… an interlocking set of institutions and alliances that won elections by stoking cultural and racial anxiety but used these victories mainly to push an elitist economic agenda, meanwhile providing a support network for political and ideological loyalists.Well that doesn’t sound like a very flattering description of conservative politics. In the lead in of his article Krugman states that “Movement conservatism dominated American politics from the election of Ronald Reagan, until the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
Allow me to rephrase Paul Krugman’s working thesis: American politics on the right, was controlled by the good old boys—white boys—and their one-percenter sugar-daddies from the time of Ronald Reagan forward. This uber-wealthy elitist racist consortium cleverly managed to win elections by stoking the racialist fears of a white majority terrified of all those dark-skinned bogeymen beating on their drums so menacingly in the jungles of the urban night.
However, according to Krugman, once their elections were secured, the “Movement Conservatism” politicians returned to their real agenda which was merely crony capitalism and unbridled wealth building. In a nutshell, a bunch of poor red-necks and racists crawled out of the woodwork to vote for someone who they thought would back their racist agenda of a return to segregation or perhaps even slavery, but instead of doing their job, these greedy politicians were too busy amassing wealth to be bothered by passing laws which would have put blacks back into chains where we Republicans believe they belong.
One wonders whether Krugman’s conservative confabulation brings him satisfaction or perhaps irritation instead? Is he happy that the goals of the red-necks and racists of the USA are stifled stymied and betrayed by their leaders, or is he irritated that these rich white one-percenters continue to amass great fortunes by cynically manipulating their ignorant constituency?
The breathtaking condescension of this New York Times writer is so over the top that I’m nearly at a loss for words. But not quite. According to Krugman's confabulation, there are only two kinds of Republicans. We’re either stupid hayseed racists who just fell off the turnip truck on the way to Wal-Mart, or we’re evil billionaires with an insatiable thirst for more and more wealth—cue the screaming villagers brandishing torches. It's one or the other.
But wait...there's more!
We don’t know exactly why [Cantor] lost his primary, but it seems clear that Republican base voters didn’t trust him to serve their priorities as opposed to those of corporate interests (and they were probably right). And the specific issue that loomed largest, immigration, also happens to be one on which the divergence between the base and the party elite is wide. It’s not just that the elite believes that it must find a way to reach Hispanics, whom the base loathes. There’s also an inherent conflict between the base’s nativism and the corporate desire for abundant, cheap labor.Not only do we trailer-dwelling red-neck Republicans want to put blacks back in chains, but we "loathe" all Hispanics. We hate blacks and we loathe Hispanics. I honestly wonder how Paul Krugman turned out the way he did. I don't see how you could grow up in this country honestly having this low an opinion of such a vast multitude of people. So then, my question for Paul Krugman is a simple one: Is it perhaps you Paul Krugman who is in fact the toothless benighted extra-chromosome bearing troglodyte found crawling out of the woodwork, or is it perhaps you Paul Krugman who is in fact the cynical wealth-amassing greedy one-percenter cynically stoking cultural and racial anxiety in your ceaseless quest for more and more wealth?
Is it all of us in our hundreds of millions, who are wrong, or could it perhaps be you Mr. Paul Robin Krugman who is completely 180° bassackwards? I feel sure that I know what Occam would have said ... slice ... He who smelt it, probably dealt it.