How many calories does Krugman burn in a day just denying reality?
Posted on 11/05/2004 6:17:28 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.
Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.
This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback.
I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality.
Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes.
So what should the Democrats do?
One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition.
Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.
But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base.
Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage.
Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base.
In fact, they have made good strides, showing much more unity and intensity than anyone thought possible a year ago. But for the lingering aura of 9/11, they would have won.
What they need to do now is develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year.
Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will.
It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. (Heads up to readers: I'll be starting a long-planned break next week, to work on a economics textbook. I'll be back in January.) But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.
Krugman got out of his cell again.
This is rich. Have we heard for Helen Thomas yet? That should be good.
this from the man who is reduced to being a "guest" on Air America... I go over to the NYTimes at least once a day to post to him and Dowd just for a BIG OLE LAUGH....if you saw him and OReilly on Russerts show that time, he was a wussy, scared, hate filled, shaking moron.... nothing else...
Krugman has it absolutely 180 degrees backwards. If he wins the argument within the Democratic party, look for more gains in 2006 and a veto-proof 60 seats in the Senate in 2008.
Keep talking Mr. Krugman. Please.
what a maroon!
go ahead and lead the democrats into irrelevancy.
Note to Paul: you've finally gone so far out in Left field you have become invisible. We can't hear you.
The funniest line in the whole piece.
Already posted http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1271244/posts
So....how would the math add up if the numbers aren't there? Is he saying an enormous bloc, the majority who love Democrats didn't vote? Again, I don't think the numbers tell that story. Sounds a lot like whining to me.
I have to agree!
Look at my tagline : )
Keep it going, Paul. You'll push yourself right off the left wing cliff. Buh-bye.
This is the same foul mouthed rhetoric the left spewed when Reagan was in office. They bad-mouthed Reagan about everything from his age to his jelly beans. Now he's one of the most revered Presidents we've had in the last 100 years (in my book ever). The point was Reagan did accomplish something and I think if we give it time, GWB will accomplish a lot too. Can't wait to see his results.
Drink Kool-aid.
FDR was a socialist. Any "programs" he put in place SHOULD be scrutinized and over turned if they are more of a problem than a cure. Most notably, Socialist Insecurity. Shrillery's Euro style Medicare scam should go away as well. As for the scrubbing of all religion from public life, that must stop. Freedom OF religion is not Freedom FROM religion.
However, this is not a mandate for censorship and Mrs. Grundy-esque policy making either.
How many calories does Krugman burn in a day just denying reality?
Dear Mr Okkrent
As public editor of the New York Times, I hope you are in a position to urge that Mr Krugman be kept on life support until a suitable brain donor can be found. You have no idea how many conservatives find Mr Krugman's writings to be invaluable to our cause.
Sincerely,
Compassionate Blogger
Whatever! :-)
He must be under contract to Fidel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.