Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Krugman explains the GOP primary circus

Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times on Monday, stepped back from the details of the GOP primary circus to offer an explanation of what it's all about and why "Herman Cain was not an accident."

What he means by that quip is that Republicans have an almost impossible dilemma in choosing a presidential nominee. Despite the easy win that such tough economic times might ordinarily give the opposition party, they can't really seize the opportunity because their ideology demands exactly the wrong solutions for our time.

So, Krugman says, there are only two kinds of politicians who could make the cut in this situation: those who are totally cynical and those who are totally clueless.

Romney falls in the cynical category. He knows very well what needs to be done, but he knows that he cannot win the nomination if he takes that position.
"Mr. Romney's strategy, in short, is to pretend that he shares the ignorance and misconceptions of the Republican base. He isn't a stupid man -- but he seems to play one on TV.

"Unfortunately . . . his insincerity shines through. So the base still hungers for someone who really, truly believes what every candidate for the party's nomination must pretend to believe. Yet . . . the only way to actually believe the modern GOP catechism is to be completely clueless."
Krugman goes on:
"And that's why the Republican primary has taken the form it has, in which a candidate nobody likes and nobody trusts has faced a series of clueless challengers, each of whom has briefly soared before imploding under the pressure of his or her own cluelessness."
How to explain Newt Gingrich and his sudden surge? He actually is a hybrid of the cynical and the clueless. According to Krugman:
"He is by no means the deep thinker he imagines himself to be, but he's a glib speaker, even when he has no idea what he's talking about. And my sense is that he's very good at doublethink -- that even when he knows what he's saying isn't true, he manages to believe it while he's saying it. So he may not implode like his predecessors."
Krugman is recognizing what I've been saying about Newt. He has no core belief, no integrity. He's is a chameleon and totally unprincipled. AND he has the capacity to sound like he knows what he's talking about, even when he is just making it up. The difference is that he is able to convince naive listeners because he convinces himself, at that moment, that he believes what he's saying. This is what makes him dangerous, in my opinion. It is one of the hallmark traits of the sociopath.

Krugman wants to emphasize his larger point, however, which is that whoever gets the Republican nomination will be a deeply flawed candidate -- and could only be a deeply flawed candidate because:
". . . the fact that the party is committed to demonstrably false beliefs means that only fakers or the befuddled can get through the selection process."
And here's the really scary parting thought from Krugman:
"Of course, given the terrible economic picture and the tendency of voters to blame whoever holds the White House for bad times, even a deeply flawed GOP nominee might very well win the presidency. But then what?"
Well, my answer is: we have to make sure we don't find out "then what," and we can do that best by re-electing Obama.

Ralph

2 comments:

  1. A recent quote from another tremendous Krugman column which focused on Gingrich: "He is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person sounds like." Unfortunately for the country at large, this seems a sufficient (and maybe a necessary) condition for Presidency. Thomas

    ReplyDelete
  2. From a Rolling Stone's 12/16/11 edition, titled: "The GOP's Crackpot Agenda:"

    "Mike Lofgren, until recently a top Republican staffer on the Senate Budget Committee, has offered an even more dire assessment of "the whole toxic stew of GOP beliefs." This fall, Lofgren announced he was abandoning his own party – unable to stomach what he called "the headlong rush of Republicans to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country's future." Citing the "broad and ever-widening gulf between the traditional Republicanism of an Eisenhower and the quasi-totalitarian cult of a Michele Bachmann," Lofgren summed up the GOP's capitulation to extremism: "The crackpot outliers of two decades ago," he concludes, "have become the vital center today."

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gops-crackpot-agenda-20111207#ixzz1fsLxjUUp

    ReplyDelete