Krugman in brief

Yes, my last post about Iran was much too long, so I'll make this one briefer. But I think Paul Krugman's column today is worth reading.

Essentially he's saying the conservatives' glee at "Obama's defeat" in Chicago's failed Olympic bid is just the latest example of their behaving with "the emotional maturity of a bratty 13 year old." I personally think that's an insult to most 13 year olds I know.

He points out that it's not just that they have legitimate differences of political philosophy about the role of government but that there really is a difference in the tactics of opposition by the Democrats and the Republicans when out of power.

In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. . . .In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

Krugman attributes this Republican tactic to the fact that the party has been taken over by radicals and ideologues who do not accept that anyone else but them has the right to govern, no matter who wins elections. Add to this the weakened position of their party, and their frustrated entitlement bursts forth in this outraged lack of consistency with their philosophy that we are seeing.

I would add that, for some of them, the fact of Obama's "inferior" race makes that frustrated entitlement all the more galling. It's bad enough that a Democrat is sitting where they belong, but a black man on top of that?

Ralph