September 19, 2011
Republican Double Standards*
One of the themes behind this blog, especially my most recent postsOne of the themes behind this blog, especially my most recent posts, has been that Republicans aren't just always wrong, but they couldn't be more wrong. Without her realizing it, Rachel Maddow couldn't illustrate this any better, here.
She explains that Glenn Hubbard, who was George W. Bush's economic adviser from 2001-2003, was behind Bush's wartime tax cuts. It was those tax cuts, and other Republican policies, that have fueled the exploding deficit.
Hubbard did such a wonderful job with the tax cuts, and our economy, that he left the White House to work for Goldman Sachs. And in 2004 he wrote that the proliferation of (unregulated) mortgage invesments that Wall Street was offering would "enhance the stability of the U.S. banking system" and that "recessions are less frequent and milder when they occur."
Repeat after me: Republicans aren't just always wrong, they couldn't be more wrong!
You'd think a record that couldn't be more wrong, especially for a White House economist, would force Mr. Hubbard into hiding. But it didn't. These days, being consistently and horribly wrong is a Republican badge of honor. Of course it is, it has to, or else it would be an admission that conservatism was wrong and - gasp! - liberalism was right. And the GOP can never admit that. So Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has hired Mr. Hubbard as his chief economic adviser. Of course he did, because wartime tax cuts for the wealthy and failing to regulate Wall Street were liberal ideas.
What's going on here? Conservatives never have to defend their arguments when they're wrong, but liberals have to defend theirs 100% when they're right. And that's an impossible standard to meet because no one's 100%. Not even me. But that's what the right is counting on because they're just looking for a hole in a liberal argument to exploit.
As I wrote in May:
...conservatives and conservatism can be proven wrong over and over again, but the one time something happens that vindicates their side of an issue, they turn it into New Year's Eve. It would be like the 1962 Mets breaking out the champagne and having a parade every time they won a game.Readers of liberal economist Paul Krugman's columns and blog can tell that he works very hard proving his Keynesian economic philosophy. He has to. Because the one time he leaves himself open, or says something conservatives don't like, the right will exploit that opening and attack his credibility.
But I guess if I was "vindicated" once out of every101002005001000 times, I'd make a big deal out of it too. Take for instance the elections in Iraq that were used to justify a disastrous war that should never have been fought, and the 2010 snow storms that were used to mock Al Gore and global warming.
And then there's times that "being right" is the result of just making stuff up; such as the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit that the right took out of context to show that global warming is a hoax.
Sometimes Mr. Krugman knows what the attack from the right will be, so he responds to it before it's even fired. But he fights with facts. The right fights with propaganda. So the right has taken advantage of "lies making it
By having to prove his arguments over and over again, in so many different ways, it's gotten to the point that Mr. Krugman is beating his head against the wall. Because for all his facts, and for all his reasoning, it's as if he spends
In a slightly different way, 9/11 and the Iraq war are other double standards the right takes advantage of.
Do you know what would have happened to a Democratic President if, despite numerous warnings, he failed to pick up a phone and demand specifics that may have prevented the 9/11 attacks? Do you know what would have happened to a Democratic President if he made stuff up so he can start an unnecessary war...that turned into a colossal disaster?
He would have been impeached and the Democratic Party would have been finished, the Republican Party would have made sure of it.
On the flip side, do you know what would have happened if WMD's were found in Iraq, thus justifying George Bush's war? And a peaceful democracy emerged, and our troops, suffering minimal casualties, all returned home by the end of 2003? And a stable Iraqi government that respected minority rights had been elected and actually governed responsibly? And a McDonald's, Starbucks and Marriott were opening on every other street corner in Baghdad? I'll tell you what would have happened: the Democratic Party wouldn't have been heard from again - the Republican Party would have made sure of it - because their credibility would have been shot.
Not only that, but GOP would have reminded the country, every hour on the hour, that they were right on Iraq and liberals couldn't have been more wrong (Eric Alterman's recent American Progress column illustrates just how wrong the right was on Iraq, how right a handful of liberals were and how little credit and notoriety they got).
However, Iraq didn't turn out that way, it was a colossal disaster. George Bush and the Republicans couldn't have been more wrong. As usual. But they weren't finished as a Party and George Bush was re-elected. And after losing the 2006 and 2008 elections, badly, Republicans regained the House last year and are gearing up to retake the White House in 2012. So whatever credibility they lost, they got back. But had a Democratic President started that disastrous war based on lies, you can be certain that the Democratic Party wouldn't have been heard from again.
Oh wait, I'm wrong. The Democratic Party would have been finished because of 9/11. Either way, Republicans are blatant hypocrites (also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).
So despite 9/11, despite how wrong and disastrous the Iraq war was, and despite what tax cuts (budget deficits), deregulation (Wall Street), unenforced regulation (the BP oil spill), and the "free market" (our asinine health care system, Lehman Brothers, Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc.) have done to the country, the Republican Party, because of this double standard, is never held accountable.
And despite the sorry ass record that "less government" and "lower taxes" has, Republicans continue to call for "less government" and "lower taxes." And aren't called on it. Not by Democrats and not by the so called "liberal" media. It would be like a compulsive gambler on the verge of bankruptcy saying he'll "win the lottery tomorrow" and his family believing him.
But of course Republicans are still calling for "less government" and "lower taxes." They have to, or else it would mean conservatism was wrong and - gasp! - "tax and spend" "big government" liberalism was right. And they can never, ever admit that, regardless of what the facts are.
So unlike Mr. Krugman, liberals and Democrats, Mr. Hubbard, conservatives and Republicans (Sept. 27 insert: and the Wall Street Journal's editorial page) never have to defend their arguments or their disastrous record.
Meanwhile, the left's record, opposite of the right's, is much better. And yet, who's listened to? Who's taken seriously? Who has the power? Who does the "liberal" media chase after? Who manipulates, controls and dominates policy "debates"? And who's allowed to be wrong...all the time?
Who's ignored? Who's not taken seriously? Who has to be right 100% of the time (and still wouldn't be good enough)? And who do the "liberal" media and the country roll the eyes at?
But wait there's more.
Ronald Reagan raised taxes eleven times, added $3 trillion to the debt, and grew the size of government. Barack Obama has cut taxes, even more then George Bush did during his first term. And yet, Reagan's the Republican icon and Obama's the socialist.
How did this happen?
For the last thirty years, the right's massive propaganda machine has been on the offensive 24/7. They've done an excellent job spinning, distracting, attacking, deflecting blame, rewriting history, intimidating the mainstream media, raising fears (of all the right's manufactured enemies), handing their brainwashed right-wing base talking points, and keeping them in a perpetual state of rage (at all of the right's manufactured enemies). They've also put Democrats on the defensive. And since the left is always being challenged, and forced to defend their arguments, 100%, the right doesn't have to (if you're a lousy singer, just keep pushing other singers on to the stage so you never have to).
The right has also done an excellent job making up their own "facts" and decimating them to their followers via the conservative media. So every political "debate" starts with the right grossly misinformed and, well, wrong. But they have to be misinformed and wrong, so in their twisted and corrupted minds they can be "right" (and Ronald Reagan can be a Republican icon and Barack Obama a socialist). And we wonder why the country's problems are never addressed responsibly. Mrs. Maddow illustrates this and shows just how wrong Republicans are with their "facts," here.
Since Democrats never call out the GOP on any of this, they are always on the defensive. And it allows the right's lies and propaganda to become the starting point for political "debate" and "negotiation". This is why the left doesn't get anywhere (Sept. 27 insert: resulting in this. September 28 insert: And this.). Just ask Mr. Krugman and the rest of the liberals who opposed the Iraq war, opposed the Bush tax cuts, opposed deregulating Wall Street, and want more corporate regulation, especially on the banks and off-shore oil drilling.
I'd say that it's about time the left called out the right and put them on the defensive for a change. But since liberals and Democrats have been thoroughly intimidated by conservatives and Republicans, and can be found all rolled up into the fetal position, it'll never happen. And even if they did, the right would unleash a massive counter-attack that would create so much noise that nothing would resonate. And the country would be "disgusted at all that partisanship in Washington" and "blame both parties". Mission accomplished.
But if Democrats ever did decide to take the Republicans on, they'd need to do a few things. First they need to put a chip on their shoulder and dare the right to knock it off. Second, they need a bold, massive and sustained offensive attack of their own. And third, call out the right for what it is: a God damn cult, or worse. And then maybe the country would finally start listening to them.
Unfortunately, they don't even realize something like that needs to be done. But it doesn't matter because they don't have the guts to do it anyway. And besides, Democrats couldn't argue themselves out of a wet paper bag. So forget it. We're doomed.
Oh, Republicans aren't just wrong, they couldn't be more wrong, again, here. And who can forget this and this (also here)?
How much proof do you need?
I'd hate think of the circumstances under which the country finally "got it" and stopped listening to conservatives and started listening to - gasp! - liberals.
Note: It's only fair to point out that some Democrats supported the Iraq war, and Democratic Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers convinced Bill Clinton to sign the legislation that deregulated Wall Street. And they didn't lose any credibility either. In fact, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Summers wound up either working for President Obama or advising him.
So Democrats couldn't have been more wrong too. But only because they've consistently supported the conservative Republican agenda. And foolishly continue to do so.
October 9 insert: Besides his economic record, George Bush's foreign policy wasn't just wrong, it couldn't have been more wrong a bigger disaster! So naturally, Mitt Romney hired the same schnooks responsible for those policies for his campaign (and along with Mr. Hubbard would undoubtedly be part of his administration should he win the Presidency).
October 11 insert: Mr. Krugman calls out the right-wing Tax Foundation, and a conservative colleague, for "deliberate fraud," proves conservative economic dogma wrong, again, and then proceeds to bang his head against the wall, again.
October 13 insert: Mr. Krugman proves right-wing dogma wrong again and again.
October 22 insert: Eric Alterman:
What we have here is a prime example of what I have called "on the one-handism," what Paul Krugman calls "the cult of the balance" and what James Fallows calls the problem of "false equivalence." The phenomenon derives from a multiplicity of causes but rests on two essential insights.October 28 insert: Republicans are proven wrong, again, here, and Mr. Krugman calls out GOP hypocrisy, again, here. (October 30 insert: And follows up here.)
First, conservatives have figured out that even the most high-minded members of the media will publish their claims without prejudice, even if they lack any credible supporting evidence. They will do this because they consider it both "unfair" and nonobjective to take a position between the two parties even when it involves passing along a falsehood.
Second, because of the relentless effectiveness of the right’s effort to "work the refs," reporters and editors are particularly reluctant to invite the hassles and angry accusations certain to arrive whenever anyone prints an unfavorable truth about anyone associated with the right. Conservatives have gotten so good at this, as a matter of fact, that they even get reporters to thank them for it—as well as to misidentify their complaints with those of average everyday American citizens.
October 29 insert: Rachel Maddow couldn't prove the point behind this post any better, here. She lists all the times Bush Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wasn't just wrong on everything he said about Iraq, but couldn't have been more wrong; but now has enough credibility to write an article about what our strategy in Afghanistan should be. The clip is well worth watching, if for no other reason then Mrs. Maddow's incredulousness.
I must apologize for all these insets. But I can't help it if Republicans keep proving me right.
November 8 insert: Mr. Krugman admits to banging his head against the wall, here.
November 12 insert: Couldn't pass this one up.
Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has proposed privatizing the Veterans Administration. Mr. Krugman explains why it makes zero sense to do so and then sums it up perfectly:
So, our serious Republican is committed on ideological grounds to demolishing successful programs and replacing them with conservative fantasies that have failed repeatedly in the past.
November 18 insert: Once more, Mr. Krugman:
And in the end, (Rep. Paul) Ryan’s answer is that we need strong economic growth, the kind that we get by cutting taxes on the rich. Because that’s why the Clinton years were an economic disaster and the Bush years so prosperous.
November 29 insert:
Okay, I know this is getting ridiculous, but Mr. Krugman proves Republican propaganda and talking points wrong again and again, and that Alan Greenspan wasn't just wrong, but couldn't have been more wrong.
And here's Mr. Krugman on Grover "shrink government down to the size it can be drowned in the bathtub" Norquist:
And it really is very disturbing that arguments like this, arguments that were thoroughly refuted three generations ago, are playing a major role in political debate. I mean, what’s next? Will they start rejecting the theory of evolution? Oh, wait.
Seriously, are Republicans ever right, about anything (not including their political leanings, of course)?
December 15 insert:
Okay, I just couldn't pass this one up. Once again, Mr. Krugman:
...(Republican Presidential candidate Ron) Paul is unique among the GOP contenders, or for that matter among politicians in general, in making monetary policy his signature issue. So it’s worth noting that he is among those who have been wrong about everything in this slump...
I’m sure that the Paulistas will find a way to claim that their man has been right about everything, even though his predictions have been all wrong. But he really has built his political career around the notion that he’s an expert in a subject about which he actually understands nothing.
December 18 insert:
I wanted to underscore one of this post's main points, that the left has to be right 100% of the time while the right and Republicans never have to.
In regard to Iraq. Not only weren't there any WMDs, but Iraq didn't get uranium from Africa, and the aluminum tubes that Iraq had attempted to purchase weren't for building a nuclear centrifuge, as we were told. So liberals and those who were against the war were right three out of three times. Conservatives and those who were for the war were wrong three out of three times. And we invaded Iraq anyway. And somehow, Republicans kept their credibility while liberals don't have any.
See how things work?
Same exact thing happens with the GOP's obsession with austerity and tax cuts. In a post worth reading, Hunter at Daily Kos explains.
December 19 insert: Mr. Krugman in terms of Ireland's slight economic rebounds via government spending cuts:
What all this shows is how much people want to believe in successful austerity, and the way they seize on the tiniest piece of evidence as confirmation of their beliefs. (Bold mine.)
In other words, the Republicans and the right would be like the 1962 Mets had they thrown a parade every time they won a game.
In another posting Krugman writes:
It is indeed frustrating that after three years in which Keynesian predictions have been spectacularly correct, pundits insist on reading the evidence as a rejection of Keynes...
...I know that many people can’t bring themselves to even consider the possibility that Keynes was right — or, for that matter, that I personally might have gotten anything right. But reality has been really clear here.
March, 2012 insert:
Paul Krugman proves Republicans and their propaganda wrong again, again and again.
Normally, I wouldn't be adding inserts to an old post. But I wanted to keep showing that Republicans aren't just always wrong, but couldn't be more wrong. And yet, they still have credibility, they're still listened to, and they're still taken seriously. Incredible.
March, 2012 insert:
Eric Alterman:
In the newly relaunched Baffler, now edited by John Summers, essayist Tom Frank expands on an argument that has obsessed your columnist for decades: that success in the punditocracy is inversely related to good judgment. Indeed, one can even find an almost perfectly proportional relationship between wrongness and success. Nobody was consistently more wrong about pretty much everything related to George W. Bush than William Kristol; and yet, following the Iraq folly, Kristol was rewarded with the single most prestigious perch in daily print journalism: his own corner of the New York Times op-ed page-
Yes, the New York Times - the communist, socialist, liberal New York Times - hired Bill Kristol - Bill Kristol! - to write opinions on its op-ed page.
Mr. Alterman continues:
which he immediately screwed up and lost, having little familiarity with actual journalism. Kristol is perhaps the most illustrative case, but similar phenomena are evident throughout the punditocracy. And does anyone believe that Christopher Hitchens, talented as he may have been, would have come to enjoy the celebrity intellectual cachet attached to his name were it not for his enlistment in the ranks, first of Kenneth Starr’s sex police, then the army of Bush and Cheney’s armchair generals?
These pundits are showered with fame, prestige and riches not in spite of their misjudgments but because of them. This thought was reinforced when I saw an announcement of a new education study fronted by Condoleezza Rice and Joel Klein for the Council on Foreign Relations.
May, 2012 insert:
Mr. Krugman proves Republicans and their lies wrong again, again and again.
And here's a Krugman blog post in which he compares economic predictions made by a conservative economist and how they turned out, to his, and a 2010 column in which he explained that austerity was the the wrong way to go. Turns out, he wasn't just right, he couldn't have been more right (see Europe)!
And yet, he's ignored and attacked and we keep listening to the spending cutters on the right - their credibility still somehow intact - who weren't just wrong, but couldn't have been more wrong.
Had Professor Krugman been the one that couldn't have been more wrong, Fox "News" and talk radio would have made sure his credibilty would have taken such a hit that he wouldn't have been able to get a teaching job inside a prison.
Actually, the right rolls their eyes at Mr. Krugman and tries to tear at his credibility anyway. They have to or else their followers might actually listen to him (fat chance as it is). And they can not allow that to happen.
This is how things work.
Also, you know that Republican talking point about Obama's "out of control spending" (it's an oldie but goodie they've repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated for decades about Democrats in general)? Well, not only has increases of government spending leveled off since Obama took office, not only is spending growth at its lowest in 60 years, but Obama's increases in spending is microscopic - even with the 2009 stimulus included - compared to Bush 41, Bush 43 and that Republican icon and hero Ronald Reagan who had the highest rate of increase! And Clinton's increases were a fraction of theirs too - and he had a surplus!
Republicans aren't just wrong, again, but they couldn't be more wrong...again! Either that or they lied and don't give a crap. Hey Republicans, which one is it?
Again, why does anyone bother listening to Republicans? My God, the next time a Republican adds something worthwhile to the conversation, it'll be the first time. I'm serious.
As for those arrogant know-it-alls on the right who gobble up GOP lies, dogma, propaganda and talking points every single day, the Republican "Party" deserves them; and they're lucky to have them because without the mindless, the gullible and the exponentially ignorant, there would be no such thing as a cult. How much more proof do you need?
May, 2012 insert:
When I wrote the previous insert I didn't have a link handy to support right-wing attacks on Prof. Krugman that tried to tear at his credibility. Well, here it is.
While I can always count on Republicans to prove me right, I didn't think it would be so soon.
June, 2012 insert:
I couldn't resist. Here's Mr. Krugman being proven right, again, and sums it up perfectly here:
We’re coming up on the second anniversary of my piece Myths of Austerity, in which I tried to knock down the simply insane conventional wisdom then gelling among Very Serious People. Intellectually it was, I think I can say without false modesty, a huge win; I (and those of like mind) have been right about everything.
But I had no success in deflecting the terrible wrong turn in policy. Moreover, as far as I can tell, none of the people responsible for that wrong turn has paid any price, not even in reputation; they’re still regarded as Very Serious, treated with great deference. And the political tendency behind that terrible economic analysis has at least a 50% chance of triumphing in America.(Bold mine.)
+/- show/hide this post
