Posts
(Please consider making even a small contribution to the Welcome to Pottersville2 Quarterly Fundraiser happening now ($5.00 is suggested for those on a tight budget) or at least sending a link to your friends if you think the subjects discussed here are worth publicizing. Thank you for your support. We are in a real tight spot financially right now and would sincerely appreciate any type of contribution. Anything you can do will make a huge difference in this blog's ability to survive in these difficult economic times.)
And now for a few other memory joggers on this gorgeous Fall weekend . . .
The Problem Is Not Romney - It's the Republican Party
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co.
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan. (Photo: The New York Times)
Mitt Romney is catching a lot of flak from his own side lately, which seems premature; this is by no means over. But let me say that even if he does spend election night weeping in his car elevator, his critics from the right are being unfair.
Yes, he's a pretty bad candidate — but the core problem is with his party, not with him.
What, after all, does Mr. Romney have to run on? True, he hasn't offered specifics on his economic policies — but that's because he can't. The party base demands tax cuts, but also demands that he pose as a deficit hawk; he can't do both in any coherent fashion without savaging Medicare and Social Security, yet he's actually trying to run on the claim that President Obama is the threat to Medicare. On fiscal matters, doubletalk and obfuscation are his only options.
And no, Paul Ryan, his running mate, didn't show that it can be done differently. His plan was, as I've documented many times, a fraud. Furthermore, he's basically a Beltway creation; the Ryan legend was based on the desire of Washington types to anoint a Serious, Honest Conservative; expose him to the wider scene, and it all falls apart.
Nor can Mr. Romney do the George W. Bush thing of running as America's defender against gay married terrorists.
First of all, that old standby, national security, isn't working. Between Mr. Bush's Iraq debacle and the fact that Mr. Obama was the one who got Osama bin Laden, the notion that only the G.O.P. will defend America is dead for the foreseeable future. And at this point social issues are cutting the wrong way: there are almost surely more affluent women who will vote against the party of Todd Akin than there are white working-class voters who will punish the Democrats for supporting gay marriage.
And underlying it all is the diminishing whiteness of the American electorate. This still might be a close election thanks to the weakness of the economy, and a better candidate than Mr. Romney might have had a better chance of pulling it off.
But the long-term fundamentals are not good for Republicans.
Delusions of Wonkhood
Dave Weigel, a political reporter at Slate, recently had some fun with credulous journalists who are sure that Paul Ryan must be a Very Serious Wonk because — wait for it — he uses PowerPoint. With pie charts!
This is really amazing.
Look, I know wonks. Mr. Ryan is not a wonk. Yes, he likes charts and slides. But he very clearly doesn't know what his numbers actually mean. When the famous plan was unveiled, it was quite clear that he never even realized that the Heritage projection of his plan's impact made a completely ridiculous assertion about what would happen to unemployment. Nor did he realize that his assumptions about discretionary spending would require cutting such spending — including defense! — to levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge.
One question one might ask is whether Mr. Ryan is aware that he isn't actually a wonk — that he just plays one on TV. Maybe not.
Some of what he says suggests the Dunning-Kruger effect at work: he may be so innumerate that he doesn't realize that he has no idea what the numbers he throws around mean. And after all, why would he, given all the praise he's received for putting up a line graph or pie chart here and there?
If the fate of the republic weren't at stake, it would be funny — and painfully embarrassing.
(Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed page and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2008. Mr Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes, including "The Return of Depression Economics" (2008) and "The Conscience of a Liberal" (2007). )
Paul Krugman to Paul Ryan: "The Truth Hurts"
Thursday, 10 November 2011
Paul Krugman
(Image: CartoonArts International / The New York Times Syndicate)
During a recent speech, Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, expressed outrage over what President Obama has been saying lately.
“Just last week, the president told a crowd in North Carolina that Republicans are in favor of, quote, ‘dirtier air, dirtier water and less people with health insurance,’ ” Mr. Ryan said at a gathering at The Heritage Foundation on Oct. 26. “Can you think of a pettier way to describe sincere disagreements between the two parties on regulation and health care?”
Just for the record: Why is this petty? Why is it anything but a literal description of Republican proposals to weaken environmental regulation and repeal the Affordable Care Act?
I mean, to the extent that the G.O.P. has a coherent case on environmental regulation, it is that the economic payoff from weaker regulation would more than compensate for the dirtier air and water.
Is anyone really claiming that less regulation won’t mean more pollution?
And Republicans have not proposed anything that would make up for the loss of the measures in the Affordable Care Act that would lead to more people being insured.
Let me also point out that whatever else you think of it, Romneycare — which is essentially the same as the Affordable Care Act — clearly has sharply reduced the number of uninsured people in Massachusetts.
So Mr. Ryan is outraged — outraged — that Mr. Obama is offering a wholly accurate description of his party’s platform.
Let me add that this illustrates a point that many commenters here don’t seem to get: Criticism of policy proposals is not the same thing as an ad hominem attack.
If I say that Paul Ryan’s mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries, that’s ad hominem. If I say that his plan would hurt millions of people and that he’s not being honest about the numbers, that’s harsh, but not ad hominem.
And you really have to be somewhat awed when people who routinely accuse Mr. Obama of being a socialist get all weepy over his saying that eliminating protections against pollution would lead to more pollution.
(Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed page and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2008. Mr Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes, including "The Return of Depression Economics" (2008) and "The Conscience of a Liberal" (2007).)
No comments:
Post a Comment