Posted on 03/29/2002 7:11:37 AM PST by aShepard
March 29, 2002
The Smoke Machine
By PAUL KRUGMAN
n a way, it's a shame that so much of David Brock's "Blinded by the Right: The conscience of an ex-conservative" is about the private lives of our self-appointed moral guardians. Those tales will sell books, but they may obscure the important message: that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" is not an overheated metaphor but a straightforward reality, and that it works a lot like a special-interest lobby.
Modern political economy teaches us that small, well-organized groups often prevail over the broader public interest. The steel industry got the tariff it wanted, even though the losses to consumers will greatly exceed the gains of producers, because the typical steel consumer doesn't understand what's happening.
"Blinded by the Right" shows that the same logic applies to non-economic issues. The scandal machine that employed Mr. Brock was, in effect, a special-interest group financed by a handful of wealthy fanatics — men like the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whose cultlike Unification Church owns The Washington Times, and Richard Mellon Scaife, who bankrolled the scandal-mongering American Spectator and many other right-wing enterprises. It was effective because the typical news consumer didn't realize what was going on.
The group's efforts managed to turn Whitewater — a $200,000 money-losing investment — into a byword for scandal, even though an eight-year, $73 million investigation never did find any evidence of wrongdoing by the Clintons. Just imagine what the scandal machine could have done with more promising raw material — such as the decidedly unusual business transactions of the young George W. Bush.
But there is, of course, no comparable scandal machine on the left. Why not?
One answer is that for some reason there is a level of anger and hatred on the right that has at best a faint echo in the anti-globalization left, and none at all in mainstream liberalism. Indeed, the liberals I know generally seem unwilling to face up to the nastiness of contemporary politics.
It's also true that in the nature of things, billionaires are more likely to be right-wing than left-wing fanatics. When billionaires do support more or less liberal causes, they usually try to help the world, not take over the U.S. political system. Not to put too fine a point on it: While George Soros was spending lavishly to promote democracy abroad, Mr. Scaife was spending lavishly to undermine it at home.
And his achievement is impressive; key figures from the Scaife empire are now senior officials in the Bush administration. (And Mr. Moon's newspaper is now in effect the administration's house organ.) Clearly, scandalmongering works: the public and, less excusably, the legitimate media all too readily assume that where there's smoke there must be fire — when in reality it's just some angry rich guys who have bought themselves a smoke machine.
And the media are still amazingly easy to sucker. Just look at the way the press fell for the fraudulent tale of vandalism by departing Clinton staffers, or the more recent spread of the bogus story that Ken Lay stayed at the Clinton White House.
Regular readers of this column know that not long ago I found myself the target of a minor-league smear campaign. The pattern was typical: right-wing sources insisting that a normal business transaction (in my case consulting for Enron, back when I was a college professor, not an Op-Ed columnist, and in no position to do the company any favors) was somehow corrupt; then legitimate media picking up on the story, assuming that given all the fuss there must be something to the allegations; and no doubt a lingering impression, even though no favors were given or received, that the target must have done something wrong ("Isn't it hypocritical for him to criticize crony capitalism when he himself was on the take?"). Now that I've read Mr. Brock's book I understand what happened.
Slate's Tim Noah, whom I normally agree with, says that Mr. Brock tells us nothing new: "We know . . . that an appallingly well-financed hard right was obsessed with smearing Clinton." But who are "we"? Most people don't know that — and anyway, he shouldn't speak in the past tense; an appallingly well-financed hard right is still in the business of smearing anyone who disagrees with its agenda, and too many journalists still allow themselves to be used.
I found "Blinded by the Right" distasteful, but revelatory. So, I suspect, will many others.
These libs need to have a 2x4 upside the head to knock some sense into them!
Evidently his passive-aggressive response is to target other people with his own brand of minor-league smear campaign. But since he's such a minor-leaguer himself, why would anybody care?
Yeah, there's something for everyone in this clymer's screed.
Just because Bush wanted to make nicey, nice and keep it quiet, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The Grey Lady has deicided that objectivity be damned and push the Left agenda as hard as possible.
As for the point that there is no anger on the Left, I agree. There is only contempt and disgust for any deviation from the Leftist party line.
And, Mrs Clinton, how many years and millions were wasted while you were trying to find your billing records??
Even OJ was on lots of golf courses trying to find the killer!!
No you did not you lying sack of s#!t! Note how liberals can't help themselves. It's a pathology beyond their control.
Indeed, the liberals I know generally seem unwilling to face up to the nastiness of contemporary politics.
"Step right over here, we'd like you to count a few thousand more chads."
Like Ted Turner?
I haven't seen proof either way. Have you?
Or, maybe there wouldn't be any US steel mills left in the case of a national emergency, forced out of business by foreigners dumping low cost product on our shores.
Didn't the GAO get summoned to report on the damage? Why sic the dogs on them if there's nothing to find??
Yes. For example, how the U.S. has been undermined, infiltrated, and corrupted by small cadres of committed leftists over several generations.
As I have pointed out here before, it was Gramsci who realized that the way to bring down the West was by attacking its culture...especially the schools and media.
No "overt" conspiracy was needed. Second-raters with leftist orientations were content to become moles and sleepers. Their betters were too busy working, building things, bettering the world. So they took menial, low-status jobs, and quietly began chipping away at civilization. A copy boy in a news room...in 20 years he is a reporter or maybe an editor. A mediocre teacher can corrupt the minds of generations of children. An "instructor" in a university is now tenured and in a position to push his political viewpoint.
Relentless. Silent. Pervasive subversion.
It has brought us low--and will bring us yet lower.
--Boris
Notice how Krugman infers that mainstream liberals are the font of moral purity while the "nasty" conservatives have anger and hatred. This is yet another example of a Krugman "Krugging." Krugging is a new word defined as an attitudinal mugging. You can see an example of Krugman's Krugging of Bush and the military on this THREAD.
Hmmm.... I wonder if Krugman will be writing a column about his flagrant public Krugging at the gridiron event. (Read the thread link for details on this and the new word definition.)
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.