Fear and Favor - by Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman

Fear and Favor
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 3, 2010


A note to Tea Party activists: This is not the movie you think it is. You probably imagine that you’re starring in “The Birth of a Nation,” but you’re actually just extras in a remake of “Citizen Kane.”


True, there have been some changes in the plot. In the original, Kane tried to buy high political office for himself. In the new version, he just puts politicians on his payroll.


I mean that literally. As Politico recently pointed out, every major contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination who isn’t currently holding office and isn’t named Mitt Romney is now a paid contributor to Fox News. Now, media moguls have often promoted the careers and campaigns of politicians they believe will serve their interests. But directly cutting checks to political favorites takes it to a whole new level of blatancy.


Arguably, this shouldn’t be surprising. Modern American conservatism is, in large part, a movement shaped by billionaires and their bank accounts, and assured paychecks for the ideologically loyal are an important part of the system. Scientists willing to deny the existence of man-made climate change, economists willing to declare that tax cuts for the rich are essential to growth, strategic thinkers willing to provide rationales for wars of choice, lawyers willing to provide defenses of torture, all can count on support from a network of organizations that may seem independent on the surface but are largely financed by a handful of ultrawealthy families.


And these organizations have long provided havens for conservative political figures not currently in office. Thus when Senator Rick Santorum was defeated in 2006, he got a new job as head of the America’s Enemies program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a think tank that has received funding from the usual sources: the Koch brothers, the Coors family, and so on.


Now Mr. Santorum is one of those paid Fox contributors contemplating a presidential run. What’s the difference?


Well, for one thing, Fox News seems to have decided that it no longer needs to maintain even the pretense of being nonpartisan.


Nobody who was paying attention has ever doubted that Fox is, in reality, a part of the Republican political machine; but the network — with its Orwellian slogan, “fair and balanced” — has always denied the obvious. Officially, it still does. But by hiring those G.O.P. candidates, while at the same time making million-dollar contributions to the Republican Governors Association and the rabidly anti-Obama United States Chamber of Commerce, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox, is signaling that it no longer feels the need to make any effort to keep up appearances.


Something else has changed, too: increasingly, Fox News has gone from merely supporting Republican candidates to anointing them. Christine O’Donnell, the upset winner of the G.O.P. Senate primary in Delaware, is often described as the Tea Party candidate, but given the publicity the network gave her, she could equally well be described as the Fox News candidate. Anyway, there’s not much difference: the Tea Party movement owes much of its rise to enthusiastic Fox coverage.


As the Republican political analyst David Frum put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox” — literally, in the case of all those non-Mitt-Romney presidential hopefuls. It was days later, by the way, that Mr. Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute. Conservatives criticize Fox at their peril.


So the Ministry of Propaganda has, in effect, seized control of the Politburo. What are the implications?


Perhaps the most important thing to realize is that when billionaires put their might behind “grass roots” right-wing action, it’s not just about ideology: it’s also about business. What the Koch brothers have bought with their huge political outlays is, above all, freedom to pollute. What Mr. Murdoch is acquiring with his expanded political role is the kind of influence that lets his media empire make its own rules.


Thus in Britain, a reporter at one of Mr. Murdoch’s papers, News of the World, was caught hacking into the voice mail of prominent citizens, including members of the royal family. But Scotland Yard showed little interest in getting to the bottom of the story. Now the editor who ran the paper when the hacking was taking place is chief of communications for the Conservative government — and that government is talking about slashing the budget of the BBC, which competes with the News Corporation.


So think of those paychecks to Sarah Palin and others as smart investments. After all, if you’re a media mogul, it’s always good to have friends in high places. And the most reliable friends are the ones who know they owe it all to you.

Good post and article. Just ask David Frum what happens when you don't follow the group speak script and parrot Frank Luntz's talking points memos.

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind
By Bruce Bartlett

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1601/groupthink-right-would-make-stalin-proud


"I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything."
David Frum - Speechwriter for George W. Bush
 
BTW, anybody who claims Obama is a leftist, wouldn't know a real leftist if one bit them on the ass. The GOP has been completely bought out by the corporate oligarchs and the plutocrats, who together are the kleptocracy, and the Democrats are rapidly following suit, with a few principled exceptions.

Please don't try to explain to them that there used to be Liberal/Progressive Republicans like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefeller...

It will be messy...:)
 
Fools like you continue to believe that people other than the far left sees Obama as a 'centrist'. Obama has governed from the left... not the extreme, but no where near the center. If he was a centrist, the health care obamanation the vast majority of this country didn't want never would have received his signature. The continued bailouts of his union cronies at the expense of the private sector would not have occurred. Etc...

He's a centrist of course. But even so, he still gives me that warm, fuzzy feeling. I think this is going to be the 012 campaign song - there's still time for you to convert SF. You will be left out in the cold humming some jingle about erectile dysfunction with the rest of the dinasours if you stay on this path.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbH_sDyWZqo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbH_sDyWZqo[/ame]
 
Braindead, sound bite driven, igmorant extremism. The mentality that creates the kkk is similar to that that has created Palin and that helps bad government keep your nation in a permanent state of fear.

Usually spelled Hooligan but from an unruly, supposedly Irish, family in London (that's in England) called Houlihan in the latter part of the 19C.
Enjoy the rally. Mind you wear the right strip.

If we're going to criticise the spelling of others, we may as well not be the first party to fuck up in that theatre. That is all.
 
Fools like you continue to believe that people other than the far left sees Obama as a 'centrist'. Obama has governed from the left... not the extreme, but no where near the center. If he was a centrist, the health care obamanation the vast majority of this country didn't want never would have received his signature. The continued bailouts of his union cronies at the expense of the private sector would not have occurred. Etc...

What you call the health care obamanation (clearly you get your indoctrination from ONE faux source) is almost a carbon copy of the proposals presented in 1993-1994 by REPUBLICANS, including the individual mandate, which was a Republican idea.

The Thirty Year History Of Republicans Supporting the Individual Mandate

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. “It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.”…

“We called this responsible national health insurance,” says Pauly. “There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn’t be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.”
--------------------------------------------------------------

David Frum (former GW Bush speechwriter) let the cat out of the bag.

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

At the beginning of this process we (Republicans) made a strategic decision: we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Read up on the Frank Luntz talking points memo that every single Republican in Washington parroted. It was written to destroy the heath care bill.

Republicans have done nothing to deserve any rewards in November. A loyal opposition is one thing, but a disloyal opposition (to America) is being a traitors IMO.
 
Fools like you continue to believe that people other than the far left sees Obama as a 'centrist'. Obama has governed from the left... not the extreme, but no where near the center. If he was a centrist, the health care obamanation the vast majority of this country didn't want never would have received his signature. The continued bailouts of his union cronies at the expense of the private sector would not have occurred. Etc...

I still maintain that it depends where one is on the political left/right spectrum as to how they view or judge other's positions on the same spectrum. A far lefty would see Obama as being to their right and thus he must be a centrist...to them. On the other hand a person to the right of center would see him as far to the left of them and thus judge him to be far-left. At the risk of being lambasted I'll put an "X" on the political scale where I would place President Obama to further illustrate my point.

L---------------------X---------C------------------------------R

He is to the left of me so naturally I see him as being farther left than others to the left of him would.

Here are a few more thoughts. I have a list of which I will include a couple of items here that are what I see as determining the left/right political positions. I'll just include a couple as I have compiled a big list during my spare time....just musing about politics as I do from time to time.

Gun control:

Left Position: Pro gun control. Pro registration and many would outlaw guns if they could.

Center Position: Pro Registration and perhaps pro waiting periods.

Right Position: Anti gun control of any kind...Let's all get some bazooka's!!

Gay marriage

Left Position: Pro gay marriage. Same rights and name and everything a heterosexual couple enjoy.

Center Position: Pro civil unions

Right Position: Anti gay marriage and civil unions

International Relations

Left Position: Make amends for every wrong the US has committed against any foreign country....ever...by paying reparations, graveling and begging forgiveness from now on.

Center Position: Realizes the need of maintaining working relationships with other nations and works to maintain them, helping in crisis situations while still working to maintain the integrity of the US.

Right Position: Tends more toward isolation and works/acts without a care of what other nations might think. Takes pre-emptive military action against countries deemed to be a threat.
 
I still maintain that it depends where one is on the political left/right spectrum as to how they view or judge other's positions on the same spectrum. A far lefty would see Obama as being to their right and thus he must be a centrist...to them. On the other hand a person to the right of center would see him as far to the left of them and thus judge him to be far-left. At the risk of being lambasted I'll put an "X" on the political scale where I would place President Obama to further illustrate my point.

L---------------------X---------C------------------------------R

He is to the left of me so naturally I see him as being farther left than others to the left of him would.

Here are a few more thoughts. I have a list of which I will include a couple of items here that are what I see as determining the left/right political positions. I'll just include a couple as I have compiled a big list during my spare time....just musing about politics as I do from time to time.

Gun control:

Left Position: Pro gun control. Pro registration and many would outlaw guns if they could.

Center Position: Pro Registration and perhaps pro waiting periods.

Right Position: Anti gun control of any kind...Let's all get some bazooka's!!

Gay marriage

Left Position: Pro gay marriage. Same rights and name and everything a heterosexual couple enjoy.

Center Position: Pro civil unions

Right Position: Anti gay marriage and civil unions

International Relations

Left Position: Make amends for every wrong the US has committed against any foreign country....ever...by paying reparations, graveling and begging forgiveness from now on.

Center Position: Realizes the need of maintaining working relationships with other nations and works to maintain them, helping in crisis situations while still working to maintain the integrity of the US.

Right Position: Tends more toward isolation and works/acts without a care of what other nations might think. Takes pre-emptive military action against countries deemed to be a threat.

Here's something to consider. I've been around since Truman and the center today is far to the right of what the center used to be. In Congress, the Blue Dog Democrats are to the right of many Republicans that served in 50's and 60's.
 
Here's something to consider. I've been around since Truman and the center today is far to the right of what the center used to be. In Congress, the Blue Dog Democrats are to the right of many Republicans that served in 50's and 60's.

I can appreciate that though I am much more right on social issues and more center/left on fiscal ones. I do think there was a time in this country that the social right was definitely to the right of where it is now. Fiscally, I definitely see your point....but then I've only been around since Nixon. ;)
 
I can appreciate that though I am much more right on social issues and more center/left on fiscal ones. I do think there was a time in this country that the social right was definitely to the right of where it is now. Fiscally, I definitely see your point....but then I've only been around since Nixon. ;)

Some believe that social issues have been used to divert attention from both parties moving to the economic right.

Of course, in order for it to work as well as it has, the religious right has to define social issues by gays and abortion. And then teach it to their flock every week. Because if social issues ever encompassed actual Christian teachings about the poor and disadvantaged, well then, where would the right be?
 
BINGO my dear....bingo. Wanting to provide help for the poor and disadvantaged has moved me to the fiscal left because of my religion. Admittedly, in the Bible, the church family (congregation) was to provide for care of "widows and orphans" which I deem synonomous with the "poor and disadvantaged" and many think that is the way it should be done now...and no other. That is not realistic. While I agree with you about taking care of the poor and disadvantaged...that it is a "Christian" teaching, I simply cannot deny the moral behavior side of the equation either. Abortion...murder, Homosexuality...sinful, Adultery...sinful. All of this comes into play when I decide on someone to vote for. I fell for Bush's "compassionate conservatism" in his first election....after the wars, not a second time.

All of the rancor I see in politics nowadays leaves a bad taste in my mouth for almost any political candidate. And besides, you cannot find many candidates who match my political make-up...so I do the best I can. Sometimes I just don't vote...or vote for someone who can't possibly win, like Cindi McKinney. I do love to think and talk about politics though.
 
I can appreciate that though I am much more right on social issues and more center/left on fiscal ones. I do think there was a time in this country that the social right was definitely to the right of where it is now. Fiscally, I definitely see your point....but then I've only been around since Nixon. ;)

Than doesn't add up, because liberal fiscal policies are based on human capital. That would make you are the antithesis of President Eisenhower...

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
 
Than doesn't add up, because liberal fiscal policies are based on human capital. That would make you are the antithesis of President Eisenhower...

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

My point is this, and perhaps better made in the form of a question: What politician, in the 50's or 60's, could stand up and say he was for, say, allowing men to marry one another and giving them the same rights as a married man and woman, and expect to be elected? That wouldn't have flown then nearly as much as it does now. That is what I meant by saying this:

"I do think there was a time in this country that the social right was definitely to the right of where it is now."

I could use some other social/moral positions but this was the easiest and shortest to put into words.
 
My point is this, and perhaps better made in the form of a question: What politician, in the 50's or 60's, could stand up and say he was for, say, allowing men to marry one another and giving them the same rights as a married man and woman, and expect to be elected? That wouldn't have flown then nearly as much as it does now. That is what I meant by saying this:

"I do think there was a time in this country that the social right was definitely to the right of where it is now."

I could use some other social/moral positions but this was the easiest and shortest to put into words.

What you are describing is an ever evolving change in society's norms and values, our ability to be more tolerant of people that have different lifestyles and beliefs and to right bigoted wrongs. No one is asking you to marry someone from the same gender, just to accept that they have that right as individuals with a free will. There was also a time when a politician couldn't stand up and say a black man should share the same drinking fountain as a white man. It was as wrong then as it is now.

God didn't teach us to be selfish..

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde
 
My point is this, and perhaps better made in the form of a question: What politician, in the 50's or 60's, could stand up and say he was for, say, allowing men to marry one another and giving them the same rights as a married man and woman, and expect to be elected? That wouldn't have flown then nearly as much as it does now. That is what I meant by saying this:

"I do think there was a time in this country that the social right was definitely to the right of where it is now."

I could use some other social/moral positions but this was the easiest and shortest to put into words.

But in the 50's and 60's we were also way further to the economic left. We essentially had a maximum wage policy, and the Republican party then was probably to the left of the Democratic party now.

Also, it's important to note that on abortion we've actually gone backwards. In the 60's Republicans were actually more inclined to support abortion than Democrats, and there was huge support all around. Now the pro-choicers are hanging on for dear life. Also, at the beginning of the 60's, there was a solid plurality against the death penalty and rehabilitation was considered undoubtedly superior to retributionism. Now both issues have entirely been abandoned. We now have more prisoners than any society in history, and there's no sign of turning back.

The left has made progress on gay rights and drug prohibitionism, but those are practically the ONLY areas we haven't gone from resounding victory to being completely and totally crushed in.
 
Last edited:
BINGO my dear....bingo. Wanting to provide help for the poor and disadvantaged has moved me to the fiscal left because of my religion. Admittedly, in the Bible, the church family (congregation) was to provide for care of "widows and orphans" which I deem synonomous with the "poor and disadvantaged" and many think that is the way it should be done now...and no other. That is not realistic. While I agree with you about taking care of the poor and disadvantaged...that it is a "Christian" teaching, I simply cannot deny the moral behavior side of the equation either. Abortion...murder, Homosexuality...sinful, Adultery...sinful. All of this comes into play when I decide on someone to vote for. I fell for Bush's "compassionate conservatism" in his first election....after the wars, not a second time.

All of the rancor I see in politics nowadays leaves a bad taste in my mouth for almost any political candidate. And besides, you cannot find many candidates who match my political make-up...so I do the best I can. Sometimes I just don't vote...or vote for someone who can't possibly win, like Cindi McKinney. I do love to think and talk about politics though.

I respect you for your consistency at least.

No, I don't guess you would have an easy time finding politicians that match up with that though.
 
Back
Top