... the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.
I think he's hit the nail on the head. We've seen example after example of this, perhaps without naming it as such. In reading his description it seems to fit the current political situation perfectly. The biggest, and perhaps the most important example is the health care debate.
How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?
The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.
For example, Krugman points out, during the Clinton years, Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder, Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting Medicare cuts and the Republican-driven obsession with President Clinton's indiscretions and lies captivated the entire world.
The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control of Congress. Furthermore, the public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; "the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern."
The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.
It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.
What's your opinion? Does Paul Krugman make sense? Has the entire Republican Party fallen into the trap of vilifying their opposition even at a terrible cost to themselves? Does this remind you of the gun debate?
Please leave a comment.
I am sure there are a lot of people that are spiteful. However, everyone that I know or have talked to about it that were glad it happened were either concerned that it would not be good for America or were spiteful that it was Chicago instead of another American city.
ReplyDeleteI heard more than one comment that thought Chicago is too dangerous with their high crime rate and the criminal attacks on Olympic visitors would paint the entire country in a bad light. Others thought that the corrupt Chicago political machine would pervert and scandalize the event again affecting the reputation of the rest of the country.
I guess for my view, I was glad to see it fail because of a little spite to Obama since I was against both the event being held at all in the U.S. and I was against Obama making the trip. First, I do not think it was appropriate to spend all of that tax payer money in an unprecedented begging trip. I do not believe he would have done that had it been any other city. I was also afraid that if he failed, his standing in the world would be more diminished. He did fail and he did look foolish for it. His actions affect us all.
Krugman is and always has been a partisan hack.
ReplyDeleteIf Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.
ReplyDeleteIs that anything like the Democrats voting for the war, and then being against it?
in which right-wing leaders actually cheered when the U.S. bid lost out to Brazil,
There are actual reason to cheer not getting an Olympics, especially by those who do not favor saddling the taxpayers with huge debts to finance it. But which right-wing leaders "actually cheered" the decision?
How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?
You do realize you are describing the Democrats during Bush to a tee?
Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder
I know he covered the Vince Foster case closely, but I don't recall him ever suggesting Hillary had anything to do with his death.
Proof please? (I know, but I can dream, can't I?)
Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting Medicare cuts
And the Dems shut down the federal government in 1990 in order to "bully" George H. W. Bush into raising taxes. What is your point???
Republican-driven obsession with President Clinton's indiscretions and lies captivated the entire world
Yep, extra-marial sex and perjury in front of a federal jury by a sitting President is usually enough to captivate the world.
You see, if it was no big deal, as you imply, it wouldn't have captivated the entire world, would it?
The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control of Congress. Furthermore, the public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; "the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance.
They have absolutely no power in the executive or legislative branch, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and yet they STILL can't get their bills passed.
Whose falt is that?!
Isn't it interesting that the longer people have to look at things like national health care, the less they like them?
BTW, Paul Krugman, an advisor for Enron.
ReplyDeleteHow'd that work out?
(I know, an ad-hom, but it's a post full of them)
I heard more than one comment that thought Chicago is too dangerous with their high crime rate and the criminal attacks on Olympic visitors would paint the entire country in a bad light.
ReplyDeleteChicago's crime rate is no where near as high as Rio de Janeiro's.
"Chicago's crime rate is no where near as high as Rio de Janeiro's."
ReplyDeleteRio isn't in the United States. Crime and corruption there doesn't affect the U.S.
Rio isn't in the United States. Crime and corruption there doesn't affect the U.S.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, and I am wrong. Well played sir...well played.
Just curious--has anyone explained how hosting the Olympics would be beneficial for the U.S.?
ReplyDeleteI ask, because I can't think of it as anything but a chance to spend vast sums of money that we don't have, for the dubious benefit of "international 'prestige.'"
The kind of prestige I care about is a booming economy, a sound currency, and a military that no one wants to mess with.
I don't see how having the Olympics in the crime-ridden cesspool that is Chicago (or having them anywhere else in the U.S., for that matter) helps with any of those things.