Paul Krugman, that Keynesian dinosaur whose reassembled fossils can be viewed at the New York Times, delivers a plethora of straw men against the tea party and Paul Ryan. Sure, he had some solid points about GOP hypocrisy on Medicare, but Krugman has plenty of contradictions of his own.
Early in, he subtly suggests that Paul Ryan may have stricken a racial nerve with his comment “culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working”. At no point did Ryan mention race, but that didn’t stop Krugman from slowly drawing the race card. Unlike the shameless race baters on MSNBC, Krugman held back and started to remove the race card with this statement – “Just to be clear, there’s no evidence that Mr. Ryan is personally a racist, and his dog-whistle may not even have been deliberate.” But that was simply part of Krugman’s deception. He wants the reader, including me, to let his guard down. I certainly did. I thought, “Well, I’m glad Krugman has the decency not to turn every statement from the GOP into a race slur.”
Boy was I wrong! Krugman was just getting me right where he wanted me – at ease, with a little respect for a column from one I generally disagree with. Well, civil disagreement is not Krugman’s style. Civil disagreement is for those who have a position that can stand on its own merits, not for a tired Keynesian race-bater stuck in the 1970s. Just when I thought Krugman was being reasonable, he had this to say – “And Mr. Ryan’s black-men-don’t-want-to-work theory of poverty is decades out of date.” Oh, so despite admitting that there is no evidence that Ryan is a racist, and despite admitting that he may have had no idea that what he said could be interpreted as racist, Krugman went on to accuse him of a racist position anyway. Seriously Krugman?!
If that’s not bad enough, he horribly misrepresented the Tea Party movement.
“The Tea Party in particular, oppose handouts because they believe in personal responsibility, in a society in which people must bear the consequences of their actions. Yet it’s hard to find angry Tea Party denunciations of huge Wall Street bailouts, of huge bonuses paid to executives who were saved from disaster by government backing and guarantees.”
I have seen some corporate stooge versions of the Tea Party, but the proper Tea Party is more opposed to corporate welfare than they are to welfare for the poor and middle class. The early Tea Party demonstrations, pre-dating the Santelli rant of 2009, were in opposition to Bush’s bailouts of the big banks, which led to TARP. I’ll post a link below to one off the early Tea Party demonstrations. It was a Ron Paul rally, and you’ll be able to see several crates, labelled with policies they oppose. Included in these are the bailouts. Either Krugman has been watching too much MSNBC, or he is just being dishonest.
News coverage of some of the early Tea Party rallies: