Krugman: "The Republican Rump"


November 3

NYT - Most of the post-election discussion will presumably be about what the Democrats should and will do with their mandate. But let me ask a different question that will also be important for the nation’s future: What will defeat do to the Republicans?

You might think, perhaps hope, that Republicans will engage in some soul-searching, that they’ll ask themselves whether and how they lost touch with the national mainstream. But my prediction is that this won’t happen any time soon.


Read on. Mr. Krugman nails it, for me. The political dialogue for the next four years and in the campaign of 2012 is going to be very, very weird.


Rick November 3, 2008 - 7:10am
( categories: Opinion | USA: Campaign 2008 )

...god help us, is the groundwork for what might be the start of a second Civil War. One between the Haters with Lots of Guns, and the Other Citizens.

I'm not saying that it *will* happen....just that pieces of its foundation are being laid. The Right is getting more radical, which has the unfortunate side-effect of making it more paranoid and harder to deal with rationally. Absent some wake-up call that can open their eyes to present-day realities (and I just can't see what could do this without making their heads explode), they're likely to descend deeper into the abyss, talking about Betrayal, about the 'watering down' of 'American Values', and others of miscegenation and infiltration by the Scary Brown People, moving away from 'Christianity' to embrace 'pagan' and 'heathen' religions or even (gasp)...Atheism!

I'm not smart enough to see alternatives or solutions to situations like this.....but I really hope somebody does, before the Right comes to the decision that words no longer work, time to use weaponry...

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

justadood November 3, 2008 - 8:12am

but 2008 doesn't seem to be the smartest year for anyone to buy stock in "becoming a domestic terrorist in America" in any more significant or organized way than writing some *really* strongly worded editorials.

Wiki: Domestic Terrorism

According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."[2]

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which:

"(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]

Of course "destruction of property" has now been defined as terrorism too.

I'm sure a lot of people will fume, and foam, and roll their eyes back in their heads and speak in tongues.

And then after folks cool down a bit and see that things aren't really so bad (that the government vans aren't coming by on Wednesday morning to collect their guns and annul their marriages and give them gay spouses and a new American flag with the stars replaced with a hammer and sickle) the ones with a scrap of rationality remaining will think about the new powers they gave President Obama to deal with folks like them, and decide they really don't want to be associated with anything like that, and that the democratic process isn't so bad and should probably be given another try.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch November 3, 2008 - 11:21am
joe in oklahoma November 3, 2008 - 8:53am

I think that the politics will be interesting during the next 4 years because there's a gap between the left, which has traditionally been the ivory towered snobs, and the working class which gravitated towards the right.

Most likely, the ivory towered snobs who control the left will continue to ignore the working class so they'll probably need their own party now that the republicans went off the deep end.

so, yes, the next four years will be very interesting since neither big business nor the ivory towered snobs will give up the silver spoons in their mouths.

and, yes, Barack looks ready to send the working class into war or into labor camps by making them sign away their lives in order to get college aide while the university elite or business elite can help their children opt out and remain free.

Anyway, I wouldn't use such hot, rhetorical language here but I know way too many folks who are being marginalized and left out in the cold by both parties.

of course Barack might surprise us and live up to his pledge that work should pay a decent wage but I think he's just trying to get the votes of the folks in that video and he won't deliver on his rhetoric.

Again, I'm hoping that I'm wrong but humans are self-centered creatures who generally worry about their own priorities first.

mrmx November 3, 2008 - 9:09am

and, yes, Barack looks ready to send the working class into war or into labor camps by making them sign away their lives in order to get college aide while the university elite or business elite can help their children opt out and remain free.

Higher Education

* Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: Obama and Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service.

Tina November 3, 2008 - 9:24am

I don't believe that going to college is a good thing for everyone. This has to be recognized by society. It is already evident to pretty much all professors at community colleges who are teaching the not so talented folks (on average). What needs to be acknowledged is that professions that do not require one to go to college should also lead to decent wages (and some already do, at least, judging from my plumber's bills). But this idea that everyone has to go to college is just insane. Some people just cannot do it and they should focus on something more productive for themselves.

creativelcro November 3, 2008 - 10:23am

but I think it is wrong to say community colleges teach the not so talented. Often times students take the first two year basic classes in their home towns. It is often cheaper to do this and then transfer to a state university for the upper level classes.

Tina November 3, 2008 - 10:35am

Sorry, I agree with Tina. I should have said "ALSO the not so talented" (I had used "on average" to convey this, but it did not work). Basically, the "not so talented" students end up there because they cannot go anywhere else. But there are plenty of students in community college who are there for financial and other reasons. And then they move on to state university. The point I was trying to make, though, is that there are individuals who don't have the skills to finish college, they end up wasting time and money and also they are a drag on everyone else in the classroom. These people should have alternative paths, and these paths should be given a decent status by society (right now, everybody wants to go to college because if you don't you are considered a bit of a loser and everybody says that without that degree you are nothing in the workforce).

creativelcro November 3, 2008 - 5:15pm

...I do tend to think that access to college of some sort is for everyone and that's something that tends to get short shrift when folks look first from the perspective of the current odd, reflexive aspirations in higher ed.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

JustPlainDave November 3, 2008 - 11:59am

Keeping people out of the labor force results in less pressure on politicians to create or preserve jobs in the military-industrial complex and through subsidized, wasteful consumption.

In Western Europe they work less, because of (1) reduced work time for people who have jobs, (2) more people are kept out of the labor force by extended education and (3) universal health care that allows people to leave the work force for extended periods of time without worrying about catastrophic illness. I suspect this has a lot to do with the fact that they are less militaristic and consume resources at a much lower rate than we do (while still overconsuming).

Beto November 3, 2008 - 1:14pm

My view is that government should invest in its citizens through both subsidized education and healthcare. I would vote for free education from pre-kindergarden to PhD as the best way to invest in the commonwealth, along with free healthcare for everyone that was willing to agree to preventive healthcare. IN order to remain competitive, the US needs to innovate in these areas of opportunity. The opportunity cost of inaction or failure here is too great.

However, in my experience there are many people who are more inclined to express themselves in other ways than the way that college is generally conceived and organized. Higher education is a lot more varied than it used to be, and it could stand a lot more variation to become more available and useful. People who further their eduction are more successful on many measures than people who don't either have this opportunity or do not choose to take it. I believe that education needs to be more available and also better designed for the spectrum of needs.

tjfxh November 3, 2008 - 6:59pm

Like it or not, the pensions and benefits our union Dads obtained are a vestige of the 1950's, when American manufacturing was king. Those days are gone, and our remaining on-shore manufacturers are hammered by the conflicting needs to make competitive products and to satisfy their shareholders. The implied social contract of corporate involvement in the community via good jobs and charitable works has largely been torn to shreds.

We need to rein in our militaristic spending and invest in making technical and collegiate education more affordable, and to get every citizen into the coverage pool so we can get that gorilla off employers' back.

Neither the Dems nor the GOP as presently constituted have the will do this. If we can donate $600M to an Obama, can we not back a true populist movement?



"What we've got here is, failure to communicate"

Rick November 3, 2008 - 7:30pm

IMO. Note, I'm not saying you are stupid. Just that the stereotypes you are using are stupid.

creativelcro November 3, 2008 - 10:17am

fightin' words, I agree that there is no time like the present for a Populist Party to evolve. It will take time, and must be grassroots-driven to grow into a viable, persistent voice in U.S. politics. But our Masters in D.C. are not serving the needs of the hundreds of millions of us who lack access to the troughs of the Treasury or Wall Street.



"What we've got here is, failure to communicate"

Rick November 3, 2008 - 10:43am

Ironically, the GOP is fast becoming the populist party of the right, while the Democrats are becoming the elitist party of the center, especially as moderate Republicans abandon a party with which they no longer identify. For example, several Democratic senators are former moderate Republicans, most notably Jim Webb, who has already been mentioned as presidential material.

There is no populist faction of the left with political capital or bargaining power. Progressives are going to have to ally themselves with the Democratic establishment, which is decidedly centrist at this juncture. Progressives have significant representation, most notably Russ Feingold in the Senate. Hopefully, Obama will appoint some progressives to top spots in his administration, too.

The progressive populists of the left, such as many of us are here at The Agonist judging from posts, are left with forming a coalition with the elitist party of the center that combines center-right and center-left forces. This coalition will dominate both politically and economically for some time. Progressive populists will have a voice in this coalition since some of the center-left elite are socially and economically progressive.

Moreover, many of the economic elite, both wealthy people and economists, now recognize that "trickle down" economics aka voodoo economics was a Reaganite ploy to transfer wealth and power to the top. The problem with it is that it reduces consumer savings and lowers the bargaining power of labor to the degree that aggregate demand is adversely affected, in effect killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Right now the US and world are experiencing the effect of tapped out US consumers throwing in the towel on spending.

The populist party of the right that includes somewhere between 30 and 40 per cent of the US voting population will present a real danger to liberal democracy, however. For under certain circumstances, a way to power could open for them, in which case the US could find itself controlled by a far right power structure in a time of extreme domestic or foreign stress. The Bush administration has laid the groundwork for dictatorship of the right, and it is possible that the US has not seen the end of this trend.

For this reason, it is of utmost importance that the new administration address the constitutional issues that Bush/Cheney raised. The fact that Obama was a professor of constitutional law and also that he graduated at the top of his class at Harvard Law encourages the possibility that he is aware of the importance of this issue and will not just let it die when the new administration takes power. However, Obama is a practical (Chicago) politician who knows that politics is the art of the possible, and he will focus his political capital on priorities rather than spreading it too thin and thus wasting it. Hopefully, constitutional issues are right up there, but he has not yet mentioned this explicitly with any great force.

The bright spot is that the coming generation is much more progressively inclined than the present generation holding power. This is somewhat paradoxical in that the present generation holding power includes many of the flower children of the Sixties, as well as many who manned the barricades during the anti-war protest of the early Seventies. Perhaps these people will remember their roots if a real progressive movement takes shape.

Ultimately what could develop is the GOP as a populist minority party of the right run by a far right power structure facing off against a Democratic centrist majority party comprising a coalition run chiefly by the centrist elite allied with a strong progressive populist movement of the left, made up especially of younger people and minorities.

Something of an explosive mix. Hopefully, the center will hold. If a significant portion of the elite would move to the right, then the result would be dire for liberal democracy in the US.

tjfxh November 3, 2008 - 11:51am

tjfxh

This is a penetrating take on the issue. Bravo to you.

It occurs to me that American politics has proven time and again that cultural affinities can often eclipse 'interests.'

Technically, I should be voting for Bush, since I'm sort of a winner in what Stirling Newberry would call the "Land Casino." I bought a rental property in 2000 and essentially doubled my money in four years.

I'm a working stiff not a 'symbol analyst' as Robert Reich would say...

I should be a NASCAR dude according to many metrics - yet I'm more I.F. Stone - maybe even HL Mencken - than Father Coughlin or Rush Limbaugh.

Notwithstanding the 'strange bedfellows' - certainlty the bat-crazy fundies and Wall Street players share little but skin color (that seems to be enough) - I can't see the bat-crazies aligning in a new coalition.

Their reactioniary mindset embraces an sense of victimhood and embattlement even when they're in power. Their most powerful, almost elemental drive is to create scary stories for themselves ("Obama is a communist muslim!") and that tendency is going to 'jump the shark' at some time in the next few years. I can forsee some kind of attempt at right wing version of "March on Washington" or something that just turns into a pathetic circus - a pageant of grotesques straight out of an Annie Proulx story, toting guns and un-earned sense of superiority. Without their establishment GOP fathers to reign them in, I can see them going a bridge to far with their laughably paranoid theories.

This mindset also is strictly limited to the Manichean model of absolute struggle between only two poles - and so it becomes blind to paradoxes and unintended consequences (Obama will probably have many "Nixon goes to China" moments with respect to race and poverty for example).

So all in all, I agree with Krugman. The people who embrace Palin and the sense of a world that is relentlessly moving away from their 'golden age' have a 'purist' mindset that will not truck with, say for example hispanic Catholics.

KingElvis November 3, 2008 - 6:39pm

One thing to keep in mind is that there are likely to be some major Republican scandals still to come. Big ones too. If the Democrats start investigating stuff, issuing subpoenas, holding hearings, letting the Freedom of Information Act function, etc, etc, there is likely to be a lot of dirt coming out. The Repubs have suppressed a LOT of stuff, and once it starts coming out they're going to look even worse than they do now. And I suspect that there will be a lot of people who will be willing to talk if they no longer fear persecution.

jonbrown November 3, 2008 - 7:08pm

the Republican Party could shrink after Obama is elected especially if health insurance is extended, funding provided for education, laws previously eroded restored, the bulk of troops returned to the United States from Iraq, regulations that control excessive market levarging -- that's just a partial list that would keep the Democrat party busy for its first four years--much needs doing to heal the division created by the likes of Rove and right-wing radio personalities like entertainer, Limbaugh, one of many who feeds on hate, cultivates it, and helps it grow.

Palin undoubtedly isn't going away but what portion of the population is drawn to her ideas? People did ultimately realize she lacked depth. She's already chased away moderates in her party and with Obama in office, his fresh optimism will chip away at the less extreme parts of the Republican Party until they'll become totally unelectable by the majority of Americans. I'm breathlessly awaiting election returns tomorrow and crossing my fingers that his election is decisive with McCain being utterly crushed into obscurity.

Democrats need to concentrate on the success of this 2008 election. Obama is a very intelligent politician and has the organization and political skills to maximize them further. He'll do everything in his power to make the Republican party's influence as small as possible. The next four years, he's promised not to resemble the previous eight. Do everything you can during his first administration and then let the chips fall where they may.

Don't ever underestimate Obama--he's a magnificent speaker and will inspire Americans with Churchill-like speeches,

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
November 10, 1942-On the Battle of Egypt. He's brought the Democrats from obscurity to gaining office against formidable odds. I'm confident there isn't a need to wish Americans luck with their election tomorrow because Obama removed chance from him not becoming the President-elect.

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, bookmarks America's chapter to a brighter, old world.

canuck November 4, 2008 - 2:54am

- eom


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch November 4, 2008 - 3:32am

...

creativelcro November 4, 2008 - 8:27am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.