Paul Krugman, "Send in the Clueless": And What Will Happen Then?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Send in the Clueless" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/opinion/send-in-the-clueless.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Paul Krugman observes that given the "dire economic situation, 2012 should be a year of Republican triumph." However, claiming that Romney is "totally cynical" and that Gingrich is "totally clueless," Krugman thinks that the Republicans "may nonetheless snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." He concludes:

"The same metaphor, it seems to me, might apply to the G.O.P. pursuit of the White House next year. If the dog actually catches the car — the actual job of running the U.S. government — it will have no idea what to do, because the realities of government in the 21st century bear no resemblance to the mythology all ambitious Republican politicians must pretend to believe. And what will happen then?"

Indeed, what will happen then? In fact, perhaps we already have an answer.

Obama is certainly not clueless, but he is cynical. He was perfectly willing to lie about his 20-year relationship with the racist Reverend Wright in order to be elected. And given the "dire economic situation" of 2008, Americans and the liberal American media were willing to ignore his relationship with Tony Rezko, who helped Obama purchase his Chicago home by way of a sweetheart real estate deal, and who was sentenced last month to 10 1/2 years in prison for corruption and extortion.

Of course, Rezko's sentencing escaped the attention of Krugman and his columnist friends at The Times. Regarding Rezko's conviction, Obama stated, "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew." Yeah, right.

Deemed the most "liberal" of American senators, Obama needed to lie about his relationship with Wright and disguise his thoughts, e.g., hostility to Israel, in order to be nominated and elected. Moreover, the exigencies of office, at least during his first term, have demonstrated that Obama is anything but honest. As observed in a previous blog entry, consider how Obama has reversed himself over the past three years:

• He promised to close Guantanamo.
• Although he has been a primary beneficiary of donations from financial institutions over the years, he now understands the underpinnings of OWS.
• Although he condemned Bush administration "extra-legal" behavior, he has actively engaged in targeted killings using drones and has come out in favor of "prolonged detention."
• He deviated from his timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
• No one would have ever imagined that he would escalate US ground involvement in Afghanistan.
• He promised to recognize the Armenian genocide, but now avoids the topic in order to pacify Turkey.
• With the economy in a tailspin, he has not kept his promise to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
• Although he signed an executive order restricting former lobbyists from working in his administration for at least two years, William Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist, was appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Freed from the constraints of re-election, no one knows how far left Obama could veer if given a second term as president.

My response to the question posed by Krugman at the end of his opinion piece, "And what will happen then?": First, all politicians are cynical, i.e. lie. Moreover, if a cynical politician, who needs to disguise his centrist, as opposed to rightist, positions in order to obtain the Republican nomination, is elected president in 2012, it will certainly be no worse than what America experienced under Obama, who needed to disguise his leftist, as opposed to centrist, positions. My concern is "what will happen" if Obama no longer needs to hide his radicalism during a possible second term.