Remember that post about the GOP?
Mr. Paul Krugman has similar, more precise, and more articulate things to say about the subject.
This is the guy who, about 10 days ago or so, won the nobel prize in economics.
Notably, he places the time when the policies of divisiveness began:
"Forty years ago, Richard Nixon made a remarkable marketing discovery. By exploiting America’s divisions - divisions over Vietnam, divisions over cultural change and, above all, racial divisions - he was able to reinvent the Republican brand. The party of plutocrats was repackaged as the party of the “silent majority,” the regular guys - white guys, it went without saying - who didn’t like the social changes taking place.
It was a winning formula. And the great thing was that the new packaging didn’t require any change in the product’s actual contents - in fact, the G.O.P. was able to keep winning elections even as its actual policies became more pro-plutocrat, and less favorable to working Americans, than ever."
and uncovers the truth of the matter that the ridiculous "Obama is a socialist" attack hides:
"What about the claim, based on Joe the Plumber’s complaint, that ordinary working Americans would face higher taxes under Mr. Obama? Well, Mr. Obama proposes raising rates on only the top two income tax brackets - and the second-highest bracket for a head of household starts at an income, after deductions, of $182,400 a year.
Maybe there are plumbers out there who earn that much, or who would end up suffering from Mr. Obama’s proposed modest increases in taxes on dividends and capital gains - America is a big country, and there’s probably a high-income plumber with a huge stock market portfolio out there somewhere. But the typical plumber would pay lower, not higher, taxes under an Obama administration, and would have a much better chance of getting health insurance."
The truth is McCain's plan, which probably belongs less to him than it does the Republican party, probably amounts more to favoritism of the upper brackets than Obama's does to socialism. Not to even mention the fact that he was adamant in pushing through the partial nationalization of banks through the bailout plan and all the socialist implications it carries.
The Republican party is trying, in its last gasps of breath (hopefully) in this race, to prey on the deeper fears of the American people. They are characterizing Obama as a socialist and a terrorist. They are questioning his character, they aren't allaying the irrational fears that people have about whether or not he is a muslim, or an arab, and party leaders are still harping on Barack 'hussein' obama.
Additionally, Republicans are trying to disown Colin Powell, one of their most respected and well-liked party members among most of America. This is a guy of high integrity who, at the benefit of his party, suffered character damage in the way he framed the problem of Iraq to the UN. He's not a strict conservative, more of a Republican Centrist, and for that reason his support of Obama, based on very reasonable and rational, though probably not easy, decisions, is being framed as a move of racial solidarity. What a cheap and despicable card to play. In a time of national turmoil, against a reasonable and honorable man who has long served their party, are turning on and disowning him for what they deem as "treason" or "abandonment" of their party.
The blind irrationality and immovability of the conservatives and the constituents they have coddled into ignorant comfort under their administrations. It is a problem that people are yelling, "kill him!' at rallies. It is a problem that Obama is being associated with terrorism. It is a problem that some parts of America are deemed 'pro-American' while others are not. There are so many problems arising out of ignorance, out of fear, and out of bigotry, that the Republican party is not reining in but is subtly or not so subtly promoting.
Under reasonable scrutiny Sarah Palin is an absurd choice, one that the party has yet to admit. In a lot of ways Mccain is going to be left a somewhat tragic figure out of this entire mess. If there is one thing the party didn't overstate it's the price he paid as POW, his experience in politics, and his all but fading reputation as being a uniter among the parties and his ability to work with both parties. The maverick tag may be annoying novelty by now but I remember a few years back thinking that I actually did like McCain. Even that I liked him when the presidential race first kicked in (though I knew he would be the toughest opponent for the dems to beat). Its a shame really that the party, in all its ugliness, pushed him to the point of making bad decisions, shifting to negative campaigning, and basically tarnishing the respectable image he had before. The divisiveness is their only way to win. Thankfully, it is not sustainable and the Obama campaign, even if he doesn't win, may just change that.
In the end, I doubt anyone comes out of this race looking clean and neat. The Obama campaign has stuck with an elevated tone throughout without playing to some 'folksy' element of America, they made a pretty responsible choice for VP, and their negative campaigning generally ends up being more reactionary and having less cheap shots than the McCain campaign. They may say some things that are kind of unfair like saying Mccain is 'erratic,' but it's nowhere nears as implicative and fear-baiting as saying he 'pals around' with terrorists or invoking an image of socialism when talking about his plans.
I may end up sounding more liberal than I mean to, and I can assuredly say this campaign cycle brings a lot of that out, but in truth I remain a strange mix. Sure, I side with liberals comes to things like social issues and domestic policies in education and health care. I can get down conservatives when we talk about less government intervention though and perhaps more state sovereignty. The problem recently is that less govt intervention for the party mostly meant deregulation and taking us closer to free markets. With that, I can't fully agree. I suspect both parties had something to gain from deregulation of the economy or at least in certain industries. But the ideas as principle are sound. In the end I do lean left, probably because I have vested interest in the social policies and domestic policies. Also because for some reason the GOP also means increased military spending, another tangent I am dying to get into but will refrain from.
This is the guy who, about 10 days ago or so, won the nobel prize in economics.
Notably, he places the time when the policies of divisiveness began:
"Forty years ago, Richard Nixon made a remarkable marketing discovery. By exploiting America’s divisions - divisions over Vietnam, divisions over cultural change and, above all, racial divisions - he was able to reinvent the Republican brand. The party of plutocrats was repackaged as the party of the “silent majority,” the regular guys - white guys, it went without saying - who didn’t like the social changes taking place.
It was a winning formula. And the great thing was that the new packaging didn’t require any change in the product’s actual contents - in fact, the G.O.P. was able to keep winning elections even as its actual policies became more pro-plutocrat, and less favorable to working Americans, than ever."
and uncovers the truth of the matter that the ridiculous "Obama is a socialist" attack hides:
"What about the claim, based on Joe the Plumber’s complaint, that ordinary working Americans would face higher taxes under Mr. Obama? Well, Mr. Obama proposes raising rates on only the top two income tax brackets - and the second-highest bracket for a head of household starts at an income, after deductions, of $182,400 a year.
Maybe there are plumbers out there who earn that much, or who would end up suffering from Mr. Obama’s proposed modest increases in taxes on dividends and capital gains - America is a big country, and there’s probably a high-income plumber with a huge stock market portfolio out there somewhere. But the typical plumber would pay lower, not higher, taxes under an Obama administration, and would have a much better chance of getting health insurance."
The truth is McCain's plan, which probably belongs less to him than it does the Republican party, probably amounts more to favoritism of the upper brackets than Obama's does to socialism. Not to even mention the fact that he was adamant in pushing through the partial nationalization of banks through the bailout plan and all the socialist implications it carries.
The Republican party is trying, in its last gasps of breath (hopefully) in this race, to prey on the deeper fears of the American people. They are characterizing Obama as a socialist and a terrorist. They are questioning his character, they aren't allaying the irrational fears that people have about whether or not he is a muslim, or an arab, and party leaders are still harping on Barack 'hussein' obama.
Additionally, Republicans are trying to disown Colin Powell, one of their most respected and well-liked party members among most of America. This is a guy of high integrity who, at the benefit of his party, suffered character damage in the way he framed the problem of Iraq to the UN. He's not a strict conservative, more of a Republican Centrist, and for that reason his support of Obama, based on very reasonable and rational, though probably not easy, decisions, is being framed as a move of racial solidarity. What a cheap and despicable card to play. In a time of national turmoil, against a reasonable and honorable man who has long served their party, are turning on and disowning him for what they deem as "treason" or "abandonment" of their party.
The blind irrationality and immovability of the conservatives and the constituents they have coddled into ignorant comfort under their administrations. It is a problem that people are yelling, "kill him!' at rallies. It is a problem that Obama is being associated with terrorism. It is a problem that some parts of America are deemed 'pro-American' while others are not. There are so many problems arising out of ignorance, out of fear, and out of bigotry, that the Republican party is not reining in but is subtly or not so subtly promoting.
Under reasonable scrutiny Sarah Palin is an absurd choice, one that the party has yet to admit. In a lot of ways Mccain is going to be left a somewhat tragic figure out of this entire mess. If there is one thing the party didn't overstate it's the price he paid as POW, his experience in politics, and his all but fading reputation as being a uniter among the parties and his ability to work with both parties. The maverick tag may be annoying novelty by now but I remember a few years back thinking that I actually did like McCain. Even that I liked him when the presidential race first kicked in (though I knew he would be the toughest opponent for the dems to beat). Its a shame really that the party, in all its ugliness, pushed him to the point of making bad decisions, shifting to negative campaigning, and basically tarnishing the respectable image he had before. The divisiveness is their only way to win. Thankfully, it is not sustainable and the Obama campaign, even if he doesn't win, may just change that.
In the end, I doubt anyone comes out of this race looking clean and neat. The Obama campaign has stuck with an elevated tone throughout without playing to some 'folksy' element of America, they made a pretty responsible choice for VP, and their negative campaigning generally ends up being more reactionary and having less cheap shots than the McCain campaign. They may say some things that are kind of unfair like saying Mccain is 'erratic,' but it's nowhere nears as implicative and fear-baiting as saying he 'pals around' with terrorists or invoking an image of socialism when talking about his plans.
I may end up sounding more liberal than I mean to, and I can assuredly say this campaign cycle brings a lot of that out, but in truth I remain a strange mix. Sure, I side with liberals comes to things like social issues and domestic policies in education and health care. I can get down conservatives when we talk about less government intervention though and perhaps more state sovereignty. The problem recently is that less govt intervention for the party mostly meant deregulation and taking us closer to free markets. With that, I can't fully agree. I suspect both parties had something to gain from deregulation of the economy or at least in certain industries. But the ideas as principle are sound. In the end I do lean left, probably because I have vested interest in the social policies and domestic policies. Also because for some reason the GOP also means increased military spending, another tangent I am dying to get into but will refrain from.