April 11, 2001
10:58 AM   Subscribe

I Love Paul Krugman! He, better than any writer I have seen, cuts through all the political BS to expose the Republican party, whose members, for the most part, obtain office by cleverly deceiving the little people on what is in their interest. I would love to see PK "debate" the President (link to the NYTIMES--make up a username/password if don't have one and you're that concerned).
posted by ParisParamus (20 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
As opposed to the Democratic Party, whose members, for the most part, obtain office by cleverly deceiving the little people that the government should take their money and spend it how Capitol Hill sees fit.
posted by TacoConsumer at 11:28 AM on April 11, 2001


Obviously, you read the column.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:30 AM on April 11, 2001


Actually, Taco, if you read the article, you would know that it's the people who receive the net subsidy from the federal government who voted for "W", and those who received the least--actually paid the most and got none of it back--who voted against him.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:49 AM on April 11, 2001


Krugman makes a case for whatever he argues. He does not deal with large, vapid name calling of those on an opposite side of him. If and when you think he is off track, then point to where and how.
posted by Postroad at 11:52 AM on April 11, 2001


Now if there was only some way to make those rural W voters aware of the situation before the next election. Unfortunately, they haven't seemed to catch on any time in the past, so I don't see how one Times article will help.
posted by quirked at 12:50 PM on April 11, 2001


Not likely, Quirked: it's the people you can fool all of the time who decide most elections.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:27 PM on April 11, 2001


He does not deal with large, vapid name calling of those on an opposite side of him.

Unlike the original post of this thread, which is a vapid slam again the entire Republican Party even though Krugman's piece is about politicians in general, and Bush in particular.

Krugman is right, too: Many voters do indeed put their political principles ahead of their desire for a guaranteed slice of pork. It's what conservatism is largely about. That he finds this so odd says more about liberalism than it does about the voters' actions.
posted by aaron at 1:47 PM on April 11, 2001



the Republican party, whose members, for the most part, obtain office by cleverly deceiving the little people on what is in their interest

For anyone deluded enough to believe the above statement, I offer Tom Tomorrow.

There are men and women of honor in both of the major parties, as well as many, many opportunistic demagogues. Implying that one party has a monopoly on deceit is just plain naive. Our current electoral system is based on de facto bribery, in which both parties enthusiastically indulge.

I like Paul Krugman because he writes convincingly, but the fact is that he wouldn't be writing for the New York Times if he did anything other than reinforce the status quo.
posted by Dr. Boom at 5:05 PM on April 11, 2001


Aaron: Cliche alert. What does "many" mean within this context? The ones who keep voting for, say, Sen. Trent Lott over and over because he brings home the bacon, so to speak? It's a not-so-great secret that some of our most "conservative" Congressional leaders are as good as getting the pork for their districts and states as anyone who ever played the game. Which is not to say this makes it right, just that the thing about "principle" is a loathsome cliche, and will continue to be until it fails to clash with reality.
posted by raysmj at 6:31 PM on April 11, 2001


Oh, and just for the record, I don't agree with Krugman that the states which are now so heavily subsidized will be hit so very hard. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, for instance, will make sure that his state continues to receive more in federal dollars per capita than any other. It's the "as long as they're giving away money, my district is going to get more of it" game. They'll hang on to what they need to get votes come election day, while satisfying those who pay the most for their campaigns. Higher defense spending? Where does most defense spending go?
posted by raysmj at 6:45 PM on April 11, 2001


So, you are arguing that no one has to worry because every state has the most sly Congressmen and it will only be another state which gets screwed? Or do you only care about Alabama? And how does this negate the hypocracy?
posted by ParisParamus at 7:05 PM on April 11, 2001


Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
posted by holgate at 7:06 PM on April 11, 2001


thank you!
posted by captain obvious at 7:14 PM on April 11, 2001


No, Shelby was a typical example. Actually, I'm a student in Alabama, in case you checked the e-mail and came to that opinion. (The state's a good case study in any case considering how little it citizens pay in state taxes.) No, arguing that the states which are receiving higher funding per capita right now will continue to receive higher funding per capita in the near future, unless it happens that their party falls out of power in 2002 mid-term elections. The Congressional representatives of those states are smarter than Krugman gives them credit for being. Most military spending will go South, for instance. Otherwise, the subsidizing states are already getting screwed. What's new there?
posted by raysmj at 7:16 PM on April 11, 2001


Nothing's new. EVER.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:21 PM on April 11, 2001


thank you!
posted by captain obvious at 7:32 PM on April 11, 2001


Krugman is right, too: Many voters do indeed put their political principles ahead of their desire for a guaranteed slice of pork. It's what conservatism is largely about. That he finds this so odd says more about liberalism than it does about the voters' actions.

There is still such a thing as "liberalism"?

As far as I can tell, liberalism today exists only as a straw-man counterpoint to conservatism, which itself is a rather poorly defined label.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:34 PM on April 12, 2001


As far as I can tell, liberalism today exists only as a straw-man counterpoint to conservatism

Only within the polarised American system. Outside that political fume cupboard, liberalism's thriving.
posted by holgate at 3:01 PM on April 12, 2001


Huh? Outside the US, Liberalism is Conservatism.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:11 PM on April 12, 2001


Ahh. I should have preceded my statement with a declaration that I was operating in the U.S. namespace. Sorry about that. I was thinking of the generic americonservative railing against "liberals," and realized that I don't think I've ever actually met one.
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:41 PM on April 12, 2001


« Older "I buy as many as I can. I freeze them and we eat ...  |  Clippy dead - news at 11.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments