Friday, November 05, 2004

Krugman, The New Party Leader?

Paul Krugman has penned a rallying cry op-ed for the Demosocialiscrats.  It’s titled “No Surrender," which I am uncertain whether is a nod to Churchill’s words to the British, “We shall never surrender,” or to the band Supertramp.

Here’s the first paragraph from Krugman’s rallying cry.

"President Bush isn’t a conservative. He’s a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda."

Well, if Bush is a “radical,” desiring to “tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt,” the father of the nanny state, I hope Bush has brought along a big monkey wrench because the spigot through which the funds have been flowing since the 1930’s is pretty much rusted wide open.  And if Bush "dislikes America as it is," well, so do I.

In the third paragraph of Krugman’s piece we read this.

"This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn’t have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback."

It’s as if Krugman is damning the good luck Bush has garnered from the bad luck of having the Islamofascists strike on his watch.  The “potent aura of 9/11” indeed.

In the eighth paragraph, Krugman notes the similarities of Democrats and Republicans, though he misses the similiarity of their desire to be nannies to all.  What struck me the most, though, about this paragraph, is the gratuitous reference to the Demosocialiscrats of the state of Massachusetts.  Are they the model to be emulated?

"Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn’t be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states."

In the twelfth paragraph, Krugman once again bemoans the good/bad luck which Bush garnered from September 11, 2001, the “lingering aura,” as he terms it, here.

"In fact, they have made good strides, showing much more unity and intensity than anyone thought possible a year ago. But for the lingering aura of 9/11, they would have won."

Krugman wraps up his little pep talk with the following notification of his upcoming absence, and admonition to think all this over, while he works on an economics textbook.

"It’s all right to take a few weeks to think it over. (Heads up to readers: I’ll be starting a long-planned break next week, to work on a economics textbook. I’ll be back in January.) But Democrats mustn’t give up the fight. What’s at stake isn’t just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it."

I can just about imagine what the economics textbook, referenced above, will be titled.  Economic Prosperity Via Central Planning.

Bah.

Linked via Drudge.

Posted by John Venlet on 11/05 at 04:14 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages