Hate Springs Eternal

by Maireid Sullivan | February 11, 2008 at 04:48 pm
6051 views | 2 Recommendations | 3 comments

Paul Krugman has an interesting history: His BIO states: Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.

Hate Springs Eternal 

New York Times: By PAUL KRUGMAN

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.


In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”

during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.

And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.


Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?


I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.


But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.

Read the full article here:

recommend This comment thread is now closed
Caoimhin1
Caoimhin1
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 17:29 on February 11th, 2008

Maireid Sullivan, I like this story. It's good stuff.  Hi Maireid, I found an anomlie you might be interested in checking out if you have a minute.  I am using this comment section because I can put a link in.  There are volcanoes erupting all over the Pacific Basin, circling the Pacific Ocean, with a few Earthquakes sprinkled in for good measure.  One volcano is Rabaul, New Britain (off the East coast of Australia), check out the site at this link to view the map that shows the positions of all activity, there could be a story in it!  http://visz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index.php?lang=eng  Have a great time!


PS: I counted 19 erupting volcanoes and 6 quakes....all within the last few days...kind of odd isn't it?

0
Maireid Sullivan

Hi Cao, NASA reported that a BIG magnetic storm hit our magnetic shield on 10 Feb.

I subscribe to their newsletter http://www.spaceweather.com

I absolutely ADORE the way they always present news on the most dramatic space events couched in glorious descriptions of magnificent views of colourful auroras to be seen as a consequence. Astronomer's heaven!

They said we should expect volcanoes and quakes and hurricanes!

Did you know that in August 2005 the sun's magnetic shield shifted upside down? - or something like that. 

The earth's shield is slowly shifting now too. and this is natural, but only happens every couple hundred thousand years. When I read about this back then, they said that the earth's magnetic GAUSS is down to 0.5 ...and two thousand years ago it woulod have been around 3 to 4 GAUSS. Fascinating possible consequences! So, the shifting of the shield will bring an increase in magneticism, which we need for healing! That is why people recommend wearing magnetic insoles occasionally now - for healing warmth and circulation. They also said that, in particular, birds may be confused because their migration directions will change dramatically - and they may lose their way to their habitats.

It's a big subject.

I'll visit the link you sent now..... 

 

 

0
Maireid Sullivan

Cao, thank you for sending the link to that map!

It is amazing to see all those hot spots - volcanoes erupting NOW, etc.

WOW! 

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from