Class War Politics
Monday, June 19th, 2006 by RLRFrom NY Times
By Paul Krugman
In case you haven’t noticed, modern American politics is marked by vicious partisanship, with the great bulk of the viciousness coming from the right. It’s clear that the Republican plan for the 2006 election is, once again, to question Democrats’ patriotism.
But do Republican leaders truly believe that they are serious about fighting terrorism, while Democrats aren’t? When the speaker of the House declares that “we in this Congress must show the same steely resolve as those men and women on United Flight 93,” is that really the way he sees himself? (Dennis Hastert, Man of Steel!) Of course not.
So what’s our bitter partisan divide really about? In two words: class warfare. That’s the lesson of an important new book, “Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches,” by Nolan McCarty of Princeton University, Keith Poole of the University of California, San Diego, and Howard Rosenthal of New York University.
“Polarized America” is a technical book written for political scientists. But it’s essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what’s happening to America.
What the book shows, using a sophisticated analysis of Congressional votes and other data, is that for the past century, political polarization and economic inequality have moved hand in hand. Politics during the Gilded Age, an era of huge income gaps, was a nasty business — as nasty as it is today. The era of bipartisanship, which lasted for roughly a generation after World War II, corresponded to the high tide of America’s middle class. That high tide began receding in the late 1970’s, as middle-class incomes grew slowly at best while incomes at the top soared; and as income gaps widened, a deep partisan divide re-emerged.
Both the decline of partisanship after World War II and its return in recent decades mainly reflected the changing position of the Republican Party on economic issues.
Before the 1940’s, the Republican Party relied financially on the support of a wealthy elite, and most Republican politicians firmly defended that elite’s privileges. But the rich became a lot poorer during and after World War II, while the middle class prospered. And many Republicans accommodated themselves to the new situation, accepting the legitimacy and desirability of institutions that helped limit economic inequality, such as a strongly progressive tax system. (The top rate during the Eisenhower years was 91 percent.)
When the elite once again pulled away from the middle class, however, Republicans turned their back on the legacy of Dwight Eisenhower and returned to a focus on the interests of the wealthy. Tax cuts at the top — including repeal of the estate tax — became the party’s highest priority.
But if the real source of today’s bitter partisanship is a Republican move to the right on economic issues, why have the last three elections been dominated by talk of terrorism, with a bit of religion on the side? Because a party whose economic policies favor a narrow elite needs to focus the public’s attention elsewhere. And there’s no better way to do that than accusing the other party of being unpatriotic and godless.
Thus in 2004, President Bush basically ran as America’s defender against gay married terrorists. He waited until after the election to reveal that what he really wanted to do was privatize Social Security.
Pre-New Deal G.O.P. operatives followed the same strategy. Republican politicians won elections by “waving the bloody shirt” — invoking the memory of the Civil War — long after the G.O.P. had ceased to be the party of Lincoln and become the party of robber barons instead. Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic presidential candidate, was defeated in part by a smear campaign — burning crosses and all — that exploited the heartland’s prejudice against Catholics.
So what should we do about all this? I won’t offer the Democrats advice right now, except to say that tough talk on national security and affirmations of personal faith won’t help: the other side will smear you anyway.
But I would like to offer some advice to my fellow pundits: face reality. There are some commentators who long for the bipartisan days of yore, and flock eagerly to any politician who looks “centrist.” But there isn’t any center in modern American politics. And the center won’t return until we have a new New Deal, and rebuild our middle class.
I don’t know if I agree with Mr. Krugman here. Alas, I wish he would SHOW (don’t tell) us the gross abuses hurled at the left by conservatives. There must be plenty of examples, so why not include one? And while it is becoming something of an old saw to state that conservatives denounce Democrats as anti-patriotic, Mr. Krugman ignores a larger fact, namely, that many Democrats believe that they and their party are the “true” America; that it is the Bush regime that is anti-American, anti-the-REAL-America. Egads, does not Mr. Krugman see that every single day since Mr. Bush took office the left has not only doubted his legitimacy but his patriotism, even suggesting that he is an enemy of real democracy and American freedom? Come now. Bush is a fascist, a dictator, a terrorist, a Hitler. In other words he, and his cronies, are the ones who are not true patriots.
In short, what Mr. Krugman has done is projected his own sort of invective into the mouths of those he loathes. I doubt Bush or Cheney or Rove have ever once doubted Mr. Krugman’s patriotism. If they have, let Mr. Krugman reveal the evidence. And then let him explain the daily verdicts, handed down by the left, that Republicans, as he avers even in this op-ed, are anti-American.
Moreover, this is surely a smear by Mr. Krugman, the very kind he suggests he disdains:
Thus in 2004, President Bush basically ran as America’s defender against gay married terrorists. He waited until after the election to reveal that what he really wanted to do was privatize Social Security.
What Mr. Krugman suggests here is that Bush is a traitor, betraying his own party (and, along the way, Mr. Krugman insinuates that Bush is a homophobe). But the laugher is that Mr. Krugman forgets that most of us don’t forget: Bush was talking about privatizing Social Security back in 1999. Bush did not foist this idea on the electorate or Congress in the dark. He did so in broad daylight. And it was not foisted, it was proclaimed: There was nothing clandestine or concealed about Bush and Social Security.
Alas, Mr. Krugman is right about one thing: this is class warfare. Yet this is not about rich or poor, but about high- and low-brow polemics. Mr. Krugman — once again — takes the low-class approach, not only to a difficult subject, but to an important one. It is vulgar, unbecoming, even base.
Peace.
BG
BG – You go from “I don’t know if I agree with Mr. Krugman here” to “It is vulgar, unbecoming, even base”.
I think it’s safe to say that you do not agree with Mr. Krugman.
Dear Stenson,
I guess you’re right. I did start off with a rather weak-kneed lead, didn’t I? But I actually DO think Mr. Krugman might be right that the worst thing going on in America is a conflict of classes; I am increasingly less inclined to see race as an issue in this country, but I cannot dismiss the power of poverty and the envy/greed huge wealth disparities generate.
I am also open to the idea that the class battle could be one of education.
So, I guess I do agree with Mr. Krugman. But only tangentially, I think. I mean, I certainly do not agree with his manner. But there is no doubting that there are great class struggles in this country, some of which are perhaps even fomented by Mr. Krugman’s op-eds.
Anyhow, thanks for calling me on my own ambiguity (and feigned ambivalence).
Peace.
BG
BG – Thanks for the reply. While I generally agree with the thrust of Mr. Krugman’s positions, I too found this editorial lacking in specifics, and rather harsh. Usually I overlook these things – being the lefty that I am – and attribute these shortcomings to lack of column space and frustration.
Thanks for providing some valid counter, and thoughtful comments.
S
Er, BG, did you fail to notice Karl Rove’s remarks last week in New Hampshire about Democrats being the party of “cut and run?” Did you fail to notice the number of times that phrase was used in the House “debate” last week? Have you failed to notice that a certain blonde harpy’s book calling Democrats “Godless” is climbing the bestseller lists?
Perhaps Mr. Krugman felt no need to enumerate these instances.
BG: You can’t be serious.
“Alas, I wish he would SHOW (don’t tell) us the gross abuses hurled at the left by conservatives.”
Spare me the crocodile tears. If you are serious about this, then you’re a dumb ass. If you’re not, then you’re a dumb ass. Yep… you’re a dumb ass.
Oh yes, one more thing BG.
Your criticism of Krugman’s accurate interpretation of Bush and the gay marriage/Social Security issue is a howler.
Fact: ONE WEEK after Karl Rove arranged to have gay marriage referenda appear as refernda in twelve states concurrent with the 2004 election and, after months of haveing the issue as a mainstay on its senatorial agenda, the gay marriage amendment did not make the TOP 10 priorities for the Republican Senate agenda. BG: were you one of the dumb ayshes who voted for Bush in 2004 b/c of gay marriage or because you wanted to gut Social Security?
Dear Jimmy,
Let us first point out that if you are at all interested in democracy, then you must agree that it is at least interesting that “gay marriage” was overwhelmingly defeated by most Americans (who voted in the 12 referenda to which you refer; and it fails in most if not all polls). If I remember correctly, the numbers showed that even most Democrats in those states voted against gay marriage; and even if not most, then a significiant number who voted for Kerry nonetheless voted against gay marriage. And to really fry the brain, I recall a C-Span post-2004 election discussion on voter behaviors, and these two tidbits came to my notice, namely, that 24 percent of gays voted for Bush and 25 percent of evangelicals voted for Kerry. Even if these numbers are inflated, they wreak havoc on our presuppositions. (And what do we do with those gays who are on record opposing gay marriage?)
Also, since I am thoroughly transparent about where I am writing from (New Hampshire), then you would know that I could not have voted as a “one of the dumb ayshes”, as you so delicately put it, since there was no such referendum offered to the NH electorate. But your question, no doubt asked so that you might find another reason to insert “dumb ayshes”, is irrelevant. But what is not irrelevant is that Mr. Krugman has suggested that Bush suddenly dumped on the electorate something unforeseen about Social Security reform. Bush did no such thing. And that is the point I managed to criticize.
Lastly, this line of yours is helpful:
If you are serious about this, then you’re a dumb ass. If you’re not, then you’re a dumb ass. Yep… you’re a dumb ass.
Of course, the “this” under discussion is Mr. Krugman’s failure to list one bit of invective hurled his way that proves that “the great bulk of it” comes from the right. This is an obscenely foolish remark to make, particularly as an essayist: he must have a long list of sins from which he could pull examples, and yet he does not pull a single one. Wow. For this oversight, Mr. Krugman fails the simplest rule in Writing The Essay 101: Show, don’t say. Even if we permit that Mr. Krugman is writing what “everyone knows”, he still makes a mistake, for the “everyone” would only be readers who think identically to him. In other words, it is clear he is writing to the choir, and that just stinks.
But your comment proves my point. I have not hurled any invective here. You have. Thrice. Nay, four times. The ad hominem fallacy is just about the easiest, cheapest thing to do in discourse. Interlocuters who resort to such tactics weaken their arguments. Mr. Krugman is not one who uses the ad hominem sparingly, it seems; even this essay of his — one about class struggle — he manages to turn into an anti-Bush, anti-Republican screed. In doing that, he takes away any real possibility of discussing the actual causes of, and any real solutions for, class warfare in America. I mean, it is clear that both sides of the aisle contribute to class struggles. Mr. Krugman blinds us to what the problems are because he is interested in using class to foment anger against his opponents.
Peace.
BG
Dear Linkmeister,
I have not forgotten the harridan (which is what I’ve playfully called Ms. Coulter); I have not forgotten the “harpy” to which you refer. And I have not forgotten the countless, and they are countless, times the President of the United States has been called a traitor, a war criminal, the world’s greatest terrorist, an idiot (with a master’s mind capable of world domination), illegitimate, anti-American, a dictator, demagogue, Hitler, theocrat, and so on. It is into this sort of maelstrom that Ms. Coulter leaps, and, though I disagree with her tactics, I will not overlook the fact that she clearly packs a potent punch. It is not her invective that bothers liberals; it’s that she is not a pushover. Liberals are rife with invective, condescension, vitriol. To deny this is to be absolutely in the dark. I am not saying anything unusual; I am not picking on anyone. One visit to Daily Kos proves this about liberals, particularly if you are a conservative with an opinion. Take two seconds to read any Maureen Dowd column; listen to Mr. Murtha talk about Rove and Co. sitting on their backsides in air conditioned offices. Listen to Al Franken, listen to Senator Reid. Invective is all over the place. But the broader point is this: the usually lofty, sophisticated and urbane Left suddenly turns — when Ann Coulter walks into the room — into a bunch of Puritans, pressing their fingers into their ears. They can handle the ad hominems of Michael Moore or Harry Bellafonte, but they turn pale when Ann Coulter opens her mouth. They can handle a Lenny Bruce-type, but can’t handle a leggy blonde who speaks with a coquettish smile, and does so without a single obscenity or profanity. Why this sudden high dudgeon of the Left? Has anyone ever taken a look at the sort of things written, by the Left, about Ann Coulter? They’d make the devil blush.
As for calling the Democrats the party of “cut and run”, calling them the party of cut and confuse might be more accurate. Democrats called for increased troop levels in Iraq at about the same time they called for them to be reduced; they called for increased troop levels — which would have given the enemy more targets to hit and thus increased the number of dead Americans — at the same time they were arguing that Mr. Bush and Co. had spread the military “too thin”. And this from the same folks who now believe the war is, in its entirety, based on lies and false premises. Plus, Hillary Clinton’s unforgettable and utterly vacuous remarks re: Iraq over the weekend bolster this point:
“I do not think it is a smart strategy, either, for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government. Nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interests.…”
We should all fly our flags half-staff to signal our sorrow over such emptiness. Or perhaps we should fly our flags upside down to signal our distress. Not that anyone would come to help us, mind you. It would just be fun to do.
Peace.
BG
BC wrote: “I don’t know if I agree with Mr. Krugman here. Alas, I wish he would SHOW (don’t tell) us the gross abuses hurled at the left by conservatives.”
Check it out:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/01/unhinged-broken-wheel.html
and
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/01/eliminationist-chorus.html
BG – Here’s my understanding of your position, (paraphrasing) “The Dems have some nerve complaining; they call names, too. And they don’t have any clear positions, Repubs do. Class warfare is a two-way street; no side is without fault”.
I would say: There is a difference between calling names from positions of power, and calling names from a minority status.
The Dems do have clear positions, but they’re not all the same positions. Further, it’s difficult to get heard when shouting against those in the bully pulpit.
Class-warfare would be decreasing if the income gap was decreasing.
Dear Jonah,
I thank you for the links. But they are only relevant to this discussion if you think that I believe the Right is not nasty. I do not believe that at all. Besides, neither citation speaks to my point: Mr. Krugman, who surely has access to at least ONE example of how the Right is mean to him, i.e., abuses his patriotism, chooses to leave us in the dark. You have given me a link that surely shows that both sides are rather nasty, irrespective of who is proactive and who is reactive. But the link is not from Mr. Krugman.
Dear Stensen,
If Mr. Krugman was a columnist for the Dirtweed Roll and not for the New York Times; if Maureen Dowd and Nicholas Kristof had not both won Pulitzer Prizes but gift certificates for McDonald’s Happy Meals; if John Kerry was not one of the richest men on the planet; then I might agree with you about power vs. weakness. Surely you are not saying that anyone at the New York Times, the most powerful voice in America media if not the world; or that any of these folks is in a position of weakness, are you? Is Dr. Howard Dean calling names — racist to the core, I think — from a position of poverty, impotence, considering he sits atop the DNC?
I am not saying that Ann Coulter is right. In fact, I flat out said that I disagreed with her tactics. But what, really, is her position of power? Does she write for the Times, or even the New Yorker (no enclave of weakness)? Is Westchester County, or southwestern Connecticut, the center of Democratic political and economic weakness; and does Ann make her name out at the Hamptons? Do the Clintons, the Gores, the Kennedys, the Kerrys, the Buffets, the Spielbergs, the Robbins-Sarandons — do all these folks (and many more like them) vacation at the local Motel 6; and do they ever speak from a position of disenfranchisement, or do they ever lack for vehicles through which to speak?
In 2004, when Terry McAuliffe was being interviewed about the Republican National Convention, he began to complain that never in the history of the United States “had there been so many mill…” I believe he meant to say millionaires, but he stopped himself because he knew what his alternative was: if there are too many rich people, are you saying that you’d like to see more poor people? Alas, never before have their been so many women and black millionaires, or Hispanic ones. Never before have there been so many black homeowners, or single parent homeowners. Yes, there is a great disparity. But one could argue that, while America may have the richest rich people on the planet, it also has the richest poor people. Compare the worst in this country to the worst in Haiti, or even to the middle class of Cuba. America has its struggles, but they are often better struggles than elsewhere. And if folks like Mr. Krugman could stop, for one second, from fomenting wrath at the wealthy, a wrath that is generated by envy, then perhaps we could redress certain injustices. But we cannot until the rhetoric on both sides is toned way, way down.
Lastly, a recent post at Daily Kos by SusanG discussed the increased wealth of Democrats in America. She spoke to the more all-out Marxists in the Kos-sphere, that perhaps they should chill a bit knowing that Markos (the DK founder) and others like him, not only deserved their new-found wealth, they had come by it by honest gain. The inference, of course (and not a subtle one, I should add), is that Republican wealth is patently dishonest. Thus, class distinctions are unjust if the rich are rich improperly; they are to be praised if the rich get that way by “speaking truth to power.” But the “truth to power” industry is not only an industry, exploiting markets for huge windfalls, it is entirely ignored by those media and economists who earn their cash denigrating capitalism.
Again, all this to say that I believe Mr. Krugman is mistaken, and that two wrongs — political ad hominems from the Left and the Right — do not make a right.
Peace to you all,
BG
I realize that it’s a couple of days after my last comment, but I thought the following would be of interest. This morning I Googled “Santorum.” I was curious what Senator Rick Santorum had to say about the alleged weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. The very first offering by Google was this link (and this is the title page). One wonders if the world has come to an end. Perhaps the human body corporate is indeed dead, and we are just the post-mortem twitchings.
Ann Coulter may be abusive, but there is not only far worse than Ms. Coulter, the far worse makes Ms. Coulter look like a temper tantrum at an ice cream stand: she ain’t much, and her petulance will pass. But this other stuff is pure hate.
Peace (I hope).
JIMMY FOR PRESIDENT
Maybe the “bright light” and “sense of peace” the faithful report experiencing during near death incidents are replaced by such glimpses and uneasiness as the damned approach the hereafter.