Same Old Party

[kach22i]

From the New York Times

October 8, 2007
Same Old Party
By PAUL KRUGMAN

There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.

Well, I don’t know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism — and Mr. Bush hasn’t strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he’s the very model of a modern movement conservative.

For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.

People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush’s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here’s how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a “rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems” because “the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority — so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.”

People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors, a process exemplified by the failed reconstruction of Iraq and the Blackwater affair.

But back in 1993, Jonathan Cohn, writing in The American Prospect, explained that “under Reagan and Bush, the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds — demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.”

People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In “The Conscience of a Conservative,” published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that “I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.”

People claim to be shocked that the Bush Justice Department, making a mockery of the Constitution, issued a secret opinion authorizing torture despite instructions by Congress and the courts that the practice should stop. But remember Iran-Contra? The Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran, violating a legal embargo, and used the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras, defying an explicit Congressional ban on such support.

Oh, and if you think Iran-Contra was a rogue operation, rather than something done with the full knowledge and approval of people at the top — who were then protected by a careful cover-up, including convenient presidential pardons — I’ve got a letter from Niger you might want to buy.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud. But Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act, and as late as 1980 he described it as “humiliating to the South.”

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts — which, for a time, were all too successful — to intimidate the press. But this administration’s media tactics, and to a large extent the people implementing those tactics, come straight out of the Nixon administration. Dick Cheney wanted to search Seymour Hersh’s apartment, not last week, but in 1975. Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was Nixon’s media adviser.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts to equate dissent with treason. But Goldwater — who, like Reagan, has been reinvented as an icon of conservative purity but was a much less attractive figure in real life — staunchly supported Joseph McCarthy, and was one of only 22 senators who voted against a motion censuring the demagogue.

Above all, people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law. But a full half-century has passed since The National Review proclaimed that “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail,” and dismissed as irrelevant objections that might be raised after “consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal” — presumably a reference to the document known as the Constitution of the United States.

Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: “Well, how did we get here?” They may tell themselves: “This is not my beautiful Right.” They may ask themselves: “My God, what have we done?”

But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism’s true, loyal heir.

I keep hearing from self professed conservatives that Bush is not one of them, guess that lie is busted.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by kach22i

From the New York Times

I keep hearing from self professed conservatives that Bush is not one of them, guess that lie is busted.

Because Paul Krugman thinks so??? Well case closed then, lol

[Rick Lee]

Krugman has the credibility of an 8th grader. Didn't he used to be an editor at Pravda?

[kach22i]

Attack the messenger...............how original.

Try again.

[Mule]

Bush occupies a lot of you thoughts, don't you think?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Attack the messenger...............how original.

Try again.

Look, Krugman is as knee-jerk a Bush-hating liberal as they get. The guy has never once offered up an original thought or done any real criticial thinking. There are PLENTY of liberal columnists who I read because they usually write something I hadn't heard or thought of before - Richard Cohen, William Raspberry, Barbara Ehrenreich, to name a few. Krugman just recycles the old hate-Bush stuff ad nauseum. Oh, and the NYT ain't exactly the most credible paper out there anymore, regardless of one's politics. All the news THEY SEE fit to print. What an overpriced fish wrap.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Attack the messenger...............how original.

Try again.

uhhhhhhhhhhhh....it's an opinion piece, if not the messenger than what?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

uhhhhhhhhhhhh....it's an opinion piece, if not the messenger than what?

The entire A section of the NYT is an opinion piece.

[kach22i]

You guys are like the cockroaches that stay in the room after the light has been turned on.

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by kach22i

You guys are like the cockroaches that stay in the room after the light has been turned on.

Sorry, but Krugman's bulb burned out long ago.

I like to listen to both sides- My car's radio has a button set on the conservative talk station, and the next one on Air America.

But Krugman lost all credibility with me after the first couple of columns I read.
Ya gotta do better than that.

[kach22i]

Krugman is awesome, not much I've read from him that is not spot on. He is my second voice at times.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Krugman is awesome, not much I've read from him that is not spot on. He is my second voice at times.

Ah, now your posts make sense

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Good read. Thanks for sharing.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Krugman is awesome, not much I've read from him that is not spot on. He is my second voice at times.

Like Marx?

[Superman]

Uh, huh. Krugman is an idiot. Okay.......

What about his statements? They are, at this point, unrefuted. Here is the quote that sums up both the article, and the Republican Party:
__________
In “The Conscience of a Conservative,” published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that “I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.”
____________

Like many observations in the article, including and especially the bit about '.....demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.....' it is clear to all who see, or who look over the coming year, that Republicans mean to disrupt government. Cute. The American people want more than this. More than incompetence mixed with hatred for America.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Superman

Uh, huh. Krugman is an idiot. Okay.......

What about his statements? They are, at this point, unrefuted.

It got quite all of a sudden.

[lendaddy]

What substance? He paints some prior actions of Republicans with the hyperbole brush then makes the assumption they acted in the spirit of the party. It's silly bs.

[Superman]

Then I must be just as silly as Krugman. As you are well aware, it is my longstanding impression that Republicans just hate gubmit, and are working with vigor to eliminate what they can, and make the rest work poorly. This is a widely accepted assumption among agency representatives, lobbyists and legislators themselves (among those work work with my state's legislature anyway) and also seems to be what you guys ASK and WANT those Republican representatives to do.

So......if Krugman believes it, and I believe it, and the folks whose full time occupations are legislative-oriented believe it, and you guys yourselves actively push for this agenda........then how are we to now start believing it's all a big lie. Heck, it's one of the absolute easiest political assumptions to verify. Going back to you guys' remarks here on Pelican......I bet I could round up a THOUSAND posts that clearly urge that gubmit offices either be abandoned or at least screwed up so badly they will never work efficiently again.

It's no wonder that has been not a single shred of substance to any of the conservative posts in this thread. Denying the anti-gubmit position is.......pretty laughable, Len.

[lendaddy]

A true Republican is proudly anti-government. I do however challenge you to find a statement promoting sabotage.

Government is the problem, not the solution. Viva la free markets

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

I'm curious to see how Fred Thompson turns out - he sounds more like a Libertarian than a Republican these days, which is all right by me...

-Wayne

I think I may have misjudged him.

Fred Thompson Speaks on Why He is Running for Pres. 10/2/07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8aZ6TGDfTA


Fred Thompson Speaks on His Vision for America 10/2/07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Em0HWDU3nM