth. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/bill-moyers-on-lbj-and-se_b_64...
21
We're already there, but the reason is lost on you. Since time immemorial, the more government meddles in an economy, the more crony capitalists there are to suckle. No surprise that 7 of the 10 richest counties in America surround D.C., not Wall St.
Ideology is behind adherence to beliefs, despite all evidence to the contrary. Whatever one's desired position, be it to pollute the planet without repercussion; to cut taxes and maintain spending on priorities like trillion-dollar wars; that Democracy is God's gift to humanity, no matter how many are killed for it; that it's preferable to leave citizens uninsured and utilizing ERs without a means of payment than to ensure coverage; that every student can set their own course for a thorough education,with no regard to pupil spending or availability of meals during the school day; it seems like people want to say it enough times to make it come true. No place for interruptions or counterpoints as ideology becomes pathology.
8
Prof. Krugman wrote: "... the fact is that we’re living in a political era in which facts don’t matter. .... But we should be realistic in our expectations, and not expect even the most decisive evidence to make much difference."
The world is going to hell in a handbasket and we can't have a rational, fact-based debate on what to do, and we are far from assembling a majority that can do the needful regardless of the shrieks of the reason-challenged. So what can we do?
The world is going to hell in a handbasket and we can't have a rational, fact-based debate on what to do, and we are far from assembling a majority that can do the needful regardless of the shrieks of the reason-challenged. So what can we do?
7
Simple mindedness + persistent propaganda = the reason for the dogmatism.
Remove the propaganda and it goes away. Remove the simple mindedness and it goes away. But as long as both are around, the results will be the same.
The media has proven to be ill equipped to combat the propaganda. And it isn't the role of the media to educate away simple mindedness. But a political party intent on combating the propaganda could both educate the populace and point out the lies told to dupe people into voting against their self interests.
Unfortunately for the United States, we do not have such a political party. We have the Democrats, too scared to toot their own horn, even when they should be doing so, and too timid to call a liar a liar.
And so it will continue. The propaganda machine will spit out the lies, the simple minded will believe them, and that will be the story of us.
Remove the propaganda and it goes away. Remove the simple mindedness and it goes away. But as long as both are around, the results will be the same.
The media has proven to be ill equipped to combat the propaganda. And it isn't the role of the media to educate away simple mindedness. But a political party intent on combating the propaganda could both educate the populace and point out the lies told to dupe people into voting against their self interests.
Unfortunately for the United States, we do not have such a political party. We have the Democrats, too scared to toot their own horn, even when they should be doing so, and too timid to call a liar a liar.
And so it will continue. The propaganda machine will spit out the lies, the simple minded will believe them, and that will be the story of us.
39
You have to admit that Big Money and international corporations have a lot more money to spend on propaganda than we Dems do.
1
Prof. Krugman wrote: "....That is, they’re defenders of traditional hierarchy — the kind of hierarchy that is threatened by any expansion of government...".
And it now occurs to me these are the ideological descendants of the defenders of that traditional hierarchy that was first threatened by the Civil Rights Act of 1964; it is just that they've diversified in the meantime.
And it now occurs to me these are the ideological descendants of the defenders of that traditional hierarchy that was first threatened by the Civil Rights Act of 1964; it is just that they've diversified in the meantime.
14
A great many of them are also the biological descendants of the people who couldn't stand the ideo of anybody uppity daring to presume that s/he should have the same rights as anyone else.
2
"And why this hatred of government in the public interest? Well, the political scientist Corey Robin argues that most self-proclaimed conservatives are actually reactionaries. That is, they’re defenders of traditional hierarchy — the kind of hierarchy that is threatened by any expansion of government, even (or perhaps especially) when that expansion makes the lives of ordinary citizens better and more secure. I’m partial to that story, partly because it helps explain why climate science and health economics inspire so much rage."
The party of no, the GOP, has no interest in government, in rules and regulations, in anything basically which might decrease the profits their puppet masters make, from the Koch brothers to the richest 1% in America. Without regulations, without rules, without science, without education, we will fail. But that does not matter to the wealthiest. One need only look at the news, from the report that 2014 was the warmest year on record, to the report that the water of the world will at some point in the very near future no longer be a healthy place, killing everything in it. But why bother with facts?
The party of no, the GOP, has no interest in government, in rules and regulations, in anything basically which might decrease the profits their puppet masters make, from the Koch brothers to the richest 1% in America. Without regulations, without rules, without science, without education, we will fail. But that does not matter to the wealthiest. One need only look at the news, from the report that 2014 was the warmest year on record, to the report that the water of the world will at some point in the very near future no longer be a healthy place, killing everything in it. But why bother with facts?
22
Was anyone here taught about the Dark Ages? It was a time where powerful rich people, Kings, wanted to hold onto their lands and loot. Regular folk were kept ignorant and were held down so they could labor on the lands of the Lords for bare subsistence wages. Does any of this sound familiar?
That is why the deniers are doing what they are doing. It is to hoard money and power. They don't want government programs to help regular folk because it is not conducive for them to make money off of or save money. This all boils down to money, power and control.
Doing anything about climate change will cost them money. Obamacare costs them money. So even acknowledging climate change is bad. Having Obamacare even if it is doing good for some is bad. Anything that affects their pocketbook is bad no matter what good it could do for the planet or mankind.
They know it is all true. Climate change is real. Obamacare is working and supply side economics is working exactly how it is suppose to work, redistributing wealth to the rich. They believe money will protect them from anything even a stripped planet. The kings of old thought their riches would protect them and their families forever, too. So how did that work out for them?
That is why the deniers are doing what they are doing. It is to hoard money and power. They don't want government programs to help regular folk because it is not conducive for them to make money off of or save money. This all boils down to money, power and control.
Doing anything about climate change will cost them money. Obamacare costs them money. So even acknowledging climate change is bad. Having Obamacare even if it is doing good for some is bad. Anything that affects their pocketbook is bad no matter what good it could do for the planet or mankind.
They know it is all true. Climate change is real. Obamacare is working and supply side economics is working exactly how it is suppose to work, redistributing wealth to the rich. They believe money will protect them from anything even a stripped planet. The kings of old thought their riches would protect them and their families forever, too. So how did that work out for them?
34
"The kings of old thought their riches would protect them and their families forever, too. So how did that work out for them? "
Not very well in the end, but we don't 300 years to wait it out. I'd like to say the Gandhi had it right with non-violent civil disobedience, but we may not have time for that either. someone did a drive-by on Biden's house so it may ahve already begun.
Not very well in the end, but we don't 300 years to wait it out. I'd like to say the Gandhi had it right with non-violent civil disobedience, but we may not have time for that either. someone did a drive-by on Biden's house so it may ahve already begun.
2
Professor Robin summed up conservatives’ greedy and hateful little minds quite well. The late Professor George Benz, an economics professor of mine back in the early 1980’s said the problem with conservatives was that they are afraid of competition, which is more or less the same as Professor Robin’s assessment of them.
What really bugs me is that so many of the tightest and greediest geezers are old enough to have seen and in a few cases experienced truly hard times, so they know full well what living in a society stricken by pervasive suffering was like, yet they insist on policies that are undoing decades of hard won progress and taking millions of people back to lives of abject poverty again. God help us if the country doesn’t come to its senses and return to a saner and more progressive course once again.
What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but everything around him goes to hell? The Bible put it in slightly different words, but we won’t have to wait long for an answer – it’s happening all around us in America today.
What really bugs me is that so many of the tightest and greediest geezers are old enough to have seen and in a few cases experienced truly hard times, so they know full well what living in a society stricken by pervasive suffering was like, yet they insist on policies that are undoing decades of hard won progress and taking millions of people back to lives of abject poverty again. God help us if the country doesn’t come to its senses and return to a saner and more progressive course once again.
What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but everything around him goes to hell? The Bible put it in slightly different words, but we won’t have to wait long for an answer – it’s happening all around us in America today.
243
The key element in this story is the collapse or co-option and cowing of the Fifth Estate--our so-called "free press" has either been bought out or Rather-ized into submission--utterly incapable or unwilling to chronicle--let alone challenge--even the most transparent of Emperor Has No Clothes moments for what they are.
Every Republican position--no matter how factually bankrupt it may be--however fanciful its justification--is treated as legitimate disagreement.
We live in a time when the "free" press our founders believed was essential to the survival of our democratic experiment has been bought out and browbeaten into submission--unable to say the Tooth Fairy is a fiction, because the plutocrats funding the Republicans have a financial interest in tooth decay.
Every Republican position--no matter how factually bankrupt it may be--however fanciful its justification--is treated as legitimate disagreement.
We live in a time when the "free" press our founders believed was essential to the survival of our democratic experiment has been bought out and browbeaten into submission--unable to say the Tooth Fairy is a fiction, because the plutocrats funding the Republicans have a financial interest in tooth decay.
458
A friend sent me a clip of John Oliver's show, wherein he postulated that to be genuinely "fair," debates on climate change should involve interviews with 97 scientists on the warming side versus 3 scientists denying warming, in keeping with the actual ratio found in the scientific community.
Being a comedy show, of course he illustrated it with 100 people in lab coats.
Being a comedy show, of course he illustrated it with 100 people in lab coats.
13
What about plutocrats like Bloomberg and Soros. Are they OK?
"This doesn’t mean that those of us who care about evidence should stop seeking it out. But we should be realistic in our expectations, and not expect even the most decisive evidence to make much difference."
I'll tell you one thing, the evidence will never be presented until Democrats start presenting it. And, they haven't been presenting it for a decade+.
They cheerfully(?) get tarred with as on crime, soft on defense, soft on terror, soft on economic growth, soft on helping the undeserving, soft on the tree huggers...and, just take it, never fighting back with a reasoned response, much less anything approaching the vehemence with which Republicans are forever on attack. It doesn't matter if actual history refutes the 'soft' attacks, the Democrats never stand up to it.
That's what makes Elizabeth Warren so attractive. She fights for what she and the party believe in...which is people, seeing that working people, blue collar and white collar, get a fair shake.
Democrats do a sorry job of educating voters on their positions and what the Republican positions really mean. Maybe, Prof. Warren needs to give lessons.
I'll tell you one thing, the evidence will never be presented until Democrats start presenting it. And, they haven't been presenting it for a decade+.
They cheerfully(?) get tarred with as on crime, soft on defense, soft on terror, soft on economic growth, soft on helping the undeserving, soft on the tree huggers...and, just take it, never fighting back with a reasoned response, much less anything approaching the vehemence with which Republicans are forever on attack. It doesn't matter if actual history refutes the 'soft' attacks, the Democrats never stand up to it.
That's what makes Elizabeth Warren so attractive. She fights for what she and the party believe in...which is people, seeing that working people, blue collar and white collar, get a fair shake.
Democrats do a sorry job of educating voters on their positions and what the Republican positions really mean. Maybe, Prof. Warren needs to give lessons.
1076
It is interesting to examine the psychology of the tea partiers who are the fraction of the population most vehemently against these governmental policies. Mr. Krugman is right that they are reactionary. However, it bears to dig deeper into what they are reacting against. It is not just "big government" as arguably government grew more under Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama ran on the theme of "hope and change." While many people are supportive, there are a substantial fraction of people who are very afraid of "changes". They are in generally older, whiter, and middle class. What are they afraid of? In health care reform, they see a possibility that their own healthcare will be diluted by covering more people. In immigration reform, they see America becoming more multi-cultural that is counter to their more traditional mental images. In government accumulating debt in rescuing the melted down financial system, they see a potential threat to their social security payout. What about environment, as a older cohort, long term consequences are naturally less on their radar screen as the potential economic slowing effect of these regulations. I do not meant that they are just selfish as these are quite legitimate concerns. In fact, it is likely that this group of people will feel some negative consequences of these policies. However, rationally, these policies are clearly beneficial for country as a whole.
14
How is that hope change thing working out?
What it means, according to your explanation, is that they are flaming racists.
1
The T partiers think that " In government accumulating debt in rescuing the melted down financial system, they see a potential threat to their social security payout. "
So these elderly Whities vote repub, who will reduce their soc sec now, never mind a potential threat. This will avoid accumulating govt debt....to avert the threat to their soc sec payout, so.....
'No one ever went broke underestimating....'
So these elderly Whities vote repub, who will reduce their soc sec now, never mind a potential threat. This will avoid accumulating govt debt....to avert the threat to their soc sec payout, so.....
'No one ever went broke underestimating....'
1
I sometimes wonder if it isn't backlash against a Black President. But looking back there has always been resistance to social change. So its probably hate against everybody. I'm wondering if the Supreme Court will gut the ACA by finding that only state exchanges can give out subsidies. If I were a betting man I'd lay two to one odds they do. Republicans will promise better solutions and they will deliver nothing. If a Republican is elected President, clean air and clean water will be a thing of the past. The banking system will go back to being a casino and we will be at war with everyone. And, in the final analysis, when this experiment in democracy is declared a failure, there will be two things to blame; ignorance and bigotry. We could have fought the former by ensuring that every student who attends a public school has a working understanding of American history and how our government works. We could have fought the latter by demanding that students never bully, never herass women, and never utter racial epithets. Perhaps we can incorporate those ideas in the next constitution if anyone is left to write one.
12
Any opposition to Obama must be due to the color of skin. Why else would anyone oppose socialism?
Abin Sur, if the coming Republican dictatorship comes to pass, any ideas on where we could immigrate to if we want a clean drink of water? What countries will take in the US refugees? Where would you go?
I would say the two things that will bring us down are ignorance and selfishness.
The symptoms are clear, the causation is not.
The two types of brains story is anti liberal.
For example, it is racist, since it requires that the brains of Americans with most of their ancestors from more recent arrivals from the mother continent of Africa, are different from the brains of Americans most of whose ancestors spent a millenium in Europe. And, it requires that there are major differences between women's and men's brains. And, that these differences control us. Yuck. Eugenics.
Some liberals like the idea of a Manichaean struggle they are about to win and so get things their way. The smug taunt of white male privilege--which is but a yolk to most white males--surfaces regular, even in the recent democrat whipping that gave all of congress to the nuts. Maybe it is a brain problem?
Liberal sulk makes politics easier but it sells out the country and the liberation tradition and actual democracy in favor of a petty sulk basically like the petty sulk of white pseudo conservative males, who are, for better or worse, countrymen. One person, one vote.
The two types of brains story is anti liberal.
For example, it is racist, since it requires that the brains of Americans with most of their ancestors from more recent arrivals from the mother continent of Africa, are different from the brains of Americans most of whose ancestors spent a millenium in Europe. And, it requires that there are major differences between women's and men's brains. And, that these differences control us. Yuck. Eugenics.
Some liberals like the idea of a Manichaean struggle they are about to win and so get things their way. The smug taunt of white male privilege--which is but a yolk to most white males--surfaces regular, even in the recent democrat whipping that gave all of congress to the nuts. Maybe it is a brain problem?
Liberal sulk makes politics easier but it sells out the country and the liberation tradition and actual democracy in favor of a petty sulk basically like the petty sulk of white pseudo conservative males, who are, for better or worse, countrymen. One person, one vote.
4
Current Supreme Court contends that in America it is one dollar one vote.
1
Q,
"one person, one vote", That would be a "Democracy", sadly (Not!) we are a "Republic"!
"one person, one vote", That would be a "Democracy", sadly (Not!) we are a "Republic"!
I agree completely with the overall premise but not in its application. Indeed, you yourself engage in the same cherry-picking you accuse of your political opponents.
My own thesis is that our entire age is one of massive hypocrisy & cynical manipulation of appearances to suit the agenda of the powerful, top 0.1%.
It is not really about Republicans refusing to see climate change. That is the red herring. Nor is it about Dems refusing to see, say, rising violence in the name of Islam without shouting 'racism'. To my mind neither party is about rational clear-sightedness.
They are both instead about cynical manipulation to suit agendas.
Propaganda in other words.
Each party has its own set of assumptions & buttons they press to manipulate 'the masses,' but the end result is remarkably & depressingly aligned: money keeps getting shoveled into the very wealthy, wars keep getting fought, the masses are pitted against each other, world power gets concentrated into global elites, etc.
I don't believe the people behind the curtain remotely believe in what they say.Propaganda by its nature is not about reason, rigorous data.To argue that one party refuses to 'believe' in data is to pretend they are not engaging in cynical manipulation & they mean what they say.
They don't. As for 'the masses,' arguing they are stupid & irrational will *never* persuade them in the face of relentless propaganda. It's the propaganda & its sources we need to look at, not the lies du jour.
My own thesis is that our entire age is one of massive hypocrisy & cynical manipulation of appearances to suit the agenda of the powerful, top 0.1%.
It is not really about Republicans refusing to see climate change. That is the red herring. Nor is it about Dems refusing to see, say, rising violence in the name of Islam without shouting 'racism'. To my mind neither party is about rational clear-sightedness.
They are both instead about cynical manipulation to suit agendas.
Propaganda in other words.
Each party has its own set of assumptions & buttons they press to manipulate 'the masses,' but the end result is remarkably & depressingly aligned: money keeps getting shoveled into the very wealthy, wars keep getting fought, the masses are pitted against each other, world power gets concentrated into global elites, etc.
I don't believe the people behind the curtain remotely believe in what they say.Propaganda by its nature is not about reason, rigorous data.To argue that one party refuses to 'believe' in data is to pretend they are not engaging in cynical manipulation & they mean what they say.
They don't. As for 'the masses,' arguing they are stupid & irrational will *never* persuade them in the face of relentless propaganda. It's the propaganda & its sources we need to look at, not the lies du jour.
7
One of the profound, truly great FAILURES of liberals, self-proclaimed "progressives" and the Democratic Party is that they cannot "sell their agenda" to the public, without demonizing over half of the voters and calling them names -- rednecks, hillbillies, followers of "Faux News", low information voters, "clinging to guns and religion", stupid, ignorant, etc.
Why is it so hard to understand why people WON'T VOTE for those who call them names, laugh at them and make fun of their culture or their moral values?
Why is it so hard to understand why people WON'T VOTE for those who call them names, laugh at them and make fun of their culture or their moral values?
Well, Mr K, since it appears that you are the odd man out, when are you planning on taking your departure?
4
It's hard to understand what this comment means, other than prima facie evidence of severe brain damage on the part of the commentor.
8
Welcome to rural white America.
Obama spoke the truth when he said these people cling to their bibles and their guns. So what distinguishes these people from the rest of us; lower education, poorer health care, lower paying jobs, stronger religious convictions, a love for the gun culture, and extreme patriotism. But above all else; an inbred hatred of government. Older whites are particuliarly more rabid in that belief. The same segment of our population who only lead a half way decent life because of the social security checks they collect and the medicare that covers their health care that comes directly from the government they despise.
They burn with envy for people who are smarter and more sucessful then them. They revel in their narrow idelogoy and their small mean spirited natures. And they turn up in full force at the ballot box. They are incapable of looking inward and realizing that their failures are a reflection of the sad and pathetic lives they lead and the fixed unchanging ideology they follow blindly.
Obama spoke the truth when he said these people cling to their bibles and their guns. So what distinguishes these people from the rest of us; lower education, poorer health care, lower paying jobs, stronger religious convictions, a love for the gun culture, and extreme patriotism. But above all else; an inbred hatred of government. Older whites are particuliarly more rabid in that belief. The same segment of our population who only lead a half way decent life because of the social security checks they collect and the medicare that covers their health care that comes directly from the government they despise.
They burn with envy for people who are smarter and more sucessful then them. They revel in their narrow idelogoy and their small mean spirited natures. And they turn up in full force at the ballot box. They are incapable of looking inward and realizing that their failures are a reflection of the sad and pathetic lives they lead and the fixed unchanging ideology they follow blindly.
394
Wow, and you wonder why you utterly fail to get your message across to them -- people you hold in scathing contempt, with no regard for their own opinions, autonomy or culture.
And yet, I'll bet you bleat plenty loud about "diversity!"
The idea that any large mass of people can all be exactly the same -- all old, all white, all poor, all envious (OF YOU!), all ignorant (not like YOU!) -- is the worst kind of stereotyping and bigotry.
Which "older whites" do you mean precisely? Me, in my late 50s -- who grew up during the 60s & 70s? Or my parents, who grew up in the 30s? (and were FDR Democrats, who grew disillusioned with the Dems hard left swing in the late 60s and became conservative Republicans)? My dad and my aunt, who both served that "evil awful government" in WWII?
Do you really imagine there are no elderly liberals -- when baby boomers are now ages 55-70?
This is the most pathetic kind of excuse for failure. I note that when liberals win, "elections have consequences!" -- but if liberals LOSE, it's a lot of whinging about how it's "not fair" and "Fox News" and those evil awful ignorant low-information redneck red state people who just won't vote for liberals.
And yet, I'll bet you bleat plenty loud about "diversity!"
The idea that any large mass of people can all be exactly the same -- all old, all white, all poor, all envious (OF YOU!), all ignorant (not like YOU!) -- is the worst kind of stereotyping and bigotry.
Which "older whites" do you mean precisely? Me, in my late 50s -- who grew up during the 60s & 70s? Or my parents, who grew up in the 30s? (and were FDR Democrats, who grew disillusioned with the Dems hard left swing in the late 60s and became conservative Republicans)? My dad and my aunt, who both served that "evil awful government" in WWII?
Do you really imagine there are no elderly liberals -- when baby boomers are now ages 55-70?
This is the most pathetic kind of excuse for failure. I note that when liberals win, "elections have consequences!" -- but if liberals LOSE, it's a lot of whinging about how it's "not fair" and "Fox News" and those evil awful ignorant low-information redneck red state people who just won't vote for liberals.
Oh my gosh! How wonderful! Everybody, please stop calling them conservatives. They are reactionaries. They are reacting to everything accomplished by liberals in the last 100 years; from Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting to FDRs Social Security to Obamacare. Reacting to liberal actions is the actual definition of reactionary.
Conservatives, who sit just to the right of political center, want to conserve and to maintain the status quo. Liberals, just to the left of political center, want to try something new. Liberal has become a dirty word, and has been conflated with radical. Conservative has become a badge of honor while reactionary has disappeared. Calling them conservatives allows reactionaries to drag right-wing lunacy into the center of our political spectrum. It does not belong there.
They are not "severe" or "staunch" or "far right" conservatives, they are reactionaries. They are not anywhere near the center of American politics. Yes, this has been done on purpose by "think tanks" and Fox News, but we do not have to use their terminology. We can use words according to what they actually mean. A radical is still someone in the far-left fringe who wants to force change. A reactionary is still someone in the far-right fringe who wants to force a return to a previous system.
Yes, please, call them what they are; reactionaries.
Conservatives, who sit just to the right of political center, want to conserve and to maintain the status quo. Liberals, just to the left of political center, want to try something new. Liberal has become a dirty word, and has been conflated with radical. Conservative has become a badge of honor while reactionary has disappeared. Calling them conservatives allows reactionaries to drag right-wing lunacy into the center of our political spectrum. It does not belong there.
They are not "severe" or "staunch" or "far right" conservatives, they are reactionaries. They are not anywhere near the center of American politics. Yes, this has been done on purpose by "think tanks" and Fox News, but we do not have to use their terminology. We can use words according to what they actually mean. A radical is still someone in the far-left fringe who wants to force change. A reactionary is still someone in the far-right fringe who wants to force a return to a previous system.
Yes, please, call them what they are; reactionaries.
645
And the Democrats are conservatives, and there are no liberals left in either party.
True there are a couple of Progressives, but they merely howl at the moon, the only sane ones among the whole lot but no more influential than Cassandra.
True there are a couple of Progressives, but they merely howl at the moon, the only sane ones among the whole lot but no more influential than Cassandra.
23
John Taylor.....Agreed, we lack columnists to compare and contrast our warped definitions of left, right, centrist, conservative, reactionary. The Times op ed page should trace the changing definitions of the political spectrum, to arm voters with some reality--on all the issues.
Actually, our so called liberals today, are the ones trying to conserve a secure middle class and consumer economy. What we had for generations before they shipped out millions of jobs and deregulated financial laws. Thus the liberals are the true conservatives, while the gop is the radical reactionary right wing.
Sen Warren's positions should be mainstream centrist policy and would be in most successful democracies today, with better social protections, unions and higher wealth taxes. But here she and Sanders are dismissed as left wing. Dealing realistically with climate change, health care, a consumer bill of rights and protection against financial predators is hardly left wing.
We should compare the right turn of the US vs our own past, when moderate Repubs supported govt action instead of vilifying it. Throw this in the faces of the current gop. And compare us to other democracies, who use their govt for their citizens' benefit. As soon as you know they use public funding for elections you know it's a whole different perspective. .
No wonder many US voters are so confused and vote for the party that harms them.
Actually, our so called liberals today, are the ones trying to conserve a secure middle class and consumer economy. What we had for generations before they shipped out millions of jobs and deregulated financial laws. Thus the liberals are the true conservatives, while the gop is the radical reactionary right wing.
Sen Warren's positions should be mainstream centrist policy and would be in most successful democracies today, with better social protections, unions and higher wealth taxes. But here she and Sanders are dismissed as left wing. Dealing realistically with climate change, health care, a consumer bill of rights and protection against financial predators is hardly left wing.
We should compare the right turn of the US vs our own past, when moderate Repubs supported govt action instead of vilifying it. Throw this in the faces of the current gop. And compare us to other democracies, who use their govt for their citizens' benefit. As soon as you know they use public funding for elections you know it's a whole different perspective. .
No wonder many US voters are so confused and vote for the party that harms them.
20
Liberals have not tried anything "new" -- let alone innovative -- in 75 years.
Every election cycle, they trot out the same tired old memes and solutions ("higher taxes! blame the rich! tax the rich!") that have failed in the past.
We've had a Democrat in the White House now for over 6 years; are things better? Maybe for you. Not for me, and for most Americans. We see our nation going down the tubes, and we vote the stop the people who are making things WORSE -- lefty liberals.
Every election cycle, they trot out the same tired old memes and solutions ("higher taxes! blame the rich! tax the rich!") that have failed in the past.
We've had a Democrat in the White House now for over 6 years; are things better? Maybe for you. Not for me, and for most Americans. We see our nation going down the tubes, and we vote the stop the people who are making things WORSE -- lefty liberals.
Dr. Krugman asks why conservatives continue to embrace supply side economics.
I refer him and readers to an earlier column of his.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opinion/04krugman.html
”… remember that the push for Social Security privatization is only part of the right's strategy for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society. The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."
So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.
Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.
Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue "incredibly positive news" because it would "put a straitjacket" on federal spending…
I refer him and readers to an earlier column of his.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opinion/04krugman.html
”… remember that the push for Social Security privatization is only part of the right's strategy for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society. The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."
So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.
Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.
Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue "incredibly positive news" because it would "put a straitjacket" on federal spending…
156
It's not simply that facts don't matter; it's also that we have vast amounts of inequality, and the forces that have concentrated all that wealth in the hands of the few are actively engaged in suppressing everything that could counter that concentration. Government is number one on their hit list.
For trivial amounts out of the vast wealth we're talking about here, it has been possible to fund think tanks, institutes, astro turf groups, and dedicated media to "catapult the propaganda." Anyone who sets out to defend the role of government - especially if running for political office - automatically becomes targeted for destruction. One need only look at how Occupy Wall Street was suppressed - both physically and in the media - to see how determined the effort is to keep the lid on inconvenient truths.
This would be bad enough in itself, but the capitulation to, even the adoption of, so many anti-government talking points by the Democratic Party has only allowed the madness to spread. For every Warren or Sanders, there are scores of corporate Democrats triangulating against government, too many operatives in the "deep government" out of sight - but not power.
We now have a generation or more of Americans who have grown up hearing "Government is not the answer." They've been taught to be angry and afraid - and that government is the enemy.
So here we are.
For trivial amounts out of the vast wealth we're talking about here, it has been possible to fund think tanks, institutes, astro turf groups, and dedicated media to "catapult the propaganda." Anyone who sets out to defend the role of government - especially if running for political office - automatically becomes targeted for destruction. One need only look at how Occupy Wall Street was suppressed - both physically and in the media - to see how determined the effort is to keep the lid on inconvenient truths.
This would be bad enough in itself, but the capitulation to, even the adoption of, so many anti-government talking points by the Democratic Party has only allowed the madness to spread. For every Warren or Sanders, there are scores of corporate Democrats triangulating against government, too many operatives in the "deep government" out of sight - but not power.
We now have a generation or more of Americans who have grown up hearing "Government is not the answer." They've been taught to be angry and afraid - and that government is the enemy.
So here we are.
84
"Government is not the answer."
Maybe they learned the lessons of Vietnam.
Maybe they learned the lessons of Vietnam.
It's important to keep perspective. The reactionaries have been with us our whole history as a nation. From the whiskey rebellion to the know-nothings, to the tea party. From the conservatives who defended slavery to those who fought women's suffrage. At the height of FDR's popularity and the popular triumph of the New Deal (conclusively proving, for any with eyes, that Government CAN work and improve the lives of all), he was dogged by right-wingers who listened to Father Coughlin and threw attacks both political and personal against him, his family, and even his little dog, Fala. After getting elected by the biggest landslide in American history, LBJ still had to cope with the "conservative coalition" of business-beholden Republicans and racist southern Democrats (who became racist business-beholden southern Republicans after a few decades). The John Birch Society, the Federalist Society, Fox News... It's all the same.
They've always been with us, and yet we've always managed to struggle forward... And we will continue to do so, as long as we continue to fight their hysteria, lies, and anger with facts, reason, and a positive vision of the future!
They've always been with us, and yet we've always managed to struggle forward... And we will continue to do so, as long as we continue to fight their hysteria, lies, and anger with facts, reason, and a positive vision of the future!
46
First off, I think that the Nixon/McGovern race was the largest landslide in US history.
And the Dems and US lefty liberals do NOT offer a "positive vision of the future". That's the PROBLEM with your message.
Nobody wants to hear that the future will consist of a grim, miserable lifestyle with very high taxes, carbon credits, costly utilities -- nobody wants to hear about how you lefties want to ban private automobiles or force people to live in crowded cities ("smaller carbon footprint", dontcha know) and nobody wants to face shortages and rationing, which is inevitably what you are calling for here. Nobody wants to return to a primitive lifestyle of subsistence farming for all, which is literally the only way to even HOPE to reduce the global warming juggernaut.
In fact, even lefty liberals don't want this for THEMSELVES --- so they seek to impose it on OTHERS, while continuing their very pleasant affluent urban lifestyles.
And the Dems and US lefty liberals do NOT offer a "positive vision of the future". That's the PROBLEM with your message.
Nobody wants to hear that the future will consist of a grim, miserable lifestyle with very high taxes, carbon credits, costly utilities -- nobody wants to hear about how you lefties want to ban private automobiles or force people to live in crowded cities ("smaller carbon footprint", dontcha know) and nobody wants to face shortages and rationing, which is inevitably what you are calling for here. Nobody wants to return to a primitive lifestyle of subsistence farming for all, which is literally the only way to even HOPE to reduce the global warming juggernaut.
In fact, even lefty liberals don't want this for THEMSELVES --- so they seek to impose it on OTHERS, while continuing their very pleasant affluent urban lifestyles.
I am happy to see that finally,Paul gets it that sound, rational, logical arguments based on evidence do not matter to those creating the greater problems of our times and those who blindly support them. Now we can get on with the real business at hand: how to manage people who do not deal in facts and logical argument and instead on valences of power and what's in it for them. Unfortunately, these are not economic issues.
Mind you, I don't fault Paul for coming to this conclusion so late. It's hard to blame someone for having more faith in the goodness of people than those of us who caught on sooner, for being a nicer, kinder person.
Mind you, I don't fault Paul for coming to this conclusion so late. It's hard to blame someone for having more faith in the goodness of people than those of us who caught on sooner, for being a nicer, kinder person.
16
My impression was that Dr Krugman has always claimed the apparent immunity of American conservatives to reality. Furthemore, the question of how to deal with that ignorance has been posted numerous times on these pages, and admittedly. few people have the answer. But this is a debate for another day in upcoming 2015-2016 campaign.
5
The reason that Republicans can get away with dogmatic rhetoric is that nobody is making an effort to educate the public on the sciences and facts. Evidence of glaciers and ice caps melting is not conclusive climate science, any more than observing people recovering after bloodletting was conclusive medical science. The climatologists have failed to educate the public on the scientific global warming mechanism (the physics of how it is caused), due to their belief that we are too stupid to understand it.
Wanting to get to the truth about global warming, I tried to research the science on the internet. All I could find were political articles (such as references to Al Gore's documentary, which I don't consider to be unbiased nor conclusive). I finally got to the bottom of it with the help of my daughter, who is an environmental scientist, and who agreed it is difficult to find the answers on the internet.
I happen to have a decent background and understanding in economics, but how is someone who doesn't understand economic principles supposed to know who to believe? While Prof. Krugman's column is sometimes educational, it is often ideological. (As usual, today's column focuses on the problem without proposing a solution.) There has been no real effort to educate the public at-large on basic economics, which doesn't have to be all that complicated.
Unless the public is properly educated on the science and the facts, political dogma will continue to win out over science.
Wanting to get to the truth about global warming, I tried to research the science on the internet. All I could find were political articles (such as references to Al Gore's documentary, which I don't consider to be unbiased nor conclusive). I finally got to the bottom of it with the help of my daughter, who is an environmental scientist, and who agreed it is difficult to find the answers on the internet.
I happen to have a decent background and understanding in economics, but how is someone who doesn't understand economic principles supposed to know who to believe? While Prof. Krugman's column is sometimes educational, it is often ideological. (As usual, today's column focuses on the problem without proposing a solution.) There has been no real effort to educate the public at-large on basic economics, which doesn't have to be all that complicated.
Unless the public is properly educated on the science and the facts, political dogma will continue to win out over science.
12
You hit the nail right on. The public doesn't understand the reality and it seems it doesn't want to understand. My observation was that even Republicans were surprised that the propaganda of scare to undermine the Obama's popularity worked better than optimists predicted. In terminology of sporting events it was a blowout. More than 500+ radio stations and 2000+ congreagation all worked in concerted way to undermine science, undermine Obama presidency, and overwhelm democratic message. Add to that relentless fearmongering in last few weeks before election and you have a disaster.
16
There are many sources that lay out the basics of global warming for general readers. But to do the math requires significant knowledge in quantum physics and thermodynamics. I was a USAF weather officer for 22 years, educated at Government expense at NYU and MIT, plus a quasi-post doc at Goddard Space Flight Center.
Thermodynamic systems attempt to reach equilibrium. Take an ice cube out of the fridge and it starts melting, unless you live in an igloo. The earth receives nearly all its energy from the in the radiation in the visible part of the spectrum. This energy drives atmospheric and oceanic circulations. To balance the books, we exhaust a similar amount of radiation to outer space via infrared radiation. If there is an imbalance, the earth eith warms or cools. When greenhouse gases increase, it is like putting another blanket on the bed on a clear winter night.
If the earth maintained the same reflectivity, with no greenhouse gasses, the mean temperature of the earth would 21K or 37F cooler. That we are warmer is due to greenhouse gasses. Increases in GG concentration will result in high temperatures.
Thermodynamic systems attempt to reach equilibrium. Take an ice cube out of the fridge and it starts melting, unless you live in an igloo. The earth receives nearly all its energy from the in the radiation in the visible part of the spectrum. This energy drives atmospheric and oceanic circulations. To balance the books, we exhaust a similar amount of radiation to outer space via infrared radiation. If there is an imbalance, the earth eith warms or cools. When greenhouse gases increase, it is like putting another blanket on the bed on a clear winter night.
If the earth maintained the same reflectivity, with no greenhouse gasses, the mean temperature of the earth would 21K or 37F cooler. That we are warmer is due to greenhouse gasses. Increases in GG concentration will result in high temperatures.
22
Fred....I agree that education and solutions should take up at least a paragraph in most columns we read lamenting our various problems. Otherwise it's same old.
The other reply cites 500 radio stations having more success than even Repubs dreamed. Would it have been so many, with such influence, before monopoly media ownership was approved by congress? We used to have rules against that.
Or suppose the fairness doctrine for news programs hadn't been repealed? Then the science side would have been more promoted, instead of being only id'd with 'liberals'.
With the consensus of scientific organizations in countries agreeing on climate change threat and the human causes, the US is seriously out of step. I don't think the EU has any rw parties denying global warming. Thus they don't have our resistance to Green policies and to infrastructure spending to adapt to realities.
The other reply cites 500 radio stations having more success than even Repubs dreamed. Would it have been so many, with such influence, before monopoly media ownership was approved by congress? We used to have rules against that.
Or suppose the fairness doctrine for news programs hadn't been repealed? Then the science side would have been more promoted, instead of being only id'd with 'liberals'.
With the consensus of scientific organizations in countries agreeing on climate change threat and the human causes, the US is seriously out of step. I don't think the EU has any rw parties denying global warming. Thus they don't have our resistance to Green policies and to infrastructure spending to adapt to realities.
9
Why is the Right always wrong?
It's fact denial remains strong.
It hates regulation
Adores speculation
And plunges into Wars headlong.
It's fact denial remains strong.
It hates regulation
Adores speculation
And plunges into Wars headlong.
464
Maduro has the cure
The Democrats are sure
"Free stuff for ourselves"
yields only empty shelves.
The Democrats are sure
"Free stuff for ourselves"
yields only empty shelves.
Larry Eisenberg, you're a gem. Keep up the good work!
1
"So will the deniers now concede that climate change is real?" --- Krugman
They might concede that climate change is real, but they'll attribute it to "natural variability" of the climate and point out that climate has changed a lot in the past, e.g. the ice ages. But the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2013 assessment concluded that, while allowing for some natural variability, most of the climate change in the last 100 or so years can be attributed to human influences, mainly due to use of fossil fuels and cutting down forests. Over 800 experts in climate science participated in the IPCC assessment, and nearly all knowledgeable scientists agree with them. The recent global warming trend is much more rapid than changes, like the ice ages, that occurred over many thousands of years.
But it's in the Republicans' interest to deny anthropogenic influences on climate, in their role as shills for the fossil energy interests, and they'll keep right on denying as long as there's a payoff, no matter what the facts are or what the best scientific evaluations say.
They might concede that climate change is real, but they'll attribute it to "natural variability" of the climate and point out that climate has changed a lot in the past, e.g. the ice ages. But the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2013 assessment concluded that, while allowing for some natural variability, most of the climate change in the last 100 or so years can be attributed to human influences, mainly due to use of fossil fuels and cutting down forests. Over 800 experts in climate science participated in the IPCC assessment, and nearly all knowledgeable scientists agree with them. The recent global warming trend is much more rapid than changes, like the ice ages, that occurred over many thousands of years.
But it's in the Republicans' interest to deny anthropogenic influences on climate, in their role as shills for the fossil energy interests, and they'll keep right on denying as long as there's a payoff, no matter what the facts are or what the best scientific evaluations say.
232
OK, but just because it is not man-made, why does that make it good? Why should we not do what we can to slow it down anyway?
1
Ms. Bergman: do you live in a yurt, and raise all your own food? Unless you are Amish, which I seriously doubt, YOU have an ENORMOUS carbon footprint. You probably yak all day on your iPhone (*manufactured by Chinese slave labor at Foxxconn) and take lovely vacations on jet airplanes, and enjoy eating all that imported foodstuff from Whole Foods -- YOU are the reason for global warming! I don't see YOU reigning in YOUR affluent liberal lifestyle!
Basically you just want to tax people a lot. You have NO PLAN WHATSOEVER for reversing global warming, and we all know what you will really do with those taxes on gasoline, oil, natural gas and other fuels -- you will use them to impose lefty liberal social engineering.
Those 800 experts have all told us, for years now, that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to reverse global warming -- it's far too late. That ship has sailed. So if it is impossible to change or reverse, the best we can do is adapt to it. And I'd prefer to adapt without handing over half my paycheck to a government of nanny-staters or social engineers, who want to force their ideology on me.
Basically you just want to tax people a lot. You have NO PLAN WHATSOEVER for reversing global warming, and we all know what you will really do with those taxes on gasoline, oil, natural gas and other fuels -- you will use them to impose lefty liberal social engineering.
Those 800 experts have all told us, for years now, that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to reverse global warming -- it's far too late. That ship has sailed. So if it is impossible to change or reverse, the best we can do is adapt to it. And I'd prefer to adapt without handing over half my paycheck to a government of nanny-staters or social engineers, who want to force their ideology on me.
The 19th century Nova Scotian humourist, statesman and best selling author Thomas Chandler Haliburton is quoted as saying, When a man is wrong and won't admit it , he always gets angry."
I am in total agreement with today's Krugman column but understanding the history of today's so called conservative I would not call them reactionaries. I would use the word I usually use when I describe Francisco Franco who was the person whose political philosophy was embraced by William Frank Buckley Senior and his children.
I am in total agreement with today's Krugman column but understanding the history of today's so called conservative I would not call them reactionaries. I would use the word I usually use when I describe Francisco Franco who was the person whose political philosophy was embraced by William Frank Buckley Senior and his children.
174
Republicans are only interested in serving the interests of their big campaign donors. Sen. Bernie Sanders held a press conference on Friday to bring attention to the GOP's attack on Social Security and to discuss the very different priorities that he and the Democrats will push for. From Sanders press conference:
"The middle class is in decline. Millions of seniors are struggling to pay for their food, their medicine and their heat. On the very first day of Congress, the Republicans in the House made a change in its rules that could lead to a 20 percent cut in Social Security disability benefits for 11 million Americans, including 2 million children, over a million veterans, and over 150,000 surviving spouses. In other words, in the midst of massive wealth and income inequality, the Republicans want to make massive cuts in a program that benefits some of the most vulnerable people in this country.
"The budget passed last year by the Republican House which called for massive cuts in Medicare,Medicaid, education, nutrition, affordable housing, and other programs impacting the lives of working Americans, while providing huge tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations, is a budget approach which moves us in exactly the wrong direction."
To see Sen. Sanders' press conference, "Budget Committee Priorities," go to his YouTube page.
"The middle class is in decline. Millions of seniors are struggling to pay for their food, their medicine and their heat. On the very first day of Congress, the Republicans in the House made a change in its rules that could lead to a 20 percent cut in Social Security disability benefits for 11 million Americans, including 2 million children, over a million veterans, and over 150,000 surviving spouses. In other words, in the midst of massive wealth and income inequality, the Republicans want to make massive cuts in a program that benefits some of the most vulnerable people in this country.
"The budget passed last year by the Republican House which called for massive cuts in Medicare,Medicaid, education, nutrition, affordable housing, and other programs impacting the lives of working Americans, while providing huge tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations, is a budget approach which moves us in exactly the wrong direction."
To see Sen. Sanders' press conference, "Budget Committee Priorities," go to his YouTube page.
659
But, but, but he's a Radical Leftist!!!
3
Those same millions are paying 1/2 for gas and heating oil right now. No thanks to Bernie Sanders!',
1
2 out of 3 people on Social Security Disability are "fakers". You can easily verify this by the number of infomercials on late night TV, advertising lawyers who will "get you your benefits! that you DESERVE!" and even say you can get SSDI now for all kinds of minor conditions that you might not realize you can qualify with! This is a billion dollar industry, lawyers pursuing fake claims (the lawyers typically get paid for with the "back payments" that are made up to the client by the government, often this is tens of thousands of dollars).
I personally have family members who have gotten SSDI this way, so I know it is true.
If cuts in SSDI (and a separation from regular retirement SS, which is also a great idea) got rid of "fakers" and frauds, it would be a marvelous thing indeed. NOBODY -- nobody -- wants to take SSDI away from the genuinely sick or crippled, the paraplegic or the guy in the iron lung. But we are truly sick and tired of seeing perfectly healthy adults who fake "back pain" or "fibromyalgia", and then we see them on vacations or working at jobs under the table for cash -- and laughing as they happily cash a government check (and we stupidly keep going into work to support them).
BTW: veterans get disability from the VA, not SSDI. The children on SSDI are only rarely sick or handicapped -- the vast majority have vague, unprovable nonsense like "oppositional defiance syndrome" or "fake learning disabilities", and they were put on SSDI by unscrupulous parents.
I personally have family members who have gotten SSDI this way, so I know it is true.
If cuts in SSDI (and a separation from regular retirement SS, which is also a great idea) got rid of "fakers" and frauds, it would be a marvelous thing indeed. NOBODY -- nobody -- wants to take SSDI away from the genuinely sick or crippled, the paraplegic or the guy in the iron lung. But we are truly sick and tired of seeing perfectly healthy adults who fake "back pain" or "fibromyalgia", and then we see them on vacations or working at jobs under the table for cash -- and laughing as they happily cash a government check (and we stupidly keep going into work to support them).
BTW: veterans get disability from the VA, not SSDI. The children on SSDI are only rarely sick or handicapped -- the vast majority have vague, unprovable nonsense like "oppositional defiance syndrome" or "fake learning disabilities", and they were put on SSDI by unscrupulous parents.
The right must be gaining serious ground for the Professor to wax so disappointed with Americans. If it's not climate unorthodoxy it's the Kansan economy; or it's rejection of a vindicated healthcare transformation; or any number of other symptoms of dysfunction.
Credible people still claim that while it's apparent that the Earth is warming, it remains that predictions of imminent catastrophe may be overblown. For instance, some argue that placement of weather stations in urban areas may produce data corrupted by the "urban heat island", an effect produced by cities' high heat and carbon characteristics. Others argue that computer models are merely guesses at what will happen in future, a failing even climatologists don't deny. How reliable are next week's weather forecasts? There are MANY such questions and claims. But what's not in doubt is that Democrats' solutions will cost jobs and severe economic disruption.
As to Kansan politics, KANSANS argue that their fiscal woes aren't about taxes but about spending still out of control. And all those people who disapprove of the ACA (according to RCA, 51.3% actively disapprove while only 39.7% approve of it, on average across major polls) aren't impressed by the Professor's numbers when they think that they're paying too much for them.
It's not rejection of government that serves the public interest that's getting so many Republicans elected, Professor: it's a fundamentally different definition of the public's interest.
Credible people still claim that while it's apparent that the Earth is warming, it remains that predictions of imminent catastrophe may be overblown. For instance, some argue that placement of weather stations in urban areas may produce data corrupted by the "urban heat island", an effect produced by cities' high heat and carbon characteristics. Others argue that computer models are merely guesses at what will happen in future, a failing even climatologists don't deny. How reliable are next week's weather forecasts? There are MANY such questions and claims. But what's not in doubt is that Democrats' solutions will cost jobs and severe economic disruption.
As to Kansan politics, KANSANS argue that their fiscal woes aren't about taxes but about spending still out of control. And all those people who disapprove of the ACA (according to RCA, 51.3% actively disapprove while only 39.7% approve of it, on average across major polls) aren't impressed by the Professor's numbers when they think that they're paying too much for them.
It's not rejection of government that serves the public interest that's getting so many Republicans elected, Professor: it's a fundamentally different definition of the public's interest.
9
It's more than passing strange that the GOP version of public interest always falls squarely on comforting the rich and afflicting the poor.
And please, your take on climate change is pure poppycock, more worthy of Limbaugh than experts who have spent decades analyzing the data.
I don't read my own EKGs, and I don't pay much attention to laymen who have no expertise whatever in a very complicated field, i.e. climatology.
And please, your take on climate change is pure poppycock, more worthy of Limbaugh than experts who have spent decades analyzing the data.
I don't read my own EKGs, and I don't pay much attention to laymen who have no expertise whatever in a very complicated field, i.e. climatology.
94
Urban heat islands certainly do explain why glaciers are receding worldwide and the climate shift is more pronounced in the Arctic. There are lots of urban areas on glaciers and in the Arctic. Next week's weather forecast is immensely more accurate than it used to be, thanks to the ever-improving computer models and computer power - very similar to the ones that global climate models employ. In general only GOP Kansans support the Brownback view of the Kansas budget, and eve the GOP in Kansas is losing confidence in the inane math of reducing revenue to increase revenue. And in the states where the ACA has been fully implemented (including Medicaid expansion), not only are the opinion polls positive but citizens and hospital systems are seeing lower costs than those in the other states.
So considering the widespread denial of even the best documented facts across a widespread set of apparently unrelated issues by the GOP, don't you think it begs the question that Dr. Krugman asked? But it is pretty sad that he draws the conclusion he does - that the fact-free right wing in this country is beginning to succeed in making every issue ideological and emotional. Next up - dynamic scoring, so the CBO can lose its credibility as a bi-partisan, independent scorekeeper for bills being considered in Congress.
So considering the widespread denial of even the best documented facts across a widespread set of apparently unrelated issues by the GOP, don't you think it begs the question that Dr. Krugman asked? But it is pretty sad that he draws the conclusion he does - that the fact-free right wing in this country is beginning to succeed in making every issue ideological and emotional. Next up - dynamic scoring, so the CBO can lose its credibility as a bi-partisan, independent scorekeeper for bills being considered in Congress.
62
Richard, aren't you having trouble sleeping now that your party's former standard bearer is channelling Piketty, whom you recently noted having been discredited? (And have you come up with any substantiation of that dubious claim yet?)
I do agree with you, however, that there are diametrically opposed notions of "public interest" and "promote the general welfare". Funny to see Mittens changing sides, though.
I do agree with you, however, that there are diametrically opposed notions of "public interest" and "promote the general welfare". Funny to see Mittens changing sides, though.
22
There is another argument which supports the "reactionaries" claim that Robin has made. Basic resistance, to the allowances for the greed or passions of individuals, that motivates the need for our government to act animates many of the conservative positions. That resistance is emotional. There is just no room for rational discussion. It is hard to argue with those who have difficulty in accepting that not all citizens are "angels."
5
But those who have difficulty in accepting that not all citizens are "angels," believe that they are. And that they have the right to decide for the "fallen."
3
That group Paul Krugman refers to are generally southern whites. The American South is a paternalistic, authoritarian sub-culture build around the alpha male (this is changing, with alpha females gaining acceptance). This is a holdover from the paterfamilias culture of the plantation owner from the Confederate/Ante Bellum era. William Faulkner was completely accurate in his characterization of the culture.
This rule by the Bourbon Plutocracy uses, as the Ante-Bellum planters which preceded them, fundamentalist religion as an ideological buttress. In this conception, the businessman is one of John Calvin's Elect, free to do to others as he pleases, because it is justified in the name of the Lord.
As such, the American South is fundamentally oligarchic and authoritarian. Southern white Protestants have bound their sense of identity to such an order. Hence their hostility to anything that challenges the Bourbon Plutocracy, as Paul Krugman depicts.
This rule by the Bourbon Plutocracy uses, as the Ante-Bellum planters which preceded them, fundamentalist religion as an ideological buttress. In this conception, the businessman is one of John Calvin's Elect, free to do to others as he pleases, because it is justified in the name of the Lord.
As such, the American South is fundamentally oligarchic and authoritarian. Southern white Protestants have bound their sense of identity to such an order. Hence their hostility to anything that challenges the Bourbon Plutocracy, as Paul Krugman depicts.
183
"That group Paul Krugman refers to are generally southern whites. "
You need to take a look at the voting patterns on a county by county basis.
I lived through that grand experiment called the Great Society/Model Cities with the escalation of the Vietnam was thrown in for good measure. Thank you LBJ. As the saying goes: Never again.
You need to take a look at the voting patterns on a county by county basis.
I lived through that grand experiment called the Great Society/Model Cities with the escalation of the Vietnam was thrown in for good measure. Thank you LBJ. As the saying goes: Never again.
Epaminondas...... the small govt obsession of US politicians is a holdover from 19th century defiance of any federal govt authority to interfere with the basis of their wholly undiversified economy-- plantation slavery.
In wonder, if alpha females gain acceptance in such a hierachical society, are they just as oligarchic and authoritarian and paternalistic as the alpha males?
In wonder, if alpha females gain acceptance in such a hierachical society, are they just as oligarchic and authoritarian and paternalistic as the alpha males?
Epaminondas,
Coming from Santa Clara, Ca. you might want to take a step back from the wide swath in which you have painted an entire region of the country.
Have you ever actually set foot in the south?
Coming from Santa Clara, Ca. you might want to take a step back from the wide swath in which you have painted an entire region of the country.
Have you ever actually set foot in the south?
Paul Krugman needs to realize that people like Obama make proposals that are inadequate to address the real problem of global warming. In fact, Krugman overlooks the massive carbon footprint that his "liberal elite" create, in addition to their other hypocritical acts that worsen the causes they wish to champion.
So if Americans "hate good government," it is partly because they recognize the hypocrisy of everyone in power (including the President), so they conclude that no one is honest, anyway.
The solution is not more government, but honest and accountable government!
So if Americans "hate good government," it is partly because they recognize the hypocrisy of everyone in power (including the President), so they conclude that no one is honest, anyway.
The solution is not more government, but honest and accountable government!
7
So honest accountable government should prefer no measures to half measures? Also, I don't think Prof. Krugman ever suggested that global warming was created out of gas burned exclusively in Republican cars.
If you'd like to escape the the tit-for-tat, dishonest debate that leaves politicians unaccountable, jump in with your own thoughts on what should be done and stay away from the "But you're just as bad" arguments.
If you'd like to escape the the tit-for-tat, dishonest debate that leaves politicians unaccountable, jump in with your own thoughts on what should be done and stay away from the "But you're just as bad" arguments.
21
Nobody is honest, anyway; especially "sugres."
5
Climate change was particularly illuminating to me to begin to understand why doing the "right" thing based on facts does not matter to some.
A long time ago I became tired with the debate in the media discussing climate change.
Most media had classic point/counter-point articles or segments that were always in direct conflict, so I decided to go to the scientific research itself.
I found that roughly 97% of scientific studies support the fact that human activity is causing climate change that is increasingly responsible for droughts, floods, famines and political destabilization around the globe.
It became very apparent to me that those who supported the 3% of research reaching more ambiguous conclusions had a vested interest in fossil fuels.
The politicians and scientists who muddied the water with doubt directly benefited from carbon pollution.
The theme of self-interest is a fairly consistent observation when one considers those who hate reform and good governance.
It is truly awful to support the status quo in the US health care system.
It is by far the most expensive in the world as measured by per capita GDP or % of GDP spent.
It is ranked middling in quality in most global studies and before the Affordable Care Act (ACA), tens of millions of people had no direct access.
Spending on health care in the United States grew in 2013 at the lowest rate since the federal government began tracking it in 1960.
ACA bent the cost curve down and the dogs howl.
A long time ago I became tired with the debate in the media discussing climate change.
Most media had classic point/counter-point articles or segments that were always in direct conflict, so I decided to go to the scientific research itself.
I found that roughly 97% of scientific studies support the fact that human activity is causing climate change that is increasingly responsible for droughts, floods, famines and political destabilization around the globe.
It became very apparent to me that those who supported the 3% of research reaching more ambiguous conclusions had a vested interest in fossil fuels.
The politicians and scientists who muddied the water with doubt directly benefited from carbon pollution.
The theme of self-interest is a fairly consistent observation when one considers those who hate reform and good governance.
It is truly awful to support the status quo in the US health care system.
It is by far the most expensive in the world as measured by per capita GDP or % of GDP spent.
It is ranked middling in quality in most global studies and before the Affordable Care Act (ACA), tens of millions of people had no direct access.
Spending on health care in the United States grew in 2013 at the lowest rate since the federal government began tracking it in 1960.
ACA bent the cost curve down and the dogs howl.
1008
Right, and he appointed Pelosi and Reid to take care of "the problem" instead of rolling up his sleeves and working on it, except at the very end when ACA might have failed.
At this point, it is too soon to tell if ACA is really going to help more - "the American people" or the various components that make up the health care delivery systems - insurance, hospitals, pharmaceuticals and medical products companies, and Wall street.
At this point, it is too soon to tell if ACA is really going to help more - "the American people" or the various components that make up the health care delivery systems - insurance, hospitals, pharmaceuticals and medical products companies, and Wall street.
This is a pretty weak column for Krugman. He claims that certain people deny
1. global warming.
2. that supply-side economic policies are not effective.
3. that Obamacare is covering more people and cutting costs.
And that people who deny one thing in the list tend to deny the others.
But these are quite different issues.
1. First global warming. Yes the evidence is overwhelming. But the evidence is also overwhelming that one of the contributing causes is population growth.
And Democrats tend to be in denial about the impact of population growth not only on global warming, but on declining living standards in the US.
2. The characterization of economics as "demand-side" or "supply-side" is an oversimplification which panders to those Americans who want to avoid thinking too deeply about economic issues.
Depending on the sector, it may be demand OR supply that provides the binding constraint. Why would anyone believe that "insufficient aggregate demand" is the solution to EVERY economic problem? Or that mindless platitudes about "supply-side economics" represent a coherent policy?
3. Obamacare is quite simply a fraud. Krugman's MIT colleague Jonathan Gruber, the architect of the policy, has essentially said as much in lectures.
Americans should ask themselves: Why can Canada and Great Britain afford universal health care, and not the US? Why did Obama not push for universal care, or at least a public option?
Obama is a faux-liberal who has abandoned the poor.
1. global warming.
2. that supply-side economic policies are not effective.
3. that Obamacare is covering more people and cutting costs.
And that people who deny one thing in the list tend to deny the others.
But these are quite different issues.
1. First global warming. Yes the evidence is overwhelming. But the evidence is also overwhelming that one of the contributing causes is population growth.
And Democrats tend to be in denial about the impact of population growth not only on global warming, but on declining living standards in the US.
2. The characterization of economics as "demand-side" or "supply-side" is an oversimplification which panders to those Americans who want to avoid thinking too deeply about economic issues.
Depending on the sector, it may be demand OR supply that provides the binding constraint. Why would anyone believe that "insufficient aggregate demand" is the solution to EVERY economic problem? Or that mindless platitudes about "supply-side economics" represent a coherent policy?
3. Obamacare is quite simply a fraud. Krugman's MIT colleague Jonathan Gruber, the architect of the policy, has essentially said as much in lectures.
Americans should ask themselves: Why can Canada and Great Britain afford universal health care, and not the US? Why did Obama not push for universal care, or at least a public option?
Obama is a faux-liberal who has abandoned the poor.
20
How can you imagine Obama could possibly have got a universal health plan passed by the reactionaries in Congress? His mistake was entering the presidency with the expectation that the senate and congress contained rational individuals interested in solving national problems.
831
Well, Bret, we are pretty well stuck with the population we have now, unless you have some rather gruesome method of reducing the hordes of humanity. Controlling population is probably achievable. And, given that , there is no reason why we shouldn't strive to control carbon emissions.
Supply side, et cetera: Please uncomplicate this. Reagan's economic gurus simply ensured that the rising tide lifted only yachts. The stats bear the out.
Single payer? Really, with Blue Dogs like Lieberman and Bachus doing as much as Republicans to sabotage the process.
Supply side, et cetera: Please uncomplicate this. Reagan's economic gurus simply ensured that the rising tide lifted only yachts. The stats bear the out.
Single payer? Really, with Blue Dogs like Lieberman and Bachus doing as much as Republicans to sabotage the process.
137
One central reason that Canada and Great Britain managed to get single-payer universal health-care, and we have not, is that they historically have not had the intransigent and well-organized resistance to it that we have had in the US. First from the American Medical Association and later the insurance companies, but most recently from the Tea Party, and their corporate sponsors, especially the oil-and-gas industry, the latter of which don't really care all that much about government-supported health care, except as a hot-button issue to keep the attention off of them about climate change. Your all-too-common sentiment (among many of the arm-chair left) that "Obama is a faux-liberal who has abandoned the poor" just doesn't square with reality. I am a physician who would have much preferred a single-payer national health-care system along the lines of Canada, the UK and many European countries, but Obama got the best deal he could have within our screwy political culture. And he fought tooth-and-nail and very shrewdly and at great political cost to himself to get what he got. Remember that many presidents from Theodore Roosevelt onward have tried this, and no one has done as much as Obama has (LBJ is a close second).
161
The Reactionary Right hate "government" for the very simple reason that, in America, that government is supposed to be democratic government, that is to say representative government run by and for the people. What the Right has always wanted is a "government" utterly controlled by business and corporate elites, responsible solely to themselves, with essentially no protections for the public against their predations. In practice, this means the restoration of a semi-feudal inherited aristocracy. They are well on the way to achieving exactly that, as witness the 90% plus share of wealth growth after the financial crisis.
Of course, the Reactionaries do demand an enormous military global presence, larger than the rest of the world combined to protect their interests. And a trillion or so in corporate subsidies to expand those interests. Those don't count.
Of course, the Reactionaries do demand an enormous military global presence, larger than the rest of the world combined to protect their interests. And a trillion or so in corporate subsidies to expand those interests. Those don't count.
773
Reality Based....
With "no protections for the public against their predations....In practice, this means the restoration of a semi-feudal inherited aristocracy." (But with TV and computers now).
And is seemingly, keeping a democracy with American Constitutional protections---but they don’t really protect us, since the Priests of the High Court are effectively merging their doctrines in cahoots with the Feudal Lords of Finance, to pervert the meaning of our Constitution. Priests and the Lords aligned—an unbeatable combo, through the centuries, and now.
America is unique among Democracies in legalizing big money campaign dominance as aligned with 1st Amendment Free Speech. So to neutralize big money influence is to destroy freedom. This howler is not a sit com but fervently rationalized by our highest legal minds.
The media hardly reports at all on those opposing legal minds, groups and states, that are trying to overturn Citizens United.
Thus the smokescreen of a representative govt run by and for us is kept alive. The media eagerly report on the daily fund raising totals of our future candidates---the very thing destroying our democratic form of govt.
The billionaires vetting our applicants for president don’t bother to deny it now, since it attests to their power. We the people just wait to see who they will choose, for us to choose from, in 2016.
With "no protections for the public against their predations....In practice, this means the restoration of a semi-feudal inherited aristocracy." (But with TV and computers now).
And is seemingly, keeping a democracy with American Constitutional protections---but they don’t really protect us, since the Priests of the High Court are effectively merging their doctrines in cahoots with the Feudal Lords of Finance, to pervert the meaning of our Constitution. Priests and the Lords aligned—an unbeatable combo, through the centuries, and now.
America is unique among Democracies in legalizing big money campaign dominance as aligned with 1st Amendment Free Speech. So to neutralize big money influence is to destroy freedom. This howler is not a sit com but fervently rationalized by our highest legal minds.
The media hardly reports at all on those opposing legal minds, groups and states, that are trying to overturn Citizens United.
Thus the smokescreen of a representative govt run by and for us is kept alive. The media eagerly report on the daily fund raising totals of our future candidates---the very thing destroying our democratic form of govt.
The billionaires vetting our applicants for president don’t bother to deny it now, since it attests to their power. We the people just wait to see who they will choose, for us to choose from, in 2016.
35
'What the Right has always wanted is a "government" utterly controlled by business and corporate elites, responsible solely to themselves, with essentially no protections for the public against their predations.'
As Marine lePen writes here today, we ought to call things by their real names. In this case, the proper term for what the Right is working toward is 'fascism'.
As Marine lePen writes here today, we ought to call things by their real names. In this case, the proper term for what the Right is working toward is 'fascism'.
50
Reality Based --"In practice, this means the restoration of a semi-feudal inherited aristocracy. They are well on the way to achieving exactly that,..."
I think you have got this wrong. They are not "well on the way" , they have achieved that goal and will consolidate it completely unless Americans elect a Democratic government in 2016.
I think you have got this wrong. They are not "well on the way" , they have achieved that goal and will consolidate it completely unless Americans elect a Democratic government in 2016.
1
Professor Krugman - How about an article on Illinois Economy. That state has done all the things you love. Raised taxes, expanded entitlements, and run big budget deficits (real ones but not reported since Illinois is a balanced budget state). Kansas may have problems but it doesn't resemble the blue states that you love.
13
First off, Krugman and others who share his views, would never recommend a broad based income tax increase like the one the Illinois legislature passed. In a time of recession that would be just the opposite of what they would recommend.
Second, lots of the neighboring states were assisted by the Federal Governments bailout of the auto industry. Now that industry is booming, Chalk one up to the Feds. However, Illinois doesn't have an auto industry. So, no benefit there.
Second, lots of the neighboring states were assisted by the Federal Governments bailout of the auto industry. Now that industry is booming, Chalk one up to the Feds. However, Illinois doesn't have an auto industry. So, no benefit there.
44
Illinois is in trouble as of 2012. I wonder if this has improved in the last 2 years?
2
Mr. Bill, you provide a good example of a person to whom facts don't matter. Illinois had a flat rate 3% income tax which was temporarily raised to 5% and is now going down to 3.75%. Kansas, AFTER its big tax cut had a graduated income tax with two brackets: 3% up to $15,000 income and 4.9% after that. So the low rate in Kansas was barely lower than the temporary high rate in Illinois, and starting in 2015 the low rate in Kansas is much higher than the income tax rate in Illinois.
Moreover, even though you may assign the blue color to Illinois, it has the 4th most regressive state tax system in the country. Illinois residents with income in the lowest 20% pay 13.2% of their income in state and local taxes of all types. Residents in the highest 1% pay 4.6%. [source: http://www.itep.org/whopays/]
Moreover, even though you may assign the blue color to Illinois, it has the 4th most regressive state tax system in the country. Illinois residents with income in the lowest 20% pay 13.2% of their income in state and local taxes of all types. Residents in the highest 1% pay 4.6%. [source: http://www.itep.org/whopays/]
111
The GOP has been very successful in driving a wedge between the classes and races as the primary means of fending off a revolution against the rich, while continuing to solidify their plan to shrink government. We should give credit where it is due. They've won.
The effects of the Great Recession are still being felt, especially by the middle class and African Americans. 99ers who used to be a vital part of the middle class lost everything. When it was politically expedient, they were left to fend for themselves by neoliberal Democrats who made their deals with Paul Ryan as they were more worried about their seats than their constituents.
While they were busy dividing us, Wall Street got fatter, workers who still have jobs worked more for less, those who finally found work got paid way less than before, and those just starting did so for a lot less than the previous generation. If that's not bad enough, we have uncounted millions who still haven't been able to resume their careers and probably won't. Those would be the "lost generation," that Professor Krugman predicted.
So many years of economic loss for so many people creates disenfranchisement. Add to that all of the other kinds of trouble our nation has been experiencing and we have an explanation why so many are willing to hate government. What's it done for them? While I understand the press' need to highlight job creation, not enough has been done to explain to 99ers where they stand and how they will survive.
The effects of the Great Recession are still being felt, especially by the middle class and African Americans. 99ers who used to be a vital part of the middle class lost everything. When it was politically expedient, they were left to fend for themselves by neoliberal Democrats who made their deals with Paul Ryan as they were more worried about their seats than their constituents.
While they were busy dividing us, Wall Street got fatter, workers who still have jobs worked more for less, those who finally found work got paid way less than before, and those just starting did so for a lot less than the previous generation. If that's not bad enough, we have uncounted millions who still haven't been able to resume their careers and probably won't. Those would be the "lost generation," that Professor Krugman predicted.
So many years of economic loss for so many people creates disenfranchisement. Add to that all of the other kinds of trouble our nation has been experiencing and we have an explanation why so many are willing to hate government. What's it done for them? While I understand the press' need to highlight job creation, not enough has been done to explain to 99ers where they stand and how they will survive.
339
I received this alert from my Quora account. Quora is a website where people of all walks of life, famous and not, answer questions. The answers to why Americans are less enthused about jobs than the press is will give you some insight into the dearth of information that will help people understand their situation and act accordingly.
It's still about the economy, Professor. Please get back to those kinds of columns.
http://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-American-people-less-enthusiastic-about...
It's still about the economy, Professor. Please get back to those kinds of columns.
http://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-American-people-less-enthusiastic-about...
7
I agree. I spent countless hours on the phone trying to convince North Carolinians to vote in the mid-term elections. For every "yes," response I was given, I received at least 10 more replies along the lines of: "it doesn't matter who's running things, nothing changes;" "I don't have time to vote;" or "Sorry, I'm just not interested in politics."
The result is a state government that actively works to undermine the common good whenever it might undermine the interests of the politicians' corporate paymasters. In the televised gubernatorial debate, Kay Hagan debated our (now) new governor, who, instead of answering detailed policy questions every time they were asked, simply repeated that Hagan voted with President Obama 99 percent of the time, to every question. His refusal to debate issues that matter to his constituents was a laughable deflection then, and a sad reality now, with the result that this man now represents North Carolina.
I fear for the republic.
The result is a state government that actively works to undermine the common good whenever it might undermine the interests of the politicians' corporate paymasters. In the televised gubernatorial debate, Kay Hagan debated our (now) new governor, who, instead of answering detailed policy questions every time they were asked, simply repeated that Hagan voted with President Obama 99 percent of the time, to every question. His refusal to debate issues that matter to his constituents was a laughable deflection then, and a sad reality now, with the result that this man now represents North Carolina.
I fear for the republic.
56
Heather,
I wrote the piece below about a week after Election 2014. The election wasn't about giving the GOP a chance or liking their ideas more. The election was about Democrats wanting a change in the leadership of their party. It was Democrats turning their back on the party as a warning. Had I known your story, I would have included it as an example of voter disenfranchisement.
I too fear for our futures. Usually, after a big loss, there is a change in personnel at the top. It didn't happen. The reelection of top party brass was swift. The top job to lead the Senate Democrats' election effort was given to its most neoliberal member.
http://www.rimaregas.com/2014/11/election-2014-lessons-for-progressives/
I wrote the piece below about a week after Election 2014. The election wasn't about giving the GOP a chance or liking their ideas more. The election was about Democrats wanting a change in the leadership of their party. It was Democrats turning their back on the party as a warning. Had I known your story, I would have included it as an example of voter disenfranchisement.
I too fear for our futures. Usually, after a big loss, there is a change in personnel at the top. It didn't happen. The reelection of top party brass was swift. The top job to lead the Senate Democrats' election effort was given to its most neoliberal member.
http://www.rimaregas.com/2014/11/election-2014-lessons-for-progressives/
9
A business has more customers and Republicans complain?