Paul Krugman: The Cult That Is Destroying America

[cal04]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

Watching our system deal with the debt ceiling crisis — a wholly self-inflicted crisis, which may nonetheless have disastrous consequences — it’s increasingly obvious that what we’re looking at is the destructive influence of a cult that has really poisoned our political system.

And no, I don’t mean the fanaticism of the right. Well, OK, that too. But my feeling about those people is that they are what they are; you might as well denounce wolves for being carnivores. Crazy is what they do and what they are.

No, the cult that I see as reflecting a true moral failure is the cult of balance, of centrism.

Think about what’s happening right now. We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.

[IndianaJoe]

1. Agreed. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Amen. Centrism is and always was bullshit.

If you have to average out the opinions of others to figure out what you stand for, then you stand for nothing.

[Lorien]

3. Especially when the "center" is so far to the Right of what it was just 12

years ago.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. Yup. And chasing the center is how we got there.

[saras]

47. Not only that, it is bullshit that doesn't even make compost

You can make prisons that punish. They work, given their goals. But not perfectly. Nothing deters all criminals.

You can make prisons that rehabilitate. They work, given their goals. But not perfectly. Not every criminal can be rehabilitated.

But you can't do both. There isn't any "centrist" version. There is no institution, anywhere, that successfully punishes and rehabilitates at the same time, any more than you can nurture and rape someone at the same time.

There are lots of issues like this, that are amenable to multiple, contradictory, mutually exclusive answers. This is why there are politics - because people don't agree on the tradeoffs, costs, and values of the different approaches. But it almost never means that you can arbitrarily mix elements of two or more conflicting systems, call it a "centrist" system, and expect it to work.

[ProSense]

5. "The reality, of course, is that we already have a

...centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government"

There it is again, Krugman's support for health care reform

Health care reform the "only major change," not the CFPB, ending DADT, not this or his two SCOTUS appointments, only health care reform.

Didn't Krugman use the "cult" word during the primary also?

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. Welcoming Blue Dog Democrats into the party with open arms was a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE

HUGE mistake. They have done absolutely for the party except blur the line between them.

[SusanaMontana41]

71. They did give Democrats a majority in Congress,

for what that's been worth.

I'm accustomed to voting Party, not person, for Congress, simply to give the Dems power to control debate. But the corporatist Dems have behaved accordingly.

[RaleighNCDUer]

75. The only problem with that is the persons fuck over the party.

What does it gain a party to gain a majority which consistently supports the minority?

[tex-wyo-dem]

37. I think Krugman's point was noting a policy that affects everyone...

Or almost everyone.

DADT and SCOTUS appointments are important, but don't directly affect almost everyone like healthcare reform.

His basic point that centrism as a policy position is, in the end, foolhardy and ineffective I totally agree with.

My belief for a long time is that Obama has tried so hard to not appear to be a "leftist" or "liberal" that he has become an enigma in the eyes of the voters and ineffective in promoting policy.

[mazzarro]

51. +100% - Absolutely correct

Obama has gotten himself so confused he is now trying to straddle both the rethug and dem policies and ending up more rethug-like than dem.

[julian09]

83. Sen Lieberman took dadt over the finish line

had he not given the extra effort, it would have languished in lame duck session.
Obama was looking at treaty with Russia first. Lieberman took the ball and ran with it.:+

[kenfrequed]

97. Lieberman is scum

Lamont would have done more and would not have stabbed us in the back with a rusty corkscrew again and again on Faux news in the process.

[Jakes Progress]

103. The one to which you reply knows that.

Adding to the conversation was not the goal. Distracting and misleading were.

Krugman is very clear, and he is consistent. Some may pick and pull to find conflicting words, but only with the intention to distort. Many of the economic woes in which we have been ensconced would have been avoided had the president chosen and listened to advisors like Krugman. That he did not tells us much about the president's desires.

[AlbertCat]

53. Health care reform the "only major change,"

Well, DADT doesn't really affect a huge part of the population, and the SCOTUS appointments weren't very liberal, but again centrist. The CFPB hasn't even started yet, and Elizabeth Warren was thrown under the bus. And your "War on Drugs" link is just bizarre! Like that's changed!

So what IS your point?

[Creideiki]

111. But...It's a LIST!

List's are good!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DCBob]

7. Krugman always finds a way to blame the President for all the world's problems.

So the GOPers are not too blame for destroying America?!? That's priceless. What is wrong with this guy??

[eridani]

12. There are those who are trying to destroy America, and those who refuse to fight back

Obama is one of the latter.

[DCBob]

13. and there are those who are clueless about the process required in fighting back..

[eridani]

15. One of those parts is messaging. Only the clueless defend agreeing with

--your opponents' message.

[totodeinhere]

88. That is exactly Krugman's point. The "process required in fighting back"

as you put it is dysfunctional and it needs to change. As long as that process involves bending over backward to accommodate far right wing extremists, as it stands now, the government will continue in gridlock and average Americans will continue to suffer.

[YvonneCa]

93. This is very true. Some do not seem to realize...

...that the President, and many Dems, ARE fighting within a very broken process.

[YvonneCa]

98. On the other hand...

...there's this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/are-progressives-losing-the-larger-argument/2011/03/03/gIQA7Gz5cI_blog.html

:7

[PVnRT]

114. Running to the center right is not "fighting back"

[loyalsister]

21. It seems like he just dislikes Obama

and takes advantage of every controversy to justify his personal bias and unrealistic belief that congress can be controlled and be forced to go along with everything the pres. wants.
Or maybe he wants a bizarro Bush admin. who bullied congress and wrote EOs anytime they wouldn't go along with him.

[unkachuck]

38. what's there not to dislike?....n/t

[tex-wyo-dem]

40. On the contrary, I think Krugman likes Obama very much, but...

like many of us, he is frustrated. Like me, I believe he sees so much potential, but opportunity after opportunity to make real positive, even revolutionary, change wasted. Make no mistake, we are at a point in history where a real and courageous leader absolutely a necessity. Obama seems not to be up to the task.

I hope he (Obama) proves me and Krugman wrong.

[loyalsister]

42. I guess he could be disillusioned

in which case I would think he is a bit naive. Like many others, he must have made a lot of assumptions and apparently did not investigate and learn about the broad principles that candidate Obama laid out. He wrote very candidly and honestly about the reality of the political process and what his vision of what the country should be. On health care, for example he said that if he were designing the initial health care system he would create a single payer system. And went on to discuss his thoughts on why he did not think the country was ready yet and it would be a very slow process.
He also talked about how a natural part of the political process is not getting what you want. The means don't always result in the desired ends, but he respects the process. He was realistic going in even if not all of his supporters were.
At one point he admitted that most people would be mad at him at one time or another. I have definitely had my moments, but Kruger's seem to never end.
People really need to read "The Audacity of Hope" cover to cover to get a truly informed sense of his broad philosophy and how it relates to his actions.

[tex-wyo-dem]

49. I agree with you...Obama has always been a pramatist and was quite clear about his posiitons...

however, as a leader one must also be willing to learn from experiences and adjust ones approach based on reality. Obama has approached nearly every issue with hope of bipartisan agreements. This obviously is no longer realistic since the GOP is not willing to work to reach mutual agreements. They are trying to destroy his presidency, even if it means bringing the country down with it.

The gloves need to come off.

[loyalsister]

80. So It's time to act like Bush?

I don't want a dictator. If Obama were to continue those tactics, we risk legitimizing those tactics so that there is no objection when future republicans use them. He is trying to bring us back, to a place where the the president execute his role appropriate to our history. I would not want him to take a more authoritarian position in order to combat a congress full of children. This is up to us to fix the legislative branch that is theoretically most representative of us.
Do you and other people who have such clarity about how a president should handle dealing with an obstinate congress bent on destroying his presidency hold elected state or local offices with similar opposition?

[mazzarro]

87. Asking Obama to stand up to the rethugs is now suggesting dictatorship?

That Obama has continued the wars and the detentions and other illegal actions related to the war is more than continuing the B*sh policies that you detest. We are only asking him to quit being kicked around like a ball by the rethugs and that you are equating to dictatorship? Damn! what is wrong with us? We might as well voluntarily go under the bus so we no longer be around to nag them.

[loyalsister]

92. A more assertive voice doesn't change numbers

Obama has never had a fully supportive congress. Being louder and throwing tantrums accomplishes nothing.
If the alternative is to do everything via executive order or test the Constitution, he would simply be bizarro Bush.

[kenfrequed]

100. He stayed too mum

Rather than leading or guiding congress he allowed the Blue Dog bastards there to bottle up good policy and provide cover for republicans. The result was non-cohesive policy with a confused and muddled message that did not call for the majority who put him into office to put pressure on their congressmen.

The White House communications staff failed to keep the people informed and failed to enlist the progressives who knocked on doors and manned phone banks to assist in public policy. When the progressive community wanted to turn up the heat a bit on the Blue Dogs, that were trying to play both sides for insurance company campaign money, they were insulted by the Chief of Staff and ridiculed.

The result was the Blue Dogs gave congress little to run on and alientated the base and the door-knockers who did not turn out properly. Bad Policy, bad politics, bad strategy.

Any Democratic congressman that failed to vote for cloture during a Republican fillibuster was providing assistance to the Republicans and should have lost seniority and and committee seniority. Granted, this is outside the duties of president, but the president did surround himself with his 'team of rivals' that seemed less rivals to each other and more opponents of progressive reform.

Enabling the Republicans to be the most oppositional congressional minority in American History, without forcing them to pay a political price was probably the greatest failure of the Democratic party I can think of. (well apart from throwing away the elections of 2000 and 2004 for failing to challenge rampant and obvious election fraud in Florida and Ohio respectively)

[ncpmd]

108. Well, one thing's for sure...

you are a loyal sister. Nonetheless, Obama will go down in history as the most ineffective president ever elected (I can only pray we never elect someone more ineffective). People can then spend time excusing his lack of leadership.

People will follow a strong leader...it is in our nature...if he were a strong leader the will of the people would be enacted. The problem with Obama is that his core value of compromise is out of step with this critical time in our history. He is therefore doing tremendous harm. He was fine as a senator, but the role of president has proven beyond his reach.

[donquijoterocket]

84. not sure

How much personal likes and dislikes enter into it. I think the economist sees a much different big picture than the type of politician like Obama sees plus I think the economist is naturally more combative than the President and sees that lack as a failing. I'd have to agree some on that point. He could have counterpunched much,more effectively at times and arrayed his strengths against their weaknesses better than he's done but dealing with near total intransigence has got to be tiring and that's all the GOPers have got and done.

[Bluebear]

59. He never really loved him.

:cry:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AlbertCat]

55. Krugman always finds a way to blame the President for all the world's problems.

Try reading the Op Ed.

If you have already... brush up on your reading comprehension.

Because you are not talking about what he said at all.

He's talking about everybody in this piece, not just the Prez. Nor does he blame Obama for anything.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Yep, Professor Krugman gets it

"You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault? This is the clearest, starkest situation one can imagine short of civil war. If this won’t do it, nothing will."

Short of civil war... we are almost there kiddies... but hey some folks will not get it even after the lead starts flying.

[chill_wind]

9. I have long agreed.

K & R.

[rhett o rick]

10. We are at war. It's a clear class war. Where do the centrists stand?

There is no center in a war.

[Mosaic]

79. Excellent comment

The corporatemedia exploits the fact we are at a class war, they don't tell anyone! We must!

[dreamnightwind]

11. The term "centrist" and the concept of the "center"

have been entirely co-opted. It doesn't mean in the middle of left and right anymore. It means serving corporate interests. There's a second axis (the first axis is the left-right one) we're not supposed to be aware of, and it's about the interests of individual citizens verses the interests of large corporations. We're using a one dimension model for a two dimensional political reality.

That's why the "center" is rotten. It isn't the center, it's been redefined as corporate interests, by corporate-funded think tanks and by the corporate media.

If we could reclaim a center that is for individual rights and needs as opposed to corporate interests, we'd be able to reach a lot more Americans.

[killbotfactory]

14. Because if the Senate and Obama were further to the left

The republicans, who have no incentive at all to co-operate with democrats or do anything of use to help the condition of our country, will suddenly start churning out sensible legislation.

That's how it works, right?

Republicans are holding our country hostage and it's fucking Obama's fault somehow. If only he were a fire-breathing liberal they would fall into line, right?

I have no love for centrism, but this is complete nonsense.

It gets tiring watching bloggers and pundits do flying leaps of logic just to pin the blame on Obama and democrats in general.

[ProSense]

18. Isn't it special?

"Republicans are holding our country hostage and it's fucking Obama's fault somehow. If only he were a fire-breathing liberal they would fall into line, right?"

Yeah, in the 1990s it was Gingrich's fault, not Clinton's (Krugman will tell you), but today it's Obama's fault the RW Republicans are lunatics!

[sabrina 1]

20. When you have a bunch of lunatics making insane demands

the very last thing you do is accomodate them and continue to treat them as if they were rational.

We have heard the words 'bi-partisanship' and 'compromise' so often that the crazies in the Republican Party know that all they have to do is to throw themselves on the floor and hold their breath and there will be more concessions.

What I would like to know is why we are constantly told that being 'uncompromising' doesn't work when it is clearly obvious that it does.

Anyone who has dealt with bullies and/or temper-tantrum-throwing children knows that the way Democrats have dealt with this whole mess is most likely the worst possible way to deal with them.

Since they are going to refuse everything, we are told, although I don't believe that, I believe there is probably a few more things they intend to hold their collective breath over, then there is nothing to lose by completely changing the dialogue and becoming JUST AS UNCOMPROMISING, only this time, on behalf of the American people.

Krugman is absolutely correct. I feel like I'm watching some really ineffective parents whose child is in the habit of throwing him/herself on the floor, threatening to hold his/her breath until s/he gets what s/he wants. And then seeing the parents go 'okay, honey, look we can't give you ten lollipops but we'll give you eight? Okay, nine?

Of course that child would not even try those tactics, if they had not worked from the beginning.

Someone needs to step in now and teach those Republicans a lesson. Starting with telling them, metaphorically speaking of course: "You've got until I count to ten to get up off the floor and start acting like a grown-up, after which, if I don't see you ready to act like a grown-up, you will get NOTHING"

They are doing this because they know it will keep getting them more, and more. As soon as they believe that they are going to be left kicking and screaming without anything for their efforts, they will become reasonable.

[killbotfactory]

24. They aren't exactly lunatics.

If they do everything in their power to thwart Obama and prevent or hobble any kind of economic recovery, they get rewarded during voting time, because people will blame Obama. You, Krugman, many posters here already do blame him, and will blame Obama. There is nothing in it for them politically to do anything except make demands like "Gut SS, Medicare and Medicaid, or we will destroy the economy". Obama moving further left will not sway them. If they do anything to help the country, they weaken their position when it comes time to vote. Obama becoming the perfect embodiment of all things left will not change that.

[sabrina 1]

27. Explain how Obama moving more and more to the right

has solved this problem?

Actually I think just threatening to move left might scare them into being more reasonable. They WANT him to move to the right and they will keep playing so long as he keeps moving right. Why wouldn't they?

But if he starts moving the other way each time they throw themselves on the floor, what does he have to lose since as you say, they are not going to give in anyhow, so we may as well try what he has not yet tried.

All I know is, they are winning, but being uncompromising, the very thing we are always told DOESN'T win.

Now, I think it's time for Democrats to become uncompromising, take SS off the table, where it never should have been to begin with for starters. Then insist, in fact take one of those oaths, to raise taxes on the wealthy.

As for them being lunatics, of course they are lunatics. What sane person wants to let old people starve or the sick die, or the disabled go without basic needs? You call that sane?

[kenfrequed]

101. Indeed

And it plays to their strategic messaging strengths too. They energize their base by being uncompromising and they deny us ours by forcing us to move. The overwhelming majority of American people want two things according to most polls: The wealthy and corporates to pay more in taxes and take up the burden that was abandoned during the Bush years, and to have Social Security protected against the pillaging of the privatizers.

By standing firm the Democrats could draw lines very clearly about where they stand and where the Tea Party stands. I garauntee the moderate republicans are not going to piss away their shot at reelection to deal with the tea party cry babies that are funded by tax cheats and dodgers like the brothers Koch.

If you tell the voters that we have two big choices and they have to pick between raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations OR denying or limiting healthcare to their parents and gradnparents I don't think that is a battle that favors republicans.

[reformist2]

31. I disagree. It is reasonable to give in to lunatics who have taken hostages

Not because it's "right", but because it's the best way to keep the hostages alive, and it buys you time. The worst enemy of a hostage taker is time.

[sabrina 1]

33. I'm sorry, but you're not making sense.

It seems that it is the American people who are the hostages, mainly the must vulnerable, and they were not 'taken hostage', they were 'handed over', willingly.

If you do not want hostage takers to be successful, you do not tell them ot come on over and you will hand over the hostages, in return for something else.


What you do is tell them 'you even try to get near these people and see what happens'.

[reformist2]

34. The consequences of default could spell the end of the safety net, far worse

than any of the demands the Republicans are making now.

At this point, if we can make it to November 2012 without causing a disaster, I'd consider that a success. At that point, it's in the voters hands. If they really want to dismantle the safety net, we have no way of stopping them.

[sabrina 1]

35. Yes, that is where we are thanks to these 'centrist' or 'third way'

or DLC/New Democrat policies. Total failure!

You're not saying that we should be happy at this obvious failure by our party, even when they had a majority in the House and Senate, and the WH, and still hold the Senate and the WH, to protect the social safety nets?

I have never witnessed such failed policies, which you have correctly summed up. And this is why we have been railing against them from the minute they surfaced. 'Compromise' 'Bi-Partisanship'. Now we see, as you point out, how correct those of us who opposed them were.

In fact many people predicted that they WOULD fail, and that then we would be told to be happy about the shredded remains of what they failed to protect. And here we are! Sometimes you'd rather be wrong.

[treestar]

48. What is it that you do?

I would love to know. I have to deal with such people in daily life, so I'd love to know how to deal with lunatics who make insane demands. People who expect the legal system to simply order what they want.

[quaker bill]

54. Unlike parenting

Since 2010, the tantrum-throwing kids in this instance have equal power and cannot be punished. Any attempt to punish them lands on us. In this instance the "you get nothing" approach means Senior citizens get no SS checks for as long as it takes. Yes, it will punish them at the polls in 2012, but in the interim alot of innocent folks will feel the pain.

[whatchamacallit]

107. Your thinking is way too coherent for our times +1

:thumbsup:

[mazzarro]

25. No one likes the situation as it is now

but when the leaders of our side refuse to acknowledge way earlier in the game about what has been going on politically and speak out forcefully about it.Instead the people who are supposedly on your side get berated for raising issues with constant accommodation of the opposition by our leaders. That is depressing, to say the least, for our side.

[quaker bill]

56. well said and on target.

[jeff47]

73. You misunderstood the article. It's about the press, not politicians.

It's addressed at the press, not at politicians.

The "both sides" BS that the press falls back on protects the Republicans. The public can not find out about their insanity unless they are paying very close attention to politics.

Instead, exposing the lies and insanity would cause democracy's self-correcting mechanisms to kick in - the lunatics would lose elections.

[sabrina 1]

105. Well, how successful has he been by

compromising, by being a 'centrist' or 'pragmatic' and 'reasonable'?

Seems to me they see him as a pushover. They realize how frightened he is of being viewed as 'on the left' and that he will do almost anything to avoid having them call him a 'liberal'.

They have detected a weakness and they are using to defeat him, even when he gives them something he had no right to give them and which he thought would convince them he is no liberal. Instead they want more. Why didn't he realize this is how it would play out? This is always what happenes when you give in to bullies.

However, if he had stood up as a proud Liberal, they would have known from the beginning that they were going to have a very tough time dealing with him and would have been a lot more careful about pushing him too far. They would have known he would swing all the way to the left if they gave him a hard time, and he would have used that a weapon against them.

Instead they immediately saw his weakness, his wanting to be viewed as anti-liberal and have used it very effectively against him. The sad thing is he really does want them to like him and his constant reminders to them of how he has upset his base, sounds almost sad to me.

This would never happen with an LBJ eg, from the beginning he would have made it known that they better not tangle with him as he has the power and will use it get what he, proud Democrat that he was, who wanted no part of being viewed as a compromising centrist so it would be futile to call him names and all they had left was to 'take it or leave it' as he worked on the more sensible members of the party.

[Loge23]

16. America is already destroyed.

The frustration we all feel is just that - frustration. It's over, and it's been long over.
There will be no public consensus on the debt ceiling debate - the debate at all is folly.
There will be no organized resistance. The people are what America was all about, and the people have been effectively marginalized.
It's all about powerful, wealthy special interests - and, to paraphrase George Carlin, you ain't one of them.

[girl gone mad]

17. k & r

[Gregorian]

22. Wow. Coming from Krugman, I have to begin to rethink my position.

I'm still thinking we will see some kind of revelation with Obama. Well, I also thought the same with Pelosi.

[Loge23]

26. It's a curse for those of us on the left.

We are empathetic people, generally. We always look for the good side.
We are often disappointed.
Thing is, in 2012, when it's between some batshit crazy Republican (insert name here) or Obama, who are we going to vote for?
..and we will justify that vote by thinking Obama will reward us in his victory lap term.

[Gregorian]

29. I'm torn over what will happen. And it's coming up shortly.

For a while I was saying I would only vote conscience, if it meant writing in. But it'll probably be just as you said. It has to be unless we conjure up a true progressive. Sanders is too old, Kucinich isn't electable for various reasons, even if I did vote for him in the primaries last time. It'll be interesting, that's for sure.


Sitting here just now I began thinking about what it would take to bring about real change. I was thinking that it would be someone who would unite both the left and the right. And the first person that came to mind was the president we have now. Man, I'm so lost with this rabid bunch. The real problem is education. The voters are not aware of the truth, thanks to the lack of a fourth estate. That, and a good educational system. I can't say we have one, if we've produced this mess of voters.

[mwb970]

66. I wonder whether it is even possible to "unite" with Teabaggers.

They are 100% extreme, 100% intransigent, 0% compromise, "my way or the highway". This isn't politics; it's extortion. How can normal, thinking Americans ever make common cause with a bunch of hotheaded, ignorant lunatics who reject the very idea of compromise, as well as facts, logic, science, experience, and wisdom? All they seem to do is to screech out whatever they think they heard that lunkhead Limbaugh say earlier that day.

They're lost. They're gone. They can't be reached. They might as well be living on Neptune. Except that would be better, because then they would stop bothering us all here on Earth!

[Gregorian]

89. Haha. I love it!

That was a rant from my own soul if I ever heard one.

Somehow after hearing what you had to say, I feel like the world is still sane. And that the freaks who have emerged are just a recessive gene that humanity will only exhibit for a short while longer.

I can dream.

[KoKo]

23. K&R

[Trailrider1951]

30. Amen. Paul Krugman nails it again.

A famous Texas progressive* once said,"ain't nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos." :P




* Jim Hightower

[LWolf]

32. k&r

[swilton]

36. The cult of appeasement

Before they were appeasers they were enablers to Bush & co. totally worthless and it's a waste of time to vote for them.

[daleo]

39. Appeasement

That's the model I was thinking of too. Fascism seems to be making a comeback. Historically, conservatism has dallianced with fascism. It feels like that again.

Consider Norway. A right-wing xenophobe who hates members of a minority religious group attacks democratic socialists in a murderous rampage. Hitler would have felt right at home. Ann Coulter, Beck, Limbaugh...they would have all been fellow travelers.

[woo me with science]

41. Thank goodness for Paul Krugman.

Thank you for posting this.

[mmonk]

43. We need people who will fight for the American people and what is right.

True moral failure is the exact perfect description. Its always a moral failure when you roll out the carpet for an evil such as the American rightwing and then go polish their cars and shoes for good measure. Worthless.

[WillyT]

44. + 1,000,000,000... What Pau Said !!! - HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[JDPriestly]

45. K&R

[RainDog]

46. kick n/t

[Metta]

50. Really. Exactly right.

Here, here. :toast:

[Waiting For Everyman]

52. K&R

When extremely out of balance to the right, the only way to remedy that is to go left. Going moderately right, or even slightly right some more won't help at all, it's just more of the problem.

This isn't rocket science.

At this point hard left would be a good idea, if we'd like to avoid that iceberg up ahead. But as far as the public is concerned "ya can't tell 'em anything because they know it all already".

I'd like to tell them what Winston Churchill said (below), as WW2 was approaching. For the time being, we can still return to sanity by beginning to vote our common sense instead of our attitudes. But pretty soon, if the Tbaggers get their way, voting might not be enough anymore to get rid of them (see Wisconsin). They're dead-set on getting their idiotic amendment into the Constitution. They won't give up on that after this "crisis" is over, that's a certainty. Remember this: Once a Constitutional Convention is called, ANYTHING can be proposed and voted on. (Again, check Wisconsin for a preview.) That's what our teachers taught us in Civics Class back in the 1960s, and I don't think they were kidding.

Churchill said, and this was with the other side still arguing that he was all wrong (emphasis mine of course):

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the fire.

Anyone can see what the position is. The Government simply cannot make up their mind, or they cannot get the Prime Minister to make up his mind. So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent. So we go on preparing more months and years – precious, perhaps vital to the greatness of Britian – for the locusts to eat.

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.

Our loyal, brave people ... should know the truth. ... they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, ... and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies; ‘Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.’ And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proferred to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

... historians a thousand years hence will still be baffled by the mystery of our affairs. They will never understand how it was that a victorious nation, with everything in hand, suffered themselves to be brought low, and to cast away all that they had gained by measureless sacrifice and absolute victory – gone with the wind! Now the victors are the vanquished, and those who threw down their arms in the field and sued for an armistice are striding on to world mastery. That is the position – that is the terrible transformation that has taken place bit by bit.

The stations of uncensored expression are closing down; the lights are going out; but there is still time for those to whom freedom and parliamentary government mean something, to consult together. Let me, then, speak in truth and earnestness while time remains.

Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

We have not journeyed all this way across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy.

The day may dawn when fair play, love for one's fellow men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair."

[paparush]

67. Agreed. Instead of quoting Reagan, O' should have been quoting FDR.

I wish he'd act more like FDR, but I've come to accept that he's not economically liberal and he's not a transformative leader.

[divvy]

57. Our leadership has done TOO LITTLE and TOO LATE

This battle was easy to win if they only had the fucking spine to fight. Now .... I fear it is too late. I don't think Boehner or even Cantor can reign-in the waco's in their party. This time, radical political talk has taken a life of its own and I fear that nothing but disaster will turn it around.

[ThomThom]

58. Isn't that exactly what happened in Germany when the Fascists

and Hitler came to power? Are we falling victim to the same appeasement mistake? We have to stand up and say ENOUGH.

[JAnthony]

86. Yes, the parallels are amazing, and Hitler got voted into office!

As much as I might be disappointed with Obama being too "conservative", I shudder to think what would happen if Americans voted into office one of the crazy nuts running in the Republican Party!

Think what Governor Walker has been able to do in 7 months in Wisconsin. Multiply by 49 other states with a Republican House, Senate, and Prez!!!

[KG]

110. um, hitler never got voted into any office, ever.

[JAnthony]

112. Sorry, I was mis-typing...and left out something...

The "Hitler" I was talking about was/is Governor Walker!

The REAL Hitler never won an election but got appointed to power, true.

[KG]

113. common misconception, tho.

[spicegal]

60. Extremism is becoming the "norm", while the media

portrays it as two sides being equally intransigent. The Democrats keep capitulating to right wing demands agreeing to things that the majority of Americans don't favor. It's like being held hostage by a minority that's using extortion to get what it wants. This also goes back to Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. I truly fear for this country and my children's future, and we're among the more fortunate ones. I suspect we really are seeing the downfall of a once great and powerful country.

[paparush]

68. Agreed. The current "center" is so far to the fu$king right that it makes me sick.

[tomp]

61. agreed. good to see that in print. nt

[Pooka Fey]

62. K&R

Very true.

[The Wizard]

63. Branch Davidians

People's Temple, Heaven's Gate, Kamikaze, Taliban = Republican death cult.
Eric Cancer is anal leakage. John Boner just wants to make his tee time and happy hour. Miss McConnell is still in the closet and dangerous.

[WinkyDink]

64. I still cannot comprehend the invertebratizing of the Party of LBJ.

[ProSense]

65. Krugman

spends most of his articles labeling the President as part of the problem. Here he says centrism is a "moral failure" that's destroying the country. Then he labels the President a centrist, worse a "moderate conservative."

He then says:

"You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault? This is the clearest, starkest situation one can imagine short of civil war. If this won’t do it, nothing will."

If he intended to make the case that both sides are not at fault, he failed. Instead, he fed it, and he used the President to do it.

Centrism is Bill Clinton's thing, the DLC. It isn't associated with Republicans. Basically, he is saying that both sides are the same. The DLC is Hillary Clinton's thing, and he supported her, something he references often. Would he ever say that Hillary Clinton is a part of a cult that is a "moral failure" or even imply it? Has he ever?

It's patently absurd to claim that the President is a "moderate conservative," even to make a point about the media pushing for a more centrist President.

[a2liberal]

69. K&R (n/t)

[Bragi]

70. Much damage has already been done

What the U.S has shown the world in this self-inflicted debt ceiling crisis is that its political system is demonstrably out of control.

We now know that stupid and reckless U.S right-wing politicians are quite capable of risking global economic collapse in pursuit of partisan gains, and that the President is, sadly, completely unable to stop them.

This being so, no matter how this week turns out, U.S Treasury bonds have to be downgraded.

For Americans, this will mean serious hardship via higher interest rates, even more reduced public spending, more need for tax increases, and reduced employment.

For people outside the U.S, it means starting to think of ways to better insulate the global economy, as best possible, from the dysfunctional and reckless U.S political system.

[Hubert Flottz]

72. K&R

[certainot]

74. the result of the Left ignoring talk radio. the talk radio gods have control of the GOP

and what they say from 1000 radio stations in large part determines what is and what isn't acceptable in politics and media, and where the center is.

[BridgeTheGap]

76. The problem of the left has always been lack of cohesion, disagreement on strategy and issue focus

The right has been fairly cohesive over time but is now split between the bat-shit crazy and those "conservatives" who realize they have a lock on the system and don't want the apple cart upset. The later are scared shitless with what's happening with their base and the positions they have to adopt to appease said base.

The left has failed to adapt. Some, while holding predominantly progressive, liberal views, don't want the labels. Many are attached to their pet issues, valid issues, mind you, but so much so that they fail to see the systemic problems that need solutions. They fail to realize that a systemic shift, as difficult as it may be, would create an environment in which their "pet issues" would have a far greater chance of being resolved favorably.

I remember seeing a poll a while back that demonstrated that a majority of Americans hold progressive views on a number of issues, but don't identify themselves as progressive or liberal (because of the stigma so deftly attached over time by the rw media?). The current polling on social security, medicare, medicaid, still indicate a strong majority don't went these programs cut. Given the 8 years under Bush, the left should have been in the best position it's been in for decades. Obama's election reflected this trend to a certain extent. The Obama adminstration (and campaign) realize this lack of cohesion on the left. Rather than working to build this cohesion, they seem more inclined to move to the perceived center, ever further to the right.

[Azathoth]

77. Krugman is wrong. The "both sides are equally responsible" folks are not centrists

Some of them are just mindlessly regurgitating a beltway mantra out of a need to appear "above the fray" (as Krugman points out), while others are really crypto-conservatives working to legitimize and mainstream right-wing extremism. None of these people are honest exponents of pragmatic "centrism".

[SteveM]

96. Don't think so. What could perhaps be better explained:

Obama wants nothing to do with the "left," the Democratic Party wants nothing to do with the "Left," MSM wants nothing to do with the "Left." Nothing at all. Where you think "crypto-conservatives" are at work is really a lot of folks who once knew true political viability, see it no longer exists and have correctly analyzed the situation: the Right Wing IS in charge; MSM and others are merely afraid of them. The best these folks can hope for is so amorphous passive-aggressive disposition which is somehow supposed to work strategically.

Keep in mind that since the 70s the Democratic Party has worked assiduously to minimize "liberal/progressive" philosophies even as it worked to assure corporate power that the Party was no longer a threat. The culture of this de-natured politics is one which philosophically avoids confrontation, philosophy and ideology, favoring instead a "meeting of the stakeholders," to develop a "consensus" around a "win-win" so that everyone can "move forward." When you have lived a political culture of non-confrontation, the consequences are three-fold:

(1) The Right realizes the cowed quality of its opponent and adopts an ever-more aggressive (and effective) stance;
(2) The new Centrists don't know how to oppose the Right and grow increasingly afraid of it; and most significant
(3) Your purported "allies" (old libs who have no place to go?) and potential new recruits don't know WHAT or WHO to fight for.

[Tom1960]

78. One thing we can't forget....

Is that this is all a game to the Republicans. People are simply pawns in their global cluster-fuck chess game. As long we remember this is the game they play, we won't be disappointed if we lose a battle here or there. They don't take this stuff seriously....they're salesmen (I was going to say 'and liars' but that would be redundant), that is what they do, a sucker is born every minute. That's how they can spout the same lies day in and day out because for every person who wakes up to their bullshit somebody else takes their place. Throw enough bullshit against the wall, eventually some of it will stick.

AS liberals, we play hard and we play seriously....but that isn't how they are playing, because that is all they're doing.....playing. We need to get it through our "collective minds" if you will, that to them, people are only pawns. They don't exist, they don't have rights and definitely don't have needs.

BTW, I've heard many conservatives/republicans comment on how liberals are just emotional etc. I think there might be some truth in that. The fact that we do feel makes us fully human. Only a psychopath can inflict pain without remorse and screw with someone's mind enough to cause them to blame themselves for the misery their tormentor puts them through.

Now let's get out there and score some wins in the months ahead without losing our souls in the process.

Also, pardon my French.

[Mosaic]

82. Their reserved method

Of playing, as you say, is a big problem as they remain cool while being evil and psychopathic. We must do something to stop them, and this behavior in general. Spot on!

[deacon]

81. Yep. n/t

[AlQ60]

85. brilliant!!

Paul Krugman is one of the most astute writers on economics in the country--he makes his point in easy-to-understand terminology, as well

[kenny blankenship]

90. Announcing that you are a centrist a moderate who will always value compromise OVER principle

All you do is to encourage the other side to go as far as they can imagine going in the extremity of their demands. Because you've already said you intend to split whatever difference exists between them and yourself, or between them and the mainstream of your own party.

No More "Centrists." They're just Republicans without the honesty to declare themselves.

[sheldon]

91. The center has moved.

The corporate media and rightwing screechers have moved it so far to the right, that center now equals LEFT.

[SteveM]

95. The so-called "left-right" divide is crack cocaine to MSM; can't get 'nuff.nt

[SteveM]

94. Been sayin' it for years. MSM uses "left" more often than the number of leftists.

The "struggle" is between varying extremes of the Right Wing (those who have seen my posts previously know what they are), and the so-called center (actually, a center-right quasi-congealed mass). There is no Left left. The term is used by MSM to lend an air of viability to our political system, even as they wring their collective hands over the "locked-up" system.

When you hear MSM speak of the "left-right" divide, switch channels. You have encountered old-time radio serial drama.

[alfredo]

99. Obama can accommodate all he wants because he knows

that no matter what, if Obama or the other Dems offers it, the Reps will reject it.

[Romulox]

102. So...Krugman wasn't a "centrist" when he was shilling for free trade in the '90s?

:eyes:

[The Green Manalishi]

104. A big problem is that our side is not answering in simple enough terms.

The teatards and others keep hammering how high the deficits are getting, and that "49%" pay no income tax".
They have boiled down the argument to a few simple points that, stripped of context make it sound like the left is being irresponsible and they are merely pointing out that the rate of spending money we don't have and can't repay is increasing.

Our side replies with nuance, hand wringing and no singular coherent message. President Obama does not inspire faith at all on economic issues(two words: Tim Geithner); I feel like I'm watching the second coming of Woodrow Wilson- a brilliant academic, eloquent, suave, charming and incredibly intelligent, but totally out of touch with the situation, relying on platitudes and having expended most all of his moral and political capital while not offering any simple, concrete solutions.
Sort of like watching a kindly professor being set upon by a pack of wolves or gang of thugs; there are times to expostulate a simple, direct and effective course and start following it immediately.

[Kolesar]

106. that's good ... eom

[white_wolf]

109. Conservatism isn't just a cult. It's a suicide cult.

Tax cuts and free markets are matters of faith and cannot be questioned even when it's clear they will kill the country. It's like being a member of Heaven's Gate you're going to take that poison and no facts can dissuade you from believing your going to the "Next Level."