Follow by Email

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Paul Krugman, "Delusions of Populism": More Delusional Than Krugman?

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."


- Paul Krugman, "Confronting the Malefactors" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), October 2011

Do you remember "Occupy Wall Street"? Do you remember how Krugman suggested that OWS would prove a "turning point" in a populist war against American financial institutions? Is there anyone more delusional than this Nobelist?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Delusions of Populism" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/opinion/krugman-delusions-of-populism.html?_r=0), Krugman rages against Republican delusional thinking:

"Have you heard about 'libertarian populism' yet? If not, you will. It will surely be touted all over the airwaves and the opinion pages by the same kind of people who assured you, a few years ago, that Representative Paul Ryan was the very model of a Serious, Honest Conservative. So let me make a helpful public service announcement: It’s bunk.

. . . .

Enter libertarian populism. The idea here is that there exists a pool of disaffected working-class white voters who failed to turn out last year but can be mobilized again with the right kind of conservative economic program — and that this remobilization can restore the Republican Party’s electoral fortunes."

Had I ever before heard about "libertarian populism"? No.

Do I care if "libertarian populism" can restore the Republican Party’s electoral fortunes? No.

Beset with scandals, economic malaise that does not want to go away, signature legislation that is earmarked for disaster, and pressing overseas challenges demanding weighty decisions, Obama has gone into hiding. No, Obama may be a narcissist, but he is not delusional. Meanwhile, Washington has become dysfunctional.

Democrats? Republicans? Mark Leibovich in his new book "This Town" explains how they're feeding from the same trough (see: http://www.latimes.com/features/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-mark-leibovich-20130714,0,7643559.story).

And Hillary "What Difference Does It Make" Clinton, the hero of Benghazi, is making speeches for $200,000 a pop (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-keeps-busy-giving-paid-speeches-to-industry-groups/2013/07/11/94abdfc6-e9aa-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html?hpid=z2)? You go, girl!

I am again drawn to "Network," which, although almost 40 years old, remains as relevant as ever: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

1 comment:

  1. "...pool of disaffected working-class white voters who failed to turn out last year..."

    has been the topic of analysts like Sean Trende, but one of these analysts call them Ross Perot voters, which means fiscal conservative, not necessarily Libertarian Populism.

    Both parties have populists. In Brooklyn, it is the Working Families Party, whose support is key for any Dem running for office in NYC.

    You want to get really depressed? Read David Stockman's analysis of American jobs since 2000.

    Or, consider that Larry Summers wants to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve, after you watch his personality in "The Social Network". THAT would send the world into a meltdown, imho.

    K2K

    ReplyDelete