Salon: Why the N.Y. Times (Krugman) ruins Bush's breakfast

[Dudley_DUright]

The economist who can write engagingly about his discipline is a rare bird, prized by editors everywhere. When the New York Times brought Paul Krugman onboard at the turn of the millennium as on Op-Ed columnist, the move seemed like a no-brainer: Capitalism had won the global contest of the Cold War, the nation sat at the pinnacle of a vast financial boom, and stock tips were being traded at supermarket checkout lines. The Times feared being left in the gray dust by the colorful frenzy of the hyperventilating new economy -- but didn't want to be seen as cheerleading for it, either. Its only competitor for the title of National Newspaper for the Only Global Superpower was the Wall Street Journal. So a levelheaded but open-minded economist-skeptic like Krugman seemed to be just what the Times needed.

Within a couple of years, that new economy lay six feet under the dirt of a new recession, federal surpluses had turned into ominous new deficits, 9/11 had shattered the Pax Americana -- and Paul Krugman had become the most devastatingly precise voice of liberal outrage in American journalism. The Times' dismal scientist had swallowed a passion pill and turned into a partisan scrapper.

Krugman's evolution naturally enraged critics from the right, who had for decades carped about the Times' supposed liberal bent but who had actually benefited from a long-standing tilt in its columnist roster: The liveliest, feistiest voice on its Op-Ed page had always belonged to conservative William Safire. Whatever you might think of his views, Safire actually seemed to be having fun writing -- unlike his colleagues to the left, more droning, dutiful writers like Anthony Lewis and Bob Herbert. Once Krugman joined Frank Rich (who has since left his Op-Ed perch for the Sunday Arts and Leisure section), the Times finally had an Op-Ed page worthy of the charge of liberal bias.

And just in the nick of time. Because the era in which Krugman honed his voice was also the era in which -- as he outlines in the introduction to his new book, "The Great Unraveling" -- American conservatives seized control of the U.S. government and, under cover of a rhetoric of "compassion," remade the nation's finances, laws and foreign policy with unprecedented ideological zeal and putschlike audacity. If that description of recent history sounds like a hysterical overstatement, you haven't been reading Krugman's columns, and the arrival of "The Great Unraveling" offers you a great opportunity to catch up.

more...

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2003/09/08/krugman/index.html

[benfranklin1776]

1. This passage stands out...

and is an interesting historical analogy.

################################

[] Krugman draws an unexpected and tantalizing
historical parallel to explain why centrist American institutions have not responded more
actively to what he diagnoses as a radical movement on the right that has hijacked the
nation's political and economic destiny.


The story of mainstream America's failure to
understand the radicalism of the Bush/Cheney Republican
regime, Krugman argues, echoes Kissinger's account of the
difficulties Old Europe faced in recognizing the rise of a
"revolutionary power" that did not play by its rules and that did
not acknowledge its legitimacy. Turning Kissinger's
geostrategic diagnosis inside out, Krugman casts Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove & Co. as today's Jacobins and
Napoleons, determined to upend the status quo of American
democracy and slaughter its sacred cows -- like a
tax-supported social safety net, civil liberties, electoral norms
and international cooperation.
###############################################################

I agree but would add that the Bush cabal is pursuing a uniquely American style radicalism which seeks a return to the McKinley era, which they viewed as a gilded age in which government was a wholly owned corporate subsidiary which existed solely to do the exclusive bidding of the robber barons of the day.