The American Spectator : Krugged Again

Print Email

You could probably spend your whole life arguing with Paul Krugman but every once in a while the great Nobel Prize Winner comes up with a doozy that can't be ignored. (He won the prize for international trade, not political analysis.)

Last week Krugman announced the Republicans have become a permanent minority and it's their own fault. The reason is that the only issue Republicans have going for them is race:

Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party's champion, to the Bush administration's pervasive incompetence, to the party's shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.

Does that surprise you? Did you know that in the midst of the Cold War with the Soviets, welfare reform, budget deficits, international trade, immigration, Islamic terrorism and financial meltdowns, all we've really been talking about is race? (It you want to find a race-obsessed tribe you could do no better than to look among Krugman's editorial-page staff at the New York Times, but that's another story.)

How to deal this argument? Here's one approach. The other day I came across a bio of Larry McDonald, the five-term Georgia Congressman who died aboard KAL Flight 007 when it was shot down by the Soviets in 1983. Here's what Wikipedia says about him:

Larry McDonald was known for his conservative views, even by Southern standards. [O]ne study named him the second most right-wing member of either chamber since 1937. He . . considered [Communism] an international conspiracy…a view later echoed in the words of President Ronald Reagan who called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire". In another sense, McDonald [was] a precursor of the Reagan supply-side revolution….An admirer of Austrian economics, he was an advocate of tight monetary policy [and] a passionate advocate of laissez-faire or market based policies.

His staunch conservative views on social issues attracted controversy. For instance, McDonald is noted for using amendments to stop government aid to homosexuals. He also advocated the use of a non-approved drug Laetrile to treat patients in advanced stages of cancer.

Now here's something else interesting about McDonald. He was a Democrat. In fact in 1983 just about every Congressman from Virginia to Texas -- the boundaries of what was once called "The Old Confederacy" -- was Democratic. On economic, social and foreign policy issues they were probably the most conservative constituency in the country. Yet all of them voted with the Democratic Party and had been doing so for over 100 years. Why? The explanation comes in one word -- r-a-c-e.

The "Solid South," which gave the Democratic Party its most reliable base from the last half of the 19th century to the end of the 20th century was there for one reason -- because the Democrats had fiercely defended the Confederacy during the Civil War. After 1865, the Democrats were the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" -- meaning the anti-prohibitionists, the city immigrants, and the former Confederacy. The Solid South gave Woodrow Wilson the Presidency. (Wilson, originally from Virginia, was virulently anti-Negro.) It formed the biggest electoral bloc of the Roosevelt Coalition and gave the Democrats control of the House of Representatives for half a century from 1954 to 1994. All this was payback for the Democrats supporting the South during the Civil War. Most Democratic governance during the 20th century would not have been possible except for this historic anomaly.

What happened in 1994 was that -- under the guidance of historically conscious Congressmen such as Newt Gingrich and Phil Gramm -- white Southerners finally forgot their Civil War allegiances and joined their natural constituency in the Republican Party. As Gingrich said at the time, "the Civil War is finally over."

White Southerners differ little in their political preferences from the residents of Idaho or Alaska. They are rural and small-town conservatives -- which is why Sarah Palin played so well there. The only thing that makes them different is that they live amidst a vast African-American population that votes heavily Democratic. This makes Southern politics highly competitive. Blacks hold many elective offices in the contemporary South and Presidential elections can be breathlessly close, as it was in Georgia last year. The only wild card in this alignment is that blacks tend to be socially conservative and are not always willing to follow their liberal brethren on issues like gay marriage and paying obeisance to the ACLU. Still, all this is a great improvement from the days when the South was a one-party region with Southern Democrats keeping African Americans off the voter rolls.

A few years back, trial lawyers began suing insurance companies and other large corporations for supposedly supporting slavery by once doing business in the antebellum South. I wrote several articles suggesting they sue the one American institution that had benefited most from its support of slavery -- the Democratic Party. The trial lawyers, being the deepest pockets in the Democratic Party, could pay the bills. No one took me up on it, however, and I am willing to let bygones be bygones. The same is not likely for Krugman and company.

The main political division in the country is now urban versus rural, with educated suburban voters playing a swing vote in the middle. Race has nothing to do with it -- except perhaps that African Americans vote 90 percent Democratic, the most lopsided commitment by any major ethnic constituency. Still, all this is not likely to prevent people like Krugman from beating their chests in self-congratulations and declaring anyone who votes differently from them a racist.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Democratic Party, Paul Krugman

frost| 1.5.09 @ 7:20AM

It's not just the gross omissions by that clown. Another scam was noted in today's Houston Chronicle, and, in the interest of total disclosure, the latest Clarence Page column (yuck!) failed to mention the Black, Very Liberal LA Times columnist who wrote the thing which inspired "Barack, the Magic Negro" satire/parody - - perhaps one of the most disgusting omissions I've encountered of late.
Page now ranks up there (or, "down there"?) with Frank Rich and all those other creeps from the extreme left; absolutely sickening!

Robert Rosencrans| 1.5.09 @ 8:03AM

Whenever I observe Paul Krugman peddling his big government economic theories on the the television talk circuit, I am appalled that no voice of opposition is allowed.

Mr. Krugman is the economic equivalent of Al Gore, who does not debate global warming or climate change, he simply promotes it.

As David Hannum so artfully quoted in reference to P.T. Barnum, "There's a sucker born every minute."

In our day and age, hucksters rule the roost, and the facts be damned.

tony| 1.5.09 @ 9:55AM

Interloper:

Given your obsession with all things racial, can you explain what Harry Reid is up to? Apparently, only whites are good enough for the Senate Democrat leader. Again, notice that he's a democrat and also notice that, apparently, he has the backing of his fellow democrats in the senate.

Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 10:14AM

Tony, considering your race-baiting, I gather that you are not exactly a civil rights activist. From what I've garnered, the majority leader is opposed to seating anyone appointed by scandal plagued (and possibly insane) Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a white fellow of Slavic descent. I doubt Sen. Reid has anything against Slavs, though. His rancor against Blago is about a federal investigation that has charged the governor with corruption, including efforts to literally sell the empty Senate seat.

In a personally fulfilling but ultimately distracting maneuver, Blago has named a pol with a good reputation to fill President-elect Obama's seat. But, hardly anyone believes he is in a position to make appointments. A refusal to seat the appointee, Roland Burris, would be a rejection of the person who selected him, not of Burris per se. Race is a red herring in the conflict that only persons who do not fully understand the situation would make an issue of.

My legal opinion is that there is no basis for refusing to seat Burris.

We'll see how this plays out.

Jeremiah| 1.5.09 @ 10:19AM

Mr Tucker,

Racial politics are complicated. It's not that the "party of racial backlash" would talk about nothing else but race. That's not at all how it works.

Republicans have used the "southern strategy" to maintain national stature since the 60s. Reagan began his campaign for president in Mississippi for a reason -- and it wasn't the heavy fundraising he was able to do there.

It's NOT that Republicans are racists.

However, they have been more willing to play upon the cultural anxieties of working class whites than Democrats.

Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 10:36AM

To take Jeremiah's point farther, race comes up so often, including in Paul Krugman's analysis, because it is the central determinant of Southern behavior in politics since the Civil War. It is not possible to discuss American elections and ignore the role of race, particularly the Southern Strategy.

The good news is that young white Southern voters are freeing themselves of the ideological shackles forged by their forebears. They will be able to focus on a full array of issues instead of being obsessed with maintaining white power.

tony| 1.5.09 @ 11:12AM

Ok, let me see if I've got this straight. I point out the fact that liberal democrat Harry Reid seems to have a problem allowing a black man to be seated as a senator, has previously written a letter regarding his preferences for Obama's replacement, which are broken down along racial lines (white candidates good, black candidates no good), but I'm the race-baiter. Makes perfect sense to me.

Let's try a little more race-baiting. If I'm not mistaken, every six years democrats re-elect and seat a former member and recruiting director of the KKK, Robert Byrd. We are told that the honorable Mr. Byrd has repudiated his past, yet only a few years ago, in an interview, he made a reference to "white niggers." Seems to me that if he believes in the concept of "white niggers,' he must also believe that there are black ones too.

Now, if we follow your logic Interloper, the fact that I've pointed this out will make me a racist because I've used the N-word, even only if to demonstrate more evidence of the type of liberal racism that exists all throughout this country.

As for your comments that I'm not a civil-rights activist, I can assure you that, unlike you, when I see someone, I don't judge them by the color of their skin. That's your job pal. Liberals like yourself are consumed with racialism (note I didn't say racism). I could care less about someones' skin color or ethnic background. Your the one who goes on a rambling discourse about different ethnicities, breaking down voting blocs by race, etc. So before you start lecturing anyone else on matters of race, you might want to clean up your own house first.

Big Elk| 1.5.09 @ 12:10PM

Just look at the photo of Krugman -- kinda looks like a serial killer doesn't he? Or, is he drunk and strung out on drugs? Only booze and drugs, and a psychologically imbalanced mind could come up with the nonsense Kruman creates. The guy is a freak and has no credibility at all.

David J| 1.5.09 @ 1:13PM

Interloper - why are you so obsessed by one's color?
Tony definately has it correct!

John Q Reb| 1.5.09 @ 2:18PM

White southerners are NOT the natural constituency of the Republican Party. On the contrary, the Republican Party of Lincoln and Seward was the party of leftism, of liberalism, of overwhelming federal power, of big government. The reason that the South today supports Republicans is that the Republican Party has attempted to steal the anti-federal, conservative mantle. But it is only lip service. The Republicans are today as leftist as the Democrats; there is no longer a conservative alternative to a massive Fed. No one is any longer trying to conserve anything.

Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 2:28PM

Tony, you are, um, mistaken. When asked who he considered qualified appointees for the Senate seat, names of a half-dozen persons were submitted by President-elect Obama via an aide. The list named men and women of various races.

I think you make these mistakes because you do not expose yourself to mainstream sources of information.

Marc Jeric| 1.5.09 @ 3:12PM

When I was growing up in a communist country, way back, we were taught Marxism-Leninism in the high school and then later at the university. Those lectures as I remember them are indistinguishable from the columns written today by Comrade Krugman in the New York Pravda (sorry, I meant Times).

Jeo| 1.5.09 @ 3:37PM

Robert Rosencrans: outstanding equating Krugman to Gore--he is absolutely the economic analog to Gore's enviro-hysteria. Best analogy I've heard all year--oops, it's only 5 January!

Howard Ino| 1.5.09 @ 5:45PM

There are fools and

There are damned fools.

Then there are the Krugmans...
They are just asses!

Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 7:42PM

Why are so many people eager to call a mild-mannered, prize winning economist names?

DaveS| 1.5.09 @ 7:48PM

Bill Clinton insisted that race has been, and is, part of the equation (see his SC primary epiphany); Rep. Rush feels race is part of the equation (though he is in error believing that only a black can represent Illinois blacks.) No news here - just the onion of racism in the Democratic Party being peeled back a layer at a time while the press fails to publish obviously connected dots. Who cares if I think blacks are racist for voting Obama at well over 90+%. It's 'just politics' to them.

Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 8:12PM

African-American voters vote for the Democratic presidential candidate about 90 percent of time, and, until this year, that candidate was always a white man.

The disproportionately is a measure of just how badly Republicans have alienated blacks.

tony| 1.5.09 @ 9:33PM

It's funny that you criticize me for not exposing myself to "mainstream sources of information" when you cannot even bother to expose yourself to what I wrote. Again, the point is that Harry Reid rejected all of the potential appointments who were black and offered up only whites as possible replacements for Obama. Did you understand it this time? Harry Reid, not Obama.

Here's a link for you to the Politico, not exactly the home of right wing reactionaries: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17022.html.

By the way, are you imitating Obama when you write "um?" It's one of his favorite utterances when he doesn't have a David Axelrod speech in front of him on a teleprompter.

Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 10:13PM

Tony, I believe most people would know how to interpret "um," in my statement above. It is not evidence of incoherence.

As for your belief that President-elect Obama is inarticulate without a teleprompter and speeches written by someone else, that some third party wrote his books, and, fondness for the n-word, they make it appear you are a racially prejudiced person. I suspect you cannot appreciate Obama because your bigotry prevents you seeing him as the accomplished person he is. It makes no sense for someone to believe a Harvard Law grad who is the author of two well-written books is not a capable person, unless there is something wrong with that person's ability to perceive.

In regard to your allegations about Sen. Reid, those claims are third hand. The majority leader has made no statements about suggested appointees for the seat. His spokesman emphasizes that any of the previously discussed would-be appointees would be acceptable if appointed by a governor other than Blagojevich.

tony| 1.5.09 @ 10:59PM

Again choosing to ignore what I write in order to put forth a mindless point of view, we see an example of how liberals view everything through the lens of race. How someone leaps to the conclusion that I am bigoted because I choose to poke fun at Obama's well known habit of using "um" with great frequency is something only a race-obsessed individual can pull off. I suspect that when you respond to this post, you will give us more of the same.

As for your assertions that I am bigoted, you must understand that I am entirely comfortable with liberals, and you in particular, believing I am bigoted. As I've said, everything to you is about race. You are incapable of accepting that someone can actually disagree with you on matters of race without being prejudiced. As for your reference to me using the N-word, is it so taxing for your mind to understand that I was pointing out what a liberal democrat stated when he let his guard down? It requires either staggering ignorance or an inability to comprehend a fairly straight-forward couple of sentences for you to come to the conclusion you reached.

Lastly, did you even bother to go to the link I provided?

tony| 1.6.09 @ 12:46AM

On second thought, you really don't need to respond to what I've written. After careful consideration, I'm sure you know me much better than I know myself. So I will refrain from discussing this and other matters with you. I suggest others here who disagree with you do the same, as you doubtlessly know them and what's in their minds and hearts better than they.

Good luck.

thescoop| 1.6.09 @ 3:12AM

BLACK AMERICA AND THE N-WORD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP2U0jmZjec

Interloper| 1.6.09 @ 7:55AM

Tony, considering your inability to hold an intelligent conversation, I agree that we need not interact. Feel free to return to your efforts to discredit the president-elect by making ignorant claims.

EricTheRed| 1.6.09 @ 9:37AM

Great article, Mr. Tucker. I was just arguing with a self-described commie-pinko friend that the tradition of racism in this country belongs to her party, not ours.

Don't they say, "A conservative is a liberal who's been KRugged by reality"?

http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
The Jewish Republican's Web Sanctuary

Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 1.6.09 @ 11:24AM

Tony, considering your inability to hold an intelligent conversation,...

Looks like the shot hit a bit closer to home than we're led to believe...

Steveo| 1.6.09 @ 12:00PM

For whatever it's worth..
Being a Texas boy, you have to admit my buddy LBJ knew who to buy. Up to and including the '60's, if you were KLAN, you were Democrat. By 1965, Dems were preaching politics in the pulpits of black churches in the South. It is not by accident that the majority of African American "leaders" have "Rev" in front of their name. They now have great power and influence. They line up the votes better than the union bosses ever could. If you think this is all racial, after noticing this I would have conversations with Kenyans, Angolans, Ethiopians, Ghanans, etc. that I would meet in the course of the travel for my work. They weren't jealous. They were only looking for opportunity. But they had absolutely no use for African Americans generally.

EricTheRed| 1.6.09 @ 2:10PM

Good points, Steveo. My wife has a black friend from college who's now a lawyer. Her family is from one of the Caribbean Islands and they don't have a single entitlement bone in their bodies. (I don't think she's very political, though, and probably voted for Obama by default.)

dropshippngwatch| 8.30.09 @ 10:07AM

Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Replica Watches Trade
Replica Watches
Replica Watch
Fake Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Watch
Fake Watches
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Wholesale Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watches Collection
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com

NFL jerseys| 8.31.09 @ 2:19AM

It is a wonderful article: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,Adobe Photoshop CS4.

Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 8:18AM

Ah wellWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns

fjkds| 10.22.09 @ 1:42AM

shanghai massage
beijing massage

kjhkjhkj| 11.16.09 @ 1:01AM

M2TS Video Converter,
M2TS Video Converter

fghfgh| 11.18.09 @ 12:12AM

iPod Touch Converter for Mac,
DVD to iPod Touch Converter for Mac

The American Spectator

Comments

frost| 1.5.09 @ 7:20AM

Robert Rosencrans| 1.5.09 @ 8:03AM

tony| 1.5.09 @ 9:55AM

Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 10:14AM

Jeremiah| 1.5.09 @ 10:19AM

Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 10:36AM

tony| 1.5.09 @ 11:12AM

Big Elk| 1.5.09 @ 12:10PM

David J| 1.5.09 @ 1:13PM

John Q Reb| 1.5.09 @ 2:18PM

Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 2:28PM

Marc Jeric| 1.5.09 @ 3:12PM

Jeo| 1.5.09 @ 3:37PM

Howard Ino| 1.5.09 @ 5:45PM

Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 7:42PM

DaveS| 1.5.09 @ 7:48PM

Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 8:12PM

tony| 1.5.09 @ 9:33PM

Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 10:13PM

tony| 1.5.09 @ 10:59PM

tony| 1.6.09 @ 12:46AM

thescoop| 1.6.09 @ 3:12AM

Interloper| 1.6.09 @ 7:55AM

EricTheRed| 1.6.09 @ 9:37AM

Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 1.6.09 @ 11:24AM

Steveo| 1.6.09 @ 12:00PM

EricTheRed| 1.6.09 @ 2:10PM

dropshippngwatch| 8.30.09 @ 10:07AM

NFL jerseys| 8.31.09 @ 2:19AM

Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 8:18AM

fjkds| 10.22.09 @ 1:42AM

kjhkjhkj| 11.16.09 @ 1:01AM

fghfgh| 11.18.09 @ 12:12AM

Leave a Comment

Related Articles

Philip Klein

Paul Chesser

Quin Hillyer

Brian O'Connell

W. James Antle, III

Philip Klein

Philip Klein

Philip Klein

W. James Antle, III

George H. Wittman

Mark Hyman

Ken Blackwell

William Tucker

Robert P. Kirchhoefer

Manon McKinnon

AMSPEC NEWSLETTER