"So how did this happen to the G.O.P.? In a direct sense, I suspect that it has a lot to do with Foxification..."
This. I think the Fox news effect can't be overstated in how the modern Republican party and its voters see the world in a way that just isn't quite real. Not just the discredited economic theories, but the abject fear and terror they have about the world around them: immigrants, ISIS, Ebola - much of it comes from watching the apocalyptic coverage of the world on Fox.
Spend half an hour watching that "news" network and you would think the U.S. is on the verge of imminent collapse.
Meanwhile, the sheer hate and vitriol directed at President Obama and Hillary Clinton will seamlessly transfer to Bernie Sanders if he becomes the Democratic nominee. Bernie supporters are deluding themselves if they think the Orwellian daily hate won't be directed at their man. Fox and the GOP are licking their chops at what they will do to him. They can't believe their good fortune that he might actually be the candidate.
This. I think the Fox news effect can't be overstated in how the modern Republican party and its voters see the world in a way that just isn't quite real. Not just the discredited economic theories, but the abject fear and terror they have about the world around them: immigrants, ISIS, Ebola - much of it comes from watching the apocalyptic coverage of the world on Fox.
Spend half an hour watching that "news" network and you would think the U.S. is on the verge of imminent collapse.
Meanwhile, the sheer hate and vitriol directed at President Obama and Hillary Clinton will seamlessly transfer to Bernie Sanders if he becomes the Democratic nominee. Bernie supporters are deluding themselves if they think the Orwellian daily hate won't be directed at their man. Fox and the GOP are licking their chops at what they will do to him. They can't believe their good fortune that he might actually be the candidate.
47
And then we have gasoline prices. Does anyone not believe that were gasoline at $3.50/gallon the Republican candidates wouldn't be accusing Obama of all kinds of malfeasance while promoting their own dubious method for getting gasoline prices down (i.e., "drill here, drill now")?
But gasoline is sub $2, so we hear nothing from these candidates. Granted, I don't think US presidents have much control over gasoline prices going up or down, but it doesn't really matter. Obama would be getting the lion's share of the blame were gasoline prices high. Where's his credit now that they're low?
On military force. We have a group of Republican candidates who haven't spent so much as a single day in uniform (I don't think Gilmore is a major candidate). It's really easy to play the "tough guy" when you don't have to do it.
But gasoline is sub $2, so we hear nothing from these candidates. Granted, I don't think US presidents have much control over gasoline prices going up or down, but it doesn't really matter. Obama would be getting the lion's share of the blame were gasoline prices high. Where's his credit now that they're low?
On military force. We have a group of Republican candidates who haven't spent so much as a single day in uniform (I don't think Gilmore is a major candidate). It's really easy to play the "tough guy" when you don't have to do it.
41
How did this happen?
Political terrorism is how. The Tea Party will mount primary challenges against state legislators, US congresspersons, and US senators. Bob Bennett and the Eric Cantor were BOTH up-ended by the radicals within their own party, to be replaced by uncompromising extremists.
Rather than the party fighting back, it chose instead to let this happen. Or maybe it couldn't figure out how to stop it, funded as it was by the Koch Brothers.
But the Tea Party paradigm goes back further, to the founding of the Moral Majority back around 1979/1980 by Jerry Falwell and Cal Thomas. Falwell, prior to Fox News, began the practice of deliberately spreading lies and shrugging it off if caught. His church's antenna was damaged in a storm so he begged for donations to repair it, despite it being insured.
Then he related a conversation with President Carter where he asked him why he tolerated Gay people in his administration and said Carter had said "Well, Jerry, I'm President of ALL the people." Falwell used this constantly as an example of why Carter was "immoral" to generate support.
Except the conversation NEVER HAPPENED--but even after Falwell admitted he had invented it, he kept using it because it didn't matter that it was a lie. And Falwell recognized this. I suspect Roger Ailes learned this from Falwell.
Political terrorism is how. The Tea Party will mount primary challenges against state legislators, US congresspersons, and US senators. Bob Bennett and the Eric Cantor were BOTH up-ended by the radicals within their own party, to be replaced by uncompromising extremists.
Rather than the party fighting back, it chose instead to let this happen. Or maybe it couldn't figure out how to stop it, funded as it was by the Koch Brothers.
But the Tea Party paradigm goes back further, to the founding of the Moral Majority back around 1979/1980 by Jerry Falwell and Cal Thomas. Falwell, prior to Fox News, began the practice of deliberately spreading lies and shrugging it off if caught. His church's antenna was damaged in a storm so he begged for donations to repair it, despite it being insured.
Then he related a conversation with President Carter where he asked him why he tolerated Gay people in his administration and said Carter had said "Well, Jerry, I'm President of ALL the people." Falwell used this constantly as an example of why Carter was "immoral" to generate support.
Except the conversation NEVER HAPPENED--but even after Falwell admitted he had invented it, he kept using it because it didn't matter that it was a lie. And Falwell recognized this. I suspect Roger Ailes learned this from Falwell.
41
Did you see, Professor Krugman, wonk Hillary's hand-in-the-till reaction to Anderson's question as to why she was paid close to million dollars for a (I suppose the Professor would call a wonk) talk on how to further fleece the American public by the biggest Wolf of Wall Street (Goldman)? Was that a loop or back-flip or just simply boinnnnngggggg! That's bound to cast a shadow Punxsutawney Phil would be proud of.
19
To get diversity in government and a true representation of the public vote you need to have MMP as a government structure. (Mixed Member Proportional Representation) MMP is a fairer system that keeps the politicans honest and they are forced to introduce other small party ideas into their policies so as to get legislation passed through the House as they need the small parties voting power. You never hear about the Green Party in the USA and I presume that is because you have a First Past the Post system.
9
Krugman writes an 800-word column criticizing Republican candidates and the GOP. He has some good things to say about Democrats, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders.
Yet to many commenters here, none of it matters, for hidden within is single passing reference to Sanders as a "one-note candidate."
The indignity! The horror! The betrayal! How dare the writer -- a man who calls himself a liberal (with a conscience!) -- speak of the Venerable One like that!
I don't know how Sanders made it from working-class hero to he-who-cannot-be-criticized so quickly. Usually we reserve sainthood for those who have died. This might be more amusing if it weren't so scary.
Yet to many commenters here, none of it matters, for hidden within is single passing reference to Sanders as a "one-note candidate."
The indignity! The horror! The betrayal! How dare the writer -- a man who calls himself a liberal (with a conscience!) -- speak of the Venerable One like that!
I don't know how Sanders made it from working-class hero to he-who-cannot-be-criticized so quickly. Usually we reserve sainthood for those who have died. This might be more amusing if it weren't so scary.
49
Rubio: “We don’t want to be Sweden”. Clinton (with a smirk): “We are not Denmark”. In essence, it’s the same message: don’t even look to Denmark, Sweden, or Norway as models of free health care, free education, and paid family leave. Sanders dissents. He wants to start a national conversation on whether we want or can be like them. Let’s give him a chance.
31
Paul Krugman making fun of someone being in a Time-Loop? Can't make this stuff up.
12
A policy wonk?
O.K. Hillary's foreign policy: blow up other countries for corporate profits and Israel.
https://media.giphy.com/media/26tOZCM5oEcrJCnmg/giphy.gif
Domestic policy: keep those millions rolling in by selling out the voters to big corporations, as husband Bill has done.
It's a shame to see you go from the Conscience of a Liberal to the Conscience of a Wall St. Shill, Paul K.
~
O.K. Hillary's foreign policy: blow up other countries for corporate profits and Israel.
https://media.giphy.com/media/26tOZCM5oEcrJCnmg/giphy.gif
Domestic policy: keep those millions rolling in by selling out the voters to big corporations, as husband Bill has done.
It's a shame to see you go from the Conscience of a Liberal to the Conscience of a Wall St. Shill, Paul K.
~
9
A wonderful part of the "time loop" would be the return of the 6 PM half-hour news. A pleasant break from the 24/7 barrage of hyperbole used by the media to achieve ratings.
5
When you speak of the "Foxification" of the G.O.P. I'm reminded of Megyn Kelly's question to Karl Rove when he incredulously questioned Ohio's presidential results in 2012, "Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better, or is this real?". The G.O.P. does worship at the altar of Fox News. It is a media bubble or more appropriately an echo chamber that leads to multiple disappointments to those who think it is "fair and balanced".
14
The Federal Budget = the family budget
money = Gold
Collective white male guilt for slavery: Republicans = No, Democrats = Maybe
Result = Republicans win!
money = Gold
Collective white male guilt for slavery: Republicans = No, Democrats = Maybe
Result = Republicans win!
2
Paul: You say "But there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble." Possibly economics can cast some light on this issue if we look at the rise of fascism, or Marxist theories, or the Arab spring. At some point impatience over verbal arguments about remedies leads to demagoguery and lack of thought. All peoples' wants become subordinate to mere movement from the status quo.
Paul, I don't even need to read your columns anymore, I know exactly what your opinion will be. Hillary is a "genuine policy wonk" just like Paul Ryan. Now you have latched on to the "one note" establishment meme. This is ridiculous accusation. If any progress is to be made, if this will be a government of the people, then the money has to be dealt with and this is fundamental and impacts all other policies. Calling this "one note" is idiotic. Oh, and I take it you agree with Blankfein that Bernie is dangerous. Keep it coming, Hillary has already lost the race.
14
If Mr. Sanders is a "one-note candidate," though Prof. Krugman concedes it's a real concern, what should we think about the many, often repetitive op-eds over these past eight years by Mr. Krugman about the "very serious people" and their mistaken promotion of fiscal austerity? I thought PK's concern was legitimate and informative, even when it was restated over and over, so why isn't Sen. Sanders' focus equally important?
10
Is there anyone more caught in a time loop than Hillary Clinton? And her supporters? Eight years of the two for the price of one is not enough? Do we really want more?
I really love how Krugman selectively recalls the Clinton presidency. No mention of American job-killing trade agreements. No mention of a crime bill that resulted in mass incarceration of African-American people. No mention of ending welfare as we knew it. No mention of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. No mention of campaign contributions from China. No mention of the pardon of Marc Rich.
I really love how Krugman selectively recalls the Clinton presidency. No mention of American job-killing trade agreements. No mention of a crime bill that resulted in mass incarceration of African-American people. No mention of ending welfare as we knew it. No mention of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. No mention of campaign contributions from China. No mention of the pardon of Marc Rich.
23
saturday was the first time i had seen rubio in action. he seemed like a nice little boy. that guy christie should be ashamed of himself for being so nasty to poor rubio. is he (rubio) really old enough to be a senator? it certainly is no credit to the state that voted him in. oh well the goodness he is a republican. hard to imagine that adults did vote for him and oddly enough some are still doing so.
7
Paul Krugman, you have seriously lost your way in this madcap support for Billary. Is it possible that you can't face the oncoming realization that our so-called "economics" are all smoke and mirrors designed to maintain the status quo in one form or another? This notion of "growth economics" is driving the greatest lemming's march over the cliff ever seen. Perhaps Paul, it's time for you to pull your head out of the Book of Economic Notions and feel the Berne.
21
Bernie Sanders's sounds like a parrot everytime he mentions Wall Street...blah blah Wall Street blah blah Wall Street. Once the general population realizes Wall Street is not the cause of EVERY evil in society, he is shtick will run out quickly.
12
Is every Krugman column until the election going to be an endorsement of Hillary Clinton?
13
Back to tilting at Republican windmills after your readers took you to the woodshed for your incessant attacks on Bernie?
No love from me until I see a heartfelt apology, you be looking like a tool until then.
No love from me until I see a heartfelt apology, you be looking like a tool until then.
9
One of the primary reasons for such disconnects with reality is the tendency to rely upon faith instead of reason. Once faith has been appealed to a surprising number of beliefs can be accepted at face value depending upon the perceived authority of the person delivering the message and the amount of faith that is being relied upon. ‘Media bubbles’ will then evolve naturally, and the only way to change a perception on ‘what is really happening’ is to use the ‘logic’ of faith.
At least that is what I believe is happening.…..
At least that is what I believe is happening.…..
3
Republican voters so much want to believe that America can return to the 1950's when White Privilege meant all white Americans were treated well. A truly diverse America with equal protections and equal opportunities for all is just too scary for them.
11
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues. Bernie Sanders is much more of a one-note candidate, but at least his signature issue — rising inequality and the effects of money on politics — reflects real concerns."
You disappoint me with comments like that, Paul. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who talks about climate change with any regularity. He also voted against the Iraq war, showing better judgement than Hillary, and a clearer grasp of the limitations of military force. He's also spoken out against the Citizens United ruling.
Sanders sees income inequality as the defining issue of our time, and connects it to other problems in our society - the erosion of the middle class, environmental destruction, and an overall drift towards oligarchy. What you call "one-note," I see as "compelling narrative." One that Hillary Clinton is clearly lacking.
You disappoint me with comments like that, Paul. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who talks about climate change with any regularity. He also voted against the Iraq war, showing better judgement than Hillary, and a clearer grasp of the limitations of military force. He's also spoken out against the Citizens United ruling.
Sanders sees income inequality as the defining issue of our time, and connects it to other problems in our society - the erosion of the middle class, environmental destruction, and an overall drift towards oligarchy. What you call "one-note," I see as "compelling narrative." One that Hillary Clinton is clearly lacking.
29
Your metaphor doesn't work; Bill Murray did learn something from every new Groundhog Day. If only the Republicans were as clever.
2
To be frank, most of the rest of the world watches the candidates trotted out by the GOP (a misnomer is there ever was one as there's absolutely nothing grand about this current crop) and wonders how the US could blow it so badly!
3
I'm halfway through Jane Mayer's Dark Money, and I am more and more convinced that Republican candidates offer these prescriptions because that is what their big donors want--lower taxes, less government regulation, and a foreign policy that supports their bottom line. Fox and talk radio, which other commenters have mentioned, are just the amplifiers of these views.
17
I would have voted for Elizabeth Warren had she run for president. I support Bernie. I could never vote for Hilary because of her vote for the Iraq war, and her lack of ethics. As to the Republicans... they have been running the same con since Reagan and Supply side economics. PS. Hilary was a terrible secretary of state for all her wonkiness support for drone war fare, assassination and the mess in Libya. Perhaps she knew too much to enable wisdom on foreign policy.
5
The irony of this article's thesis is that both sides live in a bubble "that facts can't penetrate". That's why we have a governance mess in the United States where nothing gets done.
As an aside: I guess it slipped Mr. Krugman's mind when he failed to mention that the Clinton tax raise of the 1990's also coincided with the biggest market bubble since the 1634 Tulip and Bulb craze. That may have had something to do with the record pace of the market at that time. Does anyone remember Munder's NetNet fund?
As an aside: I guess it slipped Mr. Krugman's mind when he failed to mention that the Clinton tax raise of the 1990's also coincided with the biggest market bubble since the 1634 Tulip and Bulb craze. That may have had something to do with the record pace of the market at that time. Does anyone remember Munder's NetNet fund?
3
I feel that the word "Vulpinization" sounds even better than "Foxification" (see link below), though back then it was the reality shows that really described Fox; now I it's more the politics.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-07-29/features/0207290031_1_word...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-07-29/features/0207290031_1_word...
I decided to watch the R debate for the first time Saturday Night (Live?) What comedy! But after 15 minutes of hearing lies, whether objective, factual ones, or subjective opinions, of hearing the moderator ask questions based on wrong assumptions, I went back to reading my book.
At least everyone knows a novel is fiction. American Republicans? Not so tuned in.
At least everyone knows a novel is fiction. American Republicans? Not so tuned in.
6
How did this happen to the G.O.P.? The party of business, that fought to reverse the New Deal, the party of Goldwater, Nixon's southern strategy, law and order, and Reagan? No mystery. But no opposition either. The Democrats became Republican lite, no left left.
The real question is how did this happen to the Democrats? The donor class dominates (but didn't they always?). In any event, the internet changes everything. No internet, no small donors, no Obama, and no Sanders candidacy. (a free internet with net neutrality)
The real question is how did this happen to the Democrats? The donor class dominates (but didn't they always?). In any event, the internet changes everything. No internet, no small donors, no Obama, and no Sanders candidacy. (a free internet with net neutrality)
6
What's exactly wrong with "one-note" if it's absolutely the right note that has conviction, passion, and the ring of truth? And let's face it, a "genuine policy wonk" is one who's all over the place without passion or conviction and is frankly a boring turn-off. So, if you want the Wall Street corporate establishment, you have lots of choices. But, if you want to prevent the corporate takeover of America with its fancy trade deals, to increase taxes on the rich and powerful, have a have health care system that is truly affordable and covers everyone, provides workers a decent living wage, and free public education for their children, there's only one choice This is truly a defining moment for America and it's not time for "business as usual."
10
One note here, on your "one note" obligatory ant-Sanders drive-by shot.
The note conspicuously missing from your work, and from the work of the Economics profession, is an evaluation of what constitutes an unhealthy level of economic inequality. When 140 families control as much wealth as 4 billion people, is that not already a dangerous imbalance? Might we already be stuck in quicksand? No? Prove it! And what happens when when it becomes 70 families... 35 families... 17 families... 2 families... As Paul Krugman wastes time touting the successful rearrangent of deck chairs.
The note conspicuously missing from your work, and from the work of the Economics profession, is an evaluation of what constitutes an unhealthy level of economic inequality. When 140 families control as much wealth as 4 billion people, is that not already a dangerous imbalance? Might we already be stuck in quicksand? No? Prove it! And what happens when when it becomes 70 families... 35 families... 17 families... 2 families... As Paul Krugman wastes time touting the successful rearrangent of deck chairs.
14
It's hard to get fired up for either Bernie or Hillary until the other side shows up. Then I become super energized to support either, or both of you them. Looking at the Republican candidates is not unlike watching concrete harden. They just stand there at those little podiums and try to convince us how we have to throw out the last seven years of progress because.....well they never explain that part. They are very much as Dr. Krugman paints them: all saying exactly the same thing. Marco Rubio just got caught doing it so robotically.
Then there's the 'Donald' who gives us reruns of dictators gone by....they all failed in one way or another.
I get that being "totally" in favor of one or the other Democratic candidates is how to generate excitement to cast a vote. But all I hear from the Berniacs is republican talking points about Hillary. She's definitely been involved in "The Trenches" while Bernie has never had to face a serious challenge at the ballot box. That doesn't make him better it means he would have to do something totally out of character: Worry where to get the Congressional votes. Why on earth would the fired up rage be coming from Bernie's side? Hey vote for him, sure. Just don't decide that the alternative isn't also a way better choice. Hillary deserves our enthusiasm as much as Bernie does. Maybe more so given her having had way more hate from the republicans than anyone besides her husband, Bill and now President Obama. Get real.
Then there's the 'Donald' who gives us reruns of dictators gone by....they all failed in one way or another.
I get that being "totally" in favor of one or the other Democratic candidates is how to generate excitement to cast a vote. But all I hear from the Berniacs is republican talking points about Hillary. She's definitely been involved in "The Trenches" while Bernie has never had to face a serious challenge at the ballot box. That doesn't make him better it means he would have to do something totally out of character: Worry where to get the Congressional votes. Why on earth would the fired up rage be coming from Bernie's side? Hey vote for him, sure. Just don't decide that the alternative isn't also a way better choice. Hillary deserves our enthusiasm as much as Bernie does. Maybe more so given her having had way more hate from the republicans than anyone besides her husband, Bill and now President Obama. Get real.
7
Rubio has hurt himself with the canned lines. Christie has his administrative scandals but at least he can talk without a script and not sound like a dope. But not all voters follow this stuff and when they hear someone express what they already think or feel, the resonance will tend to make them like that individual. Trump caught onto this long before he entered politics and it's the core of his campaign, knowing his audience and to what they feel and think and want to hear expressed. But the goal of all of the candidates seems to be not to discuss issues as problems that require this or that solution but to project themselves as dominant individuals who have the ability to make people do what they want, an alpha type authoritarian kind of leader, a sort of a king with term limits. That is perhaps why they aren't too concerned about what they say as much as how they say it. The candidates drift into more uninteresting areas, like policies which seem to address problems as they are drifting away into a different kind of leadership, the kind that presumes that governing is a collaboration between elected officials and between elected officials and the citizens, and they are not appealing to what the Republican voters seem to want.
2
Bernie Sanders, while a good, honest, well-intentioned man, cannot be elected President in this Nation. The kids who are so for Bernie are unfortunately going to "Feel the Burn" just like I did with Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern.
16
Two related issues here. First is the
basic unwillingness by corporate media or PBS to broadcast a substantive, say two hour long, weekly discussion about
the main problems of the society that is addressed to non policy wonks,
is intellectually honest, and is broad based. Such a forum could
serve as a reference point for how people think about their society's problems. separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
Silly vapid resorts to stock phrases and ideological canon by decision
makers, which is what we are all drowning in, would have greater difficulty being adopted if there were a competitive rhetorical alternative with substance.
The other difficulty is, however, that such a program could never find sufficient viewership to stay on for very long. There is insufficient demand within the society for it. It wouldn't generate profit for a network nor help support PBS's desperate effort to maintain its underwriting
Nor does the contemporary practice of corporate journalism help. The
asking of challenging questions with facts at the ready to
argue in sustained probing follow ups against vague answers isn't a model for the profession nor social discourse. The rules of the interview game
prevent this.
The usual candidates to explain this all are
pertinent--short attention spans, tastes for infotainment, education focusing on technical skills but not critical thinking, the anti intellectual - gut
centered focus to solving problems.
basic unwillingness by corporate media or PBS to broadcast a substantive, say two hour long, weekly discussion about
the main problems of the society that is addressed to non policy wonks,
is intellectually honest, and is broad based. Such a forum could
serve as a reference point for how people think about their society's problems. separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
Silly vapid resorts to stock phrases and ideological canon by decision
makers, which is what we are all drowning in, would have greater difficulty being adopted if there were a competitive rhetorical alternative with substance.
The other difficulty is, however, that such a program could never find sufficient viewership to stay on for very long. There is insufficient demand within the society for it. It wouldn't generate profit for a network nor help support PBS's desperate effort to maintain its underwriting
Nor does the contemporary practice of corporate journalism help. The
asking of challenging questions with facts at the ready to
argue in sustained probing follow ups against vague answers isn't a model for the profession nor social discourse. The rules of the interview game
prevent this.
The usual candidates to explain this all are
pertinent--short attention spans, tastes for infotainment, education focusing on technical skills but not critical thinking, the anti intellectual - gut
centered focus to solving problems.
7
I've read that when a person with a strongly-held belief sees evidence that his belief is not correct, he double downs on the belief. It has probably been this way a long time; however, it seems pretty terrible at this time.
I see the Republican candidates all declare there is too much regulation and that taxes rates should be reduced for all to get the economy hopping again. They are not going to introduce evidence to the contrary, but why don't the "debate" moderators do so? Don't they know anything? Why could a moderator not have raised the point Saturday that higher taxes under Clinton accompanied a strong economy and try to force the candidate to explain.
I see the Republican candidates all declare there is too much regulation and that taxes rates should be reduced for all to get the economy hopping again. They are not going to introduce evidence to the contrary, but why don't the "debate" moderators do so? Don't they know anything? Why could a moderator not have raised the point Saturday that higher taxes under Clinton accompanied a strong economy and try to force the candidate to explain.
9
i guess Prof. Krugman had best concentrate on the Republicam candidates. Any mention of the Democratic candidates bring out the aggrieved Sen. Sanders' supporters.
I'm with Sen. Sanders - any Democratic candidate is far better than the alternate reality candidates of the GOP. The Democrats argue about who is progressive (a silly media game) while the Republicans about who is conservative as opposed to gasp ...moderate. (Yes, that was in the Republican debate.)
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good to the benefit of the Republicans.
I'm with Sen. Sanders - any Democratic candidate is far better than the alternate reality candidates of the GOP. The Democrats argue about who is progressive (a silly media game) while the Republicans about who is conservative as opposed to gasp ...moderate. (Yes, that was in the Republican debate.)
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good to the benefit of the Republicans.
14
Then how about electing Bernie Sanders for the good of the American people?
5
In 1968 I was fortunate enough to hear Robert Kennedy speak on the campaign trail shortly before his murder. He was asked a question and actually stood there shuffling his feet and thinking for perhaps 30 seconds before answering. I was excited and energized. I thought, imagine a candidate thinking about a question and formulating an answer.
I think that Hillary Clinton has some of this quality, although she is so smart and thinks so fast that you might not notice that her answers are fresh, real, responsive, and come out in paragraphs.
I am so disappointed in the American voting public that they are satisfied with answers like, "I have a terrific plan. You'll see. Don't worry." And I am disappointed with the press at all levels that allows candidates to get away with canned platitudes.
I think that Hillary Clinton has some of this quality, although she is so smart and thinks so fast that you might not notice that her answers are fresh, real, responsive, and come out in paragraphs.
I am so disappointed in the American voting public that they are satisfied with answers like, "I have a terrific plan. You'll see. Don't worry." And I am disappointed with the press at all levels that allows candidates to get away with canned platitudes.
35
As a Black attorney in Washington DC, with a degree in American History, who works on Capitol Hill, the hubris of Krugman's column is matched only by Krugman's self-important disdain for Times readers.
I arrived in Washington after law school, about a month before Obama took office to begin my career. Today is February 8, 2016. I am routinely invited to the formal events here in Washington held by the Congressional Black Caucus. Since, unlike Obama I actually volunteer and work in the poorest Black communities in Washington DC (Obama's never been to the 3 worst), I attend.
Every single domestic agenda problem plaguing the Black community since Obama became President in 2008 remains, either unchanged or worse. For the whole of my life, growing up in the 1980s I have heard the same liberal Democratic talking points about the Black community, the same problems and the same proposed solutions. Yet save a respite during the Clinton Era, nothing has changed for my race. Same poverty, same drug problems, same incarceration problems, same education problems.
All things Obama pledged to fix to galvanize and secure the Black vote. Yet by the time Obama leaves office, more Black people will be suffering more prolonged poverty, mass incarceration, starvation and violence than any other race in America--leaving us worse off across all socio economic lines during the Obama presidency than we were as a race during slavery.
There are other time loops Paul. Obama is on one.
I arrived in Washington after law school, about a month before Obama took office to begin my career. Today is February 8, 2016. I am routinely invited to the formal events here in Washington held by the Congressional Black Caucus. Since, unlike Obama I actually volunteer and work in the poorest Black communities in Washington DC (Obama's never been to the 3 worst), I attend.
Every single domestic agenda problem plaguing the Black community since Obama became President in 2008 remains, either unchanged or worse. For the whole of my life, growing up in the 1980s I have heard the same liberal Democratic talking points about the Black community, the same problems and the same proposed solutions. Yet save a respite during the Clinton Era, nothing has changed for my race. Same poverty, same drug problems, same incarceration problems, same education problems.
All things Obama pledged to fix to galvanize and secure the Black vote. Yet by the time Obama leaves office, more Black people will be suffering more prolonged poverty, mass incarceration, starvation and violence than any other race in America--leaving us worse off across all socio economic lines during the Obama presidency than we were as a race during slavery.
There are other time loops Paul. Obama is on one.
8
You forget that President Obama began his career by working in those poor areas. You also seem to have forgotten about the obstructions the right has placed in front of him. That he has gotten as much done as he has is a testament to his abilities. President Obama didn't prioritize the way that I think I would have but with 350 million people in the USA is suspect that there are about 100 million ideas about this.
5
Thank you, DCBarrister, for this important comment. I think electing Hillary Clinton will only continue the problems.
3
Yeah, sure, the Democrats have never done anything by way of policy or legislation that helps African-Americans--they just promise the moon, because them folks is too shiftless to know no better.
Oh, looky here.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2015/01/20/104494/5-ke...
Perhaps you could favor us all with a big old list of the strides that the Right has taken to help the poor. Shouldn't be hard. Or are we just going with making up stories and blaming the Presdent for stuff you made up?
I don't think Krugman's "time loop," is quite the right phrase. It implies that the Right's stuck in a loop back to things that actually happened.
Oh, looky here.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2015/01/20/104494/5-ke...
Perhaps you could favor us all with a big old list of the strides that the Right has taken to help the poor. Shouldn't be hard. Or are we just going with making up stories and blaming the Presdent for stuff you made up?
I don't think Krugman's "time loop," is quite the right phrase. It implies that the Right's stuck in a loop back to things that actually happened.
8
It's funny how people don't mention these days, these stock campaign lines uttered by Republicans generally have a singular original source: The Reagan Administration. Over and over, for 35 years, the non-imaginative types who blather this stuff endlessly are essentially repeating the lockstep mantras laid down in the 1980's that were an internal litmus test for aspiring GOP people. Now and then they sound(ed) simplistic, stupid really. But as Reagan in his mediocre intellect would chant them onscreen for the diapered little Rubios of the nation, they were the new gospel. A little Grover Norquist and Arthur Laffer thrown in, and voila! A political philosophy was born, guaranteed to ultimately bring the country to it's knees.
14
Rubio's robotic inability to digress from his canned speech is just a symptom of what's gone so disastrously wrong with the republican party since Reagan: In the act of courting the fundaloonie electorate, the GOP has become a religious cult unto itself - And the first rule of cults is to whole-heartedly believe the dogma, and scrupulously avoid thinking critically about what any of it means.
Believing the party line is far more important than what it actually says, because those who dare to take a closer look at the results of carrying out it's edicts are declared apostates and heretics and cast out. The real source of Trump's, Cruz's and Carson's popularity is their ability to spout wild, flat-out whopping lies that nonetheless observe the church - Excuse me, the party doctrine, and what appeal they muster outside the campaign stops has nothing to do with what they say, and everything to do with the fact that they say it at all.
They aren't campaigning, they're testifying - And that's old-fashioned, blunt, cynical pandering to those who would rather go along with rest of the faithful than risk a scourging or expulsion.
Believing the party line is far more important than what it actually says, because those who dare to take a closer look at the results of carrying out it's edicts are declared apostates and heretics and cast out. The real source of Trump's, Cruz's and Carson's popularity is their ability to spout wild, flat-out whopping lies that nonetheless observe the church - Excuse me, the party doctrine, and what appeal they muster outside the campaign stops has nothing to do with what they say, and everything to do with the fact that they say it at all.
They aren't campaigning, they're testifying - And that's old-fashioned, blunt, cynical pandering to those who would rather go along with rest of the faithful than risk a scourging or expulsion.
10
Krugman's presentation of the Republican Party here is that it is narrow-minded, delusional, with an inability to learn from experience. As a Republican I can tell you little is further from the truth. The Republican Party is committed to improving wealth, power, and opportunity for the top 1 percent of the population. Why do you think its remedy for all problems and ills are more tax cuts? Why does it deny climate change? Republicans are as capable of any in reading scientific analysis but that analysis tells us stuff we do not want to know. Of course we have seen job growth in the last two years, the ACA notwithstanding. The point is the ACA is something promoted by government, and if government can be seen as doing things that benefit the general population people may begin to trust it and look to it, and then where will the Republican Party be? My party has learned to run on fear (so much for your comment that Republicans cannot learn!) We fear people unlike us, we fear different religions, we fear science because it may tell us things we do not want to know, fear is good for business. Look what is has done for investment in firearms, in the defense industry, for segments of the media. Krugman uses his neoliberal Democrat metric on Republicans and finds us wanting, not understanding we have our own. Look how the Republicans learned to control state legislatures, and through them gerrymandered Congressional districts. We control the budget process and it serves us well!
12
Well-stated snark indeed :) . Sadly, the snark is all too true of the current Republican leadership, and enough of their voter base.
1
"So how did this happen to the G.O.P.? "
It's also an extension--a reduction to absurdity--of free marketing.
Free from regulation--by logic, by truth, or even evidentiary support; free from truth in advertising law. GOP Campaigning has been reduced to reciting jingles.
If the candidates forget a line or a word, they must start over--repeating the entire thing. They should really sing them--easier to remember and sometimes the music is cute--much longer shelf life than the nonsense words.
It's also an extension--a reduction to absurdity--of free marketing.
Free from regulation--by logic, by truth, or even evidentiary support; free from truth in advertising law. GOP Campaigning has been reduced to reciting jingles.
If the candidates forget a line or a word, they must start over--repeating the entire thing. They should really sing them--easier to remember and sometimes the music is cute--much longer shelf life than the nonsense words.
5
When I watch the Republican debates I am overwhelmed by the falsehoods and distortions that pass as fact based statements and go completely unchallenged. There are demonstrable facts that, thanks to right wing alternative media, millions of people willfully ignore for purely partisan reasons. To review:
Taxes of the wealthy went up (slightly), the economy is still growing.
The stimulus worked, recession is over.
Obamacare works, lowest number of uninsured Americans, jobs not killed, health care cost growing more slowly.
Unemployment is below 5%.
Climate change is real.
Obama has deported more illegals than any other President.
Illegal immigration is down.
Wake up Republicans: You are dupes of big money interests and Faux News.
Taxes of the wealthy went up (slightly), the economy is still growing.
The stimulus worked, recession is over.
Obamacare works, lowest number of uninsured Americans, jobs not killed, health care cost growing more slowly.
Unemployment is below 5%.
Climate change is real.
Obama has deported more illegals than any other President.
Illegal immigration is down.
Wake up Republicans: You are dupes of big money interests and Faux News.
15
As usual , in this case, if one is in the small percentage of those that have benefited from existiing policies, they will do everything in their power to hold on to it, even if it means consistently lying to their constituency.
5
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues"
and she has used that brilliance to make oodles of cash for her and her husband. Where is the evidence that it will be otherwise when she takes office? Indeed, the republicans have their mud balls ready, crouching behind the faux battle line of emails and Benghazi: Hillary Clinton used her office of Sec of State to enrich her family estate - that is what they will say. Not to mention the sexcapades that are bound to surface.
I say this not because I do not support Hillary. I do. I already clicked the "payment" button myself to the tune of two figures. She will do fine as long as she is not running against Trump. Which brings me to Republicans: The thing Krugman criticizes them for is exactly what the movement from the outside is about. The outsiders are saying "forget about the (de)merits of the old strategies, let's try something different".
Trump says deport the illegals, wages go up; Bernie says raise the minimum to a living wage of $15/hr (sounds unextremely reasonable to me); Hillary the "wonk" says what exactly? Go ahead and google it yourself.
and she has used that brilliance to make oodles of cash for her and her husband. Where is the evidence that it will be otherwise when she takes office? Indeed, the republicans have their mud balls ready, crouching behind the faux battle line of emails and Benghazi: Hillary Clinton used her office of Sec of State to enrich her family estate - that is what they will say. Not to mention the sexcapades that are bound to surface.
I say this not because I do not support Hillary. I do. I already clicked the "payment" button myself to the tune of two figures. She will do fine as long as she is not running against Trump. Which brings me to Republicans: The thing Krugman criticizes them for is exactly what the movement from the outside is about. The outsiders are saying "forget about the (de)merits of the old strategies, let's try something different".
Trump says deport the illegals, wages go up; Bernie says raise the minimum to a living wage of $15/hr (sounds unextremely reasonable to me); Hillary the "wonk" says what exactly? Go ahead and google it yourself.
3
Now the GOP doesn't like rich people?
Hahahahh! Goobs are funny.
Hahahahh! Goobs are funny.
1
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues. Bernie Sanders is much more of a one-note candidate, but at least his signature issue — rising inequality and the effects of money on politics — reflects real concerns."
I respectfully disagree with Krugman's line of reasoning.
1. US-Americans like to say that HC is a brilliant "wonk." I don't think I have ever heard her express an idea, policy, or program based on a comprehensive international overview. She only reasons from US experience. Thus, her shallowness about health care.
2. Much of her published work is ghostwritten, so one cannot evaluate her background and education.
3. Finally, her thinking and politics has no ethical dimension. Krugman seems to be heading in this direction when he mentions the "real concerns" of Sanders. This is why Sanders is doing so well; few think him a perfect candidate but he does gets the main things right: the US needs a health care system that covers everyone by right; it needs a more equitable tax system; it needs tuition-free K-20; its transportation and infrastructure system is closer to Tunisia than Germany; it's military spending needs a thorough revamping.
It's the responsibility of leaders and serious journalists to articulate these things and assist the voters to better understand complex issues. Both leaders and journalists are failing at this.
I respectfully disagree with Krugman's line of reasoning.
1. US-Americans like to say that HC is a brilliant "wonk." I don't think I have ever heard her express an idea, policy, or program based on a comprehensive international overview. She only reasons from US experience. Thus, her shallowness about health care.
2. Much of her published work is ghostwritten, so one cannot evaluate her background and education.
3. Finally, her thinking and politics has no ethical dimension. Krugman seems to be heading in this direction when he mentions the "real concerns" of Sanders. This is why Sanders is doing so well; few think him a perfect candidate but he does gets the main things right: the US needs a health care system that covers everyone by right; it needs a more equitable tax system; it needs tuition-free K-20; its transportation and infrastructure system is closer to Tunisia than Germany; it's military spending needs a thorough revamping.
It's the responsibility of leaders and serious journalists to articulate these things and assist the voters to better understand complex issues. Both leaders and journalists are failing at this.
8
I fail to see how it helps anybody for leftists to be every bit as lazily indifferent to realities as anybody on the Right.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care.htm
6
"In a direct sense, I suspect that it has a lot to do with Foxification, the way Republican primary voters live in a media bubble into which awkward facts can’t penetrate. But there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble."
There is. It's called "Those People".
Come on. Be straightforward about it. A whole lot of mental and discursive gymnastics go on simply to mask the true motives behind the "strange" policy proposals, but Mr. Trump has come closest to just saying it.
The problem for Republicans right now, is that those of their members who see the party as still the Party of Lincoln, have completely lost control of the narrative, and now find they can't even squeeze in anything resembling a coherent set of proposals past the wall-to-wall noise coming from the rest.
There is. It's called "Those People".
Come on. Be straightforward about it. A whole lot of mental and discursive gymnastics go on simply to mask the true motives behind the "strange" policy proposals, but Mr. Trump has come closest to just saying it.
The problem for Republicans right now, is that those of their members who see the party as still the Party of Lincoln, have completely lost control of the narrative, and now find they can't even squeeze in anything resembling a coherent set of proposals past the wall-to-wall noise coming from the rest.
1
I love the term "Foxification" rhymes with intoxication. It is most apt. It is the poison, the "Kool-Aid" that millions imbibe every single day. It has been ruinous to this country.
Marco Rubio has time and again shown that he does not possess the intelligence nor maturity to be running for the office of the Presidency. As you have pointed out, however, he just offers the same message the other Republicans running for the Presidency offer. The thing is if one of them actually does win the Presidency along with maintaining a Republican controlled Congress, that heinous message will become a reality, and years of progress will be erased. Which brings me to our Democratic choice for President. I will not malign Bernie Sanders in any way as you have not Dr. Krugman either, but I will point out that Mr. Sanders did not push for any of these visions while in Congress, and his accomplishments there are few. His idealism is certainly refreshing, as was George McGovern's. For Bernie Sanders visions to be realized he will have to have the full backing of a Congress controlled by Democrats.
Progress in this country has come at a great price, and if a Republican wins the Presidency backed by a Congress controlled by Republicans, that progress could become a memory The stakes for this election are the highest I can ever remember. I respect Bernie Sanders, but I will support and vote for Hillary Clinton. She is the practical choice, and will maintain what has come at a great price.
Marco Rubio has time and again shown that he does not possess the intelligence nor maturity to be running for the office of the Presidency. As you have pointed out, however, he just offers the same message the other Republicans running for the Presidency offer. The thing is if one of them actually does win the Presidency along with maintaining a Republican controlled Congress, that heinous message will become a reality, and years of progress will be erased. Which brings me to our Democratic choice for President. I will not malign Bernie Sanders in any way as you have not Dr. Krugman either, but I will point out that Mr. Sanders did not push for any of these visions while in Congress, and his accomplishments there are few. His idealism is certainly refreshing, as was George McGovern's. For Bernie Sanders visions to be realized he will have to have the full backing of a Congress controlled by Democrats.
Progress in this country has come at a great price, and if a Republican wins the Presidency backed by a Congress controlled by Republicans, that progress could become a memory The stakes for this election are the highest I can ever remember. I respect Bernie Sanders, but I will support and vote for Hillary Clinton. She is the practical choice, and will maintain what has come at a great price.
9
Before the 2014 election a survey showed that 60% of voters didn't know which party controlled Congress.
That is the fault of the 4th Estate, had our media not spent most of its energy talking about the opinions, the horse races, the polling and instead reported on facts maybe people would have known that McConnell's opinions that Obama was failing were lies. But they were and are reported as opinions that could or could not be valid.
That directly leads to the disconnect We the People have with the actually workings of government and the parties that define our government.
Krugman is entitled to opine that backing Bernie Sanders is some kind of "pie in the sky" delusion because he wears the tag "Democratic Socialist" and to back the first woman president who is considered more a "realist".
Seems to me both candidates are pioneering some kind of new way and we should be glad to have the debate.
Republicans should just pull a Cam Newton and quit.
That is the fault of the 4th Estate, had our media not spent most of its energy talking about the opinions, the horse races, the polling and instead reported on facts maybe people would have known that McConnell's opinions that Obama was failing were lies. But they were and are reported as opinions that could or could not be valid.
That directly leads to the disconnect We the People have with the actually workings of government and the parties that define our government.
Krugman is entitled to opine that backing Bernie Sanders is some kind of "pie in the sky" delusion because he wears the tag "Democratic Socialist" and to back the first woman president who is considered more a "realist".
Seems to me both candidates are pioneering some kind of new way and we should be glad to have the debate.
Republicans should just pull a Cam Newton and quit.
2
You are right. Fox, Rush and that gang, Grover Norquist (how on earth does that man wield so much power?!), the Tea partiers, and all the rest of the sloganeers have brought the level of political discourse in this country to new lows.
But we need to call them on some of the outrageous things they say. Far more serious than Rubio's debate fall from grace was the stuff the Donald said about torture. It is okay, waterboarding is fine, he would do worse things. I know we still laugh at Trump and marvel at his stupendous ego, but he continues to hold the attention of the public and in partricular, the hungry media. He merrily continues to encourage the worst, least compassionate, most ignorant elements in our land.
The sense we had that we were a nation that needed to care about all its citizens is gone. I see it in the comments section, too, as people demonstrate greed and callousness about human suffering here and globally.
The country is splintering apart, faction by faction, person by person, and it is sad to watch.
But we need to call them on some of the outrageous things they say. Far more serious than Rubio's debate fall from grace was the stuff the Donald said about torture. It is okay, waterboarding is fine, he would do worse things. I know we still laugh at Trump and marvel at his stupendous ego, but he continues to hold the attention of the public and in partricular, the hungry media. He merrily continues to encourage the worst, least compassionate, most ignorant elements in our land.
The sense we had that we were a nation that needed to care about all its citizens is gone. I see it in the comments section, too, as people demonstrate greed and callousness about human suffering here and globally.
The country is splintering apart, faction by faction, person by person, and it is sad to watch.
4
Yep, and if one of these Republican extremists gets elected President be very afraid and start building your bomb shelter.
4
Dr. Krugman, try this little bit of mental experimentation. Place Clinton and Sanders on the stage with the remaining Republican candidates, and imagine who would prevail.
Clinton would quickly go the way of Jeb Bush. She would be viewed as an uninspired part of the problematic past. Sanders might actually win over the Trump supporters.
Americans, young and old, want change and idealism. Americans do not want Bismarckian pragmatism.
If Bernie was on this fictional stage, and he really wanted to put the campaign on a stunning path, he should turn to Hillary and ask if she would be willing to be his Vice President.
Clinton would quickly go the way of Jeb Bush. She would be viewed as an uninspired part of the problematic past. Sanders might actually win over the Trump supporters.
Americans, young and old, want change and idealism. Americans do not want Bismarckian pragmatism.
If Bernie was on this fictional stage, and he really wanted to put the campaign on a stunning path, he should turn to Hillary and ask if she would be willing to be his Vice President.
2
Hillary Clinton is reliving and trying to revive the Clinton 1990's Democratic era. Bernie Sander's is recalling and attempting to resurrect the 1960's Johnson Democratic era. But it is 2016. And both political parties are stuck in their own time- loop mythology. Being reasonable, practical and cautious the Founding Fathers would not have rebelled and declared their independence from Great Britain. A moderate realistic Abraham Lincoln would have allowed the Southern states to secede.
3
Repeating oneself is necessary at times...I have a dream, equal pay for equal work, universal access to healthcare,etc...if not part of the process of change. But GOP repetition is usually based on ignoring: facts,prudence or the concept of foresight. Marco, the Political Robot, has taken political speech to the level of an arcade doll with a broken silly talk button.
PS. I support Hillary but Bernie is not a one-trick pony. Repeat that 100X.
PS. I support Hillary but Bernie is not a one-trick pony. Repeat that 100X.
3
And the Democrats are not stuck in a time loop of tax the rich and hand out free stuff?
4
No.
Bill Clinton raised taxes and signed welfare reform. Barack Obama signed a compromise health care reform plan that required the middle class to pay their own premiums and deductibles.
What "free stuff" are you referring to?
Free grazing on public land perhaps? Not the Democrats' fault certainly. Cut rate coal leases in the Powder River basin? I am sure the Democrats would love to see the end of those too.
Bill Clinton raised taxes and signed welfare reform. Barack Obama signed a compromise health care reform plan that required the middle class to pay their own premiums and deductibles.
What "free stuff" are you referring to?
Free grazing on public land perhaps? Not the Democrats' fault certainly. Cut rate coal leases in the Powder River basin? I am sure the Democrats would love to see the end of those too.
3
The entire Republican Party is built on appealing to talk radio, but its appeals can never be requited, because talk radio itself is built on being against this or that existential enemy, even if the enemy of convenience is a Republican. Which means that Republican candidates are stuck with trying to be the biggest and baddest one in the room, because that's the only wiggle room they've got.
1
When the general election gets here it doesn't matter to me whose name has a D next to it, that is who I will vote for. I fear my vote will be meaningless though, and not because I live in Texas. I think the Bernie supporters are going to stubborn and idealize a right wing extremist into the Oval Office.
6
The problem in Iraq was not the war. The military ousted Saddem, a murderous dictator as terrible as Assad in Syria, in about two weeks. What Republicans don't believe in is nation building. The Bush Administration did a criminal job in both Afghanistan and Iraq after the wars were won. The U.S. still has troops in Germany, Japan and Korea long after those wars ended.
The Republican military policy is like their abortion policy. They want to ignore the consequences of their policies.
The Republican military policy is like their abortion policy. They want to ignore the consequences of their policies.
3
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton..." there you go again! At your age, you sound like a broken-record. You sound like you're looking for a job in a Clinton Administration. Maybe I'll get back to reading you after the election.
1
"You sound like you're looking for a job in a Clinton Administration."
If I thought Hillary would do that, I'd give her another look. But no, she'll get her economics help from Goldman Sacks, where she gets her money, where she has her friends.
If I thought Hillary would do that, I'd give her another look. But no, she'll get her economics help from Goldman Sacks, where she gets her money, where she has her friends.
5
Young people of the world have grown up on an internet where they engage in people's ideas before their identity. They know that gender, race, ethnicity, etc. are not predictors of a person's integrity or intelligence.
The divide and conquer strategy of the global billionaires and their mass media is in big trouble. They are in a race against time to cement their long global corporate revolution in place before this evolution in human behavior makes it impossible,
Bernie Sanders is smart enough to recognize this moment in history and jump in front of the Movement of Movements. The world is about to change.
Who's side are you on?
The divide and conquer strategy of the global billionaires and their mass media is in big trouble. They are in a race against time to cement their long global corporate revolution in place before this evolution in human behavior makes it impossible,
Bernie Sanders is smart enough to recognize this moment in history and jump in front of the Movement of Movements. The world is about to change.
Who's side are you on?
2
Bernie calls for a political revolution at a time when this nation is seething with right wing extremism. A Gallup poll shows that more than 50% of the electorate will not vote for a socialist and that is what he will be labelled over and over again by the Republican super-PAC endlessly screaming ads.
Younger voters who adore Bernie for all the right reasons do not show up at the polls. A great concern must be, like it or not, can Bernie carry it off or is he wishful thinking on the part of many who are fed up with a corrupt economic system. A great concern is what will be on voters minds if there is a major terrorist Paris style attack in Europe or in the US in the weeks prior to the election? Where will concerns about Wall St. greed rank amid certain fear mongering and calls for vengeance?
Would that it could be so, but the asked and as yet realistically unanswered question is the electability of Mr. Sanders in these quixotic and politically dangerous times.
Younger voters who adore Bernie for all the right reasons do not show up at the polls. A great concern must be, like it or not, can Bernie carry it off or is he wishful thinking on the part of many who are fed up with a corrupt economic system. A great concern is what will be on voters minds if there is a major terrorist Paris style attack in Europe or in the US in the weeks prior to the election? Where will concerns about Wall St. greed rank amid certain fear mongering and calls for vengeance?
Would that it could be so, but the asked and as yet realistically unanswered question is the electability of Mr. Sanders in these quixotic and politically dangerous times.
6
We can better understand the point that Krugman is making if we distinguish between nescience and ignorance. Both words refer to a lack of knowledge. Although they can be used interchangeably we can refine our usage by using nescience for cases where there is a true lack of knowledge, as when faced with an unknown, and restricting ignorance to those cases where the lack of knowledge is the result of the willful choice to ignore what is otherwise known and apparent.
More important, however, than simply distinguishing between the two is the need to understand why they occur. Nescience occurs because we are inherently curious. It is the desire to explore the infinite potential of our existence and grow through the process. Ignorance is the result of having discovered that curiosity doesn’t only kill cats and represents a desire to preserve the status quo rather than face the inherent risks that change involves.
The problem is that change occurs whether we control it or not, whether we want it or not. Yet it is only by taking an active role in it that we have any hope for influencing the outcome. Accepting our natural nescience and seeking to optimize the outcome is preferable to trying to remain as we are simply because it is familiar.
As it relates to the current political process the difference between the two parties is that the Republicans have no alternative being offered whereas the Democrats do. Revolutions are needed to overcome the accumulated resistance to evolution.
More important, however, than simply distinguishing between the two is the need to understand why they occur. Nescience occurs because we are inherently curious. It is the desire to explore the infinite potential of our existence and grow through the process. Ignorance is the result of having discovered that curiosity doesn’t only kill cats and represents a desire to preserve the status quo rather than face the inherent risks that change involves.
The problem is that change occurs whether we control it or not, whether we want it or not. Yet it is only by taking an active role in it that we have any hope for influencing the outcome. Accepting our natural nescience and seeking to optimize the outcome is preferable to trying to remain as we are simply because it is familiar.
As it relates to the current political process the difference between the two parties is that the Republicans have no alternative being offered whereas the Democrats do. Revolutions are needed to overcome the accumulated resistance to evolution.
4
The Rube's software glitch was pretty amusing. It did not compute! Mr. Donut must have hit the right key, although it sure didn't help him. They all keep saying the same things because they really believe them. If you voters don't believe the same things, you now know what you have to do.
Pay equality theory. After WWII take pay of the average American worker went went up annually for about 30 years. GDP within the US economy supplied the average single earner home that paycheck. That changed in the mid-seventies when the US workforce number expanded by adding more workers. In fact the workforce nearly doubled in size. Dual income homes increased and eventually became the norm. Workers average pay declined. Why? More workers sharing pieces of the GDP pay. However household income went up because they had more workers living under one roof.
1
The time loop party? That’s the Dems, obviously. From Bill Clinton to Obama to Hillary, they’ve been repeating the same centrist stuff, packaged to counter the rw extreme radical Gop, pretending it serves the majority in a democracy.
The pattern continued as the rich got much richer, the jobs were sent away, the rule of law was handed over to the Big Banks to set up for their benefit, and the justice system was turned into a quasi mini dictatorship existing within a democracy with a Bill of Rights. Oh, and monopolies in media grew larger. Plus little is heard in opposition to Citizens United.
All these lead to unprecedented monopolies of power and wealth in the ‘world’s greatest democracy’. There’s a reason 30 m still don’t have health care coverage---we are alone in the 1st world. Congrats D ems, and their excuse makers.
The pattern continued as the rich got much richer, the jobs were sent away, the rule of law was handed over to the Big Banks to set up for their benefit, and the justice system was turned into a quasi mini dictatorship existing within a democracy with a Bill of Rights. Oh, and monopolies in media grew larger. Plus little is heard in opposition to Citizens United.
All these lead to unprecedented monopolies of power and wealth in the ‘world’s greatest democracy’. There’s a reason 30 m still don’t have health care coverage---we are alone in the 1st world. Congrats D ems, and their excuse makers.
2
Republican candidates never offer any solutions to the important issues of the day. They love to bash each other, but that does not help anyone outside of their universe. Paul Krugman notes that Marco Rubio came across Saturday night as an empty suit, but lets call a spade a spade, all the Republican candidates are empty suits. They're phony and pointless in their remarks. They will never diverge from the approved Republican script. Donald Trump realizes this weakness and uses it against everyone of these candidates. That's why he sucks the oxygen out of the room when he's debating or what ever it is he's doing with these empty suits. Clinton and Sanders had a mature and adult debate and talked about real problems with solutions. They are not going to change the mind of any of the Fox watching, undereducated, cliche ridden (cutting taxes is the solution for everything) Republican voter. And yes, Professor Krugman has a valid point in calling Bernie Sander a one note candidate. If Sanders gets elected he will probably never get any of his ideas through the Republican congress. Clinton is more realistic in her approach of dealing with the Party of No. She is more prepared to be president than any of the other candidates. The world is watching and is possibly laughing at Trump and his gang of Republican candidates. Very sad.
106
"Let's dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.". -- Marco Rubio
One does not say "dispel with". One says either "dispense with" or "dispel".
Rubio keeps repeating a statement with wrong language.
One does not say "dispel with". One says either "dispense with" or "dispel".
Rubio keeps repeating a statement with wrong language.
8
Freud would say Rubio really wants, at the subconscious level, to "dispense fictions".
1
"Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk"
And she has been apologizing for, or changing her mind on, most of her policies. If experience alone was the most important factor, we'd have no choice but to draft Dick Cheney.
And yes, the Republicans have become but a parody of a political party, but what about the DNC Democratic party? Contrary to the Times' roses economic reports, tens of millions haven't recovered from the last meltdown which was caused by Wall Street. Anxiety still runs high and candidate Clinton is being asked what exactly she said in a series of very lucrative, private speeches to bankers.
Why isn't the NY Times investigating this? Please, Times editors, tell us all about facing reality----as soon as you face reality.
And she has been apologizing for, or changing her mind on, most of her policies. If experience alone was the most important factor, we'd have no choice but to draft Dick Cheney.
And yes, the Republicans have become but a parody of a political party, but what about the DNC Democratic party? Contrary to the Times' roses economic reports, tens of millions haven't recovered from the last meltdown which was caused by Wall Street. Anxiety still runs high and candidate Clinton is being asked what exactly she said in a series of very lucrative, private speeches to bankers.
Why isn't the NY Times investigating this? Please, Times editors, tell us all about facing reality----as soon as you face reality.
4
While Christie's salvo against Rubio may have deducted points for Rubio, there is little evidence that it elevated Christie, who, even though he will deny it, is also a victim of canned verbiage - only in the form of insults rather than political positions. The entire party has been bitten by the hate Obama bug and that will lead to its downfall in the general election. At the end of the day, positive beats negative.
An amusing thesis coming from a man who has written the same column, practically word for word, for 8 years, maybe longer. Did I mention that Obamacare is a success? A success I say!!! Krugman's points on the economic impact or lack of impact of changes to the tax rates are disingenuous and he knows it (or should). The best you can say is that tax rates are one factor in a complex economic ecosystem and perhaps the impact is overstated. Other factors have had a far greater impact during the different time periods he references. If the impact of tax rates on growth is negligible (whether the rate is high or low) why not make them low? Oh right, the real point is to redistribute and cap income.
Krugman is himself a “one note” columnist who lives in a hermetically sealed world completely divorced from the everyday experiences of normal people. The only new facet of his writing is stumping for Hilary and where exactly is that coming from?
Krugman is himself a “one note” columnist who lives in a hermetically sealed world completely divorced from the everyday experiences of normal people. The only new facet of his writing is stumping for Hilary and where exactly is that coming from?
4
He's vying for a cabinet post, as others have earlier noted.
2
Marco Rubio's software glitch reminds me of the 2012 Republican debates when Rick Perry couldn't remember one of the three departments he was going to abolish. That moment ended Perry's campaign. Recollections of it pretty much ended his campaign this election, too. A deer frozen in the headlights. Not ready for the main stage. Never will be. Ditto for Mr. Rubio. He knows how to memorize a textbook, but then what?
82
I certainly doubt he could memorize a text book. Seems like his chip tops out at 60 monosyllabic words.
3
When I think about how the German landowners and industrialists in the years around 1930 thought whey would use Hitler to accomplish their aims and then discard him, I am very very afraid that history may be repeating itself here. With Fox Noise and copremetic talk radio hosts we all have reason to be afraid.
1
Unfortunately every policy you mention is promoted by the Republican Party becasue it serves the self interests of the Oligarchs who finance the party elite and their supporting Think-tanks and policy advocacy organizations. Every single one, including the foreign policy military aggressiveness which requires more Pentagon purchases not only for war material but also services from companies such as Halliburton, which serviced our troops during the Bush-Cheney Iraq war. These policies are not derived from evidence and logic, what is said publicly are only talking points to obscure the wealth enhancement those Oligarchs expect if their policies are enacted. Attempting to refute the adobvocates of such policies by real world evidence or logic is useless. The party elite and support organizations are paid to advocate self serving wealth enhancement policies, refuting their talking points does nothing to change the policies they advocate.
3
yep he imploded...but since the thread is the Primaries...
(quick aside, or en passant- shouldn't some enterprising Poly Sci depts. at several colleges go out for a quick headline grabber and do a fast survey (did you vote in 1972; for whom....I suspect the outcome would flip and bury any more bullbleep about the McGovern mistake...).)
Was it wise for Hill to play the victim and wymyn card...both are losers in the long, maybe even short, run. As far as flame mail goes the line on "burn in hell" begs for the shot back---WHO ELECTED HER POPE?
So now to the Sociology cum stats I suggest for Dem heads to ponder...1) all the headline mishmash about 50% this and 45% that needs to be put into a multi covariant matrix. My hyposthesis is: Regressing independent factors against party preference over the past decade or two0 (as fits subject responding) one will find a tight fit on things like abortion, war, tax cuts, police, etc. among Goppers. Maybe 6 Rsquare (maybe higher). Meaning they march in lockstep. Hard to crack with flipping around on single issue here and there.
But the Dems, as the comic/pundit put it in the 30s "is no organized party"...It is Brand X, a bin for "all the rest". An aggregate. The Rsquare will be much lower and the central issues on which choice hinges hence more important.
The wymyn are a small portion of Dems, with no where else to go.
&pigeon holing of "Hispanics and blacks" as monolithics marching LIKE tea party zombies to the Dems side is nutz...
(quick aside, or en passant- shouldn't some enterprising Poly Sci depts. at several colleges go out for a quick headline grabber and do a fast survey (did you vote in 1972; for whom....I suspect the outcome would flip and bury any more bullbleep about the McGovern mistake...).)
Was it wise for Hill to play the victim and wymyn card...both are losers in the long, maybe even short, run. As far as flame mail goes the line on "burn in hell" begs for the shot back---WHO ELECTED HER POPE?
So now to the Sociology cum stats I suggest for Dem heads to ponder...1) all the headline mishmash about 50% this and 45% that needs to be put into a multi covariant matrix. My hyposthesis is: Regressing independent factors against party preference over the past decade or two0 (as fits subject responding) one will find a tight fit on things like abortion, war, tax cuts, police, etc. among Goppers. Maybe 6 Rsquare (maybe higher). Meaning they march in lockstep. Hard to crack with flipping around on single issue here and there.
But the Dems, as the comic/pundit put it in the 30s "is no organized party"...It is Brand X, a bin for "all the rest". An aggregate. The Rsquare will be much lower and the central issues on which choice hinges hence more important.
The wymyn are a small portion of Dems, with no where else to go.
&pigeon holing of "Hispanics and blacks" as monolithics marching LIKE tea party zombies to the Dems side is nutz...
The GOP is offering poison and selling it as a health tonic. "Never mind that it nearly killed you the last few times you drank it - this time will be different!"
It's quite shocking to note the intense disparity after watching the GOP debate on Saturday, and the Democratic debate earlier in the week. The GOP lives and exists in a bizarre alternate reality, molded and defined by their fears and hatreds, presented as alarmist reality despite the overwhelming lack of evidence for their claims. They are an entire political party stuck in a Plato's Cave of their own making.
It's one thing for an individual, or even a group, to hold extremist, fact-free views. It's another thing entirely when the Republican Party has been taken over by this kind of extremism. It's very dangerous, especially when this ideology desires nothing but the internal dismantling of our government, and the privatization and selling-off of every bit of our nation and infrastructure. This mentality lacks all nuance when it comes to international relations and war. That is deadly.
It comes down to the corruption of our political process and our media. An independent, fact-based media would call them out for this extremism, not bait them into attacking each other and spreading more fear and lies. A publicly financed election process would keep the neo-Bircher lunacy of the Koch brothers from dictating the parameters and the dialogue of our politics.
Don't ever vote GOP. Stop drinking the poison.
It's quite shocking to note the intense disparity after watching the GOP debate on Saturday, and the Democratic debate earlier in the week. The GOP lives and exists in a bizarre alternate reality, molded and defined by their fears and hatreds, presented as alarmist reality despite the overwhelming lack of evidence for their claims. They are an entire political party stuck in a Plato's Cave of their own making.
It's one thing for an individual, or even a group, to hold extremist, fact-free views. It's another thing entirely when the Republican Party has been taken over by this kind of extremism. It's very dangerous, especially when this ideology desires nothing but the internal dismantling of our government, and the privatization and selling-off of every bit of our nation and infrastructure. This mentality lacks all nuance when it comes to international relations and war. That is deadly.
It comes down to the corruption of our political process and our media. An independent, fact-based media would call them out for this extremism, not bait them into attacking each other and spreading more fear and lies. A publicly financed election process would keep the neo-Bircher lunacy of the Koch brothers from dictating the parameters and the dialogue of our politics.
Don't ever vote GOP. Stop drinking the poison.
4
Dear Mr. Krugman, when did you become a fan of corporate Democrats? It is not 'pie in the sky' to have a single payer health care system. Canada does, they aren't that much different. Many people of limited means have Obamacare insurance now they can't use due to high deductibles and auxiliary costs. It was after all a Republican plan. Over time it can be replaced. The young people who so like Bernie might know that to please the banks she worked against them so their exorbitant student loans could not be discharged in bankruptcy. Same as she ever was she is still raking in the millions from all the felon banks. I thought you had a liberal conscience? Sometimes I think it’s just that all you folks making good money don't want to pay your fair share of taxes just like the Uber wealthy.
4
Krugman needs an editor. When he is not quoting himself he employs unnecessary parenthetical diversions to his argument. "(I’d say broken-record performance, but that would be showing my age.)"
Ah, Dr. Krugman and his minions are still at their pity pat party. The majority of Governorships, state legislative bodies and the House and Senate are in the hands of the GOP and it's all the fault of FOX news or some other hobgoblin. When your done whining you might, just might, consider that your ideology is being rejected by the American people.
3
The Bernie Sanders cult of personality crowd ("feel the bern", really?) also have their own Foxification thing going on. You learned that the hard way last week when you dared question Senator Sanders' ability to achieve his goals with Congress (which is nil). The comments were scathing. And when the NYT decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination? Forget it!!! Not just disagreement, but bitterness (many actually used that very word) and threats to cancel NYT subscription. Because they don't want to hear one word they don't agree with.
They sound just a little like the right wing of the GOP to me. Bill Clinton is right (however un-artfully he said it). The Sanders people live in their own bubble. And they just can't believe the whole world is not enthralled with the senator.
It isn't.
They sound just a little like the right wing of the GOP to me. Bill Clinton is right (however un-artfully he said it). The Sanders people live in their own bubble. And they just can't believe the whole world is not enthralled with the senator.
It isn't.
3
Hillary Clinton is a policy wonk who was wrong about the most important policy decision in a generation. This makes her a respected presidential candidate and a darling of the Very Serious People.
1
You have the Marco Rubio affliction. Just say the same talking point over and over, again.
4
I thought Prof Krugman was going to emphasize the dramatic difference in how the two parties parlay their positions. He starts out all right, but then dissolves into a flimsy description of Bernie vs Hillary. And he forgot Martin O'Malley's important contribution in focusing on issues and their solution. Gov O'Malley was part of government on several levels, and is known to be a bright caring elected official.
This type of politicking by Prof Krugman is a distance from his usual style. He does not usually silo his thinking, but usually uses a broader picture of what is going on. No matter, he only encourages voters to back Senator Sanders as their first choice. He has miscalculated in trying to boost HRC, and he is following suit with Gloria Steinhem, Madeline Albright, and Bill Clinton. The latter has even called Bernie Sanders dishonest. It's hogwash season.
This type of politicking by Prof Krugman is a distance from his usual style. He does not usually silo his thinking, but usually uses a broader picture of what is going on. No matter, he only encourages voters to back Senator Sanders as their first choice. He has miscalculated in trying to boost HRC, and he is following suit with Gloria Steinhem, Madeline Albright, and Bill Clinton. The latter has even called Bernie Sanders dishonest. It's hogwash season.
1
Calling Bernie a "one-note candidate" for decrying dark money in politics & its perversions of policy is like calling Krugman a Keynesian ideologue.
There's more to both.
There's more to both.
2
And Chris Christie pulled out one of his own classic talking points/lies, saying that Planned Parenthood "engages in the systematic murder of children in the womb in order to maximize the value of their body parts for sale on the open market."
2
HOOOO there Paul! Ease back on the reins so we can talk.
Did you say "Hillary Clinton, "is a policy wonk and can think on her feet"?
She must have been doing 99% of her thinking while seated to take those millions from Wall Street and the 1%, remain married to a notorious philanderer and run her life as Sec. of State on a single e mail account just for starters.
You don't want to even start on Iraq, giving banksters our savings accounts to play with or that Americans should elect her because she's a women, applauding Madeline Albright for scolding young women about going to hell for supporting Bernie.
Next I expect Madeline and Hill to scold young men that supporting Bernie will make them go blind shrink their junk.
Please, Paul, give this a bit more consideration
Did you say "Hillary Clinton, "is a policy wonk and can think on her feet"?
She must have been doing 99% of her thinking while seated to take those millions from Wall Street and the 1%, remain married to a notorious philanderer and run her life as Sec. of State on a single e mail account just for starters.
You don't want to even start on Iraq, giving banksters our savings accounts to play with or that Americans should elect her because she's a women, applauding Madeline Albright for scolding young women about going to hell for supporting Bernie.
Next I expect Madeline and Hill to scold young men that supporting Bernie will make them go blind shrink their junk.
Please, Paul, give this a bit more consideration
1
Why is it that the only government program the Republicans think the government can get right is torturing people? See: http://www.rweconomics.com/Torture.htm
4
If we were electing a King, I would go with Bernie, but in the real world, we need a rational, informed, deal maker, and Hillary meets that criterion best.
7
This from a man who is blind to Obamacare failures. But then again Krugman is nothing more than a propagandist.
1
I am a hard core Democrat and the Republican candidates are nightmares ( exempting maybe Kasich, about whom I know little). I kind of mean that literally. I keep thinking I'll wake up and presidential candidates are not really saying what they are saying. They don't even use dog whistles any more.
I really liked President Clinton and appreciated the economy. Still, he signed the Crime Bill, which severely impacted minority communities, as did NAFTA ,which sent jobs overseas. Then there was Welfare Reform, which involved a lot of kicking people off of needed help.
I so agree with you about Republican candidates . I was horrified by their discussion of torture last week and by their scary theocratic goals and meanness. I know I should not be talking about President Clinton. Sec. Clinton is her own person. Still, she once encouraged a bill exempting a lot of struggling families from being able to get bankruptcy. And why can't she just say yes to releasing transcripts of her Wall Street speeches? Maybe the latter is minor but I came around to my daughter's Sanders support Thursday when I yelled at the TV " just say yes!"
I sense that the water cooler talk amongst NYTimes columnists is about Sec. Clinton over Sen. Sanders. Either of them would be a trillion times better than any of the Republican candidates. Could the NYTimes please acknowledge that? I know you try here but your dig at Sanders as a one note candidate diminished your message.
I really liked President Clinton and appreciated the economy. Still, he signed the Crime Bill, which severely impacted minority communities, as did NAFTA ,which sent jobs overseas. Then there was Welfare Reform, which involved a lot of kicking people off of needed help.
I so agree with you about Republican candidates . I was horrified by their discussion of torture last week and by their scary theocratic goals and meanness. I know I should not be talking about President Clinton. Sec. Clinton is her own person. Still, she once encouraged a bill exempting a lot of struggling families from being able to get bankruptcy. And why can't she just say yes to releasing transcripts of her Wall Street speeches? Maybe the latter is minor but I came around to my daughter's Sanders support Thursday when I yelled at the TV " just say yes!"
I sense that the water cooler talk amongst NYTimes columnists is about Sec. Clinton over Sen. Sanders. Either of them would be a trillion times better than any of the Republican candidates. Could the NYTimes please acknowledge that? I know you try here but your dig at Sanders as a one note candidate diminished your message.
5
Kasich said that if he had his way there would be no teachers' lounges in the schools, so teachers could not talk among themselves. Not much of a moderate.
1
Watch the performance of the current political establishment, it is like a Ground Hog Day there everyday.
Bernie Sanders is the only one that can bring fresh air to give a new life to get us out of the maze.
Bernie Sanders is the only one that can bring fresh air to give a new life to get us out of the maze.
1
The Republican Party's problem is that they can figure out who's dragging the party. Every time they try and get out in front and pretend to lead the charge with their 'insurgencies' they find once again that they misunderstood who/what is driving it. They look like fools trying to combine their 'Libertarian/KKK/Fearless Military Leader' outfit into something recognizable.
1
Krugman do you still think Hillary is so smart? I should think you would want to check your models in light of her decision to release the Kraken (i.e.; that man that didn't have sex with that woman). Is that a smart move Paul? To me it is stupid, and consistent with her decision making.
I am a senior of an advanced age- born under Hoover. I cannot believe that I have changed that much over the years but the US certainly has. I really feel I am living in the Twilight Zone when I see and hear the Republican candidates and their supporters. What ever mess occurs in the future I am sure that Obama will be blamed for it. I am used to formidable candidates like Willkie,
Stevenson,Humphrey, so how on earth did we end up with people like Cruz and Rubio? God bless the United States.
willkie,
Stevenson,Humphrey, so how on earth did we end up with people like Cruz and Rubio? God bless the United States.
willkie,
3
Like it or not, and accept it or not, the campaign against Hillary, has far more sexism in it than almost anyone wants to admit.
That sexism is just as deeply ingrained in our psyches as racism is universally agreed upon in academia, but the public will deny it ever time.
Anyone who disagrees, can read the fantastic, unjustified, criticisms of Hillary
written in this and other public forums.
That sexism is just as deeply ingrained in our psyches as racism is universally agreed upon in academia, but the public will deny it ever time.
Anyone who disagrees, can read the fantastic, unjustified, criticisms of Hillary
written in this and other public forums.
3
Marco Rubio reminds me of Churchill's quote on Clement Atlee:
"An empty taxi arrived at 10 Downing Street, and when the door was opened, Atlee got out"
"An empty taxi arrived at 10 Downing Street, and when the door was opened, Atlee got out"
3
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues. Bernie Sanders is much more of a one-note candidate, but at least his signature issue — rising inequality and the effects of money on politics — reflects real concerns."
Speaking of divorces from reality, "genuine policy wonk Hillary Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq. "One-note candidate" Bernie voted against it.
Kudos for an otherwise excellent article, Paul...
Speaking of divorces from reality, "genuine policy wonk Hillary Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq. "One-note candidate" Bernie voted against it.
Kudos for an otherwise excellent article, Paul...
1
Regarding the Republican candidates, didn't someone once say that if you tell a lie often enough, people will take it for the truth.
3
The Republicans also stick to the notion that human activity has no effect on the climate. They do not accept that the climate is changing. Wonder how long they can stay unified on that nonsense.
3
The real LameStream Media to which Palin refers is Fox, right wing talk radio, and blogs like RedState.
The Republicans are all slogans, no actuality. This all began with Reagan---haven't we had enough time now to see that these policies haven't, in fact, worked? Can we try something else now, please?
2
If Clinton is a policy wonk then she should get that across by clearly and succinctly laying out her ideas on the debate stage as Sanders has done. As a Clinton supporter perhaps you could elaborate in this space sometime, because thus far her proposals for financial reform are as shadowy as the shadow banks they purport to regulate.
1
The bubble the pre- and post-Foxified Republicans live in are "Might Makes Right" and "'Murica, Love It or Leave It". They still believe they know better than anyone else, or love the country more than anyone else. They believe stomping on the heads of others is okay, as long as it's them doing it. It is sad and petrifying. Sad for those like me who can think for themselves, and petrifying for those who can't or won't. the Foxified style of R's keep the country from moving forward to accomplish all the wonderful things that could be done to make the world a better place for everyone.
1
Bernie Sanders' one note is the reason why so many people, Including independents and even Republicans for Bernie and Tea Party for Bernie, are joining the revolution.
Sanders is the only two party candidate I have ever heard say that the system is rigged and we need a political revolution to fix it. Republicans are not going to undo everything in your litany of mistakes because Clinton has "experience."
Only the People can strike fear into the hearts of the oligarchy and create real change. It would be nice to have our inside man in the White House, but Bernie is the only candidate that says it is not about him but about the People taking back democracy.
We have tried going to the center and triangulating and it has cost us dearly. Bernie's "one note" is the only viable plan for creating real change.
Sanders is the only two party candidate I have ever heard say that the system is rigged and we need a political revolution to fix it. Republicans are not going to undo everything in your litany of mistakes because Clinton has "experience."
Only the People can strike fear into the hearts of the oligarchy and create real change. It would be nice to have our inside man in the White House, but Bernie is the only candidate that says it is not about him but about the People taking back democracy.
We have tried going to the center and triangulating and it has cost us dearly. Bernie's "one note" is the only viable plan for creating real change.
1
Boy, I'll say this for the PDOBSS (Protective and Defensive Order of Bernie Sanders Supporters) they are starting to resemble a faith based organization. Remember, Berneroids, it is a poor faith that cannot withstand testing. Or the schoolyard version -- "Sticks and stones ... "
3
The way the Republicans get around the utterly illogical stances on lowering taxes, repealing Obamacare, etc., is to blame the news media for its bias. The way they see it, when you write it as news and base it on facts (from the silly past, no less) then it is immediately suspect in every way. This is a bigger problem than their repeating of false theories and known failures from the past.
Does anyone consider how profitable it is for the republicans and their candidates to repeat the rubbish they preach?
This isn't about "policy or ideology". It is about money.
The republican politicians are richly rewarded for spouting the party line. How was Eric Cantor punished when he lost to a more extreme nitwit? $2 million dollar a year job on wall street. Or the pain.
The bloated defense budget isn't about national defense but about building stuff at great cost and huge profits. Threats are manufactured to justify these expensive things. The things the military needs like rifles that don't jam and armored blast resistant vehicles aren't profitable. At least Sec Def Gates got armored vehicles and the rate of damaged soldiers and marines coming back was reduced.
None of the republicans advocate a draft or sending their children and grandchildren to Syria. They want to send other people's children and grandchildren to be the "boots on the ground".
Low gas prices and ethanol. The cost of buying the corn states. Food prices for the poor? Who cares. Not the Republicans.
I am retired university professor and retired army officer. Vietnam, Bosnia and Haiti I can say this.
I will summarize the lecture.
Money, Money, Money.
Michael
This isn't about "policy or ideology". It is about money.
The republican politicians are richly rewarded for spouting the party line. How was Eric Cantor punished when he lost to a more extreme nitwit? $2 million dollar a year job on wall street. Or the pain.
The bloated defense budget isn't about national defense but about building stuff at great cost and huge profits. Threats are manufactured to justify these expensive things. The things the military needs like rifles that don't jam and armored blast resistant vehicles aren't profitable. At least Sec Def Gates got armored vehicles and the rate of damaged soldiers and marines coming back was reduced.
None of the republicans advocate a draft or sending their children and grandchildren to Syria. They want to send other people's children and grandchildren to be the "boots on the ground".
Low gas prices and ethanol. The cost of buying the corn states. Food prices for the poor? Who cares. Not the Republicans.
I am retired university professor and retired army officer. Vietnam, Bosnia and Haiti I can say this.
I will summarize the lecture.
Money, Money, Money.
Michael
1
The answer to "But there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble" is quite simple. Partly it was "Foxification," as you suggest. Mostly it was dis-education. State and local budget cuts have emptied our school of well trained educators, replacing them often with young ideologues, creationists, Limbaughers and bigots. It was a well planned and well executed assault on our youth by the Republican party and the billionaires funding them.
2
Mr. Krugman's line about "Republican faith in tax cuts as a universal economic elixir" recalls the famous W.C. Fields vaudeville carnival-barker routine about Purple-Bark Sarsaparilla: "It cures everything! It evens cures hoarseness!".
He would then talk for a while in a low, raspy whisper, drink a slug from the sarsaparilla bottle and then yell at the top of his lungs "See. It cures hoarseness!!!"
So, following W.C. Fields, just think of tax cuts as the GOP's version of "Purple-Bark Sarsaparilla".
He would then talk for a while in a low, raspy whisper, drink a slug from the sarsaparilla bottle and then yell at the top of his lungs "See. It cures hoarseness!!!"
So, following W.C. Fields, just think of tax cuts as the GOP's version of "Purple-Bark Sarsaparilla".
2
Yes, Mr. Krugman, Mrs. Clinton is a "real policy wonk..." who voted with the Republicans in favor of the war in Iraq. And that one-note Bernie Sanders? Turns out he was right to oppose the war. Apparently, sometimes one good note is all you need. As for the Republicans, at least many of them have the courage of their convictions. You, on the other hand, have been arguing for years in favor of a single-payer health system. Yet now that the Democrats actually have a candidate loudly proclaiming just such a policy, you run away from him in favor of a candidate who is supposedly more "electable." Perhaps Democratic primary voters, and the American people in general, will be more receptive to his policies than you dare believe possible.
If insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result, then where does that leave the Congressional Republicans?
How about they try something constructive for once?
How about they try something constructive for once?
If insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result, where does that leave the people who voted for Obama twice?
Facts are curious things. Especially for liberals who avoid them.
Facts are curious things. Especially for liberals who avoid them.
1
Or conservatives who deny them.
1
The facts speak so eloquently to a Republican party that has long embraced fantasy rather than reality.
Want to kill jobs? Vote Republican. How else do you explain the Clinton-era job growth followed by job-killing era of George W. Dunce?
Want a budget deficit? Vote Republican. How else do you explain a Clinton-era budget surplus becoming a Dunce-era budget deficit?
Want to crater the stock market? Vote Republican. The Dunce not only helped crater the housing industry, the mortgage industr, the real estate industry and the motor industry, he caused an American recession and a near world-wide depression. Under a Democrat named Obama, the stock market has reached record heights.
Want to start an endless war? Vote Republican. The Dunce, Deadeye Dick Cheney, and the motley group of neocon advisors --- ALL Vietnam War era draft dodgers --- attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Like it or not, the ruthless Saddam ensured no terrorist groups would be operating there. But The Dunce and Deadeye changed that --- and now America endures a senseless and ongoing war that should never have happened.
You have to have a screw loose to vote Republican.
Want to
Want to kill jobs? Vote Republican. How else do you explain the Clinton-era job growth followed by job-killing era of George W. Dunce?
Want a budget deficit? Vote Republican. How else do you explain a Clinton-era budget surplus becoming a Dunce-era budget deficit?
Want to crater the stock market? Vote Republican. The Dunce not only helped crater the housing industry, the mortgage industr, the real estate industry and the motor industry, he caused an American recession and a near world-wide depression. Under a Democrat named Obama, the stock market has reached record heights.
Want to start an endless war? Vote Republican. The Dunce, Deadeye Dick Cheney, and the motley group of neocon advisors --- ALL Vietnam War era draft dodgers --- attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Like it or not, the ruthless Saddam ensured no terrorist groups would be operating there. But The Dunce and Deadeye changed that --- and now America endures a senseless and ongoing war that should never have happened.
You have to have a screw loose to vote Republican.
Want to
173
There is no Republican party. What remains of the party of Eisenhower is a a brand name. Those who use that brand have become outliers to the mainstream of American politics. The public has certain wants and needs and the Republicans have consistently failed to deliver, yet because of boatloads on money, much of it dark, it manages to trick the people into an orwellian state of mind of double-think and new-speak where the worst of us hear their dog whistle messages.
The difference between the paries is that the Democrats believe in majority rule democracy and that the purpose of government, in addition to defense, is the welfare of the majority, while the Republicans demand an oligarchy, where what is good for the super rich is good for America and that they believe that those who are not 100% with them are against them and are cowards or traitors.
America has a few mega billionaire families and billionaire CEO’s who own most of the assets of this country and they want to buy our government and want all of those things that their wholly owned instrument, the Republican party, advocate along with turning the calendar back 100 years.
.
Want to be president as a Republican? Show up and and get a billionair’s support. It is a beauty contest of empty suits and people with dangerous ambitions. Sing the song, dance the dance, winnow the group and nominate the one who will deliver the govt.. Show the people how small government can be at your throat. .
The difference between the paries is that the Democrats believe in majority rule democracy and that the purpose of government, in addition to defense, is the welfare of the majority, while the Republicans demand an oligarchy, where what is good for the super rich is good for America and that they believe that those who are not 100% with them are against them and are cowards or traitors.
America has a few mega billionaire families and billionaire CEO’s who own most of the assets of this country and they want to buy our government and want all of those things that their wholly owned instrument, the Republican party, advocate along with turning the calendar back 100 years.
.
Want to be president as a Republican? Show up and and get a billionair’s support. It is a beauty contest of empty suits and people with dangerous ambitions. Sing the song, dance the dance, winnow the group and nominate the one who will deliver the govt.. Show the people how small government can be at your throat. .
1
There you go again, Mr. Krugman, actually trying to interject logic into a campaign, which, outside of Hillary, has none.
68
"Strange to say, this line hasn’t changed at all despite the fact that we’ve gained 5.7 million private-sector jobs since January 2014,"
Didn't they teach you about "post hoc, propter hoc" at Princeton.
Didn't they teach you about "post hoc, propter hoc" at Princeton.
When I took my first psychology courses as an undergraduate, there was much discussion of the psychology of mind control (Nazi propaganda and Korean POW treatment as examples) and subliminal advertising (based on Freud).
Much later in graduate school, I took a course in learning theory where the professor used many examples from the advertising industry to show how basic learning theories were used to sell products. He referred to the product as "the neutral stimulus," meaning the product had no real value or attraction until the advertisers used simple principles of learning to condition the audience to associate the product with lots of positive things. This typically relied on a lot of behaviorism, a fair amount of gestalt theory, and plenty of Freudian appeals to see toilet paper, cars, or kitchen wax. Voila! Studies demonstrated these ads worked.
Then in social psychology we learned a lot about group effects--the influential power of groups on individual behavior--conformity, anxiety, fear, insecurity, groupthink, identity and belonging.
So we may think the Republicans are just being limited and unimaginative in their relentless repetition of "loopy" messages. The message needn't make any sense logically or in reality; the same messages are broadcast for decades coming from a host of sources confirming the "message"; and never mind there is no or even contrary evidence that the message/product is bogus.
The Republicans know psychology & they know their audience.
Much later in graduate school, I took a course in learning theory where the professor used many examples from the advertising industry to show how basic learning theories were used to sell products. He referred to the product as "the neutral stimulus," meaning the product had no real value or attraction until the advertisers used simple principles of learning to condition the audience to associate the product with lots of positive things. This typically relied on a lot of behaviorism, a fair amount of gestalt theory, and plenty of Freudian appeals to see toilet paper, cars, or kitchen wax. Voila! Studies demonstrated these ads worked.
Then in social psychology we learned a lot about group effects--the influential power of groups on individual behavior--conformity, anxiety, fear, insecurity, groupthink, identity and belonging.
So we may think the Republicans are just being limited and unimaginative in their relentless repetition of "loopy" messages. The message needn't make any sense logically or in reality; the same messages are broadcast for decades coming from a host of sources confirming the "message"; and never mind there is no or even contrary evidence that the message/product is bogus.
The Republicans know psychology & they know their audience.
Rubio is a lost case, he is too ignorant and arrogant for his own good, let alone for the rest of us. Additionally, he lacks conviction and courage, as shown in his most brief political career. And the republican congress? Wasting their time, and our taxes, in trying to reject the ACA for the umpteenth time? Perhaps their fear and anger-mongering is a byproduct of a deep insecurity in the political process, brought about by a rigid ideology of 'purity' and the need for security even at the cost of basic freedoms.
Hey Paul,
How does it feel to have to put a Hilary bumper sticker in every article that you write? Like a cuckold?
It is getting pretty pathetic.
How does it feel to have to put a Hilary bumper sticker in every article that you write? Like a cuckold?
It is getting pretty pathetic.
3
Just as surely as the lead in Flint poisoned those kids, the toxic waste dump of right-wing media, starting with FOX Not News, has poisoned and brainwashed a disturbingly large segment of the citizenry.
Encourage the stupid ones to vote and prevent the thoughtful ones from getting to the polls through voter suppression -- that's the Republican formula for success this year.
We need to do everything possible to stop these traitorous hypocrites from gaining the White House or they'll turn the United States into a Third World country in four years' time.
Encourage the stupid ones to vote and prevent the thoughtful ones from getting to the polls through voter suppression -- that's the Republican formula for success this year.
We need to do everything possible to stop these traitorous hypocrites from gaining the White House or they'll turn the United States into a Third World country in four years' time.
132
Wow, this was an unattractive line of attack when the mean Republicans used it with respect to main stream media. It is even more unattractive when used by the left, you know the "kinder, gentler party".
I'm not even a politician, but I could have thought of something to say to counter Christy: Governor Christy is good at a 30 second denial and throwing his top aides under the bus or in this case off the bridge.
Has Pau Krugman ever written a balanced column? Like most observers, I was startled by Sen. Rubio's performance. It was very revealing. It's why more debates are good, despite the lack of the same on the other side. But, unlike Prof. Krugman and the Editorial Board, I, and hopefully most Americans, can actually make distinctions. Each of Governors Kasich, Bush and Christie showed themselves to be experienced, thoughtful leaders who are determined to solve problems rather than kick cans down the road. On top of that, none is under investigation by the FBI for abhorrent disregard for national security, not to mention poor judgment. Should any of these gentlemen by the nominee, I can't wait for November.
1
Senator Rubio demonstrated little harm by repeating, “This notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he's doing." Indeed, President Obama’s response might be, “Thank you Senator Rubio”.
Rubio’s call for the elimination of the tax on capital gains is a substantive issue – the kind which Chris Christie claims Rubio lacks. The professorial wisdom of Paul Krugman could be used to shed light on the subject and help readers judge whether taxing capital gains is a good or bad idea and why. Instead, Krugman talks in general terms about the GOP supporting tax cuts for the “rich” and “wealthy” or does Krugman really mean “high earners” or ways of computing “earnings”?
Some conservatives share the Heritage Foundation view of eliminating some double taxation beginning with the elimination of all tax on financial income (interest, capital gains and dividends) and Estate Taxes. These dark conservatives have abandoned any realistic plan to balance the budget or pay off the debt (and Krugman rightly cites to Kansas as an example). More importantly, they know how the tax code has redistributed and reduced family wealth for 90% - (to desperation levels for half). Nevertheless, these dark policy wonks claim that tax reform should ignore this slow and unintended destruction of the family.
It seems apparent that, like President Obama, the dark conservatives also know exactly what they are doing (but may be less inclined to say Thank you).
Rubio’s call for the elimination of the tax on capital gains is a substantive issue – the kind which Chris Christie claims Rubio lacks. The professorial wisdom of Paul Krugman could be used to shed light on the subject and help readers judge whether taxing capital gains is a good or bad idea and why. Instead, Krugman talks in general terms about the GOP supporting tax cuts for the “rich” and “wealthy” or does Krugman really mean “high earners” or ways of computing “earnings”?
Some conservatives share the Heritage Foundation view of eliminating some double taxation beginning with the elimination of all tax on financial income (interest, capital gains and dividends) and Estate Taxes. These dark conservatives have abandoned any realistic plan to balance the budget or pay off the debt (and Krugman rightly cites to Kansas as an example). More importantly, they know how the tax code has redistributed and reduced family wealth for 90% - (to desperation levels for half). Nevertheless, these dark policy wonks claim that tax reform should ignore this slow and unintended destruction of the family.
It seems apparent that, like President Obama, the dark conservatives also know exactly what they are doing (but may be less inclined to say Thank you).
1
The time-loop party...which party keeps reaching back into the past to resurrect policies from the 1930's?
2
Better to pursue policies that led to 1929?
2
To paraphrase the article: So, how did this happen to the G.O.P.? By exposing republican voters to Foxic news.
1
Bernie Sanders,to my eyes, seems to be channeling two of my favorite Democrat presidents i.e. Franklin Roosevelt and LBJ. Two gentlemen, who understood the problems faced by the average citizen of the U.S. For the average citizen, life without Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance ,the 40 hour work week, and regulation of financial services would truly be bleak.
1
If Mr. Krugman is going to be so clearly pro-Hillary, and if he's going to be the Time's economist, how does mr. Krugman weigh in on consequences of Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagal (beyond saying it was wrong), Hillary's vote for the $3-Trillion war(s), the trade agreements, etc. Was Billary really that good for the USA in retrospect, and how could a 'policy wonk' have made such grave errors, why would Mr, Krugman trust Hillary after her disastrous Iraq War vote?
Is Bernie-bashing fair, calling him a 'one-issue candidate' when Bernie's platform is far more than inequality?
Let's hear a real analysis of Bern's platform, including not folding to the Military Industrial machine and the Finance industry.
And what about the that military-industrial complex. Is over $1 tril. on warmongering economically sustainable?
Expose Republican hammers & everything nails, good. But what about the actual economics of those wars, who the money went to, and how that damaged the economy & equality?
What about the 'Billary' factor, Bill's trade agreement & Hillary's big Finance, was that all a good idea in light of where the 'middle class' seems to be deriving so much of their anger?
Does Hillary get a free ride over the repeal of Glass Steagal, the speaking fees from Goldman, the Iraq War vote?
None of those issues plague Bernie Sanders, and to the rest of America, those issues seem to loom large.
How about Krugman the Economist honestly weighing in with policy analysis, not slogans.
Is Bernie-bashing fair, calling him a 'one-issue candidate' when Bernie's platform is far more than inequality?
Let's hear a real analysis of Bern's platform, including not folding to the Military Industrial machine and the Finance industry.
And what about the that military-industrial complex. Is over $1 tril. on warmongering economically sustainable?
Expose Republican hammers & everything nails, good. But what about the actual economics of those wars, who the money went to, and how that damaged the economy & equality?
What about the 'Billary' factor, Bill's trade agreement & Hillary's big Finance, was that all a good idea in light of where the 'middle class' seems to be deriving so much of their anger?
Does Hillary get a free ride over the repeal of Glass Steagal, the speaking fees from Goldman, the Iraq War vote?
None of those issues plague Bernie Sanders, and to the rest of America, those issues seem to loom large.
How about Krugman the Economist honestly weighing in with policy analysis, not slogans.
1
Economics is not subject which is founded upon deterministic principles like the physical sciences and is not even as reliably predictable as weather forecasting, it is a study of human behavior and social interactions that cannot be reduced to simple elemental axiomatic principles which leads to deducible outcomes. There is and will likely remain a huge margin of error in all that economists attempt to forecast. Worse, the difference between what economists predict and what actually occurs allows mutually exclusive models approximate that same data. For example, while a model that assumes that all economic behavior resolves into an equilibrium like prices finding the intersection of supply and demand curves, the real relationship matches what complex mathematical models of unrelated processes produce. The result is a social science like psychology that encompasses efforts that range from really rigorous scientific inquiry to purely imaginary thinking, magical thinking. Reducing tax rates does not increase revenues, it reduces them. Tax cutting is just another economic stimulus that is unspecific and whose results are not obvious. Throwing a military against a foe presumes that there are finite means for the enemy to use to fight that the military can identify, quantify and neutralize and so force the enemy to capitulate. So called asymmetrical conflicts make the calculations so inexact that military solutions cannot be applied reliably. The world is complicated.
To the barricades, comrades!
1
Krugman you are giving Sanders too much credit. His one-note campaign does not so much "reflect real concerns" as it reflects the Marxian philosophy of an avowed socialist who believes all problems can be easily solved, but only through a "revolution" that topples the "millionaires and billionaires" who are the enemies of the proletariat ("working people").
Well now, Jim or Jon or Judy or whatever, what have rich people proposed lately that's good for the proletariat, the working people? Only the "good" deeds of making education less enlightening and more expensive, giving a whole city the treat of extra minerals in the water, making people's votes more meaningless, giving us ever more opportunity to kill each other with easily accessible guns... Overthrowing billionaires is a revolution, but restoring defacto lords and ladies, dukes, barons and kings isn't a revolution? That's what has been happening lately, J.
74
"When you revisit Democratic debates after what went down Saturday, it doesn’t feel as if you’re watching a different party, it feels as if you’ve entered a different intellectual and moral universe."
Well said! What we really need is a debate between well informed journalists/commentators such as Paul Krugman and candidates. Let's do away with the "straight men / straight women (in the comedy sense)" moderators who are unable or unwilling to challenge the candidates uninformed/canned answers and an independent election commission that makes debate rules.
The electorate needs to see how well these candidates think on their feet not how well they can recite 25 second sound bites.
Well said! What we really need is a debate between well informed journalists/commentators such as Paul Krugman and candidates. Let's do away with the "straight men / straight women (in the comedy sense)" moderators who are unable or unwilling to challenge the candidates uninformed/canned answers and an independent election commission that makes debate rules.
The electorate needs to see how well these candidates think on their feet not how well they can recite 25 second sound bites.
2
Professor Krugman writes admirably, but isn't is obvious that the concentration of wealth in the U.S. is the cause of the Republican party living in a bubble of denial.
2
Ok. Usually I read Paul Krugman's opinions and think, "this guy is a gutton for punishment".
But this "Time-Loop Party" piece makes some solid observations that I have to agree with.
Caught me flat-footed today, Krugman!
I wont go down without a few counter punches.
#1. You are still. STILL, defending a status quo taxation system that is no longer a valid underpinning to a Modern Age Economy that has evolved beyond simple Keynsian Models.
The Democrat Party of old is the long standing defender of status quo, stay the course, political platforms.
Federal Bureaucrat Patronage used to pacifiy the various special interest groups, massive public funding/subsidizing/rebating of various private enterprises deemed invaluable to society.......
The Republican Party has exactly the same goals. The only argument is over how to manage the collection of taxes!! Through a tax code that taxes an Industrial/Wage Economy that is no longer there, while
#2....the Economy grows exponentially,virtually tax-free on the electronic web of communications networks, peer-to-peer, impervious to 20th Century nationstate borders..............!!
But this "Time-Loop Party" piece makes some solid observations that I have to agree with.
Caught me flat-footed today, Krugman!
I wont go down without a few counter punches.
#1. You are still. STILL, defending a status quo taxation system that is no longer a valid underpinning to a Modern Age Economy that has evolved beyond simple Keynsian Models.
The Democrat Party of old is the long standing defender of status quo, stay the course, political platforms.
Federal Bureaucrat Patronage used to pacifiy the various special interest groups, massive public funding/subsidizing/rebating of various private enterprises deemed invaluable to society.......
The Republican Party has exactly the same goals. The only argument is over how to manage the collection of taxes!! Through a tax code that taxes an Industrial/Wage Economy that is no longer there, while
#2....the Economy grows exponentially,virtually tax-free on the electronic web of communications networks, peer-to-peer, impervious to 20th Century nationstate borders..............!!
We live in a world with other people, other countries, and some of them are armed well enough to do us harm. Our country can't go on trying to pursue policies and goals divorced from reality, as Republicans have persistently tried to do for the past 15 years. It's about as dangerous for the entire country and each of us individually as for a hippie freak high on LSD who leaps out a window and flaps his arms trying to fly. The fate of the tripping leaper wasn't in doubt. We've got a chance, I think, because probably more than half of the country is not high on megamaniacal Republican koolaid, but the crazies sure are trying. I've got better things to do than share in the national suicide they're attempting.
1
Column after column appearing in the Times denounces the Republican political platform as bogus and pretty much void of meaningful ideas and believe me, I agree. Mr. Krugman's column lists point after point and they are points well made.
Just the same and despite the painfully obvious, Trump, Cruz, and maybe Rubio, have great support. If the truths are self-evident, why the continuing destructive support? “Foxification? Perhaps.
Mr. Krugman, I don't think you need to convince the Times' readers of the obvious Republican Party flaws, you need to get out the word to the Republican voters. The Democratic National Committee needs to get to work!
Just the same and despite the painfully obvious, Trump, Cruz, and maybe Rubio, have great support. If the truths are self-evident, why the continuing destructive support? “Foxification? Perhaps.
Mr. Krugman, I don't think you need to convince the Times' readers of the obvious Republican Party flaws, you need to get out the word to the Republican voters. The Democratic National Committee needs to get to work!
2
While I normally agree with Krugman 95-100% of the time, his analysis of Clinton is biased. Sanders was a solo, courageous and correct voice against the errant Bush wars. He has resolutely opposed the plutocrats unlike Clinton, the total politician that Krugman fawns over for uncertain reasons.
Mr. Krugman, the mistake you are making is in assuming that (1) candidates’ campaign rhetoric is well-intentioned and objective assessment of the current situation and a good-faith offering of ideas to solve problems, and (2) the electorate objectively evaluates what it hears and sincerely tries to discern who has the best plan to lead us forward. In reality, candidates cherry-pick facts, when not down-right lying, to create a narrative that is divorced from reality that they try to sell (or force) on the electorate, while the electorate in turn cherry-picks the facts to create its own narrative of victimization and self-righteousness, and seeks out the candidate who most conveniently tells them what they want to hear. Edward Luce wrote a few years ago that it is “Time to Start Thinking.” America hates thinking. Thus, the decline and fall.
What about the two Democrat party candidates? Mrs. Clinton has been proven to have no integrity, morality, or sense of shame. Listen to her as she still states there is a giant right wing conspiracy. She keeps sliding further to the radical left as Mr. Sanders gains in the polls. Mr. Sanders is flacking the failed policies of socialist Europe. The only thing that he can sell is "free" government programs and confiscatory taxation. What choice is that?
The democratic socialist policies have been hugely successful. Where have you been?
2
"Bernie Sanders is much more of a one-note candidate..."
Dr. K: I agree with your defense of President Obama. In the face of scorched earth opposition, the President accomplished more than most of us on the left could have expected. But I also remember your criticism of his stimulus plan: Offering a proposal that compromises in advance short of what you believe is needed, simply forces you to make even more concessions later to get a bill passed. And as you predicted, the stimulus fell well short of what the country needed.
So why now should we settle for a candidate, Secretary Clinton, who campaigns for what is far short of what is needed? Even candidate Obama didn't do that. Bernie's specific plan for health care may have problems, but he is putting universal coverage front and center. Hillary has no plan except the vague promise to "build on it (the ACA)."
The obvious "build" is a Public Option. Several successful health care systems in Europe that offer a government sponsored alternative manage to combine it with private insurance to affordably protect all their populations. You've talked about them many times.
You've offered serious objections to what Sanders is proposing based on your expertise and that of others you respect. What I don't see from you or your fellow wonks in arms is any push on Hillary for a concrete path forward. She's offering pablum where meat is needed. Why aren't you asking of her what you're asking of Sanders: "Where's the beef."
Dr. K: I agree with your defense of President Obama. In the face of scorched earth opposition, the President accomplished more than most of us on the left could have expected. But I also remember your criticism of his stimulus plan: Offering a proposal that compromises in advance short of what you believe is needed, simply forces you to make even more concessions later to get a bill passed. And as you predicted, the stimulus fell well short of what the country needed.
So why now should we settle for a candidate, Secretary Clinton, who campaigns for what is far short of what is needed? Even candidate Obama didn't do that. Bernie's specific plan for health care may have problems, but he is putting universal coverage front and center. Hillary has no plan except the vague promise to "build on it (the ACA)."
The obvious "build" is a Public Option. Several successful health care systems in Europe that offer a government sponsored alternative manage to combine it with private insurance to affordably protect all their populations. You've talked about them many times.
You've offered serious objections to what Sanders is proposing based on your expertise and that of others you respect. What I don't see from you or your fellow wonks in arms is any push on Hillary for a concrete path forward. She's offering pablum where meat is needed. Why aren't you asking of her what you're asking of Sanders: "Where's the beef."
110
I wouldn't be so sure his objections to Sanders' plan are valid. Contrary to Krugman, the wonks differ on this issue, and in this case Krugman pulls the "Very Serious People" card he usually ridicules when others use it.
Please stop taking sniping shots at Bernie Sanders.
Your projectile "he is much more of a one-note candidate" should instead be directed at Hillary, the one-note is her egotism — her central motion to become president.
Your projectile "he is much more of a one-note candidate" should instead be directed at Hillary, the one-note is her egotism — her central motion to become president.
2
It's groundhog day:
"Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright Rebuke Young Women Backing Bernie Sanders"
"Bill Clinton Unleashes a Stinging Attack on Sanders"
Time-Loop Party not Restricted to Republicans.
Time-Loop Party not limited to Democrats.
"Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright Rebuke Young Women Backing Bernie Sanders"
"Bill Clinton Unleashes a Stinging Attack on Sanders"
Time-Loop Party not Restricted to Republicans.
Time-Loop Party not limited to Democrats.
1
Hillary is experienced and a policy wonk. But she is too "flexible" when it comes to positions that support anticonsumer, antienvironment policies. When she comes out firmly against hydrocarbon fracking and the hiding of (or eliminating) GMO labeling on foods then I will be firmly in her camp again.
Hillary may stay true on civil rights matters, but she got to show more concern for citizens' rights than that. Until then, I'm still on the fence.
Hillary may stay true on civil rights matters, but she got to show more concern for citizens' rights than that. Until then, I'm still on the fence.
1
The amazing and frightening thing is that during the long, gradual Republican move towards insanity they have been more and more successful in gaining power. They have more members of Congress than at any time since 1932. They control far more state governments than the Democrats. This fall they are essentially certain to keep control of the House of Representatives, they may or may not keep a majority in the Senate, and current polls show that their three most likely Presidential nominees (Trump, Cruz, and Rubio) are all competitive against either Clinton or Sanders. The Democrats are far preferable on governing; the mystery is why that seems to have so little impact at the polls.
2
Two examples of of how Hillary thinks on her feet:
Flint,Michigan:"I want you to know that this has to be a national priority,not just for today or tomorrow.What happened in Flint is immoral.The children of Flint are just as precious as children anywhere else in America."
What is Her policy? We all know there is a serious issue in Flint.What does this statement actually say?
Oct.2015 interview with PBS Judy Woodruff responding to the question of supporting or not supporting the TPP: "As of today I am not in favor of what I have learned about it." So Hillary are you saying you do not support the TPP or just what you have learned about it recently?
You are correct Paul she clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues- it's just that the voters in the Democratic Party do not. With Whom and Where does She stand on issues?
Flint,Michigan:"I want you to know that this has to be a national priority,not just for today or tomorrow.What happened in Flint is immoral.The children of Flint are just as precious as children anywhere else in America."
What is Her policy? We all know there is a serious issue in Flint.What does this statement actually say?
Oct.2015 interview with PBS Judy Woodruff responding to the question of supporting or not supporting the TPP: "As of today I am not in favor of what I have learned about it." So Hillary are you saying you do not support the TPP or just what you have learned about it recently?
You are correct Paul she clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues- it's just that the voters in the Democratic Party do not. With Whom and Where does She stand on issues?
2
Simpler explanation -- the day Obama was inaugurated the Republicans officially became the party of "just say no." Now they cannot do anything but say no whether it is anti-Obama or Clinton or the other Republican candidates-- the notion of actually having a policy and justifying it to the voters is seen as committing political suicide. Yes, Fox encourages this behavior but the rest of the media has played along with them for far too long.
4
It has just occurred to me: Why not put a cap on how much wealth someone can own or "earn"?
I think one billion dollars is enough.
Of course if one owns assets that appreciate then exceptions can be made.
It was no less than Thomas Jefferson who said that when the wealth and power of individuals become a threat to The Weal of the general citizenry, then that wealth should be seized "upon death".
But we virtually don't even have a "death" or estate tax anymore since G.W. Bush, whose reign culminated in the final seizure of power by The Wealthy in America.
I think one billion dollars is enough.
Of course if one owns assets that appreciate then exceptions can be made.
It was no less than Thomas Jefferson who said that when the wealth and power of individuals become a threat to The Weal of the general citizenry, then that wealth should be seized "upon death".
But we virtually don't even have a "death" or estate tax anymore since G.W. Bush, whose reign culminated in the final seizure of power by The Wealthy in America.
4
It's so much more fun to listen to the snide remarks of a Chris Christie or the empty idiocies of a Donald Trump than it is to pay attention to a real policy debate complete with facts and figures where the difference is a point of view. Then we're stuck with making a choice based not on who has the snappiest comeback but on whose views make more sense to us. Or even on whose views point us to a reasonable and humane solution. The GOP is very good at being the party of NO or the party of the ridiculous. They have not been good at governing for the people.
We live in a country that is being governed by Wall Street for Wall Street. Main Street and the average American do not exist in this equation. If the GOP had ever truly been interested in the average American they aren't now. They are walking hand in hand with Wall Street and allowing our infrastructure to crumble, the middle and working classes to disappear, and our ability to compete in the world to slide to nothing. They are living a dream while we are stuck with the hell their dream has created.
We live in a country that is being governed by Wall Street for Wall Street. Main Street and the average American do not exist in this equation. If the GOP had ever truly been interested in the average American they aren't now. They are walking hand in hand with Wall Street and allowing our infrastructure to crumble, the middle and working classes to disappear, and our ability to compete in the world to slide to nothing. They are living a dream while we are stuck with the hell their dream has created.
6
For decades, the deep south has eagerly replaced the construction of civil institutions; schools, town halls, bridges, and public transportation; with mega churches. Their "tax" dollars, are in Christian structures; private schools, gated communities, and Christian sports leagues. It's quite the life of privilege in these communities; never crossing paths with poverty; never aspiring to see the whole town or city. This is what the Republican Party is to me; Mississippi legislatures stealing elections for states that have ceased to exist.
6
This explains a lot. A high level of immigration could upset the electoral apple cart, and make the system no longer viable.
Come on Paul.
Is building a wall and beefing up border support old? Clearly not under Obama.
Is deportation new? it is under Obama. It wasn't under Clinton and Bush.
Is enforcing federal law new? It is under Obama.
Is using executive orders against the will of Congress new? No, but doing so has increased 10 fold under Obama.
Is the way we report federal numbers on employment, unemployment, and health insured new? You bet it is under Obama.
Has Obamacare been a success? Not to the over 35 milliion still uninsured. Half of the 17 million sign ups already had insurance.
There are lots of new things. What isn't new is the political manipulation of numbers and lies!
Is building a wall and beefing up border support old? Clearly not under Obama.
Is deportation new? it is under Obama. It wasn't under Clinton and Bush.
Is enforcing federal law new? It is under Obama.
Is using executive orders against the will of Congress new? No, but doing so has increased 10 fold under Obama.
Is the way we report federal numbers on employment, unemployment, and health insured new? You bet it is under Obama.
Has Obamacare been a success? Not to the over 35 milliion still uninsured. Half of the 17 million sign ups already had insurance.
There are lots of new things. What isn't new is the political manipulation of numbers and lies!
1
The real problem is with a substantial portion of the, mostly white, American voters. They are largely racist to varying degrees, delusional about their place in the world, committed to irrational religious beliefs, and committed to rejecting any factual and intellectual argument regarding climate change, employment, gun rights, and health care. They are so enthusiastic about their self-righteousness, that they are highly motivated to turn out to vote. Conversely, the Democrats, Liberals and Socialists are only supporting Bernie Sanders, who may or may not get a large enough turnout in the general election, should he win the nomination, to win. Additionally, Hillary Clinton is not inspiring enough enthusiasm to fill an arena. If the registered Democrats and the Independents don't turn out in huge numbers to support either nominee, it's all over for the Liberal and Progressive portion of this country. The Republicans have never been in a better position to turn back the calendar to pre-1974 and pre-1964 times. The women and minorities in this country may find themselves pushed to the back of the bus, with a Supreme Court rigged to keep them there for at least a score (20 years). A Republican President, regardless which one emerges from this ship of fools, will enjoy a House of Representatives and possibly a Senate that will go along with whatever reactionary legislation is proposed. The Anti-Abortion crowd will demand attention, insurance and pharma is next. Ugly Americans!
5
According to studies, when rat populations pass a certain point, all order disappears, and cannibalism ensues. Seems like this is what has happened to the repubs.
My husband was wondering what happened to old stadiums when they were replaced by new ones (like the Levi stadium) and speculated that they were used to as detention camps for the dispossessed. Sadly, the victims keep voting the republicans in.
My husband was wondering what happened to old stadiums when they were replaced by new ones (like the Levi stadium) and speculated that they were used to as detention camps for the dispossessed. Sadly, the victims keep voting the republicans in.
1
"Bernie Sanders is much more of a one-note candidate, but at least his signature issue — rising inequality and the effects of money on politics — reflects real concerns."
What Professor Krugman isn't able to acknowledge is that "rising inequality and the effects of money on politics" underlies all the structural deficiencies of late-stage capitalism and its corrosive effects of democracy. He still believes that incremental tweaks can effect meaningful change. The structural and demographic conditions at this point in history say otherwise. The grassroots democratic movement being led by Bernie Sanders cannot be suppressed by establishment liberals who are either unable or unwilling to realize that history is leaving them behind. The choice is a Sanders-led movement or a Trump-led demagoguery.
"April is the cruelest month, breeding
lilacs out of the dead land...."
T.S. Eliot
What Professor Krugman isn't able to acknowledge is that "rising inequality and the effects of money on politics" underlies all the structural deficiencies of late-stage capitalism and its corrosive effects of democracy. He still believes that incremental tweaks can effect meaningful change. The structural and demographic conditions at this point in history say otherwise. The grassroots democratic movement being led by Bernie Sanders cannot be suppressed by establishment liberals who are either unable or unwilling to realize that history is leaving them behind. The choice is a Sanders-led movement or a Trump-led demagoguery.
"April is the cruelest month, breeding
lilacs out of the dead land...."
T.S. Eliot
16
....or a Hillary Presidency with a Democratic Senate. Trying to pretend that the former activist First Lady, former Senator from New York State, and former Secretary of State is not a viable candidate is just naive. Bernie's not the 2nd Coming, and Trump is just a wannabee Dictator.
"Think about the doctrines every Republican politician now needs to endorse, on pain of excommunication."
Oddly, though Mr. Krugman invoked the religious sanction of excommunication, he failed to mention the current Republican doctrine that has the most to do with religion.
The Republican presidential field, led by Cruz and Rubio, is rabidly opposed to marriage equality and is pandering to fundamentalists with promises to "protect" religion against same-sex marriage and other positive developments in LGBT equality.
They've promised to stack the Supreme Court with justices who will overturn last year's marriage equality decision. They've sworn to nullify the executive orders that President Obama has issued that bring a measure of fairness to the federal government's dealings with gay and lesbian Americans. They back federal and state laws that will permit discrimination in a wide range of areas if people feel that doing business with LGBT Americans infringes on their religious beliefs.
The Republican primary voters who clamor for a backlash against LGBT civil rights are not living in a fact-resistant media bubble. Instead, they're living in a parallel universe that rejects our secular democracy, the separation of powers and the separation of church and state.
Oddly, though Mr. Krugman invoked the religious sanction of excommunication, he failed to mention the current Republican doctrine that has the most to do with religion.
The Republican presidential field, led by Cruz and Rubio, is rabidly opposed to marriage equality and is pandering to fundamentalists with promises to "protect" religion against same-sex marriage and other positive developments in LGBT equality.
They've promised to stack the Supreme Court with justices who will overturn last year's marriage equality decision. They've sworn to nullify the executive orders that President Obama has issued that bring a measure of fairness to the federal government's dealings with gay and lesbian Americans. They back federal and state laws that will permit discrimination in a wide range of areas if people feel that doing business with LGBT Americans infringes on their religious beliefs.
The Republican primary voters who clamor for a backlash against LGBT civil rights are not living in a fact-resistant media bubble. Instead, they're living in a parallel universe that rejects our secular democracy, the separation of powers and the separation of church and state.
5
Professor Krugman: I am losing respect for your editorials because I have watched Senator Sanders for years and believe he is more than a "one-trick pony". I am "feeling the Bern" and watch tomorrow night in New Hampshire as they will be pushing Bernie Sanders towards the Democratic nomination.
13
You Feel, the never been challenged at the ballot box, Bern? Get Real. There's more to this business than never having to answer to an electoral risk.
1
The Republican party is the party of going backwards, fighting progress and change. Their policies exacerbate wealth inequality.
Republicans want to repeal the tax on estates greater than $5 million, the current estate exemption.
Janitors and dishwashers are taxed on their income, but the GOP wants to repeal all taxes on unearned income from inheritance.
No one wants to pay taxes, but it pays for national defense and security, for roads and bridges, for Social Security and health care, for research and education, for clean water and air, etc.
The GOP Saint Reagan lowered taxes for the wealthiest Americans at the same time he raised taxes on the poorest Americans.
Trump says he wants to make America great again by bringing medieval torture back, by putting walls up, by separating undocumented grandparents from children, by ending the religious freedom that our Founders established.
Immigrants and laws and civility made the country the most prosperous and powerful country on Earth.
America already is great - that is why people from all around the world want to become US citizens.
America already in the most powerful nation - we spend what the next 8 countries combined spend together and we amplify that with our NATO alliance.
America already has the largest, most diversified economy on Earth and is a global safe haven.
I now understand why nearly all Republicans for President embrace torture, since it is a natural extension of their economic policies.
Republicans want to repeal the tax on estates greater than $5 million, the current estate exemption.
Janitors and dishwashers are taxed on their income, but the GOP wants to repeal all taxes on unearned income from inheritance.
No one wants to pay taxes, but it pays for national defense and security, for roads and bridges, for Social Security and health care, for research and education, for clean water and air, etc.
The GOP Saint Reagan lowered taxes for the wealthiest Americans at the same time he raised taxes on the poorest Americans.
Trump says he wants to make America great again by bringing medieval torture back, by putting walls up, by separating undocumented grandparents from children, by ending the religious freedom that our Founders established.
Immigrants and laws and civility made the country the most prosperous and powerful country on Earth.
America already is great - that is why people from all around the world want to become US citizens.
America already in the most powerful nation - we spend what the next 8 countries combined spend together and we amplify that with our NATO alliance.
America already has the largest, most diversified economy on Earth and is a global safe haven.
I now understand why nearly all Republicans for President embrace torture, since it is a natural extension of their economic policies.
6
Let's not forget their social policies as well.
Indeed, Republican candidates do kook like broken or odd toys, Hillary resembles the sermonizing teacher who is now shouting her past glories to a bored class, while the kids of America gather around grandpa Bernie who tells them the truth?! And they cheer, for a better future seems to be something worth fighting for...!
4
Paul Krugman, you don't need to make your point about the Death Cult GOP by singing your "one note" about Bernie Sanders. The American people have been living the consequences of the policies brought to them by a deranged GOP and a go along to get along Democratic Party. Ask us don't tell us.
6
krugman is such a leftwing extremist that all policy seems to the right of him. This is merely the latest article meant to provide cover for failed democrat policy. Don't believe your lying eyes people, believe Krugman. and remember to blame republicans! Good luck with your two old , rich, white socialist candidates.
Republican voters tend to vote in every election.
Democratic voters tend to vote every 4 years.
Seems like they got the memo how the system works.
What is our excuse?
Democratic voters tend to vote every 4 years.
Seems like they got the memo how the system works.
What is our excuse?
7
The ability of the Republican Party to retain ideological consistency requires that it's political leaders not yield to the fickle pressures from sad reality. It is better to hold to the faith of lower taxes in economic policies and the iron fist of military superiority in foreign policy because that is what wins elections for the Republican Party. It is forgotten by those who focus upon reality the people's perceptions reside in their brains but not necessarily the part of their brains that does the hard work of thinking through to the solution of problems. Anyone reviewing the facts understands that politicians have to openly agree with the perceptions of those who fund their campaigns and vote or they will never get into office. The problem is not the candidates, it's the voters.
Krugman is ignoring the Trump in the room.
Contra Hillary, the world will not end, nor will the global economy collapse, if the US clamps down on low-skilled immigration and starts restricting trade with low-wage countries like China. It might even make America great again.
Contra Hillary, the world will not end, nor will the global economy collapse, if the US clamps down on low-skilled immigration and starts restricting trade with low-wage countries like China. It might even make America great again.
The difference in Thursday's and Saturday's debate;Thursday two adults split their time between intelligently arguing and agreeing with other;Saturday night at the daycare center ,led by play ground bull Chris Christy,there was no adult supervision.While Rubio may put on a show at being an intellectual,that he can only repeat the same exact script,with the exact same tone of voice and the same facial expression,over and over,proves him to be about as intellectual as a parrot.
6
Let's put Mr. Krugman's rant through a much needed fact checker.
We've gained 5.7 million private sector jobs since January 2016?
Not so fast. If you worked on New Year's Day, for 6 hours and you haven't worked a second since, the Obama WH counts that as a new job in the private sector. Worse? Obama issued an executive directive early in his presidency directing the Labor Department to create a new category of jobs, "jobs saved" - a fictional attempt to credit Obama with creating jobs by adding jobs he supposedly saved to his totals for job growth. So we have no idea how many of those 5.7 million private sector jobs are actual jobs. Worse, Mr. Krugman makes no mention of the jobs LOST over the same time period, avoiding the fact that when Obama leaves office in 2017, there will be NO net jobs created during his presidency--meaning more people LOST jobs during the Obama presidency than gained them.
I agree with Krugman's Groundhog Day assessment, because it seems like we've seen this act from Krugman before. Lots.
We've gained 5.7 million private sector jobs since January 2016?
Not so fast. If you worked on New Year's Day, for 6 hours and you haven't worked a second since, the Obama WH counts that as a new job in the private sector. Worse? Obama issued an executive directive early in his presidency directing the Labor Department to create a new category of jobs, "jobs saved" - a fictional attempt to credit Obama with creating jobs by adding jobs he supposedly saved to his totals for job growth. So we have no idea how many of those 5.7 million private sector jobs are actual jobs. Worse, Mr. Krugman makes no mention of the jobs LOST over the same time period, avoiding the fact that when Obama leaves office in 2017, there will be NO net jobs created during his presidency--meaning more people LOST jobs during the Obama presidency than gained them.
I agree with Krugman's Groundhog Day assessment, because it seems like we've seen this act from Krugman before. Lots.
4
Well, let's put this way. This president has done a hell of a lot better than what done to our economy by George Bush and his Republican idiots. Did you forget we were in a free fall, not extreme-recession but a depression, thanks to the idiot in the White House and his Republicans in the Congress and I will admit some Democrats participated? But in reality, this president has done exceptionally well in dealing with the Republican monkies in Congress that are now witnessing carrying over to the Republican candidates as we saw in the last debate.
1
If things were so horrible because of GW Bush, why did Obama double down on Bush stimulus? Why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich more times in 2 years than Bush did in 8?
Excuses aren't change.
Obama hasn't dealt with the Republicans, Obama has taken his binky and gone home to pout in his crib. That's why we are where we are, and NYT hacks have to waste valuable newspaper space trying to whitewash a failed presidency.
Excuses aren't change.
Obama hasn't dealt with the Republicans, Obama has taken his binky and gone home to pout in his crib. That's why we are where we are, and NYT hacks have to waste valuable newspaper space trying to whitewash a failed presidency.
2
Faux News checker is more like it.
If you really want to know the "why?" you have to look no further than the economic hold of the Koch brothers on the Republican party as a whole. It is their extreme right leaning policies that the candidates espouse. And even though those policies have been proven wrong again and again, speaking the truth, going against your Party, thinking for yourself, risks the Koch brother wrath, their vindictiveness, and your very career. It doesn't take rocket science to see that for the narcissistic politician seeking office, a puppet job is better than no job.
5
"But there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble." This was all by design. Intelligent, educated people (who are not wealthy) simply don't vote for Republicans*. The GOP must keep its people ill-informed if it is to garner their votes.
*http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/party-identification-trends-1992-...
*http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/party-identification-trends-1992-...
And why is it that all of these lies go down so easily with the Republican base? Blame it on the one undeniable but unspoken fact: the President is a man of color and, as such, his accomplishments must be denied, delegitimized and overturned. And those white Democrats who embrace those accomplishments and want to build on them (Hillary most of all) much be summarily rejected or the America we all know and love- the one where the deer and the antelope play and the "N" word was freely deployed by Americans of all races- will be lost forever.
8
Krugman is right that people repeat themselves. Krugman does repeat himself for each problem we have debt. With so much debt we run into trouble. Does debt really create anything except another great recession. Germany and its debt from world war I did bring on world war II. So debt is a problem. Saying it is not a problem seems to be repeating.
"Republican candidates keep repeating their canned policy statements, despite evidence that these prescriptions have failed in the real world."
____________________
It hasn't failed the people that fundamentally make the Republican party work -- the wealthy.
____________________
It hasn't failed the people that fundamentally make the Republican party work -- the wealthy.
5
Like many Sanders supporters, I'd like to see mainstream media cover his campaign seriously. I'm getting a little tired of them playing the crazy grumpy old man card. Just because he isn't some air-brushed photo-shopped GQ paragon doesn't mean he's a laughing stock.
Although I agree with Dr. Krugman's indictment of Fox, I think Karl Rove is the real architect of the "on message" Republican Army. They have demonstrated the efficacy of the "everyone on message all the time strategy" to such an extent that they can get people to vote against their own best interests. Donald Trump has convinced people he's an "outsider", for heaven's sake! White is black, truth is lies, day is night....Repeat it often enough & you can drown out the other voices and, then presto! It's true!
Lest we all forget, right now the Democratic party is in the enviable position of having 2 very good, electable candidates. We can disagree over which of them we will vote for. But we don't need to vilify either one to elect the other. Why not take a page from the Republican play book and speak with one voice about what OUR values and goals are? Don't pass up an opportunity to denounce mass incarceration, income inequality, the destructive influence of money in politics, to make the case for infrastructure improvement, combating climate change, etc. These are things we can agree on and we should be pummeling the airwaves at every turn. We need to be our own Fox News. To hell with fair and balanced!
Although I agree with Dr. Krugman's indictment of Fox, I think Karl Rove is the real architect of the "on message" Republican Army. They have demonstrated the efficacy of the "everyone on message all the time strategy" to such an extent that they can get people to vote against their own best interests. Donald Trump has convinced people he's an "outsider", for heaven's sake! White is black, truth is lies, day is night....Repeat it often enough & you can drown out the other voices and, then presto! It's true!
Lest we all forget, right now the Democratic party is in the enviable position of having 2 very good, electable candidates. We can disagree over which of them we will vote for. But we don't need to vilify either one to elect the other. Why not take a page from the Republican play book and speak with one voice about what OUR values and goals are? Don't pass up an opportunity to denounce mass incarceration, income inequality, the destructive influence of money in politics, to make the case for infrastructure improvement, combating climate change, etc. These are things we can agree on and we should be pummeling the airwaves at every turn. We need to be our own Fox News. To hell with fair and balanced!
184
You are so blinded now by your liberal ideology and hatred of the Republicans that a lot of us who once enjoyed your work pay little attention to it now. We used to discuss your opinions and conclusions. Not any longer. I guess we thought you were above it all and would always be objective and thoughtful. We were wrong. You have become a pathetic excuse for a columnist.
1
Tom, could you share with us a kind comment you've left on this site? I really would like to see evidence that you were once a Krugman fan but, alas, have been chased away by his one-note liberalism that is consistent with his message that has not changed since I began admiring him in 2002.
I'll give Krugman a broken record. The ACA for which Krugman is a shameless shill is neither affordable, nor does it provide health care. The ACA only provides expensive insurance with very high deductibles which make actually seeking out health care very prohibitive--thus is an expensive and pointless program.. If a republican came up with the ACA Krugman would be disparaging it every day in the NYT
1
The irony here is that Romney came up with the ACA.
5
Let's not forget that the policy insights of most Republican politicians flows from the right-wing, billionaire-funded "think tanks" like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute. Those are the sound machines that fill the Republican echo chamber.
6
One thing missing in Dr. Krugman's discussion is the phenomenon of the single issue voter. I know a fair number of people who vote solely on the abortion issue and to a lesser extent, gun rights. With these people, it doesn't matter what sort of crazy economic proposals the candidates make. All they have to say is that they want to banish abortion and make sure you can keep your guns, and people will vote "Yes!"
This doesn't explain the Trump love GOP voters feel, but it explains all the others.
This doesn't explain the Trump love GOP voters feel, but it explains all the others.
6
Young white, Democrats are in their own time loop, supporting Bernie Sanders, despite the past evidence of the failed campaigns of Gene McCarthy and George McGovern. And making misogynistic attacks on Hillary Clinton is hardly progressive politics. Also, they ignore the preferences of the true base of the party--African-American, Latino, single and working-class female voters who Sanders ignores and has zero traction with. This authentic Democratic base will only come out to vote for Clinton in November; if the rug is pulled out from under them by an (unlikely) Sanders nomination, they will stay home and the Republicans will win.
3
Lets not forget Obama.
True conservatives are supposed to be students of the past, but today's pseudo-conservatives in what's left of the Republican Party only fit George Santayana's famous remark, "Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
5
Dr. Krugman, \Would you please return to your Nobel Prize winning expertise, Economics?
I would like to read a real analysis of what's going on in the world with so many stock markets/exchanges nose diving.
Thank you
I would like to read a real analysis of what's going on in the world with so many stock markets/exchanges nose diving.
Thank you
3
Can you just stop slamming Bernie Sanders? Why don't you just come out in support of Hillary Clinton and be done with it?
1
I think that ship has sailed.
1
"..Except for periods in the 1950s and 1960s and possibly the 1990’s when tax rates on the rich just happened to be high enough to prevent overinvestment, the economy has generally suffered from periodic overinvestment cycles.
It is not just a coincidence that tax cuts for the rich have preceded both the 1929 and 2007 depressions. The Revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 worked exactly as the Republican Congresses that pushed them through promised. The dramatic reductions in taxes on the upper income brackets and estates of the wealthy did indeed result in increases in savings and investment. However, overinvestment (by 1929 there were over 600 automobile manufacturing companies in the USA) caused the depression that made the rich, and most everyone else, ultimately much poorer.
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers. ..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
It is not just a coincidence that tax cuts for the rich have preceded both the 1929 and 2007 depressions. The Revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 worked exactly as the Republican Congresses that pushed them through promised. The dramatic reductions in taxes on the upper income brackets and estates of the wealthy did indeed result in increases in savings and investment. However, overinvestment (by 1929 there were over 600 automobile manufacturing companies in the USA) caused the depression that made the rich, and most everyone else, ultimately much poorer.
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers. ..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
3
When has the GOP done better?
Right now my view is that the GOP drove the economy and our foreign policy off a cliff, handed the mess to Obama before it the big crash at the bottom, and now are blaming him for not fixing their mess fast enough, arguing their obstruction was the best thing for their party... er... country.
When I see some success from the GOP, I will consider voting for them.
Right now my view is that the GOP drove the economy and our foreign policy off a cliff, handed the mess to Obama before it the big crash at the bottom, and now are blaming him for not fixing their mess fast enough, arguing their obstruction was the best thing for their party... er... country.
When I see some success from the GOP, I will consider voting for them.
151
Krugman is right, Hillary Clinton certainly is a genuine policy wonk. Unfortunately she doesn't really believe in anything. Clinton doesn't advocate for policies based on her belief that they will work; she is a pure political animal, who will do and say anything to get elected. Why would I support a candidate who is a policy expert, but who doesn't have the integrity to advocate for the right ones.
86
The diagnosis of GOP sickness is : Ideology driven extremism.
As Krugman stated in this essay , GOP ideology pillars are.
1- Worship Ronald Reagan.
2- There is no remedy but tax cut for rich people
3- What ever policy is good for public called socialism
Lets look 1980's USSR
1- Worship Lenin, Stalin or at that moment Brezhnev.
2- There is no remedy but government run economy.
3- What ever is good for public is capitalist game.
GOP is playing ideology card till the end. How they come up with this Anti -American thinking is a mystery, totally awed by farther Bush ( last living real open minded Republican).
The question is
What good comes out from a blind ideology.
NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As Krugman stated in this essay , GOP ideology pillars are.
1- Worship Ronald Reagan.
2- There is no remedy but tax cut for rich people
3- What ever policy is good for public called socialism
Lets look 1980's USSR
1- Worship Lenin, Stalin or at that moment Brezhnev.
2- There is no remedy but government run economy.
3- What ever is good for public is capitalist game.
GOP is playing ideology card till the end. How they come up with this Anti -American thinking is a mystery, totally awed by farther Bush ( last living real open minded Republican).
The question is
What good comes out from a blind ideology.
NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2
I fear Kasich and Christie. They sound plausible and reasonable and they actually have some experience at governing, but they are really only more sophisticated tools of the super-rich than the others. I'm kind of hoping one of the nut jobs wins. Maybe Trump, I have yet to hear anything substantive come out of his mouth. How long can he run on a platform of, "It's gonna be great. It's gonna be huge!" The Democrats are boring in their policy wonkiness, but at least they are connected to the real world. Republican debates with Trump are pretty good TV.
2
On this and every other editorial of late, the Bernie Sanders commentariat is getting very shrill and very tiresome.
Not everything that is neither fawning nor even related to him is anti-Bernie.
Not everything that is neither fawning nor even related to him is anti-Bernie.
6
Krugman is right -- as always. Christie's verbal attack on Rubio was basically stating "My dishonest talking points are delivered more effectively than your dishonest talking points."
3
After GW Bush was elected apparently it was necessary to cut taxes because the surpluses were getting just too damn big. But if tax cuts create huge booms that flood the government with even more revenue, wasn't this counter productive? Shouldn't the answer to too much revenue have been yet higher taxes?
The answer, of course is who cares what Republicans say. They are the land where the intellectually incurious mind goes to die. Small Government is their God and the unwashed masses must submit to it. Arguing with Republicans about their intellectual dishonesty is like arguing with gum for sticking to your shoe. They are what they do.
The answer, of course is who cares what Republicans say. They are the land where the intellectually incurious mind goes to die. Small Government is their God and the unwashed masses must submit to it. Arguing with Republicans about their intellectual dishonesty is like arguing with gum for sticking to your shoe. They are what they do.
2
Being a 1937 person, this column caused me to reflect on when and how did we create the "Time-Loop" party. As a 1955 high school graduate & subject to the Eisenhower Universal Military Training Act class, you learn that being a citizen meant that you had to register for the draft and make decisions about your future. So for a person, who since elementary school thought I was going to be an architect, my life was changed at a high school assembly when all of the boys were given the options they had. I chose to take tests for the Navy Holloway plan to become a Navy officer & receive books, tuition, fees and $50 per month as a Midshipman, in a program that would not allow people to be enrolled in architecture. Fast forward to retiring from the Navy after 20 years, I found myself working for the Chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee with responsibilities for energy policy. I was not political and was not sure what conservative & liberal meant, nor Republicans or Democrats, because there were Cs and Ls in both parties. However, when the Reagan Revolution came to town the work began to change. The behaviors of the newly elected majority changed. A lot of very knowledgeable people went out the door and the government changed. Then I became educated in politics and noticed the efforts made at redistricting and raising money to pay for campaigns. Government changed, revolving doors and money raising became the order of the day. Our system has never been the same.
7
PK, why don't you just endorse Bernie now and get it over with instead of writing pieces like this one that are ostensibly about Republicans but are really an attempt to hurt Sanders?
1
"Meanwhile, on foreign policy the required G.O.P. position has become one of utter confidence in the effectiveness of military force. How did that work in Iraq? Never mind:" Wait a minute. Why not ask this of Hillary?
He feels compelled to keep repeating himself.
Indeed.
Foxification = time warped.
And the more GOPs in office at the federal and state level, the more warped our once great nation will become.
Foxification = time warped.
And the more GOPs in office at the federal and state level, the more warped our once great nation will become.
1
I would really like to hear the explanation of how the economy is so great now with a real unemployment rate of 15% ( U6) and all of those great new $30K/yr jobs. When I was growing up, people had a job, house, car , saved for college and had a stay at home parent. The downhill slide is in direct proportion to government spending and debt, and I don't care what the alternative universe folks like Krugman say.....this is reality.
The current state of the Republican party reminds me of sexual selection. Hear me out on this. Darwin knew that any trait that was directly related to mating opportunity would undergo rapid evolution towards its most extreme form. Think of giant antlers that are useless except for mating competition.
Within a political party "reproduction" requires winning primaries. In fact, in a gerrymandered district, winning the primary is everything. What drove Republican selection into runaway competition? I would submit it was the abortion issue. The anti-abortion voters in the Republican party reliably voted in primaries way beyond their numbers. Republican politicians were forced to cater to this crowd.
Of course this is not the only extremism in the party, but I think it was the trigger for the selective pressure driving runaway evolution the Republican party in recent decades.
Within a political party "reproduction" requires winning primaries. In fact, in a gerrymandered district, winning the primary is everything. What drove Republican selection into runaway competition? I would submit it was the abortion issue. The anti-abortion voters in the Republican party reliably voted in primaries way beyond their numbers. Republican politicians were forced to cater to this crowd.
Of course this is not the only extremism in the party, but I think it was the trigger for the selective pressure driving runaway evolution the Republican party in recent decades.
5
"Bernie Sanders is much more of a one-note candidate.."
Not true. If you want to be in the tank for Clinton that's fine, but do us all a favor and just don't even mention Sanders in your pieces anymore if your going to describe his campaign inaccurately.
Not true. If you want to be in the tank for Clinton that's fine, but do us all a favor and just don't even mention Sanders in your pieces anymore if your going to describe his campaign inaccurately.
9
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues." Hahaha, laughable. I guess if getting louder and louder and not knowing when to shut up makes one a policy wonk HRC fits the bill (no pun intended). Hillary/Iraq, bad judgement. Hillary/Private email server, bad judgement. Hillary/Benghazi, bad judgement. President Obama chose her as Sect. of State not because he trusted her judgement because someone, probably Vice-President, Joe Biden, told him "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer".
I believe your assertions about the GOP have always been spot on. However inserting your plug for Hillary at Bernie's expense is completely off the mark.
8
Now that Dr. Krugman has pointed out the obvious and made us all feel so intellectually smug by confirming what we know to be true, let us keep in mind that ultra conservatives, with their doom-gloom message, supported by made up facts, have seized control of the House, Senate, Supreme Court, most state high courts, legislatures and governorships. I sense we are missing something.
12
Yes, the United States is full of ignorant citizens that are easily manipulated to vote against their own best interests.
Excellent point and Bernie has said when voters get to the polls Democrats win. When they stay home Republicans win.
1
Dr. K - Can you please explain how raising "tax rates at the top" creates jobs? You're a Nobel winning economist, right? So you should be able to explain the cause and effect implied by the paragraph where you discuss tax policy vs. job growth under Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. Please enlighten us.
2
I'm not a Nobel Prize winning economist, but I can explain it quite easily. Raising taxes on the rich means that some of the money they take from the rest of us will be spent in the U.S. instead of being hidden in offshore tax havens or used to build factories in China or other low wage countries. The money the government spends on road or education or other things will be spent in the U.S. to hire workers, thus creating jobs. It's simple really. Anyone can understand it.
7
Well, I'm no Nobel winning economist, but it seems to me that taxing top incomes will produce revenue which our society can put to productive use maintaining and building infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, water treatment plants, etc.; and thereby create a whole lot of jobs. Economic policy that has the practical effect of increasing the velocity of money will help our country.
Yes, please Mr. Krugman explain. Your historical empiricism must have at least a theoretical basis.
Fox Populi. Foxy ladies fomenting fault finding, fact free, faux news for fearful fools foiling freedom for all.
7
Go ahead, Rubio. Keep repeating that Obama "knows exactly what he's doing." With unemployment below 5% for the first time in ages, I'd say it's a compliment.
290
AND fewer people employed.
1
Unfortunately, the Rube has no idea what he is doing, other than what he is told to do, which is apparently not the job he is paid to do.
1
We should run a campaign with this slogan!!!
The Kochs, Coors, and their ilk have bought the Republican party. Whoever is elected will do as they are told. The presidency will be diminished to an order taker.
9
Just as Goldman has bought the Cliintons. Feel the Bern.
The repubs are supported by lots of people who go to church and repeat the same slogans over & over & over. So it works with them. As in, sling enough mud over over over over and a bit will stick. These are not rational thinking people they are dealing with at their base. Luckily there continue to exist rational thinking people in USA.
1
Jean Mayer's excellent book, "Dark Money" indicates the iron hand with which oligarchs like Charles Koch control politicians, including not only their votes but their message, especially when it affects corporate profits. This is why not one Republican in Congress recognizes global warming and its origin in the burning of fossil fuels.
Now that the past 7 years have established and deepened this control, it is clear that Hillary Clinton is making promises to help out the 99% either out of naïveté or deception. Looking at the key programs enacted under Bill Clinton, which severely affected women, retirees and minorities, I would place my trust in the latter.
Welfare reform -- Hit single mothers especially hard
Social Security Reform -- limited SS increases to retirees by changing to a more conservative measure of inflation. Reduced over time the ability to survive on SS alone.
Repeal of Glass Steagal
NAFTA
Criminal Legislation which gave us long mandatory sentences for victimless drug crimes.
Now that the past 7 years have established and deepened this control, it is clear that Hillary Clinton is making promises to help out the 99% either out of naïveté or deception. Looking at the key programs enacted under Bill Clinton, which severely affected women, retirees and minorities, I would place my trust in the latter.
Welfare reform -- Hit single mothers especially hard
Social Security Reform -- limited SS increases to retirees by changing to a more conservative measure of inflation. Reduced over time the ability to survive on SS alone.
Repeal of Glass Steagal
NAFTA
Criminal Legislation which gave us long mandatory sentences for victimless drug crimes.
7
I agree with all you said Bob, except the Cola on Social Security. It hasn't changed. It's still based on the CPI, and has been since 1975. There was a movement to use the "chained" method, which is more conservative, but that was shot down.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colasummary.html
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colasummary.html
Another republican trope: Businessmen know better than you, especially when it comes to governance. But: Flint Michigan. End of argument, republicans lose.
10
I wonder how much Dr. Krugman is being paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign Team to propagandize for her.
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues."
There is nothing genuine about Hillary Clinton, and she definitely cannot think on her feet, as all of her speaking notes are prepared in advance for her engagements. As for clearly knowing what she is talking about, she knows nothing, and only tells an audience what she knows (actually, her management team knows) her audiences want to hear.
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues."
There is nothing genuine about Hillary Clinton, and she definitely cannot think on her feet, as all of her speaking notes are prepared in advance for her engagements. As for clearly knowing what she is talking about, she knows nothing, and only tells an audience what she knows (actually, her management team knows) her audiences want to hear.
4
I guess you missed the 11 hours of testimony she gave to the kangaroo Benghazi committee. You think all of her answers were prepared in advance? No.
Back when she was a lawyer, she was named as one of the top 100 young lawyers in the country by The American Lawyer. She was a litigator. You don't rise to be a top litigator without being able to think on your feet.
This is a woman with vast experience and great intellect. To degrade that with platitudes is really offensive.
Back when she was a lawyer, she was named as one of the top 100 young lawyers in the country by The American Lawyer. She was a litigator. You don't rise to be a top litigator without being able to think on your feet.
This is a woman with vast experience and great intellect. To degrade that with platitudes is really offensive.
2
I'm for Bernie. But I disagree with what "Activist Bill" says about Hillary. She is very sharp -- well-immersed in the data, and thinks well on her feet -- all the time.
Where I fault her is about values: She is too tied to the wealthy (will never champion taking money out of politics) and when it really counts on foreign affairs, she'll continue to rely on a military solution -- bombing, etc. We'll either learn how to think out of the box or we'll never stop killing each other. And Bernie brings that to the table.
Where I fault her is about values: She is too tied to the wealthy (will never champion taking money out of politics) and when it really counts on foreign affairs, she'll continue to rely on a military solution -- bombing, etc. We'll either learn how to think out of the box or we'll never stop killing each other. And Bernie brings that to the table.
Marco, as Gov Krispy Cream calls him, is like broken record.
And even worse, the whole group of this Republican candidates are warped just like my crates of old records left in the hot attic for too many years. To borrow from Dan Hicks and the Hot Licks, I scare myself whenever I think about ..... these guys (& Carly too).
And even worse, the whole group of this Republican candidates are warped just like my crates of old records left in the hot attic for too many years. To borrow from Dan Hicks and the Hot Licks, I scare myself whenever I think about ..... these guys (& Carly too).
1
Speaking of Groundhogs Day, Dr. Krugman mails in another anti-republican, rah-rah ACA, column with absolutely nothing new or insightful to say.
I am curious about Dr. Krugman's allegiance to Mrs. Clinton. What would his columns look like if she were a Republican? There would be weekly rants about dishonesty, mismanagement of the Benghazi situation, top secret information on her e-mail server, etc., etc..
However, since she is Democrat and Bill's spouse, it is all flowers and sunshine.
I am curious about Dr. Krugman's allegiance to Mrs. Clinton. What would his columns look like if she were a Republican? There would be weekly rants about dishonesty, mismanagement of the Benghazi situation, top secret information on her e-mail server, etc., etc..
However, since she is Democrat and Bill's spouse, it is all flowers and sunshine.
2
The Republicans can afford to cast the votes to repeal ACA because they know it won't work. Either such a bill won't get through Congress in total or, if it does, it faces veto with no chance to override. That's OK - it lets Republicans make the claim back home that they, by god, took on that socialist policy - without having to face up to what would have happened if they had succeeded.
The effort plays well with the core constituency but imagine what would happen if a repeal actually succeeded and no plan to replace it in place (assuming such, as I haven't seen one) - the backlash by all those losing coverage would be...interesting. Dangerous. Aside from the most energetic Tea Partiers who seem to think the best way to fix a strange noise in the engine is to crash into a bridge abutment, I would think that most Republicans are, in fact, not disappointed ACA is still around.
The effort plays well with the core constituency but imagine what would happen if a repeal actually succeeded and no plan to replace it in place (assuming such, as I haven't seen one) - the backlash by all those losing coverage would be...interesting. Dangerous. Aside from the most energetic Tea Partiers who seem to think the best way to fix a strange noise in the engine is to crash into a bridge abutment, I would think that most Republicans are, in fact, not disappointed ACA is still around.
5
My feeling is that its a big mistake to keep on denigrating Sanders and the generation that supports him. There is change in the wind.
10
I thought that back in the late 60s.
1
I am imagining a debate with Bernie Sanders repeating his long held positions on "income inequality, tax breaks for the 1%, health care is a right", and then Marco Rubio repeated his one track "Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing...." loop.
To quote Senator Sanders, "Enough is enough".
To quote Senator Sanders, "Enough is enough".
2
Thank you, Dr. Krugman, for reminding everyone of the chasm between the worldviews of the two parties. Republicans run on a platform designed by their billionaire masters - tax cuts, shrink government for more tax cuts, repeal Obamacare (and its tiny tax increase on the rich).
Every Democrat is one thousand times more interested in helping normal, nonbilliionaire Americans. Hillary IS a policy wonk, and supremely competent - I will enthusiastically vote for her! I'm so glad she's running. Bernie's kind of silly - Grumpy Grandpa Socialist - but at least he's in her universe on values. (Of course the millenials love him - legal marijuana and free college! And he has a LOT of GOP money & trolls going for him - read this comment section on Mondays & Fridays, you'll see the handwriting of the American Enterprise Institute interns in the viciousness of the attacks on Hillary, while pretending to be Bernie Bros).
All of the GOP candidates are funny now - but one of them may be President, and that would be an unmitigated disaster, given how many Supreme Court seats may be up for filling.
Every Democrat is one thousand times more interested in helping normal, nonbilliionaire Americans. Hillary IS a policy wonk, and supremely competent - I will enthusiastically vote for her! I'm so glad she's running. Bernie's kind of silly - Grumpy Grandpa Socialist - but at least he's in her universe on values. (Of course the millenials love him - legal marijuana and free college! And he has a LOT of GOP money & trolls going for him - read this comment section on Mondays & Fridays, you'll see the handwriting of the American Enterprise Institute interns in the viciousness of the attacks on Hillary, while pretending to be Bernie Bros).
All of the GOP candidates are funny now - but one of them may be President, and that would be an unmitigated disaster, given how many Supreme Court seats may be up for filling.
7
Why is everyone connected to BIG money so scared of Bernie, now, even Mr. Krugman who I thought was a compassionate human being? Is Bloomberg exercising his power behind the scenes, or Adelman or the Krotch brothers? Must be!
1
If Hillary beats Bernie for the nomination, I will of course vote for her.
But since you think Hillary's proposals are more "realistic" than Bernie's, again I put it to you, Dr. Krugman: Which parts of Hillary's agenda do you expect the Republican Congress to support?
But since you think Hillary's proposals are more "realistic" than Bernie's, again I put it to you, Dr. Krugman: Which parts of Hillary's agenda do you expect the Republican Congress to support?
6
Republican candidates depend on the votes of people who do not understand that they are being sold a lot of nonsense. Aaron Sorkin described what republican candidates are doing in the Michael Douglas-Annette Bening-Martin Sheen movie, "The American President": No matter your lot in life or what you believe your problem is, I guaranty you that [republican presidential candidate] Bob Rumsford is not the least bit concerned about solving it. He is concerned about two things and two things only: How to make you afraid of it and telling you who to blame for it. And away we go.
5
"But there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble."
I am looking forward to the professor's exploration of those causes. It might read like Bradbury, Huxley, or Orwell.
I am looking forward to the professor's exploration of those causes. It might read like Bradbury, Huxley, or Orwell.
2
Near as I can tell, Mr Krugman, this is the end game of the Republican southern strategy. They've been pandering to the god, guns, gynecology, and gummint folks for so long that they had it on on auto-pilot, and are belatedly realizing that those same people now run their party.
5
You forgot god, guns and victim-bashing (minorities and immigrants)
2
Unfortunately Paul Krugman is also repeating the same line yet again about Bernie Sanders in spite that followers of his column have proved that the line is not true. No matter that very clearly the more liked readers' comments (Readers' Picks) in his latest columns have denounced not been fair and truthful with Sanders, the “Groundhog Day” repetition continues in today's column.
1
The Republican Party has been stuck in a time warp for eons. They yearn to return to the past and refuse to accept that is an impossibility. Have they not read Einstein? It's all relative, guys.
Republicans glory days span that period when White Christians dominated the landscape. As someone old enough to recall The Fifties, we liked Ike, though I supported Stevenson, we loved Lucy, and still do, though that Spanish speaking husband of hers turned out to be a portend of the Brown Revolution leading to two Cubans running for President. Ricky Ricardo would be proud.
Then came Vietnam, where the Best and the Brightest brilliantly advised JFK and LBJ how to fight a non-winnable war, a war escalated on a lie located in the Gulf of Tonkin. Though never invaded by Vietnam, after the war saw of proliferation of their restaurants. The invasion came from Britain, from Liverpool to be exact, and as Elvis, America's Hillbilly Hero told Nixon when he deputized him, those Brits are ruining America. Vietnam got worse, draft-age college students revolted, hippies invaded San Fran and everybody's hair got longer. This led to the 70's, Watergate, the promise of a guy named Jimmy turning into malaise.
Then, out of the West, a new sheriff, a role he was accustomed to playing in the movies, came to town. He cleaned up Dodge, entered Republican Valhalla, and was sainted. These are the days Republicans wish so badly to return. That's right, folks, they're lunatics.
DD
Manhattan
Republicans glory days span that period when White Christians dominated the landscape. As someone old enough to recall The Fifties, we liked Ike, though I supported Stevenson, we loved Lucy, and still do, though that Spanish speaking husband of hers turned out to be a portend of the Brown Revolution leading to two Cubans running for President. Ricky Ricardo would be proud.
Then came Vietnam, where the Best and the Brightest brilliantly advised JFK and LBJ how to fight a non-winnable war, a war escalated on a lie located in the Gulf of Tonkin. Though never invaded by Vietnam, after the war saw of proliferation of their restaurants. The invasion came from Britain, from Liverpool to be exact, and as Elvis, America's Hillbilly Hero told Nixon when he deputized him, those Brits are ruining America. Vietnam got worse, draft-age college students revolted, hippies invaded San Fran and everybody's hair got longer. This led to the 70's, Watergate, the promise of a guy named Jimmy turning into malaise.
Then, out of the West, a new sheriff, a role he was accustomed to playing in the movies, came to town. He cleaned up Dodge, entered Republican Valhalla, and was sainted. These are the days Republicans wish so badly to return. That's right, folks, they're lunatics.
DD
Manhattan
8
GOP, decentralize federal power to the States and increase the size of the military to control world markets. Democrats, centralize power and reduce the size of the military with more global alliances. Economics can be an excuse, but are usually not the driver.
1
Did the Affordable Care Act really go into full effect in January 2014? Haven't many of its provisions and costs been deferred? I am asking because I really don't know.
Bernie Sanders is not "one note", although I think he would agree that if we could address campaign finance problems (including Citizens United), a lot of other problems could be solved. And, I don't care if Hillary is a policy wonk since she has been wrong on most of the issues at one time or another: she voted for the Iraq war, was working against unions when on Walmart board, against gay marriage, for TPP until recently, against $15 min wage, against Glass-Steagel, against then for the credit industry bill that Elizabeth Warren opposed, takes massive speaking fees and campaign contributions from wall street but says she will be tough on the them, for Keystone Pipeline but now against, wants no fly zone that would set up confrontation with Russia, was for universal healthcare but now wants to tinker with the ACA, was a self-proclaimed moderate who now wants to be seen as a progressive. Sorry, but I want what Bernie stands for and will stand with him as long as he runs.
227
You might also include her totally cynical vote to tighten bankruptcy regulations.
2
Maybe you ought to pay closer attention to Bernie Sanders's one note ("rising inequality and the effects of money on politics;" well, that's actually two notes, isn't it? Or, I would say, at least a chord if not a harmonic line.) How did this ("The John Birch Society has won the war for the party's soul") happen to the GOP? Have you heard that Fred Koch was one of the founders of John Birch? And that his sons, the notorious billionaires, are among the heaviest donors to the Republican Party? Along with a host of other billionaires with no interest in anything but the GOP's canned answers? Wake up, Krugman.
4
The debate showed (again) that the GOP is lead by empty suits.
No plans are available to the voters to see how they'll fix any of the problems they decry.
No grasp of the realities that the average voter faces in trying to feed their families and maintain their jobs.
No, they provided more childish name calling and hubris.
No plans are available to the voters to see how they'll fix any of the problems they decry.
No grasp of the realities that the average voter faces in trying to feed their families and maintain their jobs.
No, they provided more childish name calling and hubris.
7
It's sad to see the attacks against you by supporters of Senator Sanders claiming stridently that you lack their ideological purity. It reminds me of the 1960's when leaders from a group called Students For A Democratic Society got all tangled up in their rhetoric leading to the election of Richard Nixon.
4
Another thought: Eliminating taxes on capital gains? Then, income will suddenly become capital gains.
2
Republicans are stuck in a perpetual suspension of disbelief with no way out.
4
Those Republican policy talk-points that you cite remind me of the Bad Old Days here in Miss. when a governor could get himself elected (Vardaman, Bilbo) by simply stoking the fear-box; telling the ignorant, white majority that their worst racial nightmares, of black social equality, were indeed valid and justified. The candidates would narrate it like a radio drama, with the black field hand taking advantage of the innocent and pure white housewife while the hard-working husband was out there working for a hard dollar. Pure demagoguery, but it worked then. Just change the issues, but use the same irrational appeals.
4
Hillary Clinton can be quick “on her feet,” but it is her hawkish foreign policy views that should be examined.
Mrs. Clinton advocated the appointment of her hawkish friend, Madeline Albright to be the first woman Secretary of State during the Clinton administration.
A disciple of her own father, a known hawk on Russia, Mrs. Albright promoted and implemented the expansion of NATO, in the aftermath of the collapse of the former Soviet Union, into Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
When asked about this expansion, George F. Kennan, the renowned former U.S. diplomat and Russia specialist who developed the cold war strategy of containment of the Soviet Union, responded:
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war … Russians will gradually react quite adversely … it is a tragic mistake … no reason for this whatsoever … It shows so little understanding of Russian history … there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong."
Reigniting the Cold War with Russia, as Kennan warned, is one of the greatest threat to US national security and to world peace.
It is therefore the Clinton administration’s role in expanding NATO, and Mrs. Clinton’s own role, if any, in overthrowing Ukraine’s government that should be scrutinized by the American voters in order to determine if she should be our next president.
Mrs. Clinton advocated the appointment of her hawkish friend, Madeline Albright to be the first woman Secretary of State during the Clinton administration.
A disciple of her own father, a known hawk on Russia, Mrs. Albright promoted and implemented the expansion of NATO, in the aftermath of the collapse of the former Soviet Union, into Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
When asked about this expansion, George F. Kennan, the renowned former U.S. diplomat and Russia specialist who developed the cold war strategy of containment of the Soviet Union, responded:
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war … Russians will gradually react quite adversely … it is a tragic mistake … no reason for this whatsoever … It shows so little understanding of Russian history … there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong."
Reigniting the Cold War with Russia, as Kennan warned, is one of the greatest threat to US national security and to world peace.
It is therefore the Clinton administration’s role in expanding NATO, and Mrs. Clinton’s own role, if any, in overthrowing Ukraine’s government that should be scrutinized by the American voters in order to determine if she should be our next president.
7
Of Krugman's left-handed compliment of Sanders: Sander's one note, that political and corporate corruption is destroying democracy, and that most of our ills stem from it, is clear as a bell, pitch-perfect. Enough is enough.
7
It wasn't Fox that laid out the direction of the GOP, it was Nixon;
“We’ve got to destroy the confidence of the people in the American establishment.” Kissinger's Shadow: The Long Reach of America's Most Controversial Statesman
“We’ve got to destroy the confidence of the people in the American establishment.” Kissinger's Shadow: The Long Reach of America's Most Controversial Statesman
5
"repeating, verbatim, the same line from his stump speech he had used a moment earlier; when Mr. Christie mocked his canned delivery, he repeated the same line yet again."
Déjà vu all over again.
The big difference this time is that it's being noticed. But haven't we seen this before with Republican presidential candidates? In 2000 the Democratic nominee was a genuine policy wonk, while the Republican nominee, in the first debate, kept repeating, verbatim, "We've had enough of the Clinton-Gore years." Social media was still in the future, and the MSM harped almost exclusively on Gore's supposed woodenness.
Also in that debate, Bush proposed a return to supply-side economics - a zombie idea as Dr. Krugman reminds us - but instead of countering that that was tried under Reagan and failed, Gore was silent. You lose if you speak ill of St. Ronald.
The next day I dusted off my copy of Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life."
Now, 16 years later, we're having a real showdown between two competing frames of mind. May the better one win. (It was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.)
Déjà vu all over again.
The big difference this time is that it's being noticed. But haven't we seen this before with Republican presidential candidates? In 2000 the Democratic nominee was a genuine policy wonk, while the Republican nominee, in the first debate, kept repeating, verbatim, "We've had enough of the Clinton-Gore years." Social media was still in the future, and the MSM harped almost exclusively on Gore's supposed woodenness.
Also in that debate, Bush proposed a return to supply-side economics - a zombie idea as Dr. Krugman reminds us - but instead of countering that that was tried under Reagan and failed, Gore was silent. You lose if you speak ill of St. Ronald.
The next day I dusted off my copy of Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life."
Now, 16 years later, we're having a real showdown between two competing frames of mind. May the better one win. (It was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.)
7
RNC the time loop party? So the democratic candidates promoting the failed socialist policies of the 1970s, which has been abandoned by every country in the world that still had a viable economy left, isn't a time-loop. I guess the DNC isn't in a time-loop they're just completely asinine.
1
Professor Krugman asks why Republican voters follow, blindly, their party's lies.
Read Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders and be reminded of the implementation of the advertising psychology started by Freud's nephew, Edward Louis James Bernays, then project how these techniques have been "improved", over time, and you will understand the effectiveness of Republican propaganda. This is a very dangerous time, in our Country. The selfish forces of the rich and powerful have, effectively, shut down meaningful political discourse!
Read Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders and be reminded of the implementation of the advertising psychology started by Freud's nephew, Edward Louis James Bernays, then project how these techniques have been "improved", over time, and you will understand the effectiveness of Republican propaganda. This is a very dangerous time, in our Country. The selfish forces of the rich and powerful have, effectively, shut down meaningful political discourse!
6
I do not know much about Christie's social policies but I kind of thought he was extremely a well, thoughtful, and intelligent debater.
1
63 unsuccessful votes to repeal Obamacare? Remind me again what the definition of insanity is....
7
It is odd, but when I read Dr. K. quoting Richard Hofstadter, it seriously reminded me of what I've read about Germany after World War I, namely that Germany didn't actually didn't lose the war, but that they were betrayed. Then they started to look for people to blame, with the blame ultimately falling on the Jews. Now we have Republicans saying the same thing. Question is, who will they blame?
5
As the book Dark Money so clearly exposes, the Republican candidates are controlled by a handful of billionaires so their message has to be what those billionaires want even if it flies in the face of commonsense. Republicans are desperately afraid not to differ from their canned, nonsensical message, so they just repeat the same twaddle over and over again.
3
The repeated mantras of both parties is literally, brainwashing.
The "No Taxes" Republican mantra has been repeated consistently since Reagan.
Laugh at Rubio all you want for his repetition, but he is just doing the political thing they all have done for many decades.
All campaigns are about brainwashing. That's why the Television ads are no longer than one minute. They repeat key words.
Too bad we are not smart enough to be immune from the brainwashing.
The "No Taxes" Republican mantra has been repeated consistently since Reagan.
Laugh at Rubio all you want for his repetition, but he is just doing the political thing they all have done for many decades.
All campaigns are about brainwashing. That's why the Television ads are no longer than one minute. They repeat key words.
Too bad we are not smart enough to be immune from the brainwashing.
" How did that work in Iraq? Never mind: The only reason anybody in the world fails to do exactly what America wants must be because our leadership is lily-livered if not treasonous."
President Obama said in the 2012 presidential election campaign that he ended the war in Iraq and left it with a stable government, Under his leadership it turned out marvelously.
President Obama said in the 2012 presidential election campaign that he ended the war in Iraq and left it with a stable government, Under his leadership it turned out marvelously.
Well, the bit about "ended the war in Iraq and left it with a stable government" was certainly braggadocio if not plain false. The reality was the Obama ended the Iraq war exactly on the conditions and time table laid out by the Bush administration. You can blame Obama for bragging about it, but the responsibility for the mess in Iraq lies squarely on Bush's shoulders.
Those on the right and many in the GOP are constantly complaining about the Mainstream Media or, if you prefer, Sara Palin's LameStream Media. What these people fail to realize is that they are caught in the web of the Conservative MSM. The Conservative MSM is far more than Fox.
It is right wing talk radio, blogs like RedState and a thriving industry that cranks out the right wing emails that my conservative friends forward to me on a regulator basis. The entire Conservative MSM edifice is built on the foundation of right wing "think tanks" where "scholars" develop the rationale for Fox, right wing radio and the blogs to keep arguing that climate change is a hoax, that evolution is a specious theory, that Supply Side Economics works, that the ACA is a job killing piece of legislation and so on.
But, the piece d'resistence for the Conservative MSM is the theme of victimhood. The annual Fox War of Christmas is simply the best known example. One need not try too hard to think of other examples.
It is right wing talk radio, blogs like RedState and a thriving industry that cranks out the right wing emails that my conservative friends forward to me on a regulator basis. The entire Conservative MSM edifice is built on the foundation of right wing "think tanks" where "scholars" develop the rationale for Fox, right wing radio and the blogs to keep arguing that climate change is a hoax, that evolution is a specious theory, that Supply Side Economics works, that the ACA is a job killing piece of legislation and so on.
But, the piece d'resistence for the Conservative MSM is the theme of victimhood. The annual Fox War of Christmas is simply the best known example. One need not try too hard to think of other examples.
4
The odd thing, as reflected in the base's attraction to a variety of "outsiders", it appears that members of that party are a lot less committed to any of the policies Krugman listed than the masters of their candidates, the donor class and the "experts" who are advising them.
"But there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble." Yes, it's called the Koch Brothers. Read Dark Money by Jane Mayer.
4
As citizens we are lazy and complacent. We spend more time on Facebook than we spend trying to understand what is going on in our country or the world. Many of us have been spoon-fed through school then spoon-fed through life and if the answer isn't simple we don't want to hear it. Our media reduces things to sound bites. If something goes on more than a few seconds the part that provides detail is chopped off and thrown away.
Marco Rubio got it exactly right when he said he'd make sure people could pay their taxes on the back of a post card. Because people can't be bothered to actually read something and follow the instructions. They'd rather Tweet or play their XBox. Marco Rubio is more in touch with the average person than anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle.
We are spoiled. We don't want to do anything hard. We don't want to read. We don't want to work to save a democracy and a freedom that people died for. We take it for granted. It's always been there for most of. There is almost no one left alive who remembers the sit down strikes that gave us the labor unions that took some of the power away from business and gave it back to the people.
But we are also tired. The 1% know that if they keep us bickering and tell us we can have the brass ring if only we work 60, 80, 100 hours a week, we'll keep struggling. Because in America we all know that nothing is as important as money.
Marco Rubio got it exactly right when he said he'd make sure people could pay their taxes on the back of a post card. Because people can't be bothered to actually read something and follow the instructions. They'd rather Tweet or play their XBox. Marco Rubio is more in touch with the average person than anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle.
We are spoiled. We don't want to do anything hard. We don't want to read. We don't want to work to save a democracy and a freedom that people died for. We take it for granted. It's always been there for most of. There is almost no one left alive who remembers the sit down strikes that gave us the labor unions that took some of the power away from business and gave it back to the people.
But we are also tired. The 1% know that if they keep us bickering and tell us we can have the brass ring if only we work 60, 80, 100 hours a week, we'll keep struggling. Because in America we all know that nothing is as important as money.
5
'Marco Rubio, who is looking more and more like the Republican Establishment Alternative. This makes Jeb Bush, Chis Christie and John Kasich CRAZY because they all have executive experience as governors, whereas Rubio's main achievement to date is paying off his student loans.', reported by the humorous Dave Barry sent as a reporter from the Miami Herald.
Like most of the Cuban politicians in South Florida, Marco Rubio pays special attention to friends. Rubio 's tax plan favors his billionaire backers without exceptions.
Like most of the Cuban politicians in South Florida, Marco Rubio pays special attention to friends. Rubio 's tax plan favors his billionaire backers without exceptions.
3
Bernie Sander injects the word "revolution" constantly so don't be surprised when there is one.
1
The Republican party is like the dog that chases cars and finally catches one and has no idea what to do with it. The current Republican candidates, in the unlikely event America's voters ever trusted them with the White House, would have no idea what to do once there. All their policies have been tried and failed. How many times does one keep trying the same thing only to see it fail time after time? That's the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Democrats are guilty of this as well. They've been throwing money at poor blacks, and poor whites also, for 55 years and not only have things not changed one iota, I think the situation is worse today than it was when JFK took office.
56
This makes no sense. The tax structure has changed dramatically since the 60s to favor the rich. The net result has been predictable.
3
I disagree. If a Republican takes the White House, on his desk the first day will be a "wishlist" from the Kochs, a demand to get Adelson's legal problems dumped, and calls for elimination of taxes for the wealthy altogether. The second page will be a list of countries with resources our corporations want to steal at the point of a gun. All that Republican president will need to do - so Rubio really fits their ideal model - is pick up a pen and sign off on it. The rest, so to speak, will be history - along with our democracy.
4
Republicans repeat their failed policies over and over again because they know that greed is the most powerful force in the universe. It "trumps" all others. People desperately want to believe the snake oil that they sell which says you can live the great life and not have to pay for it. Ronald Reagan epitomized this with his deficit spending and Dick Cheney underlined it with his "deficits don't matter" comment. So we can overturn Obmacare and allow people to either not have insurance or being woefully uninsured. If the uninsured get sick they can go to an emergency ward where the health care is "free." New Hampshire's motto says it all: Live free and let others pay for it.
58
Obama could have gone on national TV at 6 pm once a week for the last 7 years and retold the history of tax cuts and economicgrowth since Clinton but he never did. I remember Republican predictions of economic collapse. Not one Republican voted for raising taxes at the top. You don't need Fox news when you have the bully pulpet. Where have you been, Mr. President?. Even Fox would have been obliged to broadcast his weekly 'fireside chats'.
8
The two parties are locked into a symbiotic relationship. Republicans keep promising their base they can turn back history. The DNC points to the Republicans and plead caution. Sanders wants to change the paradigm. TBD.
1
Republican Koolaid is guaranteed to give you a belly-ache and will also make you seriously constipated.
As a "professor " at Princeton, Paul is as much as insider as Hillary.
So, it is no surprise that he supports her.
So, it is no surprise that he supports her.
He has moved on from Princeton man. Reality please, reality.
Embedded in the DNA of Republicans is the belief that we all start life on a level playing field --- those who reach the end zone deserve to do a dance, those who don't score, deserve to sit on the bench, be traded, or cut from the team --- they certainly do not deserve any cut from those who won the game. As for people who play on different sports fields, they should be carpet bombed.
6
Krugman's Krugman's views on taxes, while not as simplistic as the Republicans, appear here to be rather shallow. I realize that he is not saying tax cuts are always bad & tax increases are always good. but his example give me little evidence he understand what has happened or, if he does, has little interest in examining it.
Basically tax cuts DO provide much needed money for the private sector as it grows. If we cut Joe's taxes by $100, he has $100 more to spend on groceries which helps people all the way from the clerks at the market to the farmers, and, so on. BUT federal spending is usually better. If we pay Joe $100 to cut the White House lawn, he still gets the money, AND the country gets the lawn cut.
In addition, the effectiveness of tax cuts depends on whose taxes get cut. If we cut Scrooge McDuck's taxes by $1 mil, & he takes the savings & puts them in his basement, that doesn't help the economy one bit.
Also the effects of tax policy are not apparent immediately. When Clinton cut spending & raised taxes, that led to a boom, but because the flow of money FROM the federal sector TO the private sector was reduced & eventually reversed, that boon was based on private borrowing which exploded. The Bush deficits were basically bad tax cuts & were swamped by the huge trade deficits. Money continued to flow net out of the private sector & borrowing from banks continued. In 2008 the banking system crashed.
A better example is post WWII when tax rates were even higher.
Basically tax cuts DO provide much needed money for the private sector as it grows. If we cut Joe's taxes by $100, he has $100 more to spend on groceries which helps people all the way from the clerks at the market to the farmers, and, so on. BUT federal spending is usually better. If we pay Joe $100 to cut the White House lawn, he still gets the money, AND the country gets the lawn cut.
In addition, the effectiveness of tax cuts depends on whose taxes get cut. If we cut Scrooge McDuck's taxes by $1 mil, & he takes the savings & puts them in his basement, that doesn't help the economy one bit.
Also the effects of tax policy are not apparent immediately. When Clinton cut spending & raised taxes, that led to a boom, but because the flow of money FROM the federal sector TO the private sector was reduced & eventually reversed, that boon was based on private borrowing which exploded. The Bush deficits were basically bad tax cuts & were swamped by the huge trade deficits. Money continued to flow net out of the private sector & borrowing from banks continued. In 2008 the banking system crashed.
A better example is post WWII when tax rates were even higher.
3
But when you speak of the Bush tax cuts, the bad cuts as you call them, Len, you can't divorce that from the problems created by Clinton's NAFTA. One reason they created the huge trade deficits was the gutting of our domestic manufacturing sector that occurred as a result of NAFTA.
I believe the larger problem that seems to be misunderstood these days is the diminishing returns tax cuts for industries provide to the overall economy in a context of overproduction that has become the hallmark of globalization.
In the final analysis, when financial interests run the show as they do now, you never ever hear about fiscal policy and multipliers. This will be the undoing of our capitalist class and worldwide national economies. Capitalists want to have it all and just don't get that if the rest of us have nothing to spend aside from our food, rent and healthcare, they're going to go down. Bernie Sanders gets this analysis. Hillary Clinton does not. For his part, Krugman still extols the benefits of globalization much like Clinton but seems to think that infrastructure spending is somehow going to restore former greatness. But infrastructure spending doesn't happen in the winter and spring so its an incomplete solution. I believe that limited protectionism needs to be part of the equation along with higher taxes on capital and capital gains in spite of the costs to consumerd.
I believe the larger problem that seems to be misunderstood these days is the diminishing returns tax cuts for industries provide to the overall economy in a context of overproduction that has become the hallmark of globalization.
In the final analysis, when financial interests run the show as they do now, you never ever hear about fiscal policy and multipliers. This will be the undoing of our capitalist class and worldwide national economies. Capitalists want to have it all and just don't get that if the rest of us have nothing to spend aside from our food, rent and healthcare, they're going to go down. Bernie Sanders gets this analysis. Hillary Clinton does not. For his part, Krugman still extols the benefits of globalization much like Clinton but seems to think that infrastructure spending is somehow going to restore former greatness. But infrastructure spending doesn't happen in the winter and spring so its an incomplete solution. I believe that limited protectionism needs to be part of the equation along with higher taxes on capital and capital gains in spite of the costs to consumerd.
James, I know many people believe this, but it does not appear to be true. Here is an extensive examination of NAFTA from The Congressional Research Service -- https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf
They say, "The overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy has been relatively small, primarily because total trade with both Mexico and Canada was equal to less than 5% of U.S. GDP at the time NAFTA went into effect. Because many, if not most, of the economic effects came as a result
of U.S.-Mexico trade liberalization, it is also important to take into account that two-way trade with Mexico was equal to an even smaller percentage of GDP (1.4%) in 1994. Thus, any changes in trade patterns would not be expected to be significant in relation to the overall U.S. economy"
So while NAFTA didn't help much, it didn't hurt much.
They say, "The overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy has been relatively small, primarily because total trade with both Mexico and Canada was equal to less than 5% of U.S. GDP at the time NAFTA went into effect. Because many, if not most, of the economic effects came as a result
of U.S.-Mexico trade liberalization, it is also important to take into account that two-way trade with Mexico was equal to an even smaller percentage of GDP (1.4%) in 1994. Thus, any changes in trade patterns would not be expected to be significant in relation to the overall U.S. economy"
So while NAFTA didn't help much, it didn't hurt much.
right on REPUBS,Hillary is a hard working policy wonk not a person of good judgment
1
I wish the press would call the GOP out on their lies about executive orders. Trump said Reagan didn't do them implying he didn't need to because he wasn't trying to cram his agenda through but Reagan's executive orders exceed Obama's. Let's keep spreading the truth.
7
I also wish the GOP and their media pundits would acknowledge that taxes were raised around 12 times during Regan's presidency. Not to mention the disaster that was his early attempt to cut taxes!
Thank you, Mr. Krugman. The sad fact is that too many Americans buy into this trickle down nonsense and keep voting for policies that have crashed and burned in the past. What these people don't remember is that the top tax rate, paid by very few if any, was 90% under Dwight Eisenhower, Republican.
236
It's as if Republicans care more about policy than results and Democrats seem like they care more about results than policy. Kind of reminds me of the debate between religious folks and non-believers. Religious folks pray for something specific and regardless or result they still believe prayer works. Non-religious folks look at this and think prayer doesn't work, or there must be no god, and keep looking for something else that will give consistent results.
1
If you read the past half a dozen blogs by Dr Krugman you would wonder if he himself in a time loop. He keeps arguing in favor of Hillary and keeps thrashing Bernie's electability. Round and round and round and round....
2
Surely Krugman knows that those "created jobs' are mainly $30,000 per year positions. Surely he knows that the U6 true unemployment rate ( included those who want a job but have given up) is more like 15% and the labor participations rate is the worst in 40 years. Surely he knows that a family must have 2 people working just to financially exist and the days of the stay at home parent are gone. The real ground hog day is the regular repetition by Krugman telling us that everything is great and what we need is more government spending. We know better because we don't live in the alternative universe called academia.
2
The labor participation rate is where it is because the baby boomers are retiring. The surge in the rate is entirely predictable based on that fact and the fact that more 18 to 24 yr olds are going to and staying in college. The difference between U3 and U6 has been fairly constant since 1995. There was a sharp spike starting in 2008 as the effects of the Bush Recession began to be felt. While the difference between U3 and U6 has been historically high since roughly 2010, the trend over the last 6 years has been a gradual return to the long term difference.
There is just one small detail that keeps raising its ugly head:
the time-loop reruns continue to win elections ... when will we learn from our mistakes?
the time-loop reruns continue to win elections ... when will we learn from our mistakes?
2
It's not a political party anymore; it's a religion, demanding strict devotion.
4
It has been interesting following how the far-left liberal commenters here in the NY Times have fallen head over heels in love with Bernie Sanders. I consider myself a strong liberal, but a realistic one, and like Krugman Sanders is for me the Democratic counterpart to the Republican broken-record syndrome. What Sanders clearly betrays here is his lack of hardened experience.
And no, this is not the same as Obama in 2008. Yes, Obama is a strong idealist, but what attracted me to Obama, and what I still highly admire in him, is his powerful intellect and his ability to characterize extremely difficult situations accurately and guided by powerfully moral underpinnings.
Bernie Sanders is decidedly not Obama, he's an ideologue, an avowed socialist. He may not be a "one-trick pony", but he is a broken record. For me it will be an object-lesson to see how my liberal compatriots have fallen for this.
And no, this is not the same as Obama in 2008. Yes, Obama is a strong idealist, but what attracted me to Obama, and what I still highly admire in him, is his powerful intellect and his ability to characterize extremely difficult situations accurately and guided by powerfully moral underpinnings.
Bernie Sanders is decidedly not Obama, he's an ideologue, an avowed socialist. He may not be a "one-trick pony", but he is a broken record. For me it will be an object-lesson to see how my liberal compatriots have fallen for this.
5
Dear Renaldo:
I completely agree with you. What astounds me again and again is how the NYT can refuse to post comments like yours on the NYT Picks tab so that every reader can reflect on them.
Your point is THE point to be made in the Democratic race, but very few will read it. Its shameful.
I completely agree with you. What astounds me again and again is how the NYT can refuse to post comments like yours on the NYT Picks tab so that every reader can reflect on them.
Your point is THE point to be made in the Democratic race, but very few will read it. Its shameful.
I'm enjoying this, the longest running daily reality TV comedy show.
I can't wait until November.
I can't wait until November.
1
Yes, it's clear to a sane person that the ACA is not a job killer and trickle down economics do not work. Now the big issue, income inequality! I see it as a result of the 25$+hour blue collar jobs going away and being replaced with the 15$ hour jobs . The last resort, high paying municipal jobs going down as cities and states go bankrupt trying to pay for them. We need those good jobs back however I really do not see how breaking up big banks, regulating wall street more, taxing the rich more or less will create them. These are just talking points to rally people. Turning the US into a socialist state will not help either. Both parties are stuck in a loop!!
2
The problem with this "third way" thesis is that the assumption is already wrong: Hillary Clinton is a full-fledged Republican in the economic area. She not only will not promote any gradual positive change in the economy, but she will continue and even accelerate with Obama's neoliberal policies. In other words, [positive] change with Hillary Clinton will be zero at best, negative at worst. I can cope with a reformist - at least a reformist wants to achieve a better world in the far far future (i.e. in a very slow rhythm); Hillary is not even that.
You can deduce what Hillary Clinton would do to the USA by analysing Bill Clinton's philosophy of governing. Like him, she sees having an intimate relationship (to the point of being dictated) with big business as something natural; like him, she sees the status quo as the ultimate form of society, as an unchangeable totem; like him, she sees politics and governing as a corporate job, i.e. the State as an extension of the big business model; like him, she doesn't have any perspective for a different/better world, i.e. she lacks substance. People without substance have no spine, will only manage the status quo at best, will do the most atrocious things in the name of "following orders" or "pragmatism" at worst.
You can deduce what Hillary Clinton would do to the USA by analysing Bill Clinton's philosophy of governing. Like him, she sees having an intimate relationship (to the point of being dictated) with big business as something natural; like him, she sees the status quo as the ultimate form of society, as an unchangeable totem; like him, she sees politics and governing as a corporate job, i.e. the State as an extension of the big business model; like him, she doesn't have any perspective for a different/better world, i.e. she lacks substance. People without substance have no spine, will only manage the status quo at best, will do the most atrocious things in the name of "following orders" or "pragmatism" at worst.
1
I am a Bernie supporter but find your assessment of Hillary simplistic. There are things about her I don't like but she does not lack substance or courage. She is a strong, intelligent woman who would govern better than any of the republicans running. If she is the democratic nominee, I will support her and work to change her positions with which I disagree.
Sometimes, I wish President Obama would let the Republicans revoke Obamacare -- every single word -- and then wait for the chaotic results as millions of Americans find themselves uninsured, hospital and doctors go unpaid for their services and the US drops to last place among nations in providing healthcare to its people. Republicans would also like to eliminate the minimum wage along with the EPA, OSHA, IRS and about half the cabinet departments. Let pollution run free. Let workers sicken and die from exposure to carcinogens. Let freedom ring -- although the bell may toll the death of the Republican Party as well.
3
Paul...I've been trying to tell you got years the answer to "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Answer: guns/2nd amendment. The oligarchy, particularly Big Carbon, fund NRA absolutism in order to keep a paranoid, hypersensitized anti-government base that is easily manipulated against any centralized power or responsibility. See: Koch "libertarianism." Fed a steady diet of Fox "News" and right wing radio, the base acts/votes against its own best interest, and most often, against reason and experience.
6
Donald Trump's assertion that illegal immigrants were pouring across our borders causing us enormous harm --- with no challenge from the other candidates or the moderators --- says it all. My once Grand Old Party has become the reincarnation of the Know Nothings.
3
"So how did this happen to the G.O.P.? In a direct sense, I suspect that it has a lot to do with Foxification, the way Republican primary voters live in a media bubble into which awkward facts can’t penetrate. But there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble."
Bring back, and enforce, the fairness doctrine, that went away under the Reagan-era FCC. And keep working on another Hofstader issue: the anti-intellectualism that feeds the ignorance Fox and their ilk thrive on.
Bring back, and enforce, the fairness doctrine, that went away under the Reagan-era FCC. And keep working on another Hofstader issue: the anti-intellectualism that feeds the ignorance Fox and their ilk thrive on.
4
The spirit of Sarah Palin hovers over the Lost Boys now competing for the GOP nomination. I thought I caught a glimpse of her at a Trump rally, and now the "mainstream" GOP candidate, Mr. Rubio, has begun spouting repetitive seditious nonsense that sounded much better when it emanated from a soccer mom type who made Rich Lowry sparkle.
The futility of Republicans in recent Presidential elections begs a question: Does the GOP really want to win the White House in 2016? Their Koch-funded and ALEC-written strategy of co-opting state governments needs a reliable bogeyman, one who can alarm the rubes at all hours and for all purposes. The President has done a great job as scary-guy-in-chief.
The GOP elites remember what happened the last time the mouth breathers elected their beer buddy: Start fires in Iraq and Afghanistan that still suck American kids and dollars into the flames; punk the environment by making FEMA a jobs programs for unemployed cronies, culminating in a disaster that no one at Brownie's FEMA had a clue how to solve; prefer the Wall Street casinos to America's workers, and allow a securities bubble to ruin suckers who heard the news too late.
In other words, the smart people behind the Republican election machine might realize that the only way for people to wake up from the Fox-induced narcolepsy that increasingly impels them to vote against their own economic interests would be to install another GWB-like group of incompetents.
Pretty smart, you betcha.
The futility of Republicans in recent Presidential elections begs a question: Does the GOP really want to win the White House in 2016? Their Koch-funded and ALEC-written strategy of co-opting state governments needs a reliable bogeyman, one who can alarm the rubes at all hours and for all purposes. The President has done a great job as scary-guy-in-chief.
The GOP elites remember what happened the last time the mouth breathers elected their beer buddy: Start fires in Iraq and Afghanistan that still suck American kids and dollars into the flames; punk the environment by making FEMA a jobs programs for unemployed cronies, culminating in a disaster that no one at Brownie's FEMA had a clue how to solve; prefer the Wall Street casinos to America's workers, and allow a securities bubble to ruin suckers who heard the news too late.
In other words, the smart people behind the Republican election machine might realize that the only way for people to wake up from the Fox-induced narcolepsy that increasingly impels them to vote against their own economic interests would be to install another GWB-like group of incompetents.
Pretty smart, you betcha.
7
Yes, the GOP repeatedly proves itself to be the Party of mindlessness film looping, but the Democrats, especially under Clinton tutelage, is doing its level best to follow suit. Now we have the crutch-worthy husband Bill lurching around the stage whining about the dastardly Uncle Bernie waging, well, a political campaign. (How dare he?)
Meanwhile, septuagenarian proto feminists Steinem and Albright rail against feminist indepent thinking among hopeful young women voters for making up their own independent minds about the campaign based on character above gender. (How dare they?)
Yes, the GOP is the robotic Party of regression, but the Clinton campaign is, again, turning the Democratic Party into one of faint hope, foggy vision, low aims and little change. America deserves and desperately needs better.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Meanwhile, septuagenarian proto feminists Steinem and Albright rail against feminist indepent thinking among hopeful young women voters for making up their own independent minds about the campaign based on character above gender. (How dare they?)
Yes, the GOP is the robotic Party of regression, but the Clinton campaign is, again, turning the Democratic Party into one of faint hope, foggy vision, low aims and little change. America deserves and desperately needs better.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
16
I think "Foxification" is a wonderful new word, but the real problem with the GOP is the loss of critical thinking. Today's Republicans have fallen into the trap of convenient, easy solutions. Right-wing radio and Fox are part of it, but it is simply easier to only listen to one side of the argument that conveniently is consistent with what you want to hear. The benefit of the old Network TV was that the journalists were generally ethical and provided both sides of an issue (perhaps with some slant, but at least it was heard). Today, you can shop for what you want to hear: Cut my taxes and spur growth - Awesome!
Money also is a component, because money buys time. Enough money allows one to frame discussions. With a feckless media that has lost its sense of critical thinking or even ethical impartiality / income provider, there is nobody to call the preposterous assertions (right or left) what they are. Thus, we can't debate issues, because we can't agree on the impartial facts. Fox and Palin and others are responsible for this new notion that "facts" can be false (as opposed to misleading).
Money also is a component, because money buys time. Enough money allows one to frame discussions. With a feckless media that has lost its sense of critical thinking or even ethical impartiality / income provider, there is nobody to call the preposterous assertions (right or left) what they are. Thus, we can't debate issues, because we can't agree on the impartial facts. Fox and Palin and others are responsible for this new notion that "facts" can be false (as opposed to misleading).
12
I think the Republican Party has a fundamental mistrust of "government by consent of the governed." Indeed, it is more than distrust -- the GOP oligarchs appear to feel that the very notion of democracy is absurd and doomed to failure. Of course the party that "pays off" more people more effectively will win every election! The only remedy is relentlessly appealing to fear. But all I saw on the stage in New Hampshire was a bunch of white men running scared. Scared of their donors, who only want doctrine and candidates who carefully promise nothing (and will reliably do nothing once in office); scared of the dark forces unleashed among working class Republicans hostile and skeptical after 40 years of dog whistles and lip service; scared of rogue candidates winning all the polls and getting all the attention.
The only real remedy for the Republican Party is to start playing a long game and recapture the middle by walking away from baroque gerrymandering as the core of their electoral strategy. The fact is the GOP was doomed the moment they stated throwing around the term RINO. Today's toxic, broken political environment is bought with the coin of gerrymandering. 'Politicians picking their voters' is backwards and anti-social at its core, plain and simple. Republicans can compete in mixed districts, but not as currently constituted. Will they have the guts to reject extreme gerrymandering after the next census? I doubt it, but Americans have to hope they do.
The only real remedy for the Republican Party is to start playing a long game and recapture the middle by walking away from baroque gerrymandering as the core of their electoral strategy. The fact is the GOP was doomed the moment they stated throwing around the term RINO. Today's toxic, broken political environment is bought with the coin of gerrymandering. 'Politicians picking their voters' is backwards and anti-social at its core, plain and simple. Republicans can compete in mixed districts, but not as currently constituted. Will they have the guts to reject extreme gerrymandering after the next census? I doubt it, but Americans have to hope they do.
19
A story that relates to your column and the way Mainstream Media has defined Republican deviancy down, is newspaper story where the supposedly mainstream conservatives who run respectively the House and Senate Budget committees, Rep. Tom Price of Georgia and Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, have decided to break with a 100 year tradition of having the head OMB testify before Congress regarding the proposed budget in order to appease the Tea Party wing of their party. http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-revolts-against-obama-021700632.html;_yl... They denounce President Obama's policies as "failed" when in fact: ... "We have the best economy in the world. Republicans have been clear that president is only responsible for jobs created or stock market conditions when the news is bad. America's economy isn't great - unless you compare it to the rest of this century and the rest of the world. While our economy still needs tons of improvement to repair the hollowing out of decades of conservative policies, we've experienced more than six years of unfettered private sector job growth, an undisputed record. Best of all, job creation picked up dramatically since taxes went up on the rich and Obamacare went into full effect, disproving conservative economic nostrums yet again." http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/5-ways-obama-knows-exactly-what-hes-doing
13
The Time-Loop Party:
"Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Unleashes a Stinging Attack on Sanders"
We are back in 1992
"Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Unleashes a Stinging Attack on Sanders"
We are back in 1992
6
Doesn't seem to be working, but we should find a Clinton friendly liberal media source, just to be sure.
1
What I find most telling is that the debates on the republican side center around personality because all policy proposals are the essentially the same, except for the Trump's flights into apparently unorthodox positions based on a free association campaigning style.
They are all against all things Obama - Obamacare.
They are all for tax rate reduction at the top.
They are all against diplomacy with Iran.
They are all for tough talk and more troops in the Mid East.
They all want to ban Planned Parenthood funding and restrict women's access to birth control and abortion services.
Of course they differ around the edges, but no so much that any of them will say that they oppose Ted Cruz when he wants to Carpet Bomb and make the mid east glow or when Cruz proposes a Flat Tax and a VAT.
And they are all said with the ideological certitude that these positions are exactly what the American people want.
It will be refreshing to see how these positions are exposed in a debate with either of the democratic candidates.
They are all against all things Obama - Obamacare.
They are all for tax rate reduction at the top.
They are all against diplomacy with Iran.
They are all for tough talk and more troops in the Mid East.
They all want to ban Planned Parenthood funding and restrict women's access to birth control and abortion services.
Of course they differ around the edges, but no so much that any of them will say that they oppose Ted Cruz when he wants to Carpet Bomb and make the mid east glow or when Cruz proposes a Flat Tax and a VAT.
And they are all said with the ideological certitude that these positions are exactly what the American people want.
It will be refreshing to see how these positions are exposed in a debate with either of the democratic candidates.
12
"The truth is that the whole G.O.P. seems stuck in a time loop, saying and doing the same things over and over," said the pot. In what ways has the Democratic Party expanded beyond its own narrow ideological concerns? In my estimation, the prescriptive policies of the party have not changed since the Great Society, barring a brief aberration of moderation during the Clinton years.
1
The main difference I can discern is that, in the majority of instances, the Democratic policies have produced progress, the Republican policies have produced damage.
15
Despite the amazing power of markets and statistics to diverge from and distort reality, the economy is in freefall.
The recovery was just another lie.
The global economy has essentially collapsed and the trigger for that implosion was right here in the good old USA.
Krugman serves the interests of the banksters, as do most economists, so he somehow fails to see the recession that is underway.
By the election, everyone is going to know the truth about the economy.
The Democrats will lose if they nominate HRC but the oligarchs do not care. They'd prefer their favorite but if they cannot get her installed, they'd vastly prefer any Republican to Sanders.
One thing is clear: The people's voice will never be heard if the plutocrats and these oleaginous spin doctors get their way.
The recovery was just another lie.
The global economy has essentially collapsed and the trigger for that implosion was right here in the good old USA.
Krugman serves the interests of the banksters, as do most economists, so he somehow fails to see the recession that is underway.
By the election, everyone is going to know the truth about the economy.
The Democrats will lose if they nominate HRC but the oligarchs do not care. They'd prefer their favorite but if they cannot get her installed, they'd vastly prefer any Republican to Sanders.
One thing is clear: The people's voice will never be heard if the plutocrats and these oleaginous spin doctors get their way.
2
The shared Republican stance on foreign policy is basically the same view Richard Hofstadter famously described in his essay 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics': Whenever America fails to impose its will on the rest of the world, it must be because it has been betrayed." That's very disturbing, because it sounds like Germany between the World Wars. The problem with saying the country was betrayed is that the next question is "By whom?", and any candidate who offers a convincing answer to that question -- or at least an answer that plays into people's pre-existing prejudices -- suddenly becomes very attractive.
15
Rumor is more powerful than fact, lies more powerful than truth.
This is the state of national being we are moving toward as media fractures into personal partisan pits of informational comfort zones. People know what they want to believe and, now, they have media outlets determined to provide supposed facts to back it up.
You could take 200 diehard, Fox News watching Republicans, put them in a room for three or four hours showing them demonstratively provable facts, like job creation statistics, and most of them would leave the room denying that they had been shown true information. That's how bad it is becoming. Many would be convinced that the federal departments or universities that had carefully gathered those facts were themselves compromised and presenting lies as truth.
Nations can fall based on the collapse of knowledge and information. It can happen. Indeed, one reason the Soviet Union fell is that there were no verifiable sources of information and, in the end, there was no way to get at truth of how the system was or was not working. We in the U.S. are being pushed into separate, hateful camps in which nothing is accepted as valid unless it is verified by a partisan source. In trying to counter "liberal bias" in the media, the right has created a monster the spews out facts distorted for their own comfort and to lock their like minded supporters in place. The candidates must play along with this distortion field of misinformation or suffer the consequences.
This is the state of national being we are moving toward as media fractures into personal partisan pits of informational comfort zones. People know what they want to believe and, now, they have media outlets determined to provide supposed facts to back it up.
You could take 200 diehard, Fox News watching Republicans, put them in a room for three or four hours showing them demonstratively provable facts, like job creation statistics, and most of them would leave the room denying that they had been shown true information. That's how bad it is becoming. Many would be convinced that the federal departments or universities that had carefully gathered those facts were themselves compromised and presenting lies as truth.
Nations can fall based on the collapse of knowledge and information. It can happen. Indeed, one reason the Soviet Union fell is that there were no verifiable sources of information and, in the end, there was no way to get at truth of how the system was or was not working. We in the U.S. are being pushed into separate, hateful camps in which nothing is accepted as valid unless it is verified by a partisan source. In trying to counter "liberal bias" in the media, the right has created a monster the spews out facts distorted for their own comfort and to lock their like minded supporters in place. The candidates must play along with this distortion field of misinformation or suffer the consequences.
25
Sad but true. I'm still looking for that liberal media. I just can't find them.
Basically Paul there is too much religious fundamentalism and anti-government feeling in your country. Too many of its socio-economic elite have too much respect for private enterprise and too little respect for government. Some of them have been exploiting the degree of religious fervour in its general population to help them win the power to reduce taxation on themselves and enact smaller government for them (outside the military and intelligence services) for quite some time. It's anti-modern and anti-democratic sentiment and action. It's a consequence of reaction and it's called regression. "The land of the free and the home of the brave" has become more and more "the land of the shackled and the home of the fearful". It's a shame and a worry.
Like your preference for Hillary's politics over Bernie's X 1,000,000.
Like your preference for Hillary's politics over Bernie's X 1,000,000.
21
Professor Krugman writes that on foreign policy, "Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk," while "Bernie Sanders is much more of a one-note candidate,"
How in the world can Professor Krugman praise Hillary Clinton's foreign policy expertise, while ignoring her endorsement of the disastrous invasion of Iraq? And how in the world can he denigrate Senator Sanders, while ignoring his far-sighted and correct opposition of that invasion?
On foreign policy, Senator Sanders has proven that he, as Professor Krugman writes, understands the importance of diplomacy, and is not so naive as to possess "utter confidence in the effectiveness of military force."
On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is closer to the Republicans whom Professor Krugman criticizes, while it is Senator Sanders who most fully understands foreign policy reality.
How in the world can Professor Krugman praise Hillary Clinton's foreign policy expertise, while ignoring her endorsement of the disastrous invasion of Iraq? And how in the world can he denigrate Senator Sanders, while ignoring his far-sighted and correct opposition of that invasion?
On foreign policy, Senator Sanders has proven that he, as Professor Krugman writes, understands the importance of diplomacy, and is not so naive as to possess "utter confidence in the effectiveness of military force."
On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is closer to the Republicans whom Professor Krugman criticizes, while it is Senator Sanders who most fully understands foreign policy reality.
12
Because she was naive to trust Bush. And it is an error of.. empathy.
12
I wonder if it was more a calculated political decision. Assuming the invasion would be successful and under estimating the incompetence of the Bush administration. Not wanted to be on the wrong side and look weak if the invasion was successful.
2
I think that one reason for the endless Republican rhetorical loop (repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, carpet bomb. . . whomever) is the lack of real achievement by Republican legislators over the past eight years. After the election of Pres. Obama, the Republicans decided to derail the administration by becoming the party of "NO". The GOP has done this so effectively that it now has no significant policy achievements to point to. Republicans can't run on a record of achievement if they don't have one. This is what Rubio, in particular, is finding out.
31
It is only the elites, who run the show, that want tax cuts. These are the same elites who pushed for the war in Iraq and, with CIA help, the overthrow of elected governments who threatened to nationalize corporations during the colonial period! They want to return to the pre-New Deal days when most Americans had no safety net. And they were responsible for the collapse of the world economy in 2007-2008. People are finally waking up to what's really going on as evidenced by the popularity of The Donald and Bernie. Hillary and Cruz are pawns of the elite.
5
Sanders is far from a single issue candidate, but there is no doubt that his growing support comes from an electorate coming to the realization that the nation is in the grip of oligarchs.
The Republican Party simply carries out the fascist agenda; an agenda that has been on the table since 1934 when like thinking rich men plotted a military coup to halt the socialistic policies of Roosevelt.
As Bobby Kennedy Jr. Once said, "They (oligarchs) won't be happy until they return us to feudalism." At the time I thought he was engaged in hyperbole. Not soon after I realized he was simply stating the simple truth.
The Republican Party simply carries out the fascist agenda; an agenda that has been on the table since 1934 when like thinking rich men plotted a military coup to halt the socialistic policies of Roosevelt.
As Bobby Kennedy Jr. Once said, "They (oligarchs) won't be happy until they return us to feudalism." At the time I thought he was engaged in hyperbole. Not soon after I realized he was simply stating the simple truth.
49
Go back to Gingrich and his famous memo on using language as a tool to manipulate minds, or Lee Atwater and dog-whistle politics, or even Nixon and his Silent Majority (and Spiro Agnew's rhetorical flourishes), and it becomes clear that the GOP has had a problem with reality for a long time. They refuse to be bothered by such things as science, facts, or history. What matters is crafting a narrative and repeating it over and over again.
They've about reached the limits of substituting marketing for governing; they mouth the sacred words (tax cuts! small government!) over and over and perform the same empty rituals (repeal Obamacare! Emailgate hearings, Benghazigate hearings) but keep getting the same results. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis.
(Why do they call them hearings when they never seem to do any listening?)
Only the fact that they are an authoritarian cult with a core group of true believer followers keeps them in business - that and gerrymandering and restricting voting. Oh, that and the billionaires they've been bought out by. It would be sad if it wasn't so dangerous.
They've about reached the limits of substituting marketing for governing; they mouth the sacred words (tax cuts! small government!) over and over and perform the same empty rituals (repeal Obamacare! Emailgate hearings, Benghazigate hearings) but keep getting the same results. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis.
(Why do they call them hearings when they never seem to do any listening?)
Only the fact that they are an authoritarian cult with a core group of true believer followers keeps them in business - that and gerrymandering and restricting voting. Oh, that and the billionaires they've been bought out by. It would be sad if it wasn't so dangerous.
26
The performances of the Republican presidential candidates in this election cycle brings to mind the German film, "Downfall", which portrays the last ten days or so of Berlin inside and outside the Fuhrerbunker. And before anyone gets too upset, no, I'm not comparing Republicans to Nazis. I am, however, comparing their views of reality.
In that excellent film, as the thunder of the Russian artillery gets louder, indicating that the end is getting nearer, the trouser creases on the German staff members become sharper, their decorations seem to be shinier, and their salutes get snappier. By the time the end is imminent, their militarisms are almost manically perfect, as though they are going forward into glory rather than annihilation.
It strikes me that the Republicans, inside their Fox bubble, are suffering the same sort of cognitive dissonance. Gay marriage is the law of the land; non-white voters are more numerous than ever before; the number of Americans declaring themselves to be spiritual but not religious is bigger than ever before; even the pope has dressed down those who support the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. Metaphorically, that's the artillery getting louder.
So what do they do? Bray even louder about Obamacare, tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations, and promote more military adventures.
Honestly, if it weren't for hackable electronic voting machines, I wouldn't give the Republicans a second thought.
In that excellent film, as the thunder of the Russian artillery gets louder, indicating that the end is getting nearer, the trouser creases on the German staff members become sharper, their decorations seem to be shinier, and their salutes get snappier. By the time the end is imminent, their militarisms are almost manically perfect, as though they are going forward into glory rather than annihilation.
It strikes me that the Republicans, inside their Fox bubble, are suffering the same sort of cognitive dissonance. Gay marriage is the law of the land; non-white voters are more numerous than ever before; the number of Americans declaring themselves to be spiritual but not religious is bigger than ever before; even the pope has dressed down those who support the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. Metaphorically, that's the artillery getting louder.
So what do they do? Bray even louder about Obamacare, tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations, and promote more military adventures.
Honestly, if it weren't for hackable electronic voting machines, I wouldn't give the Republicans a second thought.
659
Those hackable voting machines are a real worry.
7
..and at the State and Local level, they rail against gay marriage, abortion, and other areas where "conservatives" want more Big Government regulation. Even in the Republican presidential fracas, some tried to "ACORN" Planned Parenthood, but that phony issue landed with a thud. Yes, it is a bunker mentality - they see the writing on the wall, hear the clanking of tank treads on the streets, and are filled with apocalyptic fear and rage.
2
Joel Parkes
Very well stated, thanks, an articulate, striking insightful opinion. My favorite posted today.
One note: remember the shock in the Republican party when Obama won re-election, that near, completely stunned, obsessive denial that Romney hadn't won? It was exhibited on FOX News when Karl Rove refused to accept the FOX broadcast that, yes, Romney had lost. There, too, is an echo of the mechanics that operate in that cyber cascade, echo chamber internet and broadcast society Conservatives currently live inside. Unfortunately, it's not unlike much smaller, but still visible, bubbles over factions of the Clinton and Sanders campaigns.
Very well stated, thanks, an articulate, striking insightful opinion. My favorite posted today.
One note: remember the shock in the Republican party when Obama won re-election, that near, completely stunned, obsessive denial that Romney hadn't won? It was exhibited on FOX News when Karl Rove refused to accept the FOX broadcast that, yes, Romney had lost. There, too, is an echo of the mechanics that operate in that cyber cascade, echo chamber internet and broadcast society Conservatives currently live inside. Unfortunately, it's not unlike much smaller, but still visible, bubbles over factions of the Clinton and Sanders campaigns.
2
It's like they keep expecting the Golden Age of Television to come back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6poceO-jn4U
3
As I have always said, Rubio, Cruz, and Trump have always had zero chance for the nomination. They are not the Republican Party.
Even then campaigns are not the party. For years and years the out party said the in party had totally caved to China on all grounds. Then it always followed the same policy.
Kasich has been very different so Krugman has ignored him. He won Ohio by a million votes. That is the Republican Party. Against Hillary, the only question is whether the Republicans will win 61 Senators with him at the head of the ticket. Pray Obama will indict her so that the party can draft Biden-Warren and keep the loss respectable.
Steinem and Albright say it all. Hillary is a person of the 1960s (a Goldwater person at that in the year he voted against LBJ's desegregtion). Vote for her because those of us who remember Kent State deserve it. She is promising nothing, but I am sure she will end the Vietnam War (although not that in the Middle East.) Even Bill cannot hide his depression.
Krugman was 17 at the time of Kent State. He has none of the sense that it is 46 years later and we have different problems. He doesn't have the foggiest notion of the depth of the popular anger against Obama-Geithner-Bernanke's asset stimulus program to inflate the market at the expense of wages and social services. He does not have the foggiest notion of why the white population over 25 is correctly 2-1 against Obamacare.
Even then campaigns are not the party. For years and years the out party said the in party had totally caved to China on all grounds. Then it always followed the same policy.
Kasich has been very different so Krugman has ignored him. He won Ohio by a million votes. That is the Republican Party. Against Hillary, the only question is whether the Republicans will win 61 Senators with him at the head of the ticket. Pray Obama will indict her so that the party can draft Biden-Warren and keep the loss respectable.
Steinem and Albright say it all. Hillary is a person of the 1960s (a Goldwater person at that in the year he voted against LBJ's desegregtion). Vote for her because those of us who remember Kent State deserve it. She is promising nothing, but I am sure she will end the Vietnam War (although not that in the Middle East.) Even Bill cannot hide his depression.
Krugman was 17 at the time of Kent State. He has none of the sense that it is 46 years later and we have different problems. He doesn't have the foggiest notion of the depth of the popular anger against Obama-Geithner-Bernanke's asset stimulus program to inflate the market at the expense of wages and social services. He does not have the foggiest notion of why the white population over 25 is correctly 2-1 against Obamacare.
You're correct in that Kasich is the best Republican candidate, but good luck getting him nominated. The Republican "party" is over, and you're stuck with a bunch of angry wingnuts who all have their own separate agendas.
I wouldn't write Cruz off. That was a slimy trick he pulled off in Iowa, circulating the rumor that Carson had withdrawn and thereby "winning." Apologizing, afterwards and conveniently, to The Donald. There are many gerrymandered evangelicals out there, and he plays them like a Stradivarius.
I can't believe that you actually told us that there was yet another vote to repeal Obamacare. This GOP fixation goes beyond obsession, betraying a level of insanity unlike anything I've ever seen.
You talk about the Foxification of the GOP electorate, but I would say it's more a frightening increasingly low level of information literacy and loss of ability to question or research data regarding any issue at hand. It is so much easier to simply repeat campaign slogans then to take the time to figure out what these slogans mean.
Thus the GOP is not only in a time loop situation but a time warp situation as well. With no sense of history, all history can be rewritten over and over in a brave new world kind of way, where institutes of rewriting history
spin reality to suit whatever region is currently dominant. I liken those to so-called GOP "think tanks" like the American Enterprise Institute or the Hoover Institution.
A dumb electorate is a malleable one, dangerous for democracy. 0 Civics classes always speak about the importance of an informed electorate, but right now we're experiencing information inequality in the sense that only a proportion of voters take the time to read and digest party platforms instead of accepting carte blanche what they're told.
You talk about the Foxification of the GOP electorate, but I would say it's more a frightening increasingly low level of information literacy and loss of ability to question or research data regarding any issue at hand. It is so much easier to simply repeat campaign slogans then to take the time to figure out what these slogans mean.
Thus the GOP is not only in a time loop situation but a time warp situation as well. With no sense of history, all history can be rewritten over and over in a brave new world kind of way, where institutes of rewriting history
spin reality to suit whatever region is currently dominant. I liken those to so-called GOP "think tanks" like the American Enterprise Institute or the Hoover Institution.
A dumb electorate is a malleable one, dangerous for democracy. 0 Civics classes always speak about the importance of an informed electorate, but right now we're experiencing information inequality in the sense that only a proportion of voters take the time to read and digest party platforms instead of accepting carte blanche what they're told.
44
The Republicans excel at belittling education - not unlike the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia a couple decades back. The main difference is that the GOP hasn't started killing those with educations beyond the 8th grade - yet. Although a couple months ago Cruz, Huckabee, and Jingal all cavorted onstage with Pastor Kevin Snow, who is all in favor of killing homosexuals if they don't switch their sexual preferences to match his.
Countless repetition of talking points is the proven method Republicans have used to convince many voters of things that are untrue. While not a majority of all voters, Republicans have, according to Five Thirty Eight, convinced 62% of non-college educated white voters to go along. Demographics are changing, but not fast enough to reshape the 2016 election. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
Democrats will not make much progress until they develop a credible method to elect 60+ Senators and 230+ Representatives in the House. No really new policy can be adopted without legislation, and not a nickel of new taxes can be raised or new monies spent without legislative authorization.
Sadly, the 2016 election offers continued stalemate if either Democrat is elected. If any Republican is elected, expect an accelerated race to the bottom when the Republican majority in the Congress again adopts insane legislation and more SCOTUS justices like Thomas and Alito are nominated.
Democrats will not make much progress until they develop a credible method to elect 60+ Senators and 230+ Representatives in the House. No really new policy can be adopted without legislation, and not a nickel of new taxes can be raised or new monies spent without legislative authorization.
Sadly, the 2016 election offers continued stalemate if either Democrat is elected. If any Republican is elected, expect an accelerated race to the bottom when the Republican majority in the Congress again adopts insane legislation and more SCOTUS justices like Thomas and Alito are nominated.
23
"So how did this happen to the G.O.P.? In a direct sense, I suspect that it has a lot to do with Foxification, the way Republican primary voters live in a media bubble into which awkward facts can’t penetrate. But there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble."
Read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer for an explanation of the direction the GOP has taken.
Read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer for an explanation of the direction the GOP has taken.
26
@Jordan Davies
Mayer's book is very good but so is E. J. Dionne's (Why the right went wrong) which gives a somewhat broader historical perspective on the steady extremist radicalization of the Republican party its philosophical limitations, and the threat is poses to good government.
Mayer's book is very good but so is E. J. Dionne's (Why the right went wrong) which gives a somewhat broader historical perspective on the steady extremist radicalization of the Republican party its philosophical limitations, and the threat is poses to good government.
10
Here we go again with raising taxes. As an economist, the Professor should know that no tax increase or decrease is felt immediately and is difficult to measure. As for empty suits, the Dems have one rumpled one with a socialist in it spouting empty rhetoric and a pant suit that tries to hide disingenuous blabber about her past.
1
@Richard D
Chicago
How about some substance on taxes rather than a critique of fashion choices. Needless to say you'll never provide any probably because math is always the Democrats trump card when it comes to Republican fiscal and monetary policies.
Chicago
How about some substance on taxes rather than a critique of fashion choices. Needless to say you'll never provide any probably because math is always the Democrats trump card when it comes to Republican fiscal and monetary policies.
17
I'm guessing you think there is an eight year lag between changing tax rates, and their effects materializing. So Reagan gets the credit for Clinton's success, Clinton gets blame for W's failure, and W gets credit for Obama's success.
How perfect.
How perfect.
3
You seem to have a clothes fixation.
1
How very strange to find Dr. Krugman arguing that the insularity he bemoans among Republicans is somehow good for Democrats. We must not, for example, talk about single-payer healthcare because some policy wonks say it's a pipe dream. And while it's fine to point out that Republican policy positions are thoroughly corrupted by money, the same must not be said of establishment Democratic presidential candidates (keep quiet, you'll elect Donald Trump!).
What we need instead is someone who does what Democrat do best -- make promises to the base which every Very Serious Person knows the candidate has no intention of keeping while repeating the foreign policy pabulum which beautifies the usual bipartisan rojects of empire. In that respect, Dr. Krugman has chosen his candidate well.
What we need instead is someone who does what Democrat do best -- make promises to the base which every Very Serious Person knows the candidate has no intention of keeping while repeating the foreign policy pabulum which beautifies the usual bipartisan rojects of empire. In that respect, Dr. Krugman has chosen his candidate well.
Ummm, pretty sure Bernie Sanders and his large following are talking about universal health insurance and Sanders is confronting Clinton on Wall St. ties. As for foreign policy, dem discussions are much more thoughtful and knowledgeable than GOP.
13
@jrd
NY
Actually it's US electoral arithmetic and the economic concept of path dependency that says it's a pipe dream. You can talk about it all you want but talk is a poor substitute for performance.
NY
Actually it's US electoral arithmetic and the economic concept of path dependency that says it's a pipe dream. You can talk about it all you want but talk is a poor substitute for performance.
4
@aacat -- Read Dr. Krugman's blog (and this very column). You'l find he has little patience with policy discussions outside the comfort zone of the DNC. And he's miffed, that Sanders is bring this stuff up.
@John -- much the same could be said of Medicare, Civil Rights Act, etc. You'll notice that the U.S. "mainstream" now accommodates right-wing views formerly regarded as beyond the pale. This is thanks to "politics", which Democrats appear to have little interest in, if it means promoting majority views regarded as "left-wing".
@John -- much the same could be said of Medicare, Civil Rights Act, etc. You'll notice that the U.S. "mainstream" now accommodates right-wing views formerly regarded as beyond the pale. This is thanks to "politics", which Democrats appear to have little interest in, if it means promoting majority views regarded as "left-wing".
While the Republicans make fools of themselves with failed ideas and robotic talking points, the Democrats all too often shoot themselves in the foot with inflated airs of moral and intellectual superiority. This year, the self-righteousness of some Sanders supporters is making the anti-Hillary vitriol on the "left" (in scare quotes because some of it, as reported, is really coming from "false flag" right-wing trolls) nothing short of nauseating. There's too much at stake in 2016 for holier-than-thou progressives to hand the White House to a right-wing Republican, the way they did in 2000 when they chose Nader over Gore. To buy into the false idea that Hillary is "no different" from the extremists on the Right is to invite the same result.
30
Gore won! When the votes were actually counted in Florida. The GOP used the Supreme Court to steal the election by stopping the count. I think you are right about the right-wing trolls though. Remember how all the disappointed Hillary voters were going to stay home in 2008? Didn't happen. I will vote for the Democrat in November because I care about my country and myself.
Decades ago, it was the Democrats who thought it would be a good idea to promote diversity in legislatures by gerrymandering districts to guarantee that some minorities would be elected to office. It worked splendidly for that purpose, but there was a distinct downside, namely, that surrounding those minority districts were many other districts that came to elect the most reactionary Republicans, who are now running our legislatures. We need to be more careful what we wish for, because we got it.
8
The most significant factor in giving us a Republican House of Representatives, along with huge money donations, has been gerrymandering to re-draw House districts to make them more Republican. This is an insult to democracy that effectively cancels out the votes of Democrats by pairing them with 1 to 4 safe Republican votes. The fact that we allow either party to jigger our election process for their benefit is a national shame on us as citizens. If we cannot preserve, protect and defend our democracy, we might find we don't deserve to keep it.
9
I think the substance of Marco Rubio's canned lines puts the lie to the claim being floated that he has a "nice disposition," and the canned-ness and repetition of the lines at the debate in the context of being accused of speaking canned lines shows an inability to think on one's feet and an assumption that canned lines are okay. Perhaps we are post-modern about canned lines now, that they can sound canned, rather than being smoothly delivered as if spontaneous and new to a fresh audience that hasn't heard them before.
7
As far as Robotic Rubio goes, may he rest in pieces! However, like a robot, he doesn't think; he merely performs. Republican reaction to the economy is grounded solidly in 19th century thought. Everywhere they cut government, disaster follows. Workers are alienated, teachers are despondent, and people go without medical care to name just a few of the marvels they create. How, then, do they get elected? Maybe Churchill was right when, to paraphrase him, he said if you want to find the weakness in Democracy spend 5 minutes with the average voter. It is frighteningly as if a voter would vote against a candidate on the sole basis of an issue like abortion even if it meant an economic disaster for him and his family. Otherwise, how does one explain folks voting against their best economic interest? Or, another issue like flag waving chauvinism. But hey, they voted against Kerry who was in the Navy in Vietnam claiming that his service was tainted as a commander of a gun boat. The claim was that as a junior lieutenant he pinned medals on himself. As an ex-marine, I can tell you straight out, it doesn't work that way! But that said, one of the reasons Kerry lost was because his service to the country wasn't genuine enough. The other big issue is the anti-science crowd (also known as capitalist barons who take our money and deposit it overseas) firing up the crowd not to believe anything that science teaches like Evolution, and Climate Change.
29
The joke about the the 60s slogan that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem was that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
The precipitate:
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues. Bernie Sanders is much more of a one-note candidate, but at least his signature issue — rising inequality and the effects of money on politics — reflects real concerns." The intellectual universe gets better if the VSP false premise false dichotomies of Party Loyalists are dropped. Same as it ever was. Try
Sanders is a much more honest candidate
or
Sanders is a much more realistic candidate
or
Sanders is a much more experienced executive
or
Sanders is much more focused on the issues and not the mud slinging
and so on. and on and on.
Me, I am not a Sanders supporter. But because of the incurable VSP dishonesty, I will not vote for Hillary.
The precipitate:
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues. Bernie Sanders is much more of a one-note candidate, but at least his signature issue — rising inequality and the effects of money on politics — reflects real concerns." The intellectual universe gets better if the VSP false premise false dichotomies of Party Loyalists are dropped. Same as it ever was. Try
Sanders is a much more honest candidate
or
Sanders is a much more realistic candidate
or
Sanders is a much more experienced executive
or
Sanders is much more focused on the issues and not the mud slinging
and so on. and on and on.
Me, I am not a Sanders supporter. But because of the incurable VSP dishonesty, I will not vote for Hillary.
4
Sorry but I don't see Sanders as realistic when none of his colleagues support him. How does he think he would work with lawmakers? Also Vermont is not reflective of the US. Having your heart in the right place is not enough for me. Hillary won my vote when she sat in front of that committee for over 8 hrs straight with aplomb. It's time for a woman. She's earned it & im sorry but Sanders strikes me as another angry white man even if he is left. Obama delivered a lot. His team could have done a better job communicating that but on the whole I think his presidency will go down in history as being among the best. No one is flawless and no one should be expected to be. But when the left fails as it has done in Argentina and in Brazil for me that is more disappointing and I don't trust that Sanders can do what he promises. Empty promises, I've seen them before so you may not trust Hillary but I don't trust Sanders for that reason. Promises are easy to make that very hard to deliver.
11
We did that with Nader in 2000 - good luck with the GOP if you live in a swing state. Not perfect with Hillary but look what you get from the other side.
If a lot of people think like this get ready for the next war, tax cut & depression.
It really is Ground Hog day!
If a lot of people think like this get ready for the next war, tax cut & depression.
It really is Ground Hog day!
canned Hillary strawmen are worth what they are worth
Sanders is the ranking Member of the Senate budget committee.
I haven't read he doesn't work with his colleagues, to the contrary, he even got things done with McCain.
Hillary locked up party loyalist democrats, who aint gonna endorse an Independent. Doesn't mean they won't work with President Sanders (assuming sanity, or, political need which is more reliable). And, if there is evidence senators like Hillary better than Bernie, I want to know it. Taint true.
Hillary, the throw and see what sticks candidate.
Sanders is the ranking Member of the Senate budget committee.
I haven't read he doesn't work with his colleagues, to the contrary, he even got things done with McCain.
Hillary locked up party loyalist democrats, who aint gonna endorse an Independent. Doesn't mean they won't work with President Sanders (assuming sanity, or, political need which is more reliable). And, if there is evidence senators like Hillary better than Bernie, I want to know it. Taint true.
Hillary, the throw and see what sticks candidate.
Yes, we all understand that Mr. Krugman is a Socialist, and believes the best dollar spent is by government--that our citizens are by-and-large defenseless against the arrayed forces of the "Oligarchs" (or is he calling them "Plutocrats" today?), and that returning to the values of our Constitution--with a limited federal government, is a bad idea. Yes, we get that.
But lets' look at the world he champions--where government actually "takes care of everyone"--where Oligarchs and Plutocrats are punished for success by Liberal elites.
Puerto Rico: essentially bankrupt--begging for a U.S. bailout
Venezuela: A financial disaster--even with the world's largest oil reserves
Cuba: everyone makes the same $23.00 a month--but free health care!
Greece: endlessly begging for bailouts
Most of the EU: financially moribund, slow growth, high unemployment
Then let's look a little closer to home--where Liberals reign supreme:
Flint: under state control--broke and can't even provide clean water.
Detroit: Bankrupt, under state control
Stockton CA: bankrupt
Chicago: racked with violence, financially distressed, teachers want to strike
Most Large (Democrat run) U.S. cities: financially distressed.
And just a little history?
Washington DC: Federal take-over.
NYC: when ruled by Democrats: bankrupt, taken over by NY.
Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried--except, (according to Bernie Sanders), Scandinavia--which is 98% White and has a combined population less than Texas.
But lets' look at the world he champions--where government actually "takes care of everyone"--where Oligarchs and Plutocrats are punished for success by Liberal elites.
Puerto Rico: essentially bankrupt--begging for a U.S. bailout
Venezuela: A financial disaster--even with the world's largest oil reserves
Cuba: everyone makes the same $23.00 a month--but free health care!
Greece: endlessly begging for bailouts
Most of the EU: financially moribund, slow growth, high unemployment
Then let's look a little closer to home--where Liberals reign supreme:
Flint: under state control--broke and can't even provide clean water.
Detroit: Bankrupt, under state control
Stockton CA: bankrupt
Chicago: racked with violence, financially distressed, teachers want to strike
Most Large (Democrat run) U.S. cities: financially distressed.
And just a little history?
Washington DC: Federal take-over.
NYC: when ruled by Democrats: bankrupt, taken over by NY.
Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried--except, (according to Bernie Sanders), Scandinavia--which is 98% White and has a combined population less than Texas.
2
The most Democratic states (like New York) produce a significant percentage of the nation's wealth, allowing the federal government to subsidize conservative, low tax states like Mississippi. Kansas is the perfect example of a failed conservative ideas. The bankrupt cities didn't fail because of liberal ideas; they failed because the economy left them behind. Detroit and Flint suffer mostly from loss of tax base because the automobile industry left -- and the industry didn't leave because of Democratic policies. When they left, the cities remained with high levels of unemployment and a tax base too small to support basic public services. It takes really long-term creative leadership to reverse that kind of problem. Instead of working on that, Republican ideas of governing have made bad situations worse. Let's just say a completely failed water system doesn't make for economic development.
19
This comment reminds me of the story about the Tzar of Russia, who noticed correlation between areas affected by the plague and where doctors set up their clinics. He quickly figured out the best solution was to eliminate the doctors, who are clearly causing the plague.
35
Jesse, some attention to facts would help your post though it would undermine your case.
14
"there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble."
It's the bubble people - the .1% that lives isolated from the rest of society, surrounded by sycophants. The Republican candidates are talking to them, not to us. The Republicans are tripping over each other as they rush to offer more and more to the .1%, hoping for for appreciation in the form of campaign dollars. And as they grovel, they also confabulate various contradictory stories to keep the rest of us distracted.
It's the bubble people - the .1% that lives isolated from the rest of society, surrounded by sycophants. The Republican candidates are talking to them, not to us. The Republicans are tripping over each other as they rush to offer more and more to the .1%, hoping for for appreciation in the form of campaign dollars. And as they grovel, they also confabulate various contradictory stories to keep the rest of us distracted.
11
One of the under appreciated consequences of the steady rightward march of the Republican party which has been going on for a long time is that its leaders have ceded control of political orthodoxy to Fox News and the whole conservative entertainment complex. Step over the doctrinal line on any issue (climate change, fiscal balance, guns) and they will destroy you.
14
There is a not-insignificant percentage of our population that prays from one promise of Rapture and Armageddon to the next, so it should be of no surprise that they gravitate to the political party that makes these promises, no matter how often they fail to come true. Indeed, I would say that the Republican Party is defined not only by broken promises of doomsday, but the commitment to self-fulfilling prophesy.
19
They really don't have a clue that prophesy becomes self-fulfilling when believed.
I read an article recently that said that since the Clinton administration, the US has cut taxes to the tune of 10 trillion dollars. Yes, that's with a T. While there is some evidence that cutting taxes can generate investment, it seems that in out finance capital system those 'investments' all seem to being going toward exotic Wall Street like credit default swaps and currency speculation and very little toward business on Main Street. That's why our economic recovery is so top heavy.
But the amount of money that the state has lost in these tax schemes is staggering. And the amount of economic growth that was supposed to happen has been miniscule. Yet the GOP prescription for a stronger economy is to add billions more to the already 10 trillion dollars in tax cuts.
Why don't these issues come up in the debates? Why not ask how many more billions on top of the trillions must be cut for the economy to improve? Wages are still stagnant, even after all this tax cutting. Our water systems are unsafe, our roads are full of potholes and our cities can't fund basic education. Reagan's plan to 'starve the government beast' has turned into starving the American people.
But the amount of money that the state has lost in these tax schemes is staggering. And the amount of economic growth that was supposed to happen has been miniscule. Yet the GOP prescription for a stronger economy is to add billions more to the already 10 trillion dollars in tax cuts.
Why don't these issues come up in the debates? Why not ask how many more billions on top of the trillions must be cut for the economy to improve? Wages are still stagnant, even after all this tax cutting. Our water systems are unsafe, our roads are full of potholes and our cities can't fund basic education. Reagan's plan to 'starve the government beast' has turned into starving the American people.
53
As the saying goes "If the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail". The Republicans believe that the way that you solve any and all economic and social problems including poverty, racism, sexism, ageism, economic and social mobility, etc. is with tax cuts and getting rid of regulations. They have become akin to a carnival barker holding up a bottle of unknown ingredients in front of a crowd saying that this potion will cure everything from cancer to erectile dysfunction.
24
Thank you. I've been saying the same thing.
The interesting thing about the Rubio-Christie exchange was not that Rubio repeated canned lines 3 times. It is that for the first time the contradiction in the Republican Party's critic of Obama was clearly visible. Prior debates were "take a free swing at Obama" fests. As long as you said something negative about Obama, the audience applauded and then the next candidate took a swing. But the Republican Party has held two opposing views of Obama: 1) he is an incompetent imbecile, and 2) he is an evil mastermind leading the country to socialism.
Because it served his political purposes, Christie attacked Rubio's characterization of Obama as an evil mastermind. This is the first time that one Republican candidate has criticized another on how they denigrate Obama.
Rubio has cast himself as the conservative Obama, so he needs to portray Obama as a mastermind. Christie needs to make the case that first term Senators are not qualified to be President, so Obama is the incompetent imbecile. What does not seem to have dawned on any of the Republican candidates is that Obama will not be on the ballot in November.
Because it served his political purposes, Christie attacked Rubio's characterization of Obama as an evil mastermind. This is the first time that one Republican candidate has criticized another on how they denigrate Obama.
Rubio has cast himself as the conservative Obama, so he needs to portray Obama as a mastermind. Christie needs to make the case that first term Senators are not qualified to be President, so Obama is the incompetent imbecile. What does not seem to have dawned on any of the Republican candidates is that Obama will not be on the ballot in November.
19
Bravo!!!
My wife must choose between the brilliant,competent policy wonk Hillary Clinton and the one note Bernie Sanders.
The problem for my my wife is of course that Bernie's one note is correct money in politics is the reason America no longer works . Growing inequality is a result of money in politics.
Thomas Jefferson warned about "the aristocracy of monied corporations" defying our laws. The reason for the absence of vision in today's GOP is money in politics.
My wife's vote in the primaries will go to whichever Democrat shows not only an understanding the system is broken but a willingness and ability to start changing the system.
Hillary can lock up my wife's support by dismissing her friend Madeline Albright and dismissing her husband William Jefferson Clinton from her campaign. Bernie may be one note but the note is loud and clear and is the only note capable of starting the symphony.
My wife must choose between the brilliant,competent policy wonk Hillary Clinton and the one note Bernie Sanders.
The problem for my my wife is of course that Bernie's one note is correct money in politics is the reason America no longer works . Growing inequality is a result of money in politics.
Thomas Jefferson warned about "the aristocracy of monied corporations" defying our laws. The reason for the absence of vision in today's GOP is money in politics.
My wife's vote in the primaries will go to whichever Democrat shows not only an understanding the system is broken but a willingness and ability to start changing the system.
Hillary can lock up my wife's support by dismissing her friend Madeline Albright and dismissing her husband William Jefferson Clinton from her campaign. Bernie may be one note but the note is loud and clear and is the only note capable of starting the symphony.
16
Its not just one-note, it is very loud. And I do not mean this as a joke. Americans are beginning to realize how much they have lost.
1
The Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 and the Republican party has yet to say what it would put in its place. No Republican candidate has offered an alternative. There's a very good reason for this: they have no new ideas. The Republicans and their media outlets portray everything as a choice between black and white. In an increasingly complex world, they want to retreat to simple answers and the halcyon days of the early 1900's.
19
What is so ironic is that the plan Obama put into place is a Republican idea. But of course, because Obama managed to get it thru Congress, they are now disavowing it. That's why they can't come up with an alternative. There isn't one.
1
Rep. Grayson (D-FL) informed us of the GOP health care plan years ago. It consists of three points. 1. Don't Get Sick. 2. If you do get sick. 3. Die quickly.
"So how did this happen to the G.O.P.? In a direct sense, I suspect that it has a lot to do with Foxification, the way Republican primary voters live in a media bubble into which awkward facts can’t penetrate. But there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble."
Foxification succeeds because it gives people what they want to hear because they already believe it. These people believe this stuff before it's even presented. A certain core of them will always believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Another, far wider core belief is that if we could just get evil "gummint" off our backs, everything would be fine. So it's far easier to convince people that lowering taxes on the rich will free up money to create more jobs. And that balancing the federal budget, even in the midst of a recession, is a prudent thing to do. And that Obamacare is socialism that's sapping the lifeblood of American initiative. It becomes a kind of fugue, because it goes around and around. But it starts with beliefs that are already there.
Tangentially, the most amazing thing is to see people watching Fox News, who, but for Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security would be utterly indigent. They watch Fox News by the hour. I've seen people on Medicaid in nursing homes with their TV sets set to Fox News and grumbling about how Barack Obama, the Democrats, and the federal government are ruining the country.
Foxification succeeds because it gives people what they want to hear because they already believe it. These people believe this stuff before it's even presented. A certain core of them will always believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Another, far wider core belief is that if we could just get evil "gummint" off our backs, everything would be fine. So it's far easier to convince people that lowering taxes on the rich will free up money to create more jobs. And that balancing the federal budget, even in the midst of a recession, is a prudent thing to do. And that Obamacare is socialism that's sapping the lifeblood of American initiative. It becomes a kind of fugue, because it goes around and around. But it starts with beliefs that are already there.
Tangentially, the most amazing thing is to see people watching Fox News, who, but for Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security would be utterly indigent. They watch Fox News by the hour. I've seen people on Medicaid in nursing homes with their TV sets set to Fox News and grumbling about how Barack Obama, the Democrats, and the federal government are ruining the country.
18
"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves" - Eric Hoffer
1
You mean a Nobel Prize winner can't figure out what those deeper reasons are.
Maybe it's just what Bernie Sanders is saying -- that money has taken over our political system in an effort to reshape America as paradise for capitalists adn hell for almost everyone else. For example, who Foxified the Repub Party? Why I believe it's a rich fellow named Rupert Murdoch. Gee that was a tough deduction!
Of course, to admit all that would be to acknowledge that your favored candidate is not really on top of things, in fact may be as much a part of the problem as the solution, given how much of her personal and campaign bank accounts are tagged "with love from Wall Street".
An inconvenient truth, Dr. K?
Maybe it's just what Bernie Sanders is saying -- that money has taken over our political system in an effort to reshape America as paradise for capitalists adn hell for almost everyone else. For example, who Foxified the Repub Party? Why I believe it's a rich fellow named Rupert Murdoch. Gee that was a tough deduction!
Of course, to admit all that would be to acknowledge that your favored candidate is not really on top of things, in fact may be as much a part of the problem as the solution, given how much of her personal and campaign bank accounts are tagged "with love from Wall Street".
An inconvenient truth, Dr. K?
8
There is actually much to be thankful for.
1. This video of the botched introduction to the debate has gone viral: http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-debate-botched-intro-carson-trump-abc...
2. The R's have put out such a bad show that I don't see any (yet) Foxified replies to this Krugman column.
3. Strong support in this comment column for reality based thinking.
Well, I thought there was more.
1. This video of the botched introduction to the debate has gone viral: http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-debate-botched-intro-carson-trump-abc...
2. The R's have put out such a bad show that I don't see any (yet) Foxified replies to this Krugman column.
3. Strong support in this comment column for reality based thinking.
Well, I thought there was more.
6
It is ironic that the political party that babbles on about "political correctness" on everything from immigration to light bulbs to banning Big Gulps, themselves are subject to a very real political machine -- the 24/7 propaganda mills of talk radio and Fox News -- that makes it so they can only speak in a relatively narrow set of soundbites, lest that machine turn on them for not being pitch-perfect in their recitation of the conservatively correct liturgy.
12
Krugman: "...Republicans show no sign of learning anything from experience."
You did a superb job in documenting the learning disability that is so pervasive in the political party once identified as the "party of Lincoln."
However, there is obviously more than a learning disability that is causing the problem. Ideology most certainly is trumping facts, and "Foxification," as you note, should be credited as making a major contribution to the benighted condition afflicting so many voters and candidates.
You did a superb job in documenting the learning disability that is so pervasive in the political party once identified as the "party of Lincoln."
However, there is obviously more than a learning disability that is causing the problem. Ideology most certainly is trumping facts, and "Foxification," as you note, should be credited as making a major contribution to the benighted condition afflicting so many voters and candidates.
24
@Robert Stewart
Chantilly, Virginia
In another of those bizarre paradoxes of American politics "The party of Lincoln" is now controlled by reactionary conservatives from the Southern states of the old Confederacy. Of every ten Republican house members, eight of them come from the South.
Chantilly, Virginia
In another of those bizarre paradoxes of American politics "The party of Lincoln" is now controlled by reactionary conservatives from the Southern states of the old Confederacy. Of every ten Republican house members, eight of them come from the South.
17
Thanks for the reminder. Yes, this is one of "those bizarre paradoxes of American politics." I grew up in Illinois, the "Land of Lincoln" as the auto license plates remind everyone, and lived there many years after graduating from college. Many of my good friends prided themselves in being Republicans, the "party of Lincoln," as they frequently reminded me. In those days, the Republicans in Illinois could work with Democrats and were not addicted to the far right ideology that is trumping facts.
1
It's not just FOX. I'm amazed (usually stunned) at the " intellectual " pundits and their double talk dance usually ricocheting between discredited (eg. tax) policies and the ole standby morals and weren't Reagan great lectures. If Jeb** does make it in the last _________ standing competition, it'll be here you go again time, again.
5
Republicans are not the only people who sound like a broken record. Whenever Democrats talk about abortion it's obvious that they are following a script. Never say "abortionist", say "abortion provider". Never say you "favor abortion", say that you favor "abortion rights" or that you're "pro-choice", as if it was the only choice that people ever made in their lives. Imply that overturning Roe vs Wade would make abortions illegal (in reality, it would simply return the decision making to elected officials, as is the case in the rest of the world) . Never connect the dots between Roe vs Wade and Citizens United, though both were politically motivated decisions designed to circumvent the democratic process.
@charlesbalpha
Atlanta
Overturning Roe would of course make abortion illegal because those elected officials in places like Texas would promptly make it so. The same thing would happen if civil rights were returned to state control. We'd be back to Jim Crow in no time. Apparently you're also so unfamiliar with the English language that you think "favor abortion" and "favor abortion rights" mean the same thing. They don't! They mean something totally different. It's quite possible to not favor abortion but to favor abortion rights.
Atlanta
Overturning Roe would of course make abortion illegal because those elected officials in places like Texas would promptly make it so. The same thing would happen if civil rights were returned to state control. We'd be back to Jim Crow in no time. Apparently you're also so unfamiliar with the English language that you think "favor abortion" and "favor abortion rights" mean the same thing. They don't! They mean something totally different. It's quite possible to not favor abortion but to favor abortion rights.
13
Charles,
I respectfully disagree. Both Hillary and Bernie have laid out concrete proposals to make America a stronger, more vibrant nation.
Republicans? They're still stuck on calling each other names....
I respectfully disagree. Both Hillary and Bernie have laid out concrete proposals to make America a stronger, more vibrant nation.
Republicans? They're still stuck on calling each other names....
1
First of all, no one in the Democratic party favors abortion. It is like the made up term,"pro abortion." There is no such thing. The far right bible whackos would drag a woman, kicking and screaming out of a PP clinic, to save her life and the life of a few cells they call a child, and is actually a zigot, not a person. On the other hand, no one would think of dragging any woman into a PP clinic, and forcing her to abort her pregnancy. You see the difference? If it isn't your baby, then it isn't any of your business. The SC says it is legal, and there is nothing you can do about that.
1
Perhaps, Dr. Krugman, what is so desperately needed at this juncture in the American saga IS a candidate focused on the social issues of our time. HRC is too hawkish with the world's largest arsenal. It is just too easy in the era of an all volunteer army to slide into military adventures. I grew up in the Vietnam era: 58K American's dead, 1.5M Vietnamese dead, the equivalent of a couple trillion in 2016 dollars down the drain and for what? We left and now they are our trading partners. What a waste. Iraq and Afghanistan are not much different. Is it our mission to make the Middle East safe for Israel? We certainly do not have compelling national interests in the region.
So, what if Sanders only foreign policy credits are a wise choice in the matter of Iraq and wise reluctance to spend American blood and treasure? So what if he is not ground up in the minutia of the State Department that he can actually see the forest for the trees. Its time that someone of substance railed against the Kochs, Big Pharma, Wall St bankers, Big Insurance, bankruptcy laws (favored by HRC), military adventurism and host of other interests of the 99%. You say Sanders does not know how to get results. Maybe the "result" we need is 4 years of awakening to the burnt toast that was American dream.
So, what if Sanders only foreign policy credits are a wise choice in the matter of Iraq and wise reluctance to spend American blood and treasure? So what if he is not ground up in the minutia of the State Department that he can actually see the forest for the trees. Its time that someone of substance railed against the Kochs, Big Pharma, Wall St bankers, Big Insurance, bankruptcy laws (favored by HRC), military adventurism and host of other interests of the 99%. You say Sanders does not know how to get results. Maybe the "result" we need is 4 years of awakening to the burnt toast that was American dream.
12
Krugman hits on the differences between the two political parties - bluster and commitment to previously failed economic and foreign policy ideas on the right, while fomenting hate and fear of the other party, and longing for a future that is long past with appeals to nostalgia. The Dems - generally a decent exchange of ideas, and the tossing around of labels like progressive and moderate, and the use of policy differences to support the contentions. Moving forward, taking on complex challenges - that's their way.
On the dark side, the Dems mudslinging wouldn't even make the stage at the GOP debates, let alone register with their base as being anything worth mentioning. You'd never hear HRC or Sanders advocate waterboarding, or glowing sand in the Middle East. Emails, Wall Street ties - so what.
Krugman points out that there are two universes when it comes to this political campaign, and two wholly separate audiences. It's two countries now, really, because the party without any positive ideas can only win with a negative "divide and conquer" approach, gerrymandering and restricting voter rights as they go. The Dems can only win if they can get out of their own way and unite to defeat the party that would return to policies as existed during W's presidency.
The only question is whether reason will prevail?
On the dark side, the Dems mudslinging wouldn't even make the stage at the GOP debates, let alone register with their base as being anything worth mentioning. You'd never hear HRC or Sanders advocate waterboarding, or glowing sand in the Middle East. Emails, Wall Street ties - so what.
Krugman points out that there are two universes when it comes to this political campaign, and two wholly separate audiences. It's two countries now, really, because the party without any positive ideas can only win with a negative "divide and conquer" approach, gerrymandering and restricting voter rights as they go. The Dems can only win if they can get out of their own way and unite to defeat the party that would return to policies as existed during W's presidency.
The only question is whether reason will prevail?
13
The Republicans' ideological rigidity is worse than "a broken record" or a Groundhog Day "time-loop;" it's produced for those who can remember the torturous George W, Bush years, economic rigor mortis. And although President Obama has prevailed in reviving our moribund economy over unified Republican opposition, we still have largely stagnant wages and the largest "income inequality" since just before the Great Depression. This why i, lifelong progressive Democrat, strongly support Bernie Sanders. While you may be right that he is "much more of a one note candidate" than Hillary Clinton who seems to have a policy position for everything, Sen. Sanders at least has the right note. If we cannot and do not get money out of politics, we will like the ancient Romans cede our Republic to a rich political and economic plutocracy that is on the verge of capturing the Presidency with their SuperPACs and "dark money."
11
If "Bernie Sanders" did not change one word of what he says, not ONE word, but was "Bernadette Sanders" he would be booed off every stage and debate.
4
Ernest,
Your statement is not grounded in fact, but appears to be a product of your imagination.
Your statement is not grounded in fact, but appears to be a product of your imagination.
1
You are so very right, Ernest Lamonica. The ongoing demonization of Hillary Clinton is 25% substantive critique (hawkishness, corporate ties) and 75% rejection of her strength, brilliance, and resilience as a woman.
2
I can't eviscerate the GOP as well as Socrates but there are some basic underlying mantra like philosophical drivers with the GOP that affects all Americans.
1. Every man for himself. There is no society to be concerned about, just a bunch of individuals. Thatcher ism.
2. Buyer Beware! If you purchase something that proves harmful to you, it is your stupid fault. Regulation is bad, bad, bad.
3. Government is bad, bad, bad. We don't need no taxes, except for the war machine of course.
A study published in the Times today points out a fact that white, middle aged Americans are now dying at an alarming rate from various contributing factors. Alarming I suppose because they are white. Now we can get upset.
1. Every man for himself. There is no society to be concerned about, just a bunch of individuals. Thatcher ism.
2. Buyer Beware! If you purchase something that proves harmful to you, it is your stupid fault. Regulation is bad, bad, bad.
3. Government is bad, bad, bad. We don't need no taxes, except for the war machine of course.
A study published in the Times today points out a fact that white, middle aged Americans are now dying at an alarming rate from various contributing factors. Alarming I suppose because they are white. Now we can get upset.
15
Really, one would think the Republicans would worry about losing their base at an increased rate.
It comes to this for me. And I note it by way of a popular quote attributed to Einstein:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
I'm not clear on the insanity but I'm pretty sure there aren't any Einstein's in the Republican party. They are, as was (also) popularized in an old Tom Hanks movie, stupid is as stupid does.
So it goes in the clown circus that goes by the name of the American political process.
John~
American Net'Zen
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
I'm not clear on the insanity but I'm pretty sure there aren't any Einstein's in the Republican party. They are, as was (also) popularized in an old Tom Hanks movie, stupid is as stupid does.
So it goes in the clown circus that goes by the name of the American political process.
John~
American Net'Zen
4
That's good, but you gave Hilary a pass when she brought up "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" again last week.
Thank you. I'm appalled that the NYT endorsed John Kasich without even bothering to mention that Kasich's, er, plan to end deficits starts with what would be one of the largest tax cuts for the rich in history (not to mention more Defense spending). Even the Times editorial board has obviously set the bar for GOP candidates so low that when they repeal arithmetic it's treated the same as when they vow to do nothing about a climate crisis: well, these are Republicans, after all. Glad at least one writer at the Times isn't that jaded.
13
Are those full time jobs? Clinton cut taxes on capital gains, and rearranged the tax treatment of primary and secondary homes.
If anything Krugman is consistent in his revisionist history. Obamanomics has given us deficits, zero economic growth, and falling incomes. It will get worst as the deficits have started to climb again. A Keynesians' dream, only without the economic prosperity for the masses.
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues."
And therein lies the problem Mr. Krugman, nobody likes her. And you know what, I've never seen her without reading cards, or pre-arranged questions. She has stomped off more pressers than Rubio has been to.
She may not survive Sanders, and she certainly will not get passed the FBI. The people are angry, they don't like Obamanomics.
If anything Krugman is consistent in his revisionist history. Obamanomics has given us deficits, zero economic growth, and falling incomes. It will get worst as the deficits have started to climb again. A Keynesians' dream, only without the economic prosperity for the masses.
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues."
And therein lies the problem Mr. Krugman, nobody likes her. And you know what, I've never seen her without reading cards, or pre-arranged questions. She has stomped off more pressers than Rubio has been to.
She may not survive Sanders, and she certainly will not get passed the FBI. The people are angry, they don't like Obamanomics.
Facts matter
First of all there has been GDP growth in the United States while President Obama was the President.
Secondly the Bush/Obama stimulus saved the economy in 2008-08
Thirdly the Obama package for the auto industry saved thousands and thousands of jobs with 100% of the funds paid back
Fourthly the deficit has been reduced substantially during the 2 Obama administrations, and health care cost increases have been moderated
Finally the US economy has benefitted from 8 million new jobs while President Obama has served as President
If you are going to be silly and tie the performance of the economy to a single elected official at least acknowledge facts...facts do matter and there is of course no such thing as "Obamanomics"...just economics
First of all there has been GDP growth in the United States while President Obama was the President.
Secondly the Bush/Obama stimulus saved the economy in 2008-08
Thirdly the Obama package for the auto industry saved thousands and thousands of jobs with 100% of the funds paid back
Fourthly the deficit has been reduced substantially during the 2 Obama administrations, and health care cost increases have been moderated
Finally the US economy has benefitted from 8 million new jobs while President Obama has served as President
If you are going to be silly and tie the performance of the economy to a single elected official at least acknowledge facts...facts do matter and there is of course no such thing as "Obamanomics"...just economics
9
Falling incomes for the lower and lower middle classes began long before the Obama administration. Check your facts.
2
Hello "Hawk." I don't know if you know what a "deficit" is or not - or if you realize that you have stated the exact opposite of the fact - "Obama" (actually the US Economy) has, in fact, reduced the deficit continuously, now to it's lowest point since.. well.. just before team GOP got done blowing it up last time around with unfunded wars, trillion dollar tax cuts to the wealthy, and eight years of regulatory neglect by the executive.
You, Sir, are living in a figment of someone else's imagination.
You, Sir, are living in a figment of someone else's imagination.
5
Paul, the Republicans stick to their well-worn & discredited economic policies because they are the handmaidens of capital- corporations & extreme wealth. & yet, half the voters somehow believe that their best interests align with the Republicans. In Republican debates you might as well adhere closely to talking points honed on the stump. If by some miracle, the Republican debates actually became worthy of the word debate, which Republican would repudiate the worn out theory of trickle down?
If we know that the progressive proposals of candidate Obama fell far short of its goal due to the harsh realities of being president, then we know stump rhetoric will never see full fruition as policy when elected president. Then why endorse Ms. Clinton who is already main stream & wedded to current Obama policy? By endorsing & voting for Mr. Sanders, the starting point is at least very progressive & far to the left so the harsh realities of slamming into the wall of a non-functioning Republican party may yield actual policy still to the left in the process of politics as compromise. To endorse Hillary is to concede nothing will change by voting anyways. What happened to the Paul Krugman of 2008 that favored John Edwards over Hillary for being the most progressive of all the Democratic primary candidates? Sometime in or about 2010 in your blog you expressed regrets over not having served in the higher echelons of the federal government. Has Hillary promised you anything?
If we know that the progressive proposals of candidate Obama fell far short of its goal due to the harsh realities of being president, then we know stump rhetoric will never see full fruition as policy when elected president. Then why endorse Ms. Clinton who is already main stream & wedded to current Obama policy? By endorsing & voting for Mr. Sanders, the starting point is at least very progressive & far to the left so the harsh realities of slamming into the wall of a non-functioning Republican party may yield actual policy still to the left in the process of politics as compromise. To endorse Hillary is to concede nothing will change by voting anyways. What happened to the Paul Krugman of 2008 that favored John Edwards over Hillary for being the most progressive of all the Democratic primary candidates? Sometime in or about 2010 in your blog you expressed regrets over not having served in the higher echelons of the federal government. Has Hillary promised you anything?
5
Paul Cohen: Do you really think that Bernie can govern the country? There's the rub. The moderate Obama faced the impermeable Republican wall in Congress. I feel that Bernie would find even worse.
Virtually the entire Middle East and Africa are at war or in shambles; China, Korea, and Japan are rattling sabers; Russia has reverted back to a dictatorship and has started the road back to military recovery; the EU is cracking faster than the Berlin Wall; the Global Economy bubble is bursting and the IMF is rushing to bail out banker's bond holdings at tax payers expense before the countries go bankrupt; South America is as hopeless as it ever was and will be.
Through all this, the US, to obfuscate the fact that 99% of its population is in an extremely insecure economic condition owing to its tax dollars going to pay for all of the above, is in a political war of words regarding Gays, Immigration, Religion, Guns, Common Core, and grazing right!!!
And Krugman's solution for all is a policy wonk?
Through all this, the US, to obfuscate the fact that 99% of its population is in an extremely insecure economic condition owing to its tax dollars going to pay for all of the above, is in a political war of words regarding Gays, Immigration, Religion, Guns, Common Core, and grazing right!!!
And Krugman's solution for all is a policy wonk?
2
What else do they have, Paul?
My argument is that the R's are the burgermeister-meisterburgers. In time their brand of crazy will be forgotten.
My argument is that the R's are the burgermeister-meisterburgers. In time their brand of crazy will be forgotten.
5
They don't call for tax cuts because they really think they stimulate the economy, they call for them because the people who pay for their campaigns want to pay less taxes. They don't attack Obamacare because they think it's bad, they attack it because they've based a whole political movement on opposing government provided health care, no matter what the facts are.
They don't say these kinds of things because they're stupid. They say them because they think we are.
They don't say these kinds of things because they're stupid. They say them because they think we are.
23
No - They say these things because they know 50% of the population has below average IQ, and that common folk are easily misled by rhetorical fallacy. They don't think we're stupid on the left, they know they can sucker enough below average intellects to fall for a total contrivance based on contra-facts; what I refer to as 180 degree misstatement of fact. They also realize that average people like to be told they're exceptional *because* of their fear, loathing, and cultural mediocrity.
The GOP realized a long time ago that this is a winning strategy, because one thing below average intellects hate to hear, is that they're being suckered.
The GOP realized a long time ago that this is a winning strategy, because one thing below average intellects hate to hear, is that they're being suckered.
When you read remarks from respected liberals besmirching Krugman's reputation, honor and track record, you know they are getting their views in pretty much the same way Hitler's propaganda minister got them-listening to people shopping in the supermarkets. Volume is not the same as intellect.
4
"I’d say broken-record performance, but that would be showing my age."
I'd say malfunctioning robot is closer to the mark anyway.
He reminds me of the movie Total Recall, when Arnold was wearing a robotic speaking head mask that malfunctioned and spouted pre-recorded nonsense answers to the examining officer.
I'd say malfunctioning robot is closer to the mark anyway.
He reminds me of the movie Total Recall, when Arnold was wearing a robotic speaking head mask that malfunctioned and spouted pre-recorded nonsense answers to the examining officer.
8
The broken-record trope may have a future now that vinyl is coming back.
Still disagree that Mr. Sanders is a one-note candidate. The matter which he correctly highlights (economic inequality) carries in its wake all manner of other issues: racial unfairness, lopsided support of the military-industrial complex (which may well have been behind the imbecilic Iraq invasion), and lopsided support of Big Pharma and Big Ag, as well as gender bias on the job front and overly cozy relations with the likes of Goldman Sachs. The Clintons are old and corrupt. By contrast, Mr. Sanders is 74, inspirational, and on target. (My wife and I [respectively 76 and 70 year old) were so touched by Bill Clinton's recent attacks and by Gloria Steinem's and Madeline Albright's campaigning that we sent off another check to "Bernie 2016."
We do agree with you about the GOP.
We do agree with you about the GOP.
6
"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
- Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany
- Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany
18
It is true that the Republican candidates are scripted to outdated doctrines. But your point that Hillary is a policy wonk is also myopic. Her foreign policy proposals are not that different than Republicans. Take Syria, she wants a no fly zone. While this sounds like a reasoned thoughtful response compared to "glowing sands", it really is a recipe for potential clash with the Russians, Turkish involvement, etc. One can be lauded by the pundocracy as a wonk, like Paul Ryan, with seeming command of the facts, but come up with terrible solutions. That's the judgement thing that Bernie referred to. In Hillary's judgement, Ed Snowden needs to return home and face trial for treason, that reflects her judgement that the revelation that Presidents (Bush and Obama) had unilaterally expanded the national security state at the cost of Americans' privacy and that was legal and right. Wrong judgement in my opinion. Look at our Supreme Court justices, Scalia is informed but his judgement and discernment is seriously flawed and skewed. Republicans are caricatures of their flawed logic. Hillary dresses hers up with rationales, but she still serves Wall St. interests and military interventions in places we should be very cautious of intruding (witness Libya). She is a broken record for the establishment as well.
6
Bernie Sanders one note is about having to focus on this problem of inequality above all else. We are losing our democracy because of it. His "one note" has a lot of associated tones to it as well because when you look at the reasons for inequality you come up with all sorts of issues that need to be dealt with from campaign finance, to education, to environmental concerns. The "one note" is a way for people, the electorate to focus, to see an underlying problem that connects to everything, including our security and our place in the world.
16
I'm curious if Mr. Krugman thinks that the Republicans haven't said anything new what about Donald Trump's raising the issues of illegal immigration, bad trade deals, getting rid of the backlog at the VA, negotiating drug prices for Medicare, etc?
Democrats certainly are comfortable supporting illegals for citizenship and bad trade deals that cost American jobs. And in the area of foreign policy, with Obama's multiple failures, criticism of the Republicans is laughable.
And finally, Marco and Hillary are cut from the same cloth. They are establishment candidates that will say and do anything to get elected. There isn't a genuine bone in either of their bodies.
Democrats certainly are comfortable supporting illegals for citizenship and bad trade deals that cost American jobs. And in the area of foreign policy, with Obama's multiple failures, criticism of the Republicans is laughable.
And finally, Marco and Hillary are cut from the same cloth. They are establishment candidates that will say and do anything to get elected. There isn't a genuine bone in either of their bodies.
4
Except for Mr. Clinton is connected to our objective reality and deals with facts, data and history better, way better, than Mr. Rubio.
Please sir, name a single free trade agreement that any Republican has stood against?
1
Hillary is just the kind of tough, hardened, knife-fighting, street brawler we need to take on the likes of the Koch brothers or Vladimir Putin.
Bernie is an elderly idealist, who believes his own mantra. It will take him two long years, as it did Obama, to learn what he can and can't do. As evidence, look how long it took him to understand what was really going on at the VA – as reported recently by The Times: http://tinyurl.com/j4mzv9e .
By then he'll be 78, an age when we all slow down. Will he have the energy to regroup and start all over again with a new plan, even if he remains in good health? We can't afford another presidential learning curve.
Whether it's Bernie or Hillary in the Oval Office, not much big legislation will likely pass the Republican Congress. Most of the action will be in the foreign policy arena. Can anyone with a straight face claim that Bernie is ready for the mad provocations of Vlad Putin or Ali Khamenei?
Hillary may have problems of authenticity and trustworthiness. Bernie, who believes his own false promises, has a huge problem of credibility. Older voters have seen this movie before, and simply don't believe him. Myself, I find his detachment from reality scary. I'll take Hillary.
Bernie is an elderly idealist, who believes his own mantra. It will take him two long years, as it did Obama, to learn what he can and can't do. As evidence, look how long it took him to understand what was really going on at the VA – as reported recently by The Times: http://tinyurl.com/j4mzv9e .
By then he'll be 78, an age when we all slow down. Will he have the energy to regroup and start all over again with a new plan, even if he remains in good health? We can't afford another presidential learning curve.
Whether it's Bernie or Hillary in the Oval Office, not much big legislation will likely pass the Republican Congress. Most of the action will be in the foreign policy arena. Can anyone with a straight face claim that Bernie is ready for the mad provocations of Vlad Putin or Ali Khamenei?
Hillary may have problems of authenticity and trustworthiness. Bernie, who believes his own false promises, has a huge problem of credibility. Older voters have seen this movie before, and simply don't believe him. Myself, I find his detachment from reality scary. I'll take Hillary.
37
" Most of the action will be in the foreign policy arena" which is exactly why I'll be voting for Bernie. I don't expect results domestically given the republican house. It's beyond our borders where I trust Bernie's instincts much more than Hillary's.
6
A vote for Hillary is a vote for the 'Same-old, same-old'. A vote for Bernie is a vote to take Money out of Politics.
It is not the "older voters" who will live with the legislation, Supreme Court decisions, and executive actions that are taken by the government. It is the young voters 18 to 36 who will exist in the reality of future governments.
Benjamin Franklin who was still wise, but whose age hobbled him, had someone else read his letter urging ratification of the Constitution: "I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig'd, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment, and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others....But tho' many private Persons think almost as highly of their own Infallibility, as of that of their Sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French Lady, who in a little Dispute with her Sister, said, I don't know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that's always in the right.
The future of our country is in the hands of those young voters. I suggest that their views overpower our own. Sen Sanders has recognized it, and as one of those older voters, I must bear this in mind. I'm voting for Bernie.
Benjamin Franklin who was still wise, but whose age hobbled him, had someone else read his letter urging ratification of the Constitution: "I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig'd, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment, and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others....But tho' many private Persons think almost as highly of their own Infallibility, as of that of their Sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French Lady, who in a little Dispute with her Sister, said, I don't know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that's always in the right.
The future of our country is in the hands of those young voters. I suggest that their views overpower our own. Sen Sanders has recognized it, and as one of those older voters, I must bear this in mind. I'm voting for Bernie.
I don't see anything surprising at all in Professor Krugman's statement: "The truth is that the whole G.O.P. seems stuck in a time loop, saying and doing the same things over and over."
The reason the GOP stays rigidly on the 'cut taxes' line is simply because that is what the majority of voters want to hear. Being increasingly self-focused, who wouldn't want a lower tax bill?
And please note: when proclaiming the value of cutting taxes, candidates never, never say what services will be cut as well.
Hopefully, at least some voters will not buy this. They know from experience that if your revenue is cut, your ability to spend on the things you want and think important, decreases accordingly.
The reason the GOP stays rigidly on the 'cut taxes' line is simply because that is what the majority of voters want to hear. Being increasingly self-focused, who wouldn't want a lower tax bill?
And please note: when proclaiming the value of cutting taxes, candidates never, never say what services will be cut as well.
Hopefully, at least some voters will not buy this. They know from experience that if your revenue is cut, your ability to spend on the things you want and think important, decreases accordingly.
11
"And please note: when proclaiming the value of cutting taxes, candidates never, never say what services will be cut as well."
That was Rick Perry's problem.
That was Rick Perry's problem.
I totally agree with PK's analysis of GOP communication tactics. It's not hard to see through this propaganda. What is harder for me is understanding why the GOP message machine is so effective. Yes, misinformation may be swallowed some of the time, but can Fox and the GOP really fool so many Americans all of the time? Is it because fear-mongering and racial profiling are self-fulfilling activities? It seems that what is most exceptional about Americans is their credulity when presented with this kind of nonsense.
20
The democrat message machine is saddled with a similar problem - the dowager who would be President fighting off the geezer who would be a disaster. Bill claiming Bernie is sexist? Pot calling the kettle!
Sanders a one note candidate?
Krugman cannot swallow that like republicans, democrats are also in revolt against all politics of the military-industrial-financial complex. He watched with glee the rise of Trump and correctly recognized that he soars because he actually wants to do what GOP promised but had no intent of delivering. Ironic that Krugman didn't notice that on the Dem side the situation is exactly the same: VSPs professional left pundits thought they could milk the vague promises for years and now when Bernie showed up and threatens to actually deliver you guys are terrified. And you are right: will the NYT survive this election after how they covered it? Will PK's credibility?
Krugman cannot swallow that like republicans, democrats are also in revolt against all politics of the military-industrial-financial complex. He watched with glee the rise of Trump and correctly recognized that he soars because he actually wants to do what GOP promised but had no intent of delivering. Ironic that Krugman didn't notice that on the Dem side the situation is exactly the same: VSPs professional left pundits thought they could milk the vague promises for years and now when Bernie showed up and threatens to actually deliver you guys are terrified. And you are right: will the NYT survive this election after how they covered it? Will PK's credibility?
8
All well and good, but it does little good to talk among ourselves. How is the message - or facts - to be packaged so that it'll be read and understood by the GOP? All voters and politicians, to some extent, are guilty of living behind walls or in self-selected bubbles. Is the GOP voter wall so massive that these kinds of simple facts directly relating to self and national interest simply cannot get through? Without some willingness to hear and absorb other information than the toxic Fox and related talk radio black flag vitriol there can be no public debate and opportunities for improvement will be nonexistent or severely limited.
13
@Mike: It may be hopeless to get to the true believers in the GOP, but there MUST be some rational thinkers there and among independents.
The key is to get them to VOTE. There is no rallying cry for progressives.
The key is to get them to VOTE. There is no rallying cry for progressives.
1
I agree, Grey, a rallying cry is necessary. It needs to be something that bespeaks a tangible outcome rather than an elusive ideation. In fact, this is the very dilemma addressed in several articles or essays. While Mr. Sanders has an appealing cry many consider its achievement unrealistic, and Mrs. Clinton's cry suggests trust and experience that translates to many as "establishment" and "same old, same old" with a somewhat tepid sense of potential. Maybe it's too early to blend their messages but when the nominee is chosen he or she should immediately roll out a cry that embraces all who lean toward the Democratic candidate.
1
Rubio's robo remarks surfaced two GOP debates ago. It took all the time for fellow debaters to finally pounce on the senator and show him for the empty suit he is. Talk about an empty suit, standing next to Rubio was a much larger suit filled with nothing but gas, a gas that has a stench to it. What's of greater concern is not the robo candidate or the megalomaniac, but the crowd of supporters who give no thought to what a future would be like with either of these two in the president's chair. Fear and anger obliterates all rational thinking. Their thinking may be compared to one who purchases a lottery ticket and spends the time envisioning the joy in spending all that wealth, until the day the numbers are announced.
11
The GOP speaks to a base with its own set of facts and truths which are impervious to reality testing. If one of their candidates loses an election, they are sure that it was "voter fraud," which they believe is "rampant." If unemployment numbers are below 5% they know that it is really more like 20%, but that the mainstream media is hiding the "facts." In that world, it is true that the economy has gotten much worse under Mr. Obama; it is a "known fact" that Mr. Obama secretly plans to bring in more than 100,000 Muslims into the country in the next year and that he is secretly training militia of "illegals" to come and attack right-winger folks in their homes.
Since the base operates with its own set of unchanging facts, it is easy for candidates to continue to offer their own unchanging set of solutions. It all happens within the bubble, regardless of what happens outside in the wider world.
Since the base operates with its own set of unchanging facts, it is easy for candidates to continue to offer their own unchanging set of solutions. It all happens within the bubble, regardless of what happens outside in the wider world.
21
Reply to Anne-Marie Hislop
The left wing of the Democrat also lives in a bubble, with "its own set of facts and truths which are impervious to reality testing." See my comment at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/opinion/the-time-loop-party.html#permi...
The left wing of the Democrat also lives in a bubble, with "its own set of facts and truths which are impervious to reality testing." See my comment at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/opinion/the-time-loop-party.html#permi...
2
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch whose brainchild is FOX news has already been deemed in Britain not fit to run a major international media company on ethics and moral grounds. While there is a need for differing political views, when one watches Fox News, it is the most negative of propaganda machines. I blame them for the many false ideas that people have about the simplest of facts, e.g. the President is muslim, a socialist. You can never find the truth at Fox News, it has been the most divisive and negative lying machine in our country and has done a great deal of harm by artfully spreading lies...not the work of journalism for sure. Murdoch has severely damaged our political system.
A first step toward reversing the degradation of our political discourse with the likes of FOX news, the WSJ, and the NYP would be to put the Rupert Murdoch Lie Machine out of business, via the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
A first step toward reversing the degradation of our political discourse with the likes of FOX news, the WSJ, and the NYP would be to put the Rupert Murdoch Lie Machine out of business, via the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
33
Once, a few years ago, the Fox News website had a good story about the entertainment-ification of church liturgy. A stopped 24-hour clock is right once a day.
Dr. K. Is on the right track indicting Fox News, but I'll go a little further. This is a consequence of right-wing talk radio. Listen to them some time, and you'll hear the core supporters of Trump or Cruz. They quite often speak about the majority of Americans supporting extreme right wing positions on ACA, guns, voter fraud, just to mention a few. And the belief that it is a majority of Americans is the key. Shock-jocks are saying what their extreme supporters want to hear, and those with a counter opinion are shouted off the air. It has become an echo chamber of extremist and they convinced themselves through sheer volume that they are the majority of Americans. Another key to their success is to convince their followers that everyone else is lying to them. Thus the party of science denial is born. Talk radio has emboldened outlets such as Fox News and they are now adding to the problem.
709
A hundred years hence if anyone is writing (or reading) history, there are two names that will figure prominently in the demise of the US --- if not all of Western civilization: Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh. It is not so much that their lies have poisoned the political and social milieu as they have created an alternate reality so that with their acolytes (addicts?) no meaningful dialogue or constructive compromise is possible --- because there is no common consensus on what is real. A visit to any website such as National Review or Red State, or even AOL news, will show you how extreme that condition is.
But the origin of this problem lies deeper, with the sainted Ronaldus Magnus (Reagan) whose administration cancelled the Fairness Doctrine and allowed the publicly owned airwaves to be hijacked by the "malefactors of great wealth" against which we were warned by another Republican, T. Roosevelt.
I begin to the fear that the classical philosophers who distrusted democracy may have been right.How does the ""people" of Lincoln from become the mob (which is the original meaning of "demos")? By constantly feeding them lies.
But the origin of this problem lies deeper, with the sainted Ronaldus Magnus (Reagan) whose administration cancelled the Fairness Doctrine and allowed the publicly owned airwaves to be hijacked by the "malefactors of great wealth" against which we were warned by another Republican, T. Roosevelt.
I begin to the fear that the classical philosophers who distrusted democracy may have been right.How does the ""people" of Lincoln from become the mob (which is the original meaning of "demos")? By constantly feeding them lies.
13
jim - And the prime reason that talk radio has gotten away with the lies/appealing to prejudices of the lowest common denominator is because the FCC Fairness Doctrine which guaranteed equal/fair time to present the opposite side in arguments over the airwaves was repealed under St. Ray-gun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
so that now there is an entire generation who has grown up with no propaganda alternative(s) to the right wing spewing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
so that now there is an entire generation who has grown up with no propaganda alternative(s) to the right wing spewing.
12
All those issues are intangibles. The key to uderstanding this is the very tangible...gun. Bringing out the Power Projector...sitting with it, running the fingers over its blued steel mass...firing it with sustained roar till it's hot to the touch. All this is visceral, tactile interaction, and easily manipulated by the oligarchy through the absolutist NRA into an across the board posture of anti-governmental activism Herded by Fox and right-radio, this base is easily wielded against anything that the oligarchy (Big Carbon?) desired. You fon't reason eith this crowd.
Republicans are quoting from the same litany ( with Trumpophantic revisions ); the Democrats have two, one is the old playbook updated by ardent polling ( and who says a women cannot represent the establishment these days ?), and the other is an even older text which had been long suppressed until re- invigorated by a grey-haired advocate.
Of these three texts only one claims dramatic change and there-in lies its appeal to those held down by the current politics.
Of these three texts only one claims dramatic change and there-in lies its appeal to those held down by the current politics.
1
Why should Chicken Little ever stop claiming the sky is falling when it always gets the results he wants. When a behavior results in a reward it will be repeated.
For Democrats, when their guy isn't getting the job done, they'll vote for the Republican, see Ronald Reagan. For Republicans, when their guy isn't getting the job done they blame the Democrats.
For Democrats, when their guy isn't getting the job done, they'll vote for the Republican, see Ronald Reagan. For Republicans, when their guy isn't getting the job done they blame the Democrats.
13
Amazing isn't it, a group of people spout nonsense and yet are considered viable candidates to lead the country. The only thing I will say about the Hill versus Bernie(not the major theme here) is that it is too bad Bernie wasn't moved to run in 2008. That was his point of entry where he definitely could have done some good. Now there is too much muddle. He would not have sold out like Barack did. On the other side, criticizing this bunch is like shooting cat fish in a fish bowl. In other words you cannot miss.
3
Eight years ago, Bernie Sanders was only 67. That's old, but not as ancient as 75 -- he would have had a real shot.
Where the heck was he? I do not even think he was considered as a VP choice.
Where the heck was he? I do not even think he was considered as a VP choice.
What sort of Motivated Reasoning is that? BO offered a bipartisan health care reform designed by conservatives and tested by a republican governor, and they fought/obstructed him from day one. And you think a "socialist" would have gotten MORE out of the GOP? I'll have what you're smoking.
1
It was startling. It came into full view, for slow me.
Senator Robo has apparently long been a fully developed Opportunist, and fully full of lies.
Senator Robo has apparently long been a fully developed Opportunist, and fully full of lies.
10
Micro Robo
Please stop calling them the GOP. They are old, but they are not grand.
12
That's why I call them Republicans, or Repubs for short (not Rethugs; that's childish). Still, I have fun either inventing or collecting from others alternative meanings of GOP, such as God's Own Plutocrats, Greedy One Percent, or Grand Obstructionist Party. Just so no one thinks I consider them the Grand Old Party.
3
Some prefer GOTP.
Repetition is just an indicator of the commitment Republican hopefuls share. It is a commitment which resonates with millions of Americans committed to their fears and prejudices. Any reasonable American should be committed should he consider voting for any of these candidates.
8
Marco appears to be a male version of Sarah Palin. Give him 30 index cards to memorize and send him out there.
10
Like TelePrompTer Barack?
What your op-ed piece makes clear, PK, is that the Republican candidates have never embraced the wisdom of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
15
Republican policy is less a time-loop then a damn the torpedoes full steam ahead attitude. Republicans are prisoners to their ideology. They are like Sisyphus collectively moving that boulder, in this case failed and discredited policies of tax cuts and trickle down economics, up the mountain and watching it roll down again, or here their programs constant failure. However, unlike Sisyphus, Republicans do not consider themselves prisoners, but rather fighters of freedom against a recalcitrant boulder and skeptical gods. Even Sisyphus learned he was in a hopeless cause, but the power of ideology blinds Republicans to their failure. The end result is that Republicans could care less whether their programs work or not.
320
The entire Tea Party/GOP has no interest whatsoever in "making government work". They want exactly the opposite- to make democratic, representative government- which they hate- completely dysfunctional. It is pure plutocratic-funded anarcho-capitalism, waving flags and crosses as it destroys every element of middle class prosperity and security. And the simpletons keep supporting their own destruction.
3
Republicans are the aggressive pushers of policies and propaganda designed to enrich global billionaires at any cost. The Democratic Party is designed to absorb and deflect the anger of the people. They always manage to dredge up enough support to make up for any Republicans that balk against the massive give aways and cynical uses of military power like the Iraq War.
I will vote for Sanders despite his caucusing for the democrats, because we need a political revolution, and more importantly a social evolution.
But I will not really on him to get things done in the White House. Once in he will look like part of the system Only the Movement of Movements can keep their feet to the fire. Join the revolution.
Viva La Evolution.
I will vote for Sanders despite his caucusing for the democrats, because we need a political revolution, and more importantly a social evolution.
But I will not really on him to get things done in the White House. Once in he will look like part of the system Only the Movement of Movements can keep their feet to the fire. Join the revolution.
Viva La Evolution.
Sisyphus had full-time employment, no?
Maybe the GOP is indeed shooting for a similar outcome.
Maybe the GOP is indeed shooting for a similar outcome.
I agree about "Foxification" and the GOP fantasy world, but aren't the Democrats stuck in their own fantasy, repeatedly giving us "practical" candidates like the Clintons, who fall over themselves trying to prove they can compromise with the insane? Could this be the "Times-ification" of the Democrats--the knee-jerk false balance that pretends to be objective but is really just another form of triangulation & pandering?
5
I don't understand your point.
I'm sure the Republicans are enjoying the increased animosity between Sanders and Clinton supporters. Just stop it!
Let the two candidates explain their positions and explain why they disagree where they do. They should also make clear how much they respect each other, agree on so many things about which they totally disagree with the Republicans, and would support the other if he/she wins.
Let's force journalists to ask good questions, not about "character" -- which of course is best demonstrated than talked about, or about the nature of one's opponent's campaign (and stop Bill Clinton from sleazing the process), and instead get Bernie to talk more about his foreign policy and Hillary about the core of her beliefs. These are what each has been avoiding, and which would fill-out our understanding. Maybe also a bit more particulars about what they each have done during their political careers -- not generalities, but a list of specific goals and accomplishments (and maybe even methods).
Let the two candidates explain their positions and explain why they disagree where they do. They should also make clear how much they respect each other, agree on so many things about which they totally disagree with the Republicans, and would support the other if he/she wins.
Let's force journalists to ask good questions, not about "character" -- which of course is best demonstrated than talked about, or about the nature of one's opponent's campaign (and stop Bill Clinton from sleazing the process), and instead get Bernie to talk more about his foreign policy and Hillary about the core of her beliefs. These are what each has been avoiding, and which would fill-out our understanding. Maybe also a bit more particulars about what they each have done during their political careers -- not generalities, but a list of specific goals and accomplishments (and maybe even methods).
19
In other words, follow the Reagan doctrine: Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow party member.
The rule still holds true: any Democrat is better than any Republican.
1
What a spot on post! Thank you.
In contrast to the Republican baloney fest, if you look at the town hall meeting the Democrats had last week, you will see Hillary Clinton answering multiple questions that called for more than a canned answer, in depth. She explained her Iraq war authorization vote, that language in it gave UN inspector Hans Blix the chance to complete his inspections for WMD and the decision to proceed with the war hinged on the outcome, then the Bush administration pulled the plug early and went ahead with the invasion anyway. She also gave answers about her faith and her desire to help the disadvantaged that brought A.B. Stoddard on the Fox News analysis to comment that, except for the question about a well paid for speech to Goldman Sachs, she was the best she had ever seen her. Bernie Sanders has the same old same old a lot, why he can get away with it and Rubio can't is simple, he is telling the truth, Rubio is telling half truths and flat out lies. There isn't much I like about Chris Christie, but the fact that he called Rubio out on his repetition, was like Phil the weatherman coming to his epiphany, and his breaking the paradigm Rubio was trying to impose was the best moment of the debate.
411
The idea that Clinton fell for Bush's "I just need a negotiating chip" while tens of millions of people hit the streets around the world to denounce it, shows she does not have the judgement to be president.
One problem with Hillary's Town Hall response about Iraq. If her objection came when the Junior Bush Reign of Error (TM) changed so very early in the process, why did she not raise that objection for many years? Like the vote for the invasion, she went along with the mistake, calculating that bjecting might damage her prospects later. Of course, her failure to vote her conscience (if she didn't) is turning out to damage her now.
In contrast, not only did Sanders get the vote right, but in an impassioned speech in Congre$$, he presciently predicted the dire unintended consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein. "Same old, same old?" I'd say that's refusing to acknowledge and give credit to the one who got Iraq spot on, including the dangerous upshot, and crediting the "go along to get along" candidate.
In contrast, not only did Sanders get the vote right, but in an impassioned speech in Congre$$, he presciently predicted the dire unintended consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein. "Same old, same old?" I'd say that's refusing to acknowledge and give credit to the one who got Iraq spot on, including the dangerous upshot, and crediting the "go along to get along" candidate.
1
Krugman: "...I suspect that it has a lot to do with Foxification, the way Republican primary voters live in a media bubble into which awkward facts can’t penetrate."
Your suspicion regarding "Foxification" has been confirmed in a study by Bruce Bartlett, a Treasury Department official under President George H.W. Bush and former adviser on domestic policy to President Ronald Reagan: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2604679.
Your suspicion regarding "Foxification" has been confirmed in a study by Bruce Bartlett, a Treasury Department official under President George H.W. Bush and former adviser on domestic policy to President Ronald Reagan: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2604679.
5
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues. Bernie Sanders is much more of a one-note candidate...."
Actually, the former Republican, Hillary Clinton, is the one who voted for the war in Iraq, opposes higher taxes, and supports the death penalty. Whereas Bernie Sanders voted against the war in Iraq (and also against the first Bush war in Iraq in 1991, which led directly to the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and then to 9/11), and he supports higher taxes and ending the death penalty. (He is the first candidate for President, since 1988, who is openly opposed to capital punishment.)
Hillary, the former Republican, is a triangulating Clinton, and now her sleazy husband is throwing dirt at Bernie. When you look behind the curtain at the Clintons, what you see is not the same as what you see in public. But Bernie is always the same person. He is genuine, and likable.
Actually, the former Republican, Hillary Clinton, is the one who voted for the war in Iraq, opposes higher taxes, and supports the death penalty. Whereas Bernie Sanders voted against the war in Iraq (and also against the first Bush war in Iraq in 1991, which led directly to the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and then to 9/11), and he supports higher taxes and ending the death penalty. (He is the first candidate for President, since 1988, who is openly opposed to capital punishment.)
Hillary, the former Republican, is a triangulating Clinton, and now her sleazy husband is throwing dirt at Bernie. When you look behind the curtain at the Clintons, what you see is not the same as what you see in public. But Bernie is always the same person. He is genuine, and likable.
5
Aristotle wrote in Poetics, that 'heightened drama is tragedy. But that heightened tragedy is comedy'.
Yes Marco Rubio's triple re-play was 'Rick Perry funny' to watch, but its also composed of an underlying tragedy.
It might be my age, but I think it all goes back to Ronald Reagan. I remember being astounded at Reagan's debate performances; zero substance, and a smarminess that other people somehow found charming.
Reagan had a form of dementia that made him an affable blank slate, which allowed all camaraderie, from the fanatically religious to the pathologically profiteerious. Everyone could claim to see their single issue, in Reagan's obscure vagueness.
It seems to have gotten worse each year, with every election cycle. Until Barack Obama's campaign. I believed in Barack Obama.
The tragedy of Obama, is the politics of campaign contributions brought his lofty policy objectives down to earth, and into the mud. Yes, there has been progress. But not real change.
We lost the public option from the Affordable Care Act only because Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut decided to use his vote for the benefit of insurance companies in Stanford, rather than the citizens of his state and the country at large.
Only Bernie Sanders offers us the opportunity to genuinely advance the political process by beginning the long road to rooting out the systemic corruption that has crippled our nation.
Sadly, Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, has not yet reached escape velocity.
Yes Marco Rubio's triple re-play was 'Rick Perry funny' to watch, but its also composed of an underlying tragedy.
It might be my age, but I think it all goes back to Ronald Reagan. I remember being astounded at Reagan's debate performances; zero substance, and a smarminess that other people somehow found charming.
Reagan had a form of dementia that made him an affable blank slate, which allowed all camaraderie, from the fanatically religious to the pathologically profiteerious. Everyone could claim to see their single issue, in Reagan's obscure vagueness.
It seems to have gotten worse each year, with every election cycle. Until Barack Obama's campaign. I believed in Barack Obama.
The tragedy of Obama, is the politics of campaign contributions brought his lofty policy objectives down to earth, and into the mud. Yes, there has been progress. But not real change.
We lost the public option from the Affordable Care Act only because Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut decided to use his vote for the benefit of insurance companies in Stanford, rather than the citizens of his state and the country at large.
Only Bernie Sanders offers us the opportunity to genuinely advance the political process by beginning the long road to rooting out the systemic corruption that has crippled our nation.
Sadly, Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, has not yet reached escape velocity.
11
A quote from film director Otto Preminger when he
was ask about Reagan winning the presidency.
" We have a responsibility as film makers for casting such a dreadful actor".
was ask about Reagan winning the presidency.
" We have a responsibility as film makers for casting such a dreadful actor".
5
Bernie Sander's vague prescription for Universal Health Care, fixing income inequality, reigning in Wall Street and free college are more like the Reagan pablum than anyone. Hillary Clinton's detailed prescription for addressing these same problems and more are much closer to reality. Just because she has taken donations from Wall Street does not mean that she has done their bidding. That simple minded prescription is nothing but a weaselly way to impugn an opponent's dignity. His performance as fund raiser for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee certainly exposes his disingenuous attitude toward raising money for political campaigns. Hillary Clinton has been a tireless worker for universal health care, human rights and a more equal society. Bernie's tawdry, one note campaign is built on a hill of sand.
8
Don, with all due respect, the issue of campaign contributions and fabulously enriching speaking fees, isn't primarily an attack on Hillary Clinton personally, or whether she can accept such money and not be influenced. That's not the point.
Rather it is a systemic criticism. It is amazing to me how tone deaf Hillary and her supporters are on this point.
Launching loud and insincere attacks on Bernie Sanders won't cure the defect in Hillary's campaign, which is her singular failure to acknowledge the corrupting role of money in politics, and money being paid directly to politicians.
Accepting money undermines credibility. Its as simple as that. Who can blame Hillary & Bill for cashing in, when everyone else does it too. But that is the problem: everyone else does it - except Bernie Sanders.
I'm a fan of both Clintons. But Hillary is missing the point here, as I fear are you.
Rather it is a systemic criticism. It is amazing to me how tone deaf Hillary and her supporters are on this point.
Launching loud and insincere attacks on Bernie Sanders won't cure the defect in Hillary's campaign, which is her singular failure to acknowledge the corrupting role of money in politics, and money being paid directly to politicians.
Accepting money undermines credibility. Its as simple as that. Who can blame Hillary & Bill for cashing in, when everyone else does it too. But that is the problem: everyone else does it - except Bernie Sanders.
I'm a fan of both Clintons. But Hillary is missing the point here, as I fear are you.
2
Republicans have decreeded the end of America began after the last term of George W. Bush. His $700 billion TARP bailout for the world's biggest banks is met with silence by both parties; as Democrats fight over war votes, its obscene off-book budget of death seldom receives the focus of the banks and financing new opportunity safety nets.
The focus should be on the broader political economy: Halliburton is no different than the banks; BP is remainder of why we need strict environment regulations and safety measures; Duke Power's pollution of North Carolina's Dan River and the fish kills in the Catawba-Wateree basin from 82 million tons of coal ash (containing arsenic, mercury, among deadly toxins) has much in common with Flint, where the state is the agent that turned off clean water, failed to prep the new source and approved water that damages skin and brains, and slowly kills.
Overlooked examples are replete with missed connections between real crises: a woman jailed in Indiana for an abortion, teenagers shot dead for "attitude,"crazy fears over diseases rather than the tough work of education, the return of white supremacy (its faithful canvasing for Trump in Iowa!)--Bernie's right, who carries about emails?
Start with hatred and deconstruct it: its venom has become talking points, debated for its influence on voters minds. But real issues weigh on our souls, waiting to be judged. A new vision of real connections must defeat candidates anti-democratic.
The focus should be on the broader political economy: Halliburton is no different than the banks; BP is remainder of why we need strict environment regulations and safety measures; Duke Power's pollution of North Carolina's Dan River and the fish kills in the Catawba-Wateree basin from 82 million tons of coal ash (containing arsenic, mercury, among deadly toxins) has much in common with Flint, where the state is the agent that turned off clean water, failed to prep the new source and approved water that damages skin and brains, and slowly kills.
Overlooked examples are replete with missed connections between real crises: a woman jailed in Indiana for an abortion, teenagers shot dead for "attitude,"crazy fears over diseases rather than the tough work of education, the return of white supremacy (its faithful canvasing for Trump in Iowa!)--Bernie's right, who carries about emails?
Start with hatred and deconstruct it: its venom has become talking points, debated for its influence on voters minds. But real issues weigh on our souls, waiting to be judged. A new vision of real connections must defeat candidates anti-democratic.
16
The link below contains a few photographs of Flint in the 1930/40s, of houses, striking workers, and plants--a good contrast with today, a measure of our history, from the Library of Congress archives. The caption of one photo tells that water had to be purchased from a commercial well--even in the 1930s, Flint's water was privatized and an issue for its residents. (After clicking, be sure to scroll.)
"How Michigan Became Anti-Democratic" [http://wp.me/p1mBVu-51h].
"How Michigan Became Anti-Democratic" [http://wp.me/p1mBVu-51h].
2
Rubio was always a holographic projection, so why anyone is surprised that the projector broke is puzzling. He seems to believe that he is running against President Obama.
The GOP has nothing to offer, and that scares me, because the traditional balance between pragmatic money men and progressives seeking safety nets brought us policies we could all live with. Now we have candidates looking at ways to disassemble the government - strong authoritarian anarchy - and leave the governing to God, I guess.
Maybe we are better off with the hologram.
The GOP has nothing to offer, and that scares me, because the traditional balance between pragmatic money men and progressives seeking safety nets brought us policies we could all live with. Now we have candidates looking at ways to disassemble the government - strong authoritarian anarchy - and leave the governing to God, I guess.
Maybe we are better off with the hologram.
2
>
When facts don't matter, you can keep repeating the same nonsense, and if History is prologue it works most of the time.
If my genes Willed me with fascist inclinations and I was a Republican, I'd be a lot less worried than I am with my liberal inclinations about this upcoming election.
Even if the GOP loses the election, they're far better off than if the Dems lose it. The GOP will maintain control in the House, the vast majority of State and Local gov'ts, reclaim the Senate in 2018. Sure the GOP could lose the SCOTUS overtime (maybe), but the Dems lose it and it's checkmate.
Again it's no time for infantile liberal optimism.
“I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will.”
Antonio Gramsci
When facts don't matter, you can keep repeating the same nonsense, and if History is prologue it works most of the time.
If my genes Willed me with fascist inclinations and I was a Republican, I'd be a lot less worried than I am with my liberal inclinations about this upcoming election.
Even if the GOP loses the election, they're far better off than if the Dems lose it. The GOP will maintain control in the House, the vast majority of State and Local gov'ts, reclaim the Senate in 2018. Sure the GOP could lose the SCOTUS overtime (maybe), but the Dems lose it and it's checkmate.
Again it's no time for infantile liberal optimism.
“I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will.”
Antonio Gramsci
9
Thanks for quoting Gramsci. Ride a bus to Siena Italy and you enter the city at Piazza Gransci. Ask about the name and you can find the man. He is still very respected in north-central Italy - Tuscany, Umbria, Emilia-Romagna - enough to have his name on piazzas.
1
Republicans are not Democrats and until they repent and adopt every single position of their opposite number Mr. Krugman will churn out columns painting them as some combination of ignorance and malevolence. The problem is half the country doesn't agree with him and keeps voting for Republicans while the half which agrees with him doesn't need to be convinced. "Groundhog Day" indeed. Instead of Sonny and Cher on the alarm clock radio we've start the day reading the same dreary column full of junior high school insults Mr. Krugman writes again and again and again and again and.......
The truth hurts, and bears repeating.
Half of the country doesn't votes for the Republicans. Half of the people who voted do. The rest, minorities and young people are mostly Democrats. All that is needed is to get them to vote.
Hillary may know what she's talking about but I can't see where we've gotten anything from her with all that talk.
2
Hill or Bern, which to choose?
I'm getting no help from the news.
I read every blog
To see which tail wags the dog.
They at least talk of issues and have clues.
Whatever I decide will be right
Against Rubio and Cruz, those twins of the night.
Their hopes for the U.S.
Are dismal at best
And their politics truly a fright.
I'm getting no help from the news.
I read every blog
To see which tail wags the dog.
They at least talk of issues and have clues.
Whatever I decide will be right
Against Rubio and Cruz, those twins of the night.
Their hopes for the U.S.
Are dismal at best
And their politics truly a fright.
9
The GOP's problem at this point in time is that they have been cultivating voters that responds to often repeated talking points. Daniel Kahneman has a fair amount to say about this in "Thinking, Fast and Slow", a book that summarizes a lot of his work. When a phrase is repeated again and again, it starts to sound true unless you really stop and think. This is even true with a brand. If you hear a name like 'Trump' an awful lot, you start to believe in Trump for no reason at all. Not all people are as susceptible to this effect to the same degree. I believe that by focusing on this technique a lot, the GOP has created a concentration of people who tend to think fast without a lot of reflection. This explains all the people who vote Republican against their own economic interest.
4
It is amazing, almost unbelievable, but there it is, staring us in the face, and we have no simple answer for it, except for ignorance, and of course, that never really seems to explain anything because even dumb people do good things. The Republican Party candidates, though, seem to be like Ralph Cramden and Ed Norton, giving each other the Racoon Salute. One has no idea what they are actually saying or what they stand for, but if you look at Mr. Rubio's voting record, it's kind of obvious that he is trying to pull his wool sweater over everyone's eyes. He is an Republican elitist from the word go, who tout's every single thing Mr. Krugman said that was wrong about the Republican Party. As well, the Obama bashing and the Hillary bashing and the Sanders bashing and the liberal bashing is the replacement for the old John Birch Society theme that bashed communism, as if it was hiding under everyone's bed in America and had to be extinguished, now. Frankly, it is sad, and the parading of one more Bush out there is not going to fix it. You wonder, though, if the Republicans even know it's broken, but this is where the less than well educated could make a difference, providing they wake up from their stupor. Who knows, it might happen. If Trump is not nominated, these people may well change their vote to the Democratic Party. They might be holding their nose when they do it, but they would realize that they needed the medicine.
5
"The truth is that the whole G.O.P. seems stuck in a time loop, saying and doing the same things over and over. And unlike Bill Murray’s character in the movie “Groundhog Day,” Republicans show no sign of learning anything from experience."
Why should they bother learning anything new? The Clinton, neo-liberal, establishment Democrats just keep tucking their tails and losing to them by pretending to be them.
Federal Government:
Senate: R54, D44+2
House: R 247, D 188
Supreme Court: C 5, L 4
State Government:
Governors: R32, D17
Senates: R36, D14
Houses:R34, D16
Legis. control: R31, D11
Complete control: R21, D 7
Why should they bother learning anything new? The Clinton, neo-liberal, establishment Democrats just keep tucking their tails and losing to them by pretending to be them.
Federal Government:
Senate: R54, D44+2
House: R 247, D 188
Supreme Court: C 5, L 4
State Government:
Governors: R32, D17
Senates: R36, D14
Houses:R34, D16
Legis. control: R31, D11
Complete control: R21, D 7
2
How does you change a person's mind when they're taught not to think?
How do you change a person's heart when they're told not to feel?
How do you get someone to listen to a different opinion when they are brainwashed to believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.
"Foxification"
Rarely, I make myself watch Fox News. I come away from the experience feeling nauseous.
Fox News does NOT report news. It packages far-right propaganda and hands scripts to physically attractive "reporters" to read.
Everything about Fox News, from its' screaming graphics, to coverage of all things involving Democrats, is false.
Nothing legitimate, or accurate, ever has been reported while I was watching - and I only watch "news" casts.
What Fox and its leader, former Republican political hack, Roger Ailes, do on a daily basis is almost identical to what Orson Welles did on Sunday, October 30, 1938.
Welles took a fictional story, "War of the Worlds," and broadcast it as if it were actual "breaking news." The result was millions of Americans were manipulated into believing Earth was being attacked by Mars. Many did exactly what Welles' faux newscaster told them to do.
"Stay off the streets. Stay in your homes."
Few, if any, tried to confirm if the implausible story unfolding on their radios was the truth.
Legitimate news sources were outraged by Welles' twist of the truth to scare people.
It's almost exactly what Fox News does to viewers on a daily basis.
Media; Where is thy outrage?
How do you change a person's heart when they're told not to feel?
How do you get someone to listen to a different opinion when they are brainwashed to believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.
"Foxification"
Rarely, I make myself watch Fox News. I come away from the experience feeling nauseous.
Fox News does NOT report news. It packages far-right propaganda and hands scripts to physically attractive "reporters" to read.
Everything about Fox News, from its' screaming graphics, to coverage of all things involving Democrats, is false.
Nothing legitimate, or accurate, ever has been reported while I was watching - and I only watch "news" casts.
What Fox and its leader, former Republican political hack, Roger Ailes, do on a daily basis is almost identical to what Orson Welles did on Sunday, October 30, 1938.
Welles took a fictional story, "War of the Worlds," and broadcast it as if it were actual "breaking news." The result was millions of Americans were manipulated into believing Earth was being attacked by Mars. Many did exactly what Welles' faux newscaster told them to do.
"Stay off the streets. Stay in your homes."
Few, if any, tried to confirm if the implausible story unfolding on their radios was the truth.
Legitimate news sources were outraged by Welles' twist of the truth to scare people.
It's almost exactly what Fox News does to viewers on a daily basis.
Media; Where is thy outrage?
8
It seems to me that the deeper cause behind the right-wing information bubble is money and power. Once the Fairness Doctrine was repealed Big Money began buying speech in the form of air time. Then SCOTUS gave them a free pass with Citizens United to purchase political speech, so they can shout everyone else down.
I have to say I'm disappointed in the general citizenry to see how easily they seem to be duped. A misinformed populace is democracy's weak spot, and oligarchs know that.
I have to say I'm disappointed in the general citizenry to see how easily they seem to be duped. A misinformed populace is democracy's weak spot, and oligarchs know that.
14
Thank you, Mr. Krugman. I agree. I support Hillary because she's been educated by long, hard experience in politics, and she knows the ropes ... since many of those ropes have been hung around her neck. She was a strong, capable Secretary of State. I respect Bernie too, but don't trust that a candidate who promises "revolution" can win the election for Democrats. The Republican alternatives (rigid, pontificating, mean-spirited Christians and one billionaire buffoon) terrify me. My father was a conservative defense contractor who helped introduce fighter planes into Saudi Arabia, and since his death I've been receiving lots of mailers, asking for donations, from pro-Christian/pro-military groups that demonize Barack Obama ... the Muslim anti-Christ who steals bibles from good soldiers and dispatches mullahs to chant at the funerals of Navy Seals. These letters have taught me something about the United States. It's vast, stubborn, various, boastful, combative, divided. We need a smart, weathered (Democratic) diplomat in the White House to deal with Congress and, perhaps, make progress. My opinion. Hillary has flaws. And experience. And savvy. And great strengths.
13
"Mr. Rubio’s inability to do anything besides repeat canned talking points was startling. Worse, it was funny, which means that it has gone viral. And it "reinforced the narrative that he is nothing but an empty suit. But really, isn’t everyone in his party doing pretty much the same thing, if not so conspicuously?". yes, Rubio was rater pitiful. it was much like Hillary's pathetic moves to the left as she keeps 'adjusting' her positions, and even her self-identifcation as a progressive, in direct imitation of Bernie's positions. as well as her claim that the Flint disaster is a civil rights issue as opposed to an economic-political power issue.
So if Rubio falls now, and Bush, Carson, Fiorina, Gilmore and Kasich don't have the backing or profile or charisma to make it that leaves Trump, Cruz and Christie. Cruz is so widely hated he'll be eviscerated when he stumbles because everyone in the party wants him to fail. So it ends up a Christie v Trump show and if the Donald doesn't want it you're left with Christie - while he is a nasty piece of work at times does tend to edge closer to the reality based world.
"And diplomacy no matter how successful, ..."
You mean like the diplomacy that got the sailors and other hostages released last month followed immediately by the abduction of American contractors in Baghdad by Iran-backed militias? Just consider the second-order effects when you evaluate the effectiveness of diplomacy.
You mean like the diplomacy that got the sailors and other hostages released last month followed immediately by the abduction of American contractors in Baghdad by Iran-backed militias? Just consider the second-order effects when you evaluate the effectiveness of diplomacy.
By "contractors" do you mean mercenaries?
3
Freedom of speech has never included freedom to broadcast. FOX has consistently "dumbed down" all discourse, distorted issues, and preyed on the superstitious and ignorant to promote a view of reality that is uninformed and dangerous to our country. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine at the FCC is needed to address the grave harm that FOX has done as the propaganda arm of the Republican Party.
The time-loop phenomenon in the candidates and the Party depends on the echo chamber that FOX and other media outlets provide. Repetition, like that observed in Rubio's senseless response to challenge is indeed a characteristic of Republicans. On an individual basis, each Republican utterance demands disruption of the order applied by Christie. How very stupid does the claim that lowering taxes on the rich will benefit the economy in the face of it's failure these many years, yet it persists. All Americans need to learn that it has failed, that it's a failure. Reining in media outlets that systematically repeat inaccuracies, lies, deceptions, that contributes to national stupidity and undermines democracy, law and science is a job that government must resume. FOX and other media outlets do not have a right to exist, they do have an obligation to be fair and balanced and to promote the common good. FOX does not serve the common good.
The time-loop phenomenon in the candidates and the Party depends on the echo chamber that FOX and other media outlets provide. Repetition, like that observed in Rubio's senseless response to challenge is indeed a characteristic of Republicans. On an individual basis, each Republican utterance demands disruption of the order applied by Christie. How very stupid does the claim that lowering taxes on the rich will benefit the economy in the face of it's failure these many years, yet it persists. All Americans need to learn that it has failed, that it's a failure. Reining in media outlets that systematically repeat inaccuracies, lies, deceptions, that contributes to national stupidity and undermines democracy, law and science is a job that government must resume. FOX and other media outlets do not have a right to exist, they do have an obligation to be fair and balanced and to promote the common good. FOX does not serve the common good.
13
Reply to Rima Regas,
There you go again! Any criticism of Saint Bernie is a "smear." But in the very next sentence, without embarrassment, you go on to smear Krugman as "a perfidious, angry pundit, joining in with the likes of Lloyd Blankfein in a McCarthyesque attempt at turning public opinion against Bernie Sanders." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/opinion/the-time-loop-party.html#permi...
Bernie Sanders is not just conducting a political campaign, he's also leading a mass movement. His supporters are "True Believers" in the sense of Eric Hoffer's 1951 classic by that name. http://tinyurl.com/omlsv5u .
The mass movement is a shield against reality. It provides an alternate reality to those who find their present one intolerable. By a process of "consensual validation" the alternate reality takes on a life of its own. The glue that holds the movement together are core beliefs and enemies.
But such an alternate reality is inherently vulnerable to attack from the outside, from opponents or critics, who are the enemies. Hence the reaction to any criticism, direct or implied, is swift, furious and unrelenting, on the principle that the best defense is an offense. The goal is both to punish and discredit the enemies.
Personal attacks, guilt by association, insinuation, innuendo, sarcasm, contemptuous dismissal, impugning motives, conspiracy theories, all are in the arsenal of True Believers under attack. Their emotional investment must be preserved at all cost.
There you go again! Any criticism of Saint Bernie is a "smear." But in the very next sentence, without embarrassment, you go on to smear Krugman as "a perfidious, angry pundit, joining in with the likes of Lloyd Blankfein in a McCarthyesque attempt at turning public opinion against Bernie Sanders." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/opinion/the-time-loop-party.html#permi...
Bernie Sanders is not just conducting a political campaign, he's also leading a mass movement. His supporters are "True Believers" in the sense of Eric Hoffer's 1951 classic by that name. http://tinyurl.com/omlsv5u .
The mass movement is a shield against reality. It provides an alternate reality to those who find their present one intolerable. By a process of "consensual validation" the alternate reality takes on a life of its own. The glue that holds the movement together are core beliefs and enemies.
But such an alternate reality is inherently vulnerable to attack from the outside, from opponents or critics, who are the enemies. Hence the reaction to any criticism, direct or implied, is swift, furious and unrelenting, on the principle that the best defense is an offense. The goal is both to punish and discredit the enemies.
Personal attacks, guilt by association, insinuation, innuendo, sarcasm, contemptuous dismissal, impugning motives, conspiracy theories, all are in the arsenal of True Believers under attack. Their emotional investment must be preserved at all cost.
21
I agree. That the Republicans have gone off the rails and so far to the right should be a lesson to Democrats. Don't forget the middle, where lie at least some semblance and hope of sanity and reason.
9
If you opponents say 2 + 3 = 23 and you move to the middle and argue that 2 + 3 = 14, your bridges will still fall down.
3
Eric Hoffer! I had that same thought recently, and was trying to remember the author's name of that tiny, so insightful little book. Thank you. And I agree with your comment, as would Mr. Hoffer. It's depressing indeed to see what a movement Bernie's spawned - especially when one reads the Mother Jones article about his writings in the 1970s. Wow, he'll be absolutely destroyed with the first GOP TV commercial - support will drop to 2 percent overnight. And we'll see a Republican blowout that will made the Reagan revolution look like a hiccup.
3
The idea that tax cuts for the rich is even more warmly embraced by Repuvlicans only holds true for the elites. Rank and file Republicans are hold onto it only in a pro for a way. What they are excited by is culture warfare and white nationalism. Nobody has seen conservative trickle down policies actually work for common people, so what do they have left?
8
Ann interesting aspect of Foxy dogmatism is a tendency for folks who have been accused of Foxiness or have seen a Fox source criticized for unreliability to express outrage at denial of their right to Conservative opinion and intellectual authorities, even those who'll grant the right of freedom of speech to critical references to the GOP. However, I suppose that Donald Trump's concurrent war with Fox and embrace of the Republican brand might be toppling Fox's ascendance over GOP popular opinion for some time to come.
8
Being a Grand Old Phony and Propagandist means never having to say your sorry, but more importantly, it means never having to enter reality because you've invented and preached such a giant right-wing religious rainbow of rabid rage that for the rabid reactionaries that form the Republican voter base.
Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), which has been the award-winning Republican political playbook for eons, demands an outer-space reality on Earth, and Fox News and hate radio have created it with carefully delivered drip-drip propaganda delivered intravenously via the public airwaves.
Marco Rubio - the battery-Sheldon-Adelson-Norman-Braman-operated World War III Ken Doll - spends all his time scaring Republican voters because RWA demands total fear, submission and compliance.
Right-wing authoritarians seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive instead of cooperative.
In a study by psychologist Bob Altemeyer, 68 authoritarians played a three-hour simulation of the Earth's future called the global change game.
Unlike a comparison game played by individuals with low RWA scores, which resulted in world peace and widespread international cooperation, the simulation by authoritarians became highly militarized and eventually entered the stage of nuclear war.
By the end of the high RWA game, the entire population of the earth was declared dead.
The Republican religion is nothing more than a robotic cult of fear, end-times, death, ignorance and greed.
Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), which has been the award-winning Republican political playbook for eons, demands an outer-space reality on Earth, and Fox News and hate radio have created it with carefully delivered drip-drip propaganda delivered intravenously via the public airwaves.
Marco Rubio - the battery-Sheldon-Adelson-Norman-Braman-operated World War III Ken Doll - spends all his time scaring Republican voters because RWA demands total fear, submission and compliance.
Right-wing authoritarians seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive instead of cooperative.
In a study by psychologist Bob Altemeyer, 68 authoritarians played a three-hour simulation of the Earth's future called the global change game.
Unlike a comparison game played by individuals with low RWA scores, which resulted in world peace and widespread international cooperation, the simulation by authoritarians became highly militarized and eventually entered the stage of nuclear war.
By the end of the high RWA game, the entire population of the earth was declared dead.
The Republican religion is nothing more than a robotic cult of fear, end-times, death, ignorance and greed.
933
Reply to socrates,
The Left also occupy an alternate reality. See my comment at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/opinion/the-time-loop-party.html#permi...
The Left also occupy an alternate reality. See my comment at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/opinion/the-time-loop-party.html#permi...
4
Yes, yes, yes, and yes-yes, and yes!
The RDP - Republican Death Party
The RDP - Republican Death Party
2
Ron, totally agree. Presumably even the Sanders supporters furiously denouncing anyone who disagrees with them as "bought" or a "tool" or whatever would agree that if the Republicans take the White House it would be a disaster. Sanders supporters seem to be convinced that just because their social critique is valid (and it is); that a candidate who adopts that critique as his platform is the superior candidate and must therefore win. Unfortunately, Sanders has NO chance of winning the presidency.
They would do well to heed Santayana's warning: Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
They would do well to heed Santayana's warning: Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
6
The same fact free analysis that drives climate change denial is at work in Republican economic policy. When you have faith compete with facts in their world, faith always wins. It's not necessarily religious faith, just the use of "gut" instincts to make decisions. The continually double down on an ongoing failure (like Kansas) be you just aren't doing enough. Religion does play into this too. Especially the ongoing growth of the "Prosperity Gospel". A concept growing alongside dominionism that basically says that the poor are poor because they're not faithful enough. It's not society's fault it the fault of the poor that their poor. In fact it seems like in their world taxes are seen as a way that the Government tries to steal God's bounty from them too. It's become the ultimate blame the victim model used as a justification to cut welfare support and limit poor people's access to medical care. We saw that in a stark way in 2012 when the crowd at a Republican rally said "let them die" for people without insurance in their blind opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately Dr. Krugman, nothing that you say will change them since their faith will alway overcome your facts.
33
Right on with this comment. I'd add there is something more going on with this " syndrome". The media. They understand what is going on very well and exploit every bit. As the intermediary to those citizens unable to be swayed by facts, the media sets the pick for all that annoys the right wing " Archie Bunker" voter. In their search for eyeballs, no facts will get in the way of ratings.
1
@Justwondering: "Unfortunately Dr. Krugman, nothing that you say will change them since their faith will alway overcome your facts."
Unfortunately, the same can be said about supporters of Bernie Sanders, who are convinced that if he is just nominated he will lead the Democratic Party to victory. In reality, he's a pied piper who would lead the party to a crushing defeat worse than McGovern or Dukakis.
Unfortunately, the same can be said about supporters of Bernie Sanders, who are convinced that if he is just nominated he will lead the Democratic Party to victory. In reality, he's a pied piper who would lead the party to a crushing defeat worse than McGovern or Dukakis.
2
PK " The truth is that the whole G.O.P. seems stuck in a time loop, saying and doing the same things over and over. "
Nothing new in American politics. Public debate continues to be shaped by narrative and not addressing real issues.
During times of relative prosperity and opportunity for all, presidential elections were about gays in the military or abortion.
Today, is about fear and building a HUGE wall along the Mexican border or torturing Muslims suspect of terrorism.
Meanwhile, economic recovery is translated into Wall Mart type jobs creation while decent paid manufacturing jobs will be shipped overseas as the the Asia-Pacific trade deal goes into effect.
Professor Krugman should not be surprised by the content of GOP - and Democratic - presidential debates. American voters are getting the message they want to hear. After all, in a market economy, consumers are kings.
Nothing new in American politics. Public debate continues to be shaped by narrative and not addressing real issues.
During times of relative prosperity and opportunity for all, presidential elections were about gays in the military or abortion.
Today, is about fear and building a HUGE wall along the Mexican border or torturing Muslims suspect of terrorism.
Meanwhile, economic recovery is translated into Wall Mart type jobs creation while decent paid manufacturing jobs will be shipped overseas as the the Asia-Pacific trade deal goes into effect.
Professor Krugman should not be surprised by the content of GOP - and Democratic - presidential debates. American voters are getting the message they want to hear. After all, in a market economy, consumers are kings.
8
"But there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble." Yes, the deeper cause is inequality. Sanders addresses this, but Hiliary Clinton nibbles around the edges of it. The public is tired of it. Watch as Republicans flock to vote for Sanders in the presidential election. It's because the rank and file Americans have lost too much over the past forty years, and they have figured out what caused it.
21
There is much to applaud Bernie for, but to say that he addresses the causes of right wing stupidity, and to imply that only he addresses them, is a stretch. What causes reactionary, head in the sand thinking (or lack thereof)? The causes are myriad and complex. So to attribute a single strategy as the cure is as surely blind sided as that which needs curing.
12
Hillary and Bill are among the foremost wholly-bought pols, in Plutocrat pockets.
1
@carolyn: Republicans will "flock to vote for Sanders" only in the alternative universe Sanders supporters live in. Out here in the real world, Sanders, if nominated, would be eaten alive by the right-wing media and attack ads. Even the most passionate blog posts by you, Rima, Socrates, Spence, and others with all of your factual arguments and links are no match for other inconvenient facts about Bernie: Socialist. Jewish (yes I know, and Obama is black). Atheist. 75 years old at election time. Honeymooned in the USSR. Visited Cuba. In decades never got any of his agenda through Congress. Given the number of people who voted for such unthinkable candidates as Romney, McCain and Bush, there is not a snowball's chance that "Comrade Bernie," as the right wing will name him, could win the presidential election.
Bernie's critiques of American inequality are great, sorely needed in fact. But unless he can articulate a realistic path to implementation (which he never accomplished in all the years he was in Congress), he's nothing more than a pied piper leading masses do well-meaning Democrats into the sea.
Bernie's critiques of American inequality are great, sorely needed in fact. But unless he can articulate a realistic path to implementation (which he never accomplished in all the years he was in Congress), he's nothing more than a pied piper leading masses do well-meaning Democrats into the sea.
4
Hilary's addressing rising inequality and the effects of money on political concerns as a policy wonk is like applying band aids as an afterthought to the cause of the problem. Read "Dark Money" -- the transfer of money and power from the middle class and to the 0.1% through wars, crisis politics, bailing out wall street after their admitted fraudulent activities, and the dismantling of our state and federal governments. This is a one note problem. Bernie Sander's pointed this out well in asking a simple question -why have hundreds of millions of dollars been invested by dark money on campaigns, lobbyists, and the destruction of our state and federal government?
22
All true. Sadly the election of Bernie Sanders won't solve the problem. We'd need a Congress of Bernie Sanders and statehouses full of Bernie Sanders to do that. But everyone acts as if electing Bernie Sanders president will be enough.
2
If Bernie can beat the advantages Hillary has in organization, super votes, and recognition, that means that the general will be a "wave" election in which the young, the minorities,and the doctrinaire liberals who have largely stayed home since 2008 will come out to vote.
This will not only elect Bernie, but will take back the Senate with a filibuster proof majority. The House is a more difficult proposition, but a Democratic wave election will at least greatly reduce the Republican majority. With the deep divisions in today's republican party, this could mean less effective obstruction. And don't forget, the Republican candidates for the House received more votes in 2008 when they lost it than in 2010 when they won it.
On the other hand, if Bernie loses the nomination that makes the likelihood of a wave election less reasonable. Then Hillary is best suited to beat any of the clowns likely to be the Republican nominee.
This will not only elect Bernie, but will take back the Senate with a filibuster proof majority. The House is a more difficult proposition, but a Democratic wave election will at least greatly reduce the Republican majority. With the deep divisions in today's republican party, this could mean less effective obstruction. And don't forget, the Republican candidates for the House received more votes in 2008 when they lost it than in 2010 when they won it.
On the other hand, if Bernie loses the nomination that makes the likelihood of a wave election less reasonable. Then Hillary is best suited to beat any of the clowns likely to be the Republican nominee.
5
Long past time for the people to fully grasp the GOP policies deliver exactly what GOP policies are intended to do, more money into the pockets of the rich. Whether we are talking tax cuts, which only benefit the rich, or repeated votes on Obamacare (and other lies) that deliver votes and $$ to the GOP, it all works perfectly. It fails when the GOP dog catches the car as in the W era or in Kansas. When called up on to deliver for the entire electorate, the GOP is a failure, but backed by a mighty media machine, both in right wing world and in the corporate media, the rubes are kept believing that what is good for the GOP is good for them, rather than the reality of the opposite.
85
"Foxification" So that's it.
I don't have cable and I've never watched Fox but I guess if that's your sole view of the Republican alternate universe, it must be reality to you.
But I really cannot understand people who refuse to question and who refuse to think for themselves.
I don't have cable and I've never watched Fox but I guess if that's your sole view of the Republican alternate universe, it must be reality to you.
But I really cannot understand people who refuse to question and who refuse to think for themselves.
8
Time to pick up your own copy of "Dark Money", Dr. K.
7
The New York Times has it's own brand of "Foxification". It's not like The Times isn't owned. People are waking to the realization that they're continually being played by the media. A funny thing may be happening on the way to the coronation.
9
Equating the New York Times with FOX reveals only your lack of critical thinking skills. You can hide in the woods, but you can't hide from the world.
5
Billy:
The word here is "its", not "it's".
No one claims that the NY Times in not owned -- your point is irrelevant.
-- DS
The word here is "its", not "it's".
No one claims that the NY Times in not owned -- your point is irrelevant.
-- DS
4
I am sick to death of all of them!!! I'm going to turn the whole business off until after the conventions. This is too much like watching sausage being made.
5
What's really disturbing to me is when Junior Rubio opens his spittle-driven mouth to spout his anti-Obama vitriol his memory is soo selective and that's why he keeps repeating his statement like an automotron -he is being disingenuous. It's like if he keeps repeating it enough he too might believe it and then maybe some of the "big boys" will throw him the ball and let him play. Our military is doing just fine. thank You. diplomacy is working. Thank you. We're not getting mired down in another war zone. Thank You. The economy and jobs are improving despite the efforts to thwart Mr. Obama. Thank You. Look we get that you've had to change your tired old immigrant story to include a little more "truthiness." We get that you're an absentee Senator that has never been in charge or had to take any real responsibility - like not even with your personal finances. Do some of us "other Americans" have to ring the Liberty Bell next to your head to remind you that it's been your own knucklehead party that has tried to defeat every iniative the President has made to change this country for the better? Does voting to repeal the ACA 63 times sound familiar to you? At all? Oh, Junior . . . Please go away. Just go home and go away and take your canned speeches and tired ol' GOP talking points with you!
187
I couldn't agree more with Paul Krugman when he is talking
about bubbles. Chris Christie picturing Rubio as a bubble boy
while campaigning in New Hampshire might be accurate but
Christie is in his own bubble as well lying with bravado, forgetful
of the squeletons back in his New Jersey closet. Cruz feels
bubbly after the Iowa victory even if evangelists for god sake
will never make a majority. Trump has created the shiniest
gold bubble yet a gold plated one so far. As for Bush, you
can picture him in a corner like a forlorn boy out of breath
incapable to create even a fragile soap bubble. Indeed the
reality check for one of those candidates will be the general
election when American citizen will surely burst that bubble
heaving a sigh of relief.
about bubbles. Chris Christie picturing Rubio as a bubble boy
while campaigning in New Hampshire might be accurate but
Christie is in his own bubble as well lying with bravado, forgetful
of the squeletons back in his New Jersey closet. Cruz feels
bubbly after the Iowa victory even if evangelists for god sake
will never make a majority. Trump has created the shiniest
gold bubble yet a gold plated one so far. As for Bush, you
can picture him in a corner like a forlorn boy out of breath
incapable to create even a fragile soap bubble. Indeed the
reality check for one of those candidates will be the general
election when American citizen will surely burst that bubble
heaving a sigh of relief.
18
I absolutely agree with the Foxification angle.
One does not need to be genetically stupid to suffer the ill effects of the constant consumption of stupidity.
Simplistic, unrealistic world view = Simplistic, unrealistic candidates
One does not need to be genetically stupid to suffer the ill effects of the constant consumption of stupidity.
Simplistic, unrealistic world view = Simplistic, unrealistic candidates
16
Keep hammering, PK. Maybe someday people will get it.
10
The Dems failure, so clearly illustrated by Obama, is their ability to not make plain their accomplishments in simple-to-understand words and numbers. Charts would help, Repetition of their message would help. Plainly explaining why their opposition is wrong would help. Fighting for what they know to be true would help. Doing it on a daily basis would help. How is it that the comments section of the NYTimes has better writers who can more clearly explain policy concepts than all of the policy makers elected to congress. If marketers can explain how new technology in cars will better the lives of the buyers, surely those folks can be hired to do likewise for the Congress in educating the American public. Where is it written the government cannot buy ad time on broadcast and in social media? Get with it democrats, progressives, liberals ... learn from your enemies.
176
FDR never failed to tell the people how he helped them. Obama, a believer in reason and logic, just assumed incorrectly they would know.
8
Dwight: "Plainly explaining why their opposition is wrong would help. Fighting for what they know to be true would help."
The country and Democratic supporters have been waiting a generation+ for this. It's pretty clear the Democrats don't know why their "opposition is wrong" or know what "they know to be true." How could they when all they do is keep running to the right with them?
The country and Democratic supporters have been waiting a generation+ for this. It's pretty clear the Democrats don't know why their "opposition is wrong" or know what "they know to be true." How could they when all they do is keep running to the right with them?
3
As long as people show up at the polls, the GOP will never get POTUS again. Their dirty tricks of voter suppression, wedge issues (abortion, guns, and gays), ISIS phobia and lies won’t work this election cycle.
People are so fed up of being forsaken and neglected the last 35+ years, they aren’t buying their gloom and doom rhetoric. Plus, there is a ground swell to boot the establishment out of office for doing nothing the last 6 years.
Bernie leads the charge on the Democratic side while Trump leads it on the GOP side. One speaks of hope and rescuing the middle/working class from the clutches of a greedy, overbearing private sector while the other wants to build a “huge” wall and make us great again – whatever that means?
For 35+ years our country has been in an endless loop that favors Wall St, wealthy elites and the MIC. Meanwhile, the standard of living has steadily declined for the middle/working classes. The rich are getting richer and the middle class are getting poorer as well as disappearing.
It took 35+ years to get to this point and it will take at least a generation to get out. Will this be the year when we break out of this downward spiral? It can be, if we elect Bernie, who will actually stand up for the people and call out those that weaken our nation.
People are so fed up of being forsaken and neglected the last 35+ years, they aren’t buying their gloom and doom rhetoric. Plus, there is a ground swell to boot the establishment out of office for doing nothing the last 6 years.
Bernie leads the charge on the Democratic side while Trump leads it on the GOP side. One speaks of hope and rescuing the middle/working class from the clutches of a greedy, overbearing private sector while the other wants to build a “huge” wall and make us great again – whatever that means?
For 35+ years our country has been in an endless loop that favors Wall St, wealthy elites and the MIC. Meanwhile, the standard of living has steadily declined for the middle/working classes. The rich are getting richer and the middle class are getting poorer as well as disappearing.
It took 35+ years to get to this point and it will take at least a generation to get out. Will this be the year when we break out of this downward spiral? It can be, if we elect Bernie, who will actually stand up for the people and call out those that weaken our nation.
15
I wouldn't call that a debate, it was more like a liars convention.
Speaking of the Kansas experiment, do you remember when the republicans were saying that Brownback would be the next president after their Kansas experiment succeeded and made Kansas an example for the other states to follow?
Their deregulation scheme has resulted in the boom and bust cycle that we now find ourselves in. They have proven that the American people
DO NOT learn from history.
Speaking of the Kansas experiment, do you remember when the republicans were saying that Brownback would be the next president after their Kansas experiment succeeded and made Kansas an example for the other states to follow?
Their deregulation scheme has resulted in the boom and bust cycle that we now find ourselves in. They have proven that the American people
DO NOT learn from history.
27
Keeping with the times, instead of calling it Rubio's broken record or software glitch of a performance, maybe a giffed performance worthy of Vine?
2
So how did this happen to the G.O.P.? This I can tell you in one word. Tradition. But how did these traditions get started you may I ask. I'll tell you. I don't know. Maybe it had something to do with the corrupt Democratic politicians who take millions of dollars from Wall Street and thus were unable and disqualified from exposing the corrupt Republican politicians who take millions of dollars from Wall Street. Maybe all the Democrats care about now is incumbency and are unable to articulate reasons to support a liberal agenda. When you are part of the establishment, it's difficult to clam the mantle of revolutionary leaders who fought against the interests royalist aristocracy, you can't be Lincoln if bipartisanship is your goal, can't break up the trusts like T.R. when they fund your foundation, can't create a New Deal like F.D.R. when the backroom deal works for you and your donors.
How did this happen to the G.O.P.? The party of business, that fought to reverse the New Deal, the party of Goldwater, Nixon's southern strategy, law and order, and Reagan? No mystery. But no opposition either. The Democrats became Republican lite, no left left.
The real question is how did this happen to the Democrats? Maybe money trumps party. Until the internet changed that. No internet, no Obama, and no Sanders candidacy. (a free internet with net neutrality)
The real question is how did this happen
How did this happen to the G.O.P.? The party of business, that fought to reverse the New Deal, the party of Goldwater, Nixon's southern strategy, law and order, and Reagan? No mystery. But no opposition either. The Democrats became Republican lite, no left left.
The real question is how did this happen to the Democrats? Maybe money trumps party. Until the internet changed that. No internet, no Obama, and no Sanders candidacy. (a free internet with net neutrality)
The real question is how did this happen
6
Marco Rubio is the intellectual "Potemkin Village" of American politics.He is charismatic, forceful, and a savant at self promotion. His speeches and statements, however, are a 3D trinity of demonization, dogma, and distortion. When you couple that with several borderline ethical issues, a medieval belief in no abortion exceptions, and a tangled financial past, his "political emergence" may be short lived.
29
I think "Manchurian candidate" might be the analogy here!
3
Congratulations on your letter in yesterdays Times.
RSVP, listed.
RSVP, listed.
1
"there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble."
Of course there are, and the distinguished professor knows what they are: Rupert Murdoch and his fellow billionaires who have set up Fox News and talk radio to create -- and sustain -- the bubble.
For decades now, there has been a concerted and highly successful effort by the truly rich to make the country work for them. Their propaganda apparatus is the most visible, and most visibly connected to its owners, part of the continuing campaign.
Why pretend there is some mystery behind the phenomenon? Is it the risk of sounding like Bernie Sanders?
Of course there are, and the distinguished professor knows what they are: Rupert Murdoch and his fellow billionaires who have set up Fox News and talk radio to create -- and sustain -- the bubble.
For decades now, there has been a concerted and highly successful effort by the truly rich to make the country work for them. Their propaganda apparatus is the most visible, and most visibly connected to its owners, part of the continuing campaign.
Why pretend there is some mystery behind the phenomenon? Is it the risk of sounding like Bernie Sanders?
111
Pretense is the norm. Yes the rw news monopoly bubble exists, but what about the non Fox bubble of the rest of the media? They are in a centrist bubble, carefully avoiding the real causes of our problems.. and being cheerleaders or excuse makers for the weak Dem response.
Nobody talks about big money setting the limits of our policy making. When will they talk how Citizens United unleashed the power of big money over politics, further removing it from majority influence? The Times needs to get with it.
It's said that 6 monopolies own our media.
Nobody talks about big money setting the limits of our policy making. When will they talk how Citizens United unleashed the power of big money over politics, further removing it from majority influence? The Times needs to get with it.
It's said that 6 monopolies own our media.
An even more obscure simile, would be the Chatty Cathy doll which whhen the string was pulled gave you a canned, but irrelevant speech.
6
Let's not forget the "Talking Tina" doll from a Twilight Zone episode. Now that was one episode that really creeped me out.
Yes - but the Time Loop Party is currently much more entertaining than US - and that has me worried - as the voter turnout in Iowa showed -( very positive for Republicans up 54 percent from 2012 and negative for Democrats down 22 percent from 2008).”
WE need much more juicy Drama comparable to the Obama-Hillary Match to get our voters going. At least Bill turned up the volume a bit but Paul Krugman has been a bit of a dissapointment lately after a good start to create
some excitement with 'Bernie-Bros' he turned down the volumne - and is now attacking the crazy conservatives again.
That's no help!
We need much, much more Drama - to create an entertaining narrative of a Democratic Hero fighting for a better World!
WE need much more juicy Drama comparable to the Obama-Hillary Match to get our voters going. At least Bill turned up the volume a bit but Paul Krugman has been a bit of a dissapointment lately after a good start to create
some excitement with 'Bernie-Bros' he turned down the volumne - and is now attacking the crazy conservatives again.
That's no help!
We need much, much more Drama - to create an entertaining narrative of a Democratic Hero fighting for a better World!
4
Reality is complicated, and no amount of magical thinking will transform a reactionary GOP.
Pretending otherwise will elect a GOP president, whose sole mission will be to end taxation for the wealthy, and destroy the environment.
If you long to own a home on the edge of the Grand Canyon, after it is sold to the highest bidder, then the GOP is your party.
Pretending otherwise will elect a GOP president, whose sole mission will be to end taxation for the wealthy, and destroy the environment.
If you long to own a home on the edge of the Grand Canyon, after it is sold to the highest bidder, then the GOP is your party.
6
“clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues.” Really??
The question isn’t what HRC knows, but does she have judgment, integrity and grit to stand up to Wall St., and the plutocracy that seeks to weaken the middle/working class. Will she fight for American values or just pay lip service. For too long the American people have been neglected and forsaken for money, power and greed because our politicians are beholden to their corporate masters.
Is HRC just another corporate shill that will further her interests at the expense of the American people? Being hawkish, will she get us into more quagmires and who will pay for it?
Here are some examples of her lack of judgment:
HRC’s vote for a bogus war of choice. How about her decision to have a private email server? Whose idea was that? The FBI will determine what was classified, but what does this say about her judgment in keeping that information safe from computer hacks?
Or how about those speaking fees in 2013? HRC received $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for three speeches. HRC doesn’t need the money so what were they buying? Was this pay-to-play? Will HRC release those meeting transcripts?
Let’s not forget that HRC served as a Walmart board member, pushed fracking worldwide, flip-flopped on a Bankruptcy Bill and pushed for TPP and XL pipeline before she was against it.
Only one candidate has solid judgment and integrity. Why vote for a substitute when you can get the real deal with Bernie Sanders?
The question isn’t what HRC knows, but does she have judgment, integrity and grit to stand up to Wall St., and the plutocracy that seeks to weaken the middle/working class. Will she fight for American values or just pay lip service. For too long the American people have been neglected and forsaken for money, power and greed because our politicians are beholden to their corporate masters.
Is HRC just another corporate shill that will further her interests at the expense of the American people? Being hawkish, will she get us into more quagmires and who will pay for it?
Here are some examples of her lack of judgment:
HRC’s vote for a bogus war of choice. How about her decision to have a private email server? Whose idea was that? The FBI will determine what was classified, but what does this say about her judgment in keeping that information safe from computer hacks?
Or how about those speaking fees in 2013? HRC received $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for three speeches. HRC doesn’t need the money so what were they buying? Was this pay-to-play? Will HRC release those meeting transcripts?
Let’s not forget that HRC served as a Walmart board member, pushed fracking worldwide, flip-flopped on a Bankruptcy Bill and pushed for TPP and XL pipeline before she was against it.
Only one candidate has solid judgment and integrity. Why vote for a substitute when you can get the real deal with Bernie Sanders?
14
Spence, you need to read, e.g., the Times article a few days ago discussing the use of private email by, e.g., Colin Powell as Secretary of State.
15
I will pull the lever for Bernie in the primary, but am one of those people who will be very content to vote for Hillary in the general if it comes to that. From her early days working for Marian Wright Edelman through her work in the Senate, and yes, even as Secretary of State, she has shown a willingness to fight for the weak against the strong, to help the poor and oppressed, and to improve the lives of women and children the world over.
Sure, she has not always been successful, e.g. health care, Middle Eastern policy, etc., but even Bernie has not faced the challenges she has.
Sure, her methods have sometimes been rather, shall we say, flexible, but I cannot say other methods would have been more successful against an implacable opposition and chaos.
Let me ask you all a question. If you were in the Senate and presented with the huge volume of cherry picked intelligence, misrepresentations and outright lies, can you be sure how you would have voted on the use of force in Iraq? I know Bernie got it right, but many other good Democrats got it wrong. I know that at the time I was not alarmed, because I foolishly thought it was just a threat, and that even Bush would not be so stupid to invade Iraq especially after Cheney's statement after the first Gulf War.
Please people, do not cut off your nose to spite your face.
Sure, she has not always been successful, e.g. health care, Middle Eastern policy, etc., but even Bernie has not faced the challenges she has.
Sure, her methods have sometimes been rather, shall we say, flexible, but I cannot say other methods would have been more successful against an implacable opposition and chaos.
Let me ask you all a question. If you were in the Senate and presented with the huge volume of cherry picked intelligence, misrepresentations and outright lies, can you be sure how you would have voted on the use of force in Iraq? I know Bernie got it right, but many other good Democrats got it wrong. I know that at the time I was not alarmed, because I foolishly thought it was just a threat, and that even Bush would not be so stupid to invade Iraq especially after Cheney's statement after the first Gulf War.
Please people, do not cut off your nose to spite your face.
348
Spence, while I agree with much of your post, I have a different take on the $675,000 speaking fees.
I think anyone who has had to arrange for outside speakers for events realizes they come in two categories; those who are hunting to get the spot and those who are being hunted.
Most politicians fall into the hunting category. The rarer bird is the celebrity politician. You can spot them by the fact you go after them to add prestige to your event, and they charge more because they can. Also you don't get to have input, besides suggesting a general topic. Hillary fits into this category.
It was still arrogant and stupid of her. She just assumed we all would know she was in the celebrity group, while leaving herself wide open for attack as an ordinary politician, who only gets the gig (and big bucks) by towing the spender's line.
Other than that caveat, a great post. Feel the Bern!
I think anyone who has had to arrange for outside speakers for events realizes they come in two categories; those who are hunting to get the spot and those who are being hunted.
Most politicians fall into the hunting category. The rarer bird is the celebrity politician. You can spot them by the fact you go after them to add prestige to your event, and they charge more because they can. Also you don't get to have input, besides suggesting a general topic. Hillary fits into this category.
It was still arrogant and stupid of her. She just assumed we all would know she was in the celebrity group, while leaving herself wide open for attack as an ordinary politician, who only gets the gig (and big bucks) by towing the spender's line.
Other than that caveat, a great post. Feel the Bern!
11
The reason the Republican senators have no accomplishments to point to is that they've paralysed our congress ever since they gained a majority.
20
I would rather listen to one good political speech repeated several times over than a succession of different bad ones. The fact that Sen. Rubio repeats some lines in his speeches from time-to-time bothers me not at all.
President Obama employs thousands of speech writers and press agents through his control of the federal bureaucracy. Naturally every time he visits a day care center or dedicates a water fountain, he has something that sounds fresh and new to say. But what of substance has that really amounted to? The Iran deal? The cave-ins to Putin? The red line that wasn’t a red line? The dilly-dallying over ISIS?
Gov. Christie is a bridge-closer who thus far has successfully managed to huff-and-puff his way past taking any responsibility for it; while leaving his underlings in-the-lurch to suffer alone. How great and brave is that? Give me a good rousing patriotic speech to listen to many times over against a blowhard denying the obvious, and I’ll take the speech every time.
Rubio is still a fresh face on the political scene. His leadership potential seems evident, and he has correctly identified many of President Obama’s shortcomings. Most important of all, he seems easily capable of soundly defeating the two Democratic relics from bygone political eras who are currently opposing him.
The people of New Jersey should help Gov. Christie obtain new employment more in keeping with his talents, possibly as a toll collector on the George Washington Bridge.
President Obama employs thousands of speech writers and press agents through his control of the federal bureaucracy. Naturally every time he visits a day care center or dedicates a water fountain, he has something that sounds fresh and new to say. But what of substance has that really amounted to? The Iran deal? The cave-ins to Putin? The red line that wasn’t a red line? The dilly-dallying over ISIS?
Gov. Christie is a bridge-closer who thus far has successfully managed to huff-and-puff his way past taking any responsibility for it; while leaving his underlings in-the-lurch to suffer alone. How great and brave is that? Give me a good rousing patriotic speech to listen to many times over against a blowhard denying the obvious, and I’ll take the speech every time.
Rubio is still a fresh face on the political scene. His leadership potential seems evident, and he has correctly identified many of President Obama’s shortcomings. Most important of all, he seems easily capable of soundly defeating the two Democratic relics from bygone political eras who are currently opposing him.
The people of New Jersey should help Gov. Christie obtain new employment more in keeping with his talents, possibly as a toll collector on the George Washington Bridge.
1
When asked about climate change, Rubio famously refused to comment saying, "I am not a scientist." Well, he is not a diplomat, doctor, economist, mathematician, garbage collector, farmer, policeman, social worker, soldier, engineer, fireman, nurse, builder, businessman, accountant, architect, factory worker, plumber, secretary, file clerk, sociologist, logician (obviously), painter, etc., etc., etc.
Rubio not, only has fresh face, he has a fresh little used mind.
Rubio not, only has fresh face, he has a fresh little used mind.
9
How can you possibly reason with folks who actually believe humanity is less than 10.000 years old. That IS the delusion of the GOP base.
16
Newspapers need a story, and the fact that Secretary Clinton is very close to a certainty for the nomination needs to be downplayed so readers will want to read about developments. Senator Sanders will probably win in New Hampshire, and that will be about the last primary that he wins.
American voters will not elect someone like Sanders, who promises to stop foreign wars. Americans know that one billion goatherds are ready to invade and impose Sharia Law, and we need to overthrow the governments that are supporting them.
For the election, Secretary Clinton is a bit less of a certainty, but with Donald and Bloomberg, she should have enough help to win.
And then she's promised she will not be the wimp Obama was. She'll quickly put an end to the evil, secular Syrian regime, and put in an honest Wahhabi government.
And after that, to show she's tougher than Bush, jr and Bill, she'll make sure we get regime change in Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.
And then the world will be very, very peaceful.
American voters will not elect someone like Sanders, who promises to stop foreign wars. Americans know that one billion goatherds are ready to invade and impose Sharia Law, and we need to overthrow the governments that are supporting them.
For the election, Secretary Clinton is a bit less of a certainty, but with Donald and Bloomberg, she should have enough help to win.
And then she's promised she will not be the wimp Obama was. She'll quickly put an end to the evil, secular Syrian regime, and put in an honest Wahhabi government.
And after that, to show she's tougher than Bush, jr and Bill, she'll make sure we get regime change in Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.
And then the world will be very, very peaceful.
1
Rubio revealed and not much to consider. What a pitiful showing. What a pitiful party to even have him in the primaries. What happened to the statesmen and seasoned men with gravitas and stature in the GOP? Where have they gone? Rubio, Trump. Cruz, all of them are pretty shabby in what was truly a grand old party and is now acting like a street bum. Hopefully the party will find someone to carry the banner in the fall elections. They will have to change direction in order to do so.
12
The Republican faith in tax cuts and an expanded military is reinforced by their donor base. The good news is that their circular firing squad campaign will leave the last candidate standing bloodied and exposed and a large percentage of Republican primary voters will be disillusioned and stay home. This will open the door so that candidate Sanders' won't have to run smear campaigns against them and maybe the media will believe his political revolution is viable.
6
Marco Rubio and his Republican Party represent the triumph of lock-step ideology, supported by massive continuous propaganda. The Republican "debates" have been little more than reality television exercises, where not just Rubio but every candidate repeated scripted talking points savaging the President and Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders has been ignored to date, since virtually all Republicans believe, probably rightly, that Clinton is a much stronger candidate. They want nothing more than to run against Sanders in a general election decided on the merits of socialism.
The Democratic Party, for all its faults, for a century has had a record of placing ideology second to pragmatic problem-solving, the best example of which was FDR and the New Deal. The "malefactors of great wealth", as he described them, hated him, and the pragmatic fact-based approach to politics that he represented. The Clintons, like it or not, are in that pragmatic, problem-solving tradition, and for decades have inspired the same hatred, until recently from the Right. It has become very clear that many Sanders supporters, locked into their own "my way or the highway" ideological talking points, are with the other team.
The Democratic Party, for all its faults, for a century has had a record of placing ideology second to pragmatic problem-solving, the best example of which was FDR and the New Deal. The "malefactors of great wealth", as he described them, hated him, and the pragmatic fact-based approach to politics that he represented. The Clintons, like it or not, are in that pragmatic, problem-solving tradition, and for decades have inspired the same hatred, until recently from the Right. It has become very clear that many Sanders supporters, locked into their own "my way or the highway" ideological talking points, are with the other team.
40
You note the confluence of the beginning of Obamacare and the increase in new jobs without implying cause and effect. Gaining health insurance is a cost, not a savings.
I attribute the ramp up in job growth in the last two years to the massive reduction in the prices of crude oil and oil products.
Oil goes into everything, is a raw material in many products, moves everything and everybody, and is converted into energy to generate power and heat.
The price of crude oil is now just a third of what it was two years ago. That is why the increase in new jobs has occurred.
It isn't a Republican or Democrat policy that created those additional jobs. It was the genius who invented fracking with the resulting increase in oil production.
I attribute the ramp up in job growth in the last two years to the massive reduction in the prices of crude oil and oil products.
Oil goes into everything, is a raw material in many products, moves everything and everybody, and is converted into energy to generate power and heat.
The price of crude oil is now just a third of what it was two years ago. That is why the increase in new jobs has occurred.
It isn't a Republican or Democrat policy that created those additional jobs. It was the genius who invented fracking with the resulting increase in oil production.
Don't agree--the price of crude has had little effect if any on airline fares, and gas is still over $3.50/gallon on the west coast. The oil industry and the petrochemical industries have lost jobs--check out what's happened at DuPont-Dow during the past few months. The prices haven't gone down--instead expenses are cut by eliminating jobs.
10
Normal: "You note the confluence of the beginning of Obamacare and the increase in new jobs without implying cause and effect." The Republicans who label Obamacare as a job killer are guilty of doing the same thing, only they have NO evidence to support their position. Only if new jobs were not being created would they have support for their position.
6
Bill; we pay 1.97 here. I can see why you pay so much.
The Bush tax cuts "worked" as did the Reagan tax cuts.
These tax cuts did exactly what they were supposed to do which was to increase the wealth of the rich.
Consider the current economic proposals of Rubio and Bush.
Rubio proposes exempting from all taxation, dividends, interest and capital gains. To make up for the lost revenue the average person [ whose income is almost entirely from wages] would have to pay more in taxes,
Bush would cut taxes for the rich. His own advisors have admitted his plan would cause yearly deficits of about 300 B. Bush has said he would pay for these deficits by reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits.
I would like to suggest that Dr. Krugman write a column giving in precise dollar terms how much a given SS recipient's benefit would be reduced to pay for Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
That is if a recipient is current receiving $1000, or $1200, or $1400 per month what would the new benefit be.
Saying SS and M benefits would have to be reduced by a total of
$300 B /year doesn't have the same meaning to many as saying your benefit would be reduced by X dollars.
These tax cuts did exactly what they were supposed to do which was to increase the wealth of the rich.
Consider the current economic proposals of Rubio and Bush.
Rubio proposes exempting from all taxation, dividends, interest and capital gains. To make up for the lost revenue the average person [ whose income is almost entirely from wages] would have to pay more in taxes,
Bush would cut taxes for the rich. His own advisors have admitted his plan would cause yearly deficits of about 300 B. Bush has said he would pay for these deficits by reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits.
I would like to suggest that Dr. Krugman write a column giving in precise dollar terms how much a given SS recipient's benefit would be reduced to pay for Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
That is if a recipient is current receiving $1000, or $1200, or $1400 per month what would the new benefit be.
Saying SS and M benefits would have to be reduced by a total of
$300 B /year doesn't have the same meaning to many as saying your benefit would be reduced by X dollars.
35
Except that Jeb(!) Bush is running at the back of the pack, and has virtually no chance of being nominated -- none, I'd say.
SS is the third rail of politics -- a LOT of seniors out there, about 1/3rd of the baby boomers are now over 65 -- so cutting people's SS check would get a POTUS run out of town with pitchforks and fast.
SS is the third rail of politics -- a LOT of seniors out there, about 1/3rd of the baby boomers are now over 65 -- so cutting people's SS check would get a POTUS run out of town with pitchforks and fast.
1
@david:
Excellent comment. And it's important to remind ourselves (and each other) that Social Security and Medicare are EARNED BENEFITS! Not some sort of charity handout to be reduced for the enrichment of the already wealthy.
When Social Security was first introduced during the Depression, it was described as an entitlement in the positive sense of the word: ordinary working citizens and their dependents are entitled to receive the fruits of their labor.
Nowadays the right wing uses "entitlement" as if it were a pejorative, but it's not!
Excellent comment. And it's important to remind ourselves (and each other) that Social Security and Medicare are EARNED BENEFITS! Not some sort of charity handout to be reduced for the enrichment of the already wealthy.
When Social Security was first introduced during the Depression, it was described as an entitlement in the positive sense of the word: ordinary working citizens and their dependents are entitled to receive the fruits of their labor.
Nowadays the right wing uses "entitlement" as if it were a pejorative, but it's not!
4
I wonder if all of the Republican candidates on stage Saturday night took the Grover Norquist oath/pledge not to raise taxes. If they have and then one of them becomes president, which oath takes priority, GN's or their oath to the American people and the constitution taken upon assuming office? Don't forget, this is all part of a plan to "starve the beast", the beast being the federal government. In that goal they have somewhat succeeded. They reframed the argument on government size to be one about the so-called deficit crisis. I was at a recent meeting where a local Republican candidate (Buffalo area) maintained we must tackle the deficit first and that global warming can wait a decade or two. Starve the beast.
14
We have heard Republican after Republican discuss what a disaster a Trump presidency would be. Then, when asked if they would support him if he was the GOP nominee, so many immediately say, "I am loyal to the Republican party." They don't announce their loyalty to the USA, but instead to the GOP.
10
It's not just Fox, and it's not just the GOP. The Press has by and large become pawns of their corporate masters, and the tools of their favored politicians.
There's a stunning lack of accountability on those who make outrageous claims, which have repeatedly been proved false, to explain why the approach they advocate will succeed this time when it has failed before.
That in addition to simply ignoring potential candidate the Press deems not Newsworthy, and that assessment doesn't hinge on electability as much as how favored the candidate is by the press and whether or not their behavior/rhetoric is more entertaining.
I think of the recent NYS Gubernatorial election and the dismissive treatment Zephyr Teachout received in the Press and she stunned Cuomo despite that and being woefully underfunded. Fairer treatment in the Press could have had a dramatic impact, say shaming Cuomo to debate a challenger instead of giving him a free pass while he snubbed her.
The Press enables this with their absurdly shallow "debates" where rating matter more than substance and cheer leading interviews, and opinion pieces which regurgitate The Party Line.
There's a stunning lack of accountability on those who make outrageous claims, which have repeatedly been proved false, to explain why the approach they advocate will succeed this time when it has failed before.
That in addition to simply ignoring potential candidate the Press deems not Newsworthy, and that assessment doesn't hinge on electability as much as how favored the candidate is by the press and whether or not their behavior/rhetoric is more entertaining.
I think of the recent NYS Gubernatorial election and the dismissive treatment Zephyr Teachout received in the Press and she stunned Cuomo despite that and being woefully underfunded. Fairer treatment in the Press could have had a dramatic impact, say shaming Cuomo to debate a challenger instead of giving him a free pass while he snubbed her.
The Press enables this with their absurdly shallow "debates" where rating matter more than substance and cheer leading interviews, and opinion pieces which regurgitate The Party Line.
176
"The Press" used to mean journalism. Today it means tracking what celebrities do and wear and producing cheap tabloids and phony commentary as if it is important to a person's daily life. Don't give any respect to the Fox Murdockian Media Empire or the Limbaugh Ditto Head Losers by referring to them as if they had anything at all to do with journalism.
5
Why should Republicans change their campaign game plan - distracting working class simpletons from every issue that is really important to them and their welfare, and continue beguiling them into supporting policies that, in truth, benefit only the wealthy – when that playbook has served them so well for decades? There are signs they may have to adapt that strategy someday, such as Bernie Sanders polling so well among young voters, but adopting sane polices now would turn off their base, and that would kill their chances of holding back the nation's progress.
The damage from four decades of conservative corruption of American politics is already so bad that more progressive income tax rates won't be enough to undo it. With the wealth gap at an historic extreme, with the US sitting alone among advanced economies, right amid the poorest and more corrupt nations on Earth, only reining in banksters and substantially raising estate taxes could even begin to reverse it. Let's hope those young Americans turn out to vote – their parents' and grandparents have let them down, but they, at long last, are figuring out who's truly on their side, and sooner or later, the country will return to economic and moral greatness.
The damage from four decades of conservative corruption of American politics is already so bad that more progressive income tax rates won't be enough to undo it. With the wealth gap at an historic extreme, with the US sitting alone among advanced economies, right amid the poorest and more corrupt nations on Earth, only reining in banksters and substantially raising estate taxes could even begin to reverse it. Let's hope those young Americans turn out to vote – their parents' and grandparents have let them down, but they, at long last, are figuring out who's truly on their side, and sooner or later, the country will return to economic and moral greatness.
67
Do you realize when you call a vast majority of American citizens "working class SIMPLETONS" -- you are not very likely to get their votes?
When Democrats realize this strategy DOES NOT WORK, maybe then they can rebuild their party into one the rest of us can support.
When Democrats realize this strategy DOES NOT WORK, maybe then they can rebuild their party into one the rest of us can support.
Concerned Citizen - While I think it's incorrect, unnecessary, and definitely impolitic to use a phrase like "working class simpletons," I can't help wondering why it's okay for people like Limbaugh to insult liberals constantly, why it's okay for people posting all over the internet to belittle liberals, and we never hear anyone complaining about that.
5
Americans of moderate or once-moderate means are experiencing their "Poseidon Adventure" moment: the realization that a disaster has occurred and that they may be left behind by those concerned only with saving their own hides. And in this case, those concerned are smugly enriching themselves. I hear the distressed cries coming from the parts of the once-insuperable vessel that is the first segment to submerge...
14
PKs blindness to his own appalling contributions to our present political culture includes failing to recognize that he is a principal agent of the "Foxification" of liberal political behavior and that the most extreme example of the paranoid style in 2016 is the Bernie campaign, a senile recap of the history of progressivism in the 20th century. His contempt for anything advocated by those to his right is exceeded only by his hubris in promoting perpetual shallow, deceptive and hypocritical attacks on anything not blessed by Saint Paul.
1
Since Paul Krugman has been vilified in the comments section for not supporting Sanders, I do not see how he can also be guilty of being the principal agent behind Sanders "liberal" campaign. When people to the right of Mr Krugman make proposals that benefit all Americans with realistic numbers that add up, he will I am sure be open to those ideas. Unfortunately moving to the right of Krugman takes one first to Obama and Hillary and then quickly to the Tea Party. There are very few positions between the President and the Tea Party that politicians publicly endorse. Obama and Hillary are the center in US politics and Krugman has both praised and criticized their positions.
18
Yours seems a little harsh.
7
I don't understand exactly what you are objecting to. Could you be more specific? Paranoid? About what versus, say, repub's aversion to anything not God Blessed American. Oh, except those Asian sweat shops that feed corporate profits.
10
Bernie Sanders is a one-note candidate, Paul? Sanders just doesn't talk about income inequality, he has proposed solutions: a living wage of $15, strengthening unions, and rewriting our disastrous trade agreements. He believes in pay equity for women, public colleges should be tuition-free (paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation), and that we need real tax reform when the very wealthy pay the lowest effective tax rates in decades and some corporations pay little or no taxes. Unlike Clinton, Sanders does not take big money, corporate money, or super PAC money (never has). Other issues that Sanders has addressed on the campaign trail:
- Combating climate change
- Reforming Wall Street
- Investing in our crumbling infrastructure, creating millions of jobs
- Medicare for all (it would save an average of $5,000)
- Lowering prescription drug prices
- Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on the payroll tax
- Real family values: paid maternity leave, medical and sick leave, and guaranteed vacation time
- Marriage equality
- War on drugs and mass incarceration
- Racial justice
- Immigration reform
- War should be the last option and the Iraq vote
There are issues that Sanders cares about such as cutting the bloated military budget, reining in the NSA and protecting the Fourth Amendment, allowing for GMO labeling, and reversing Race to the Top (aka NCLB).
Americans are responding to Sanders' message because he believes in a government of, by, and for the people.
- Combating climate change
- Reforming Wall Street
- Investing in our crumbling infrastructure, creating millions of jobs
- Medicare for all (it would save an average of $5,000)
- Lowering prescription drug prices
- Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on the payroll tax
- Real family values: paid maternity leave, medical and sick leave, and guaranteed vacation time
- Marriage equality
- War on drugs and mass incarceration
- Racial justice
- Immigration reform
- War should be the last option and the Iraq vote
There are issues that Sanders cares about such as cutting the bloated military budget, reining in the NSA and protecting the Fourth Amendment, allowing for GMO labeling, and reversing Race to the Top (aka NCLB).
Americans are responding to Sanders' message because he believes in a government of, by, and for the people.
777
How will Bernie get any of his worthwhile proposals through a reactionary GOP congress?
13
Did you read the essay? Sure he used the phrase, one note candidate but he used is cautiously and in a favorable contrast of both Democrats to the Republican debaters. I like Bernie too, but he is "more" of a one note candidate than Hillary who has policies crafted on so much it is unbelievable.
10
Unfortunately, these are just talking points describing a dream-state where everything on Sander's wish list comes true. Most of us realize that with a GOP controlled Congress none of this has a chance of becoming reality. It sounds nice. It looks good on paper but unfortunately . . .
14
The scripts the Republican Party follows are the result of decades spent finding out what lines of reasoning they could feed to voters to secure tax breaks and a more favorable political environment for the rich. This descends from the more direct lines of reasoning, like the supposed economic miracle to follow any tax breaks granted to the rich, to more askew rhetorical devices, like the notion that government spending is skewed to help "Those People", and therefore spending should be cut, along with the taxes raised to cover said spending. The Republican Party, today, has become a Frankenstein's monster - made up of all the right parts to give them the backing of much of America's wealthiest and it's largest corporations, but utterly terrifying to set eyes on as a whole.
So many of the wealthiest people in America, and the largest companies, have become wise and spread their campaign contributions out between Republicans and Democrats, so that if their monster happens to lose the big pageant, they have access to those in political power regardless of who prevails.
This is what Clinton supporters don't understand about Sanders supporters. The system of campaign finance described above, and the political party platforms that have formed around it, are destroying American Democracy. By electing somebody that does not receive campaign contributions, we're looking to get out of this Groundhog Day period of American History and bring about a new dawn of democracy in America.
So many of the wealthiest people in America, and the largest companies, have become wise and spread their campaign contributions out between Republicans and Democrats, so that if their monster happens to lose the big pageant, they have access to those in political power regardless of who prevails.
This is what Clinton supporters don't understand about Sanders supporters. The system of campaign finance described above, and the political party platforms that have formed around it, are destroying American Democracy. By electing somebody that does not receive campaign contributions, we're looking to get out of this Groundhog Day period of American History and bring about a new dawn of democracy in America.
24
Yes, we DO understand it. We just are not convinced in the least that Bernie can win. Too many of us have lived through earlier elections and seen how uninformed the American electorate is. Further, in my own case, although I admire and agree with most of Bernie's ideas, I don't see that he's had much if any success in persuading any of his fellow Senators that he's correct in over 25 years in the Senate.
4
Don't underestimate to what degree the cause is the "Foxification" as you call it, of the Republican discussion. I've been saying this for years, and I think the deeper causes that you allude to exist, but they're actually part of the same issue, basically the paid propaganda that the FOX and Rush Limbaugh and all the rest represent.
Cognitive science caused a fairly dramatic change in clinical therapy by demonstrating that while deep underlying causes may exist, people's troubles and complications mostly have to do with how their brains process the events in their lives, and control their reactions. Behaviorism, all the rage for decades, postulated that it was a matter of stimulus and reaction. Cognitive scientists however came along and showed that this was only part of the story, in the case of humans there is also a complex thought process interpreting the stimulus, and everything depends on that interpretation.
In essence, FOX News and right-wing talk radio have become the brain of the Republican Party, controlling how every event is interpreted. This is no accident of course, but a deliberate propaganda effort, bought and paid for by the rich and powerful. And it's powerful indeed.
No one should underestimate the far reaching effects of such powerful information control. In turn, this is caused by our system that allows money to control everything, in this case those with the most of it can control how people think.
Cognitive science caused a fairly dramatic change in clinical therapy by demonstrating that while deep underlying causes may exist, people's troubles and complications mostly have to do with how their brains process the events in their lives, and control their reactions. Behaviorism, all the rage for decades, postulated that it was a matter of stimulus and reaction. Cognitive scientists however came along and showed that this was only part of the story, in the case of humans there is also a complex thought process interpreting the stimulus, and everything depends on that interpretation.
In essence, FOX News and right-wing talk radio have become the brain of the Republican Party, controlling how every event is interpreted. This is no accident of course, but a deliberate propaganda effort, bought and paid for by the rich and powerful. And it's powerful indeed.
No one should underestimate the far reaching effects of such powerful information control. In turn, this is caused by our system that allows money to control everything, in this case those with the most of it can control how people think.
230
This is an excellent post, and I agree with this writer that "Foxification" cannot be underestimated as the main engine driving the suppression of critical reasoning that permeates regressive politics. And I endorse linking cognitive science/therapy as superior tools for understanding and treating behaviors that are counterproductive.
What kind of behaviors might we collectively engineer in our body politic? Certainly left and right can agree that a society is best when more of its inhabitants are relatively free of worry about financial security for the health and maturity?
The Koch/Mellon-Scaife network that has for decades been at work changing the way people think through media and think tanks had its greatest success with a Fox Network that has become a megaphone for its ideology. It is only conservative in the sense that it promotes smaller government; it is far more reactionary in promoting libertarian ideology of pointing a blaming finger at taxes, regulations, and unions, all anathema in the utopia of the kind of economics that has become orthodox on the Right.
What happens when successive tax cuts leave increasingly less revenue available for government to promote the public good? Cuts to benefits. The goal on the far right has long been the dismantling of governmental involvement in providing services that libertarian orthodoxy believes SHOULD only be provided by the public sector. Forget what good government COULD accomplish.
What kind of behaviors might we collectively engineer in our body politic? Certainly left and right can agree that a society is best when more of its inhabitants are relatively free of worry about financial security for the health and maturity?
The Koch/Mellon-Scaife network that has for decades been at work changing the way people think through media and think tanks had its greatest success with a Fox Network that has become a megaphone for its ideology. It is only conservative in the sense that it promotes smaller government; it is far more reactionary in promoting libertarian ideology of pointing a blaming finger at taxes, regulations, and unions, all anathema in the utopia of the kind of economics that has become orthodox on the Right.
What happens when successive tax cuts leave increasingly less revenue available for government to promote the public good? Cuts to benefits. The goal on the far right has long been the dismantling of governmental involvement in providing services that libertarian orthodoxy believes SHOULD only be provided by the public sector. Forget what good government COULD accomplish.
20
What about the "deliberate propaganda" of the left-wing NYT? Or MSNBC? or CBS and ABC? or PBS and NPR?
The left has 10 times as many news outlets, and voices, as the right wing has.
Are you arguing AGAINST Freedom of Speech? Because that is sure what it sounds like.
The left has 10 times as many news outlets, and voices, as the right wing has.
Are you arguing AGAINST Freedom of Speech? Because that is sure what it sounds like.
And Concerned Citizens demonstrates once again that she is a confirmed Fox believer as she repeats the right-wing lie that "The left has 10 times as many news outlets, and voices, as the right wing has." Not just a lie but an idiotic lie that is believed only by people who have succumbed to the blather coming from Fox.
No, CC, no one is arguing is against freedom of speech, but a lot of us would like for there to be fewer lies presented as truth and willingly imbibed by people who can't be bothered to think for themselves, only believing what is fed them by a so-called news network that claims to be "fair and balanced" and cannot admit that it shills for the Republicans.
No, CC, no one is arguing is against freedom of speech, but a lot of us would like for there to be fewer lies presented as truth and willingly imbibed by people who can't be bothered to think for themselves, only believing what is fed them by a so-called news network that claims to be "fair and balanced" and cannot admit that it shills for the Republicans.
10
As if the Bernie and Hillary show isn’t every bit as bent on tiresomely repeating the left’s talking points; or that voters hadn’t already heard them endlessly. If I hear one more time that Wall Street is the heart of darkness for which all the ills of mankind can be blamed, or that “pay-to-play” never existed with the Clintons, I may scream.
As to ObamaCare, enough Americans agree with Republicans that they won the Senate in 2014 – and RealClearPolitics has a majority of people actively DISapproving of it, while only about 43% approve of it. Maybe the Republican contenders are on to something.
And we can and do argue forever about taxes, but the left already lost the argument – Bernie, if elected, won’t get his extortionate taxes. Or maybe we enter the enchanted world he apparently thinks will magically manifest on his inauguration and this Congress will vote him his Euro taxes.
The responsible Republican contenders hardly advocate that we go to war with the world, but it’s certainly true that shows of American force kept the world relatively stable for decades while that stability is in a shambles after only seven years of Obama disappearing-turtle-head policy.
NOBODY takes a primary debate so seriously as to think it bears in ANY way on how an elected president will govern. But many would be disappointed if Paul didn’t show the blue flag. Yet when one considers Krugman columns, the notions of time-loop and repetition become understandable.
As to ObamaCare, enough Americans agree with Republicans that they won the Senate in 2014 – and RealClearPolitics has a majority of people actively DISapproving of it, while only about 43% approve of it. Maybe the Republican contenders are on to something.
And we can and do argue forever about taxes, but the left already lost the argument – Bernie, if elected, won’t get his extortionate taxes. Or maybe we enter the enchanted world he apparently thinks will magically manifest on his inauguration and this Congress will vote him his Euro taxes.
The responsible Republican contenders hardly advocate that we go to war with the world, but it’s certainly true that shows of American force kept the world relatively stable for decades while that stability is in a shambles after only seven years of Obama disappearing-turtle-head policy.
NOBODY takes a primary debate so seriously as to think it bears in ANY way on how an elected president will govern. But many would be disappointed if Paul didn’t show the blue flag. Yet when one considers Krugman columns, the notions of time-loop and repetition become understandable.
2
American force perhaps kept the world stable until dubya decided to fight two wars on the cheap and put both of them on the path to slow, painful losses as in Vietnam. And then again, southeast Asia resisted Communism in spite of our Vietnam adventure, those who succeeded the Soviet Union in Afghanistan plunged the country into civil war and plotted against us, and our overthrow of the elected government in Iran has returned to haunt us. Our alliances with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have earned us repeated stabs in the back.
Obamacare was the victim of a massive disinformation campaign, and abolishing it without anything to replace it with only resurrects the lack of accessible health care it was designed to fix.
Obamacare was the victim of a massive disinformation campaign, and abolishing it without anything to replace it with only resurrects the lack of accessible health care it was designed to fix.
17
Please remember that people who disapprove of Obamacare may say so because they want medicare for all, not because they want republican solutions--if they have any.
25
Maybe the Republican contenders are onto something, indeed: but it's rhetoric, not facts.
5
The Republicans, and to a lesser extent the Democrats, are basically employees of the very rich who finance them. Their shared goal is to grab all the money they can, without regard for who is hurt.
Who are the very rich? Basically they are people who have inherited a lot of money. For example, seven of the 10 richest Americans inherited it all. The very rich heirs use the money to bribe politicians to reduce their taxes. They do a lot of other things to distract us from this basic fact.
The solution is to end inheritance. Nobody needs to inherit more than a million dollars, which is the median lifetime income in America. We fought a revolution in 1776 to rid ourselves of an hereditary ruling class, and that is what the very rich actually are. Thomas Jefferson outlawed huge inheritances as governor of Virginia, and other societies have done the same.
To see more steps to save democracy and America and probably the world, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec) and Benton-Comedy2 (3 min 43 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak. Thanks!
Who are the very rich? Basically they are people who have inherited a lot of money. For example, seven of the 10 richest Americans inherited it all. The very rich heirs use the money to bribe politicians to reduce their taxes. They do a lot of other things to distract us from this basic fact.
The solution is to end inheritance. Nobody needs to inherit more than a million dollars, which is the median lifetime income in America. We fought a revolution in 1776 to rid ourselves of an hereditary ruling class, and that is what the very rich actually are. Thomas Jefferson outlawed huge inheritances as governor of Virginia, and other societies have done the same.
To see more steps to save democracy and America and probably the world, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec) and Benton-Comedy2 (3 min 43 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak. Thanks!
29
Where are you getting that seven of the ten richest Americans inherited it all? It's actually the other way around--seven of the ten are self-made, receiving an 8 or 9 (out of 10) "self-made score" from Fortune. Even Charles and David Koch received a 5, indicating that, although they inherited considerable money, their own efforts increased their wealth sufficiently to put them significantly higher on the Forbes 400 list. Only one of the ten, Jim Walton, has a score as low as 2.
4
Paul Krugman has been ceaselessly bashing and smashing Bernie Sanders, and I completely disagree and want my disagreement recorded. Also, I do not care to be smashed and bashed for supporting Sanders.
328
Hear, hear! Well said.
6
Nancy, the wealthy are not just going to roll over and take it - smash and bash is the price we must pay for change.
7
In reply to Nancy:
Substitute Trump for Sanders in your statements and you have almost exactly what Trump supporters are saying. I understand that you have rejected in advance my statements. I understand you are unhappy that people say things with which you disagree, and that this makes you personally feel "smashed and bashed". I'm sorry, but this is called democracy and it's very uncomfortable at times.
OK, suppose it comes down to an election between Sanders and either Trump or Cruz. I like some of Sanders' proposals, but I also know that he has admitted that he is a "socialist". There is a large body of evidence that such a label would be very toxic to his chances in a general election. Sanders as an opponent would be about the greatest gift Progressives could give the GOP.
It sounds like you yearn for a Progressive version of Fox News, where your ideas would never be "smashed and bashed". Fox News is one of the most-watched news channels in the US. What does this say about the number of committed voters on your side, compared to the number of voters on "their" side? Remember, we are still in a democracy at least through 2016.
Substitute Trump for Sanders in your statements and you have almost exactly what Trump supporters are saying. I understand that you have rejected in advance my statements. I understand you are unhappy that people say things with which you disagree, and that this makes you personally feel "smashed and bashed". I'm sorry, but this is called democracy and it's very uncomfortable at times.
OK, suppose it comes down to an election between Sanders and either Trump or Cruz. I like some of Sanders' proposals, but I also know that he has admitted that he is a "socialist". There is a large body of evidence that such a label would be very toxic to his chances in a general election. Sanders as an opponent would be about the greatest gift Progressives could give the GOP.
It sounds like you yearn for a Progressive version of Fox News, where your ideas would never be "smashed and bashed". Fox News is one of the most-watched news channels in the US. What does this say about the number of committed voters on your side, compared to the number of voters on "their" side? Remember, we are still in a democracy at least through 2016.
8
The biggest time-loop lie of all is the trickle down voodoo that gets repeated no matter what, most recently in our still-steaming aftermath from 2008; it boggles the mind that voters' attention span is so short, and the chutzpah of GOP'ers reverting back to their same ol' same ol' without even pretending to explain why we should double-down on their so very recent epic failure.
Chutzpah on steroids.
Chutzpah on steroids.
406
If you de-fund the educational system and Fox News is your "news" source, you will have much of the public believe the trickle down voodoo!
2
The GOP carnival barking road show isn’t going anywhere. They are nothing but a xenophobic, bigoted, misogynistic group of mostly old white men who cling to illusions-of-grandeur. Thumping their chests, these candidates’ charades and lies aren't fooling anyone except maybe their base. The caricature of high school bullies comes to mind.
When they insult the intelligence of the voting populace, who will vote for them in the general election? We have real problems to solve like stagnant wages, income inequality, crumbling infrastructure and Climate Change. Why didn't the panel ask them questions in any of these pressing areas? Why bother? We already know their scripted answer. Smaller, limited government except when it comes to abortion. Roll back the tape from any other election and you get the same boring, rote answers.
Not one candidate except John Kasich had any reasonable answers on immigration, but that’s not the only issue plaguing this nation. The rest of the candidates just want to build up Defense, build a wall, ship out the illegals, conquer the world, repeal everything Obama did and cut taxes.
The GOP don’t care what the people want or need. Ideology comes first and second in their playbook. How to pay for all their largess was never asked because it would expose what a sham their platform is. When a party puts money, power and greed at the top of their list, governance falls by the wayside while the people get the shaft.
When they insult the intelligence of the voting populace, who will vote for them in the general election? We have real problems to solve like stagnant wages, income inequality, crumbling infrastructure and Climate Change. Why didn't the panel ask them questions in any of these pressing areas? Why bother? We already know their scripted answer. Smaller, limited government except when it comes to abortion. Roll back the tape from any other election and you get the same boring, rote answers.
Not one candidate except John Kasich had any reasonable answers on immigration, but that’s not the only issue plaguing this nation. The rest of the candidates just want to build up Defense, build a wall, ship out the illegals, conquer the world, repeal everything Obama did and cut taxes.
The GOP don’t care what the people want or need. Ideology comes first and second in their playbook. How to pay for all their largess was never asked because it would expose what a sham their platform is. When a party puts money, power and greed at the top of their list, governance falls by the wayside while the people get the shaft.
132
Spence - unfortunately, the rabid reactionary Republican voters don't want reasonable answers (your reference to Kasich).
2
If what you say were true, Professor, then Al Gore and McCain would never have lost to Bush. Better spoken, better wonks, with demonstrable trails of commitment to the Flag and Homeland.
Maybe Democrats don't realize why they lose : Being provably right is not enough. Demonstrating you're right, in a manner that Mr. Obama constantly harped against Mr. Romney ( and less to Mr. McCain ) , has to be the approach.
And even then, Mr. Romney came mighty close.
For the next 9 months, you cannot merely adopt the high ground, you have to adopt the meadow as well. You have to be where people want to come, because they are shown to believe that that is where their best interests lie. Don't scare people with prospective high taxes. Tell them how government is getting more efficient at delivering services and how better government doesn't mean a bigger government.
If Mr. Reagan could beat Mr. Carter, where there was no comparison of intellect or ability, then Democrats clearly haven't learned their lessons !
Only two things will work, in this election, in my opinion :
1. Remind people of the truth and show them the reality.
2. Make it simple.
Because if after all this, they are disillusioned and don't turn up to vote, we'll be twiddling our fingers for the next 4 years. We should all have learned this by now.
Maybe Democrats don't realize why they lose : Being provably right is not enough. Demonstrating you're right, in a manner that Mr. Obama constantly harped against Mr. Romney ( and less to Mr. McCain ) , has to be the approach.
And even then, Mr. Romney came mighty close.
For the next 9 months, you cannot merely adopt the high ground, you have to adopt the meadow as well. You have to be where people want to come, because they are shown to believe that that is where their best interests lie. Don't scare people with prospective high taxes. Tell them how government is getting more efficient at delivering services and how better government doesn't mean a bigger government.
If Mr. Reagan could beat Mr. Carter, where there was no comparison of intellect or ability, then Democrats clearly haven't learned their lessons !
Only two things will work, in this election, in my opinion :
1. Remind people of the truth and show them the reality.
2. Make it simple.
Because if after all this, they are disillusioned and don't turn up to vote, we'll be twiddling our fingers for the next 4 years. We should all have learned this by now.
360
You do know that Al Gore didn't lose to Bush, right? He won Florida and the election. Jeb Bush and the Florida Secretary of State conspired to deny Gore his winning margin and infamously Republican Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor provided the majority ruling in favor of Bush. You have a civics textbook notion of how general elections are fought and won in America. Most Americans vote for reasons that can't be influenced or changed. They also mostly vote against things they disagree with or are offended by, rarely do people vote for something they believe in. Obama is a great president and many folks think they voted for him when in fact they voted against McCain and Palin, considered a national joke. But isn't it fun to express your authoritative opinion next to one of leading economic thinkers in the world? Specially if you get to tell him he's wrong. That's why so many people who disagree with him keep coming back to read his column. Such a fun way to feel smart.
11
I agree but would add we need to do something to stop the Republicans from disenfranchising so many voters. They understand that the majority of the country does not support them, so they have decided to keep them from voting as much as possible. If we could increase voter turnout then we would see politicians being elected who will actually work for the benefit of the country and not themselves and their benefactors (1% and Corporations). How do we do that is the question.
11
@Yuri Asian: that is actually....kind of pitiful. You do know that several publications, including this one, did an informal (non-binding) RECOUNT of the Florida election? It was highly anticipated that it would show that Bush lost and Gore won -- but it DID NOT. It clearly showed a small but decisive Bush victory.
So even if SCOTUS had ruled to continue the recount -- Mr. Bush would have won in 2000. It's just a fact, and your saying the opposite of the truth is not going to change that.
NOTE: nobody is "correct" all the time, not even Noble prize winners. Dr. Krugman abandoned all pretense of being an objective scientist, when he decided instead to become a partisan ideologue for the Democratic party.
So even if SCOTUS had ruled to continue the recount -- Mr. Bush would have won in 2000. It's just a fact, and your saying the opposite of the truth is not going to change that.
NOTE: nobody is "correct" all the time, not even Noble prize winners. Dr. Krugman abandoned all pretense of being an objective scientist, when he decided instead to become a partisan ideologue for the Democratic party.
The frustrating thing about the Republican broken record, (I'll show my age,) is that, on the Congressional level anyway, it keeps on working. (Helped by Democrats who stay home on off-year elections.) I don't know why Democrats haven't been able to burst the information bubble Republicans have created around white blue-collar and evangelical voters. It should be easy.
70
Gerrymandering--that's why the Republican broken record works in Congress. Red states draw their congressional districts to maximize Republican majorities. They can do that because states set their own methods for drawing districts--and the current Supreme Court seems to be totally willing to minimize Black or Hispanic voters rights and let states keep those voters off the roles.
15
Gerrymandering doesn't apply when voting for governor. But, yes, Democrats and marginalized folks have no standing to gripe if they don't vote. Moreover, they have betrayed the people who bled, suffered, and died to obtain those voting rights.
18
What I found most disturbing about the Republican debate was the enthusiasm with which each of the candidates endorsed torturing people who are accused of being terrorists or who are accused of knowing something about terrorists. People really should think about that. What does it say about their sense of morality? http://www.rweconomics.com/Torture.htm
758
What does it say bout their sense of morality? Nothing good. The audience response to to those ideas was equally appalling and terrifying.
21
Only Trump believes in torture. (If you're The Donald, you never worry about the niceties of the Constitution.) The rest don't believe in torture. Waterboarding is not torture. Cruz even cited Bush adviser, John Yoo, that if it doesn't cause physical injury, it's not torture. Problem is, US case law contradicts him. Yukio Asano was convicted of waterboarding American soldiers in WWII, and here in the states, Sheriff James Parker was convicted of waterboarding prisoners. Both served lengthy prison sentences.
6
I would love to ask those bible thumpers on the question of torture, " What would Jesus do?"
Agnostic that I am, I still think I know the answer to that one. KA
Agnostic that I am, I still think I know the answer to that one. KA
4
Lie, lie, and lie some more. That's the ONLY way the neo-GOP politicians (NOT to be confused with REAL Republicans of the Abe Lincoln stripe or practical GOP leaders) can sell their garbage. Truth be damned. If you didn't believe the lie the 1st 17 times, listen again!
Hey, here's an idea: The Democratic Party politicians in the Senate should step back and let the neo-GOP pass all the garbage laws it wants. (The House of so-called Representatives no longer matters, since it represents a minority of the actual voters, but will mindless approve of whatever the neo-GOP Senate sends over.) Then President Obama should VETO all of it.
Maybe the voters would get the message of why it is important to throw ALL of these bums out.
(Actually, there are a few bums on the Democratic side, too, but too few and too ineffectual to matter. Throwing out all the bums would utterly devastate the brand hijackers of the neo-GOP. America needs a REAL and RATIONAL opposition partly. Whatever the neo-GOP is, it is NOT that.)
Hey, here's an idea: The Democratic Party politicians in the Senate should step back and let the neo-GOP pass all the garbage laws it wants. (The House of so-called Representatives no longer matters, since it represents a minority of the actual voters, but will mindless approve of whatever the neo-GOP Senate sends over.) Then President Obama should VETO all of it.
Maybe the voters would get the message of why it is important to throw ALL of these bums out.
(Actually, there are a few bums on the Democratic side, too, but too few and too ineffectual to matter. Throwing out all the bums would utterly devastate the brand hijackers of the neo-GOP. America needs a REAL and RATIONAL opposition partly. Whatever the neo-GOP is, it is NOT that.)
14
Dr. Krugman, the ultimate problem Republicans have is they're still fighting the Civil War. Well, actually, the party's leadership is not, but the red-meat base in the solidly reactionary Red State galaxy, is. Marco Rubio's star turn Saturday night was directed at those who have fallen in love with him: the coma-induced soldiery, courtesy of Fox and Rush. Republicans, since the child-killing, air-choking Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, coveted "cheap wealth" as political power's logical progression. They *don't* want is government that is representative; they *do* want government that is exploitative. Their private and corporate wealth hinge on low taxes, lower wages and regulation-free restraints. African-Americans were subjugated by American society and were never any factor politically until 1954. When the Warren Court told America that segregation is unlawful and immoral, Brown vs. Topeka slammed one door and shoved open another. Through that open door came the Civil Rights movement and out the window went white working class Democrats, straight into the arms of the Republican party. The GOP accepted the windfall of rabid voters like one army's surrendering its weapons and joining the other side. So Rubio, Ted "Alberta Clipper" Ted Cruz etc., preach to the same choir that stampeded to Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes, McConnell's "one-term" president rope over the tree, the continued votes to kill the black president's ACA. It's all of a piece: yesterday is today.
254
soxared040713....You need to make a few paragraphs, ok? I got to the part about the civil war and that's it. Do you want to be read?
It's said the US is as divided now as in civil war times.
It's said the US is as divided now as in civil war times.
When the psychologist and intelligence officer Gustav Gilbert interviewed Hermann Goering in 1946 he asked key questions about Goering's, and German government,behavior and its relationship to the German people. This conversations gets quoted repeatedly, you could say echoing Rubio's software glitch, but it remains pertinent:
Gilbert: "...contrary to (your) attitude, I (do) not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction."
Goering:"...after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. .."
Gilbert: "There is one difference,...In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Goering: "...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Republican party "wonks" know a truth about human psychology that's in the heart of Goering's observation and it's used, time and again, in their media, tv, radio, print, and internet.
Fear sells; say what you want believed again and again until it's assumed true, even the most base and foul lies.
Gilbert: "...contrary to (your) attitude, I (do) not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction."
Goering:"...after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. .."
Gilbert: "There is one difference,...In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Goering: "...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Republican party "wonks" know a truth about human psychology that's in the heart of Goering's observation and it's used, time and again, in their media, tv, radio, print, and internet.
Fear sells; say what you want believed again and again until it's assumed true, even the most base and foul lies.
1077
That is why extreme right wing rhetorics from Trump or Cruz In the
US or Le Pen in France and Farage is in the UK is working, They
capitalize on fear and hatred for political gain cynically. The worrying
fact is that Hungary and recently Poland are now govern by populist
attacking freedom of speech and stigmatising minorities. One can
imagine what kind of message will send America being still a super power
to the rest of the world if a sectarian Republican candidate will
become the next POTUS.
US or Le Pen in France and Farage is in the UK is working, They
capitalize on fear and hatred for political gain cynically. The worrying
fact is that Hungary and recently Poland are now govern by populist
attacking freedom of speech and stigmatising minorities. One can
imagine what kind of message will send America being still a super power
to the rest of the world if a sectarian Republican candidate will
become the next POTUS.
13
Rima Rigas
"smears against Sanders", "perfidious, angry pundit," "McCarthyesque", "aligned with the interests of the ruling class", the "perfidity of Paul Krugman", "millions of us waiting to get out of an entrenched precariat.."
Well, one way would be to get out of the Bernie Bubble and get one of the 12 million jobs created, despite ferocious Republican opposition, during the pragmatic, slightly left-of-center presidency of Barack Obama. Alternatively, one can repeat talking points left over from a 2012 Occupy rally, and daily accuse life-long Democrats and progressives of being corporate shills, "Hillary-apologists" (whatever that is), corporatists, sell-outs, and other nonsense. All of which consists of any criticism of your Great Leader, who, by the way, has accomplished virtually nothing in a twenty-five year congressional career. Who now wants to take over a party he just joined. And some people, like Krugman, actually question that? " Feel the Bern? " How about "burn them", as with accused witches? Talk about McCarthyism, the Tea Party aren't the only ones engaging in it.
"smears against Sanders", "perfidious, angry pundit," "McCarthyesque", "aligned with the interests of the ruling class", the "perfidity of Paul Krugman", "millions of us waiting to get out of an entrenched precariat.."
Well, one way would be to get out of the Bernie Bubble and get one of the 12 million jobs created, despite ferocious Republican opposition, during the pragmatic, slightly left-of-center presidency of Barack Obama. Alternatively, one can repeat talking points left over from a 2012 Occupy rally, and daily accuse life-long Democrats and progressives of being corporate shills, "Hillary-apologists" (whatever that is), corporatists, sell-outs, and other nonsense. All of which consists of any criticism of your Great Leader, who, by the way, has accomplished virtually nothing in a twenty-five year congressional career. Who now wants to take over a party he just joined. And some people, like Krugman, actually question that? " Feel the Bern? " How about "burn them", as with accused witches? Talk about McCarthyism, the Tea Party aren't the only ones engaging in it.
24
How sad is it that 70 years later Goering has been proved right and his interrogator sounds incredibly naive?
19
Paul Krugman tries to write persuasively, as a journalist, but despite his economic credentials and policy wonk predilections, he will be unable by election time to convince the majority of American voters that President Obama's economic record of job creation and income equality is the best course to continue.
He knocks the opposition while ignoring what his own party has chosen to leave undone for too long. We're fixing the world, allegedly, while ignoring our domestic problems here at home -- the majority of which result from too many people having too few jobs and income to draw from. Don't try to hide that with graphs and the numbers of jobs allegedly added: look at all the young people without solid work, stability and the family/community situations that a reliable income brings.
He knocks the opposition while ignoring what his own party has chosen to leave undone for too long. We're fixing the world, allegedly, while ignoring our domestic problems here at home -- the majority of which result from too many people having too few jobs and income to draw from. Don't try to hide that with graphs and the numbers of jobs allegedly added: look at all the young people without solid work, stability and the family/community situations that a reliable income brings.
19
You were right till half-way through to your 2nd (and last) paragraph.
If there is one thing (there is another) that I hold against Mr. Obama, it is that he did not do enough to show where the future lies in terms of skills and abilities. Those who are angry have a real reason to be so.
It's a different matter that he wasn't _allowed_ to do what he wanted to do.
I agree with you. But he's less at fault than you make out.
If there is one thing (there is another) that I hold against Mr. Obama, it is that he did not do enough to show where the future lies in terms of skills and abilities. Those who are angry have a real reason to be so.
It's a different matter that he wasn't _allowed_ to do what he wanted to do.
I agree with you. But he's less at fault than you make out.
20
I'd take Hill' if I had no choice
But Bernie's an authentic voice,
Gradualism's not working
Backsliding is lurking
If Bernie wins we can rejoice.
In Hillary there is no fire,
To boots on the ground she'd aspire,
With Hill' we'd tread water
Far more than we oughter'
But Bernie is aiming far higher!
But Bernie's an authentic voice,
Gradualism's not working
Backsliding is lurking
If Bernie wins we can rejoice.
In Hillary there is no fire,
To boots on the ground she'd aspire,
With Hill' we'd tread water
Far more than we oughter'
But Bernie is aiming far higher!
437
Larry, you are a sage.
3
I love your rhymes, but I suggest you study the 1964 and 1972 elections. The American people are middle of the roaders. If the Democrats nominate Sanders we'll get a Republican landslide, followed by younger versions of Scalia and Thomas on the Supreme Court, repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and, in the worst case, mass deportations of illegal immigrants. Try using your head as well as your heart.
15
"Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is a genuine policy wonk, who can think on her feet and clearly knows what she is talking about on many issues. Bernie Sanders is much more of a one-note candidate..."
Here we go again with smears against Sanders, using a slightly different tack. Professor Krugman has gone from being a national hero in times of crisis to a perfidious, angry pundit, joining in with the likes of Lloyd Blankfein in a McCarthyesque attempt at turning public opinion against Bernie Sanders.
Sanders is no less a wonk than Clinton. He's just not aligned with the interests of the ruling class. If the right is bought by moneyed interests, so is a good portion of the left, especially in the mushy triangulating middle.
We are now being sold a scenario whereby giving up on change is the new pragmatism and insisting on change is socialist intransigence. What a difference seven years make, especially when we've spent the last two reading Krugman extolling the remarkable and transformative achievements of President Obama. Talk about Groundhog Day! The reality we've all been living, the millions among us who are still waiting to get out of an entrenched precariat, our present has been erased, in favor of a narrative whereby our mere existence negates our president's achievements which, only one person can build on. Pucky! What we are being sold is the United States of Goldman Sachs. Don't be fooled, America!
--
The perfidy of Paul Krugman: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1W1
Here we go again with smears against Sanders, using a slightly different tack. Professor Krugman has gone from being a national hero in times of crisis to a perfidious, angry pundit, joining in with the likes of Lloyd Blankfein in a McCarthyesque attempt at turning public opinion against Bernie Sanders.
Sanders is no less a wonk than Clinton. He's just not aligned with the interests of the ruling class. If the right is bought by moneyed interests, so is a good portion of the left, especially in the mushy triangulating middle.
We are now being sold a scenario whereby giving up on change is the new pragmatism and insisting on change is socialist intransigence. What a difference seven years make, especially when we've spent the last two reading Krugman extolling the remarkable and transformative achievements of President Obama. Talk about Groundhog Day! The reality we've all been living, the millions among us who are still waiting to get out of an entrenched precariat, our present has been erased, in favor of a narrative whereby our mere existence negates our president's achievements which, only one person can build on. Pucky! What we are being sold is the United States of Goldman Sachs. Don't be fooled, America!
--
The perfidy of Paul Krugman: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1W1
698
As promised, here is a link to my news roundup for this week:
http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/02/berniesanders-news-roundup-for-the-week...
http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/02/berniesanders-news-roundup-for-the-week...
9
I follow your comments on this page for its insight. But lately you seem lost in the same thing you accuse proffersor Krugman. Sanders' campaign is centered on one thing and one thing only -currupting influence of money in politics and governance. He believed once that issue is addressed everything else will fall into place. I think you strongly share that view as many others. What Krugman and other analyst are saying is that it is a lot more. Economics apart people do vote on some other reasons for which race, religion, etc. plays major roles. It is sad that a lot of people have become troll to any semblance of objective analysis that does jot support their views. Libralism is a claim to facts and rational reasoning it is necessary we keep it that way as we work hard to minimize the effects of a highly charged emotion.
104
CEO,
You shouldn't follow my comments then. Better you go to Sanders' website and inform yourself directly on his policy planks. They are numerous and far more thorough than his opponents, from racial justice, to criminal justice, to healthcare reform, to economic policy, to money in politics and greater involvement of voters.
Read him, not me. I respond to what opinion writers write and that is usually the narrow slice they want you to obsess on, to the exclusion of everything else.
You shouldn't follow my comments then. Better you go to Sanders' website and inform yourself directly on his policy planks. They are numerous and far more thorough than his opponents, from racial justice, to criminal justice, to healthcare reform, to economic policy, to money in politics and greater involvement of voters.
Read him, not me. I respond to what opinion writers write and that is usually the narrow slice they want you to obsess on, to the exclusion of everything else.
90
Looking forward to you returning to writing about what you believe in. Your past articles, for years, supported Senator Sanders current platform. Please, say it ain't so Paul... you are selling out too!