Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDon't Blame Bush
I've been looking at the race for the Republican presidential nomination, and I've come to a disturbing conclusion: maybe we've all been too hard on President Bush.
No, I haven't lost my mind. Mr. Bush has degraded our government and undermined the rule of law; he has led us into strategic disaster and moral squalor.
But the leading contenders for the Republican nomination have given us little reason to believe they would behave differently. Why should they? The principles Mr. Bush has betrayed are principles today's G.O.P., dominated by movement conservatives, no longer honors. In fact, rank-and-file Republicans continue to approve strongly of Mr. Bush's policies — and the more un-American the policy, the more they support it.
Now, Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney may have done a few things other Republicans wouldn't. Their initial domestic surveillance program was apparently so lawless and unconstitutional that even John Ashcroft, approached on his sickbed, refused to go along. For the most part, however, Mr. Bush has done just what his party wants and expects.
There was a telling moment during the second Republican presidential debate, when Brit Hume of Fox News confronted the contenders with a hypothetical "24"-style situation in which torturing suspects is the only way to stop a terrorist attack.
Bear in mind that such situations basically never happen in real life, that the U.S. military has asked the producers of "24" to cut down on the torture scenes. Last week Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, circulated an open letter to our forces warning that using torture or "other expedient methods to obtain information" is both wrong and ineffective, and that it is important to keep the "moral high ground."
But aside from John McCain, who to his credit echoed Gen. Petraeus (and was met with stony silence), the candidates spoke enthusiastically in favor of torture and against the rule of law. Rudy Giuliani endorsed waterboarding. Mitt Romney declared that he wants accused terrorists at Guantánamo, "where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil ... My view is, we ought to double Guantánamo." His remarks were greeted with wild applause.
And torture isn't the only Bush legacy that seems destined to continue if a Republican becomes the next president. Mr. Bush got us into the Iraq quagmire by conflating Saddam with Al Qaeda, treating two mutually hostile groups as if they constituted a single enemy. Well, Mr. Romney offers more of that. "There is a global jihadist effort," he warned in the second debate. "And they've come together as Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda with that intent." Aren't Sunnis and Shiites killing each other, not coming together? Nevermind.
What about the administration's state of denial over Iraq, its unwillingness to face up to reality? None of the leading G.O.P. presidential contenders seem any different — certainly not Mr. McCain, who strolled through a Baghdad marketplace wearing a bulletproof vest, accompanied by more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees while attack helicopters flew overhead, then declared that his experience proved there are parts of Baghdad where you can "walk freely."
Finally, what about the Bush administration's trademark incompetence? In appointing unqualified loyalists to key positions, Mr. Bush was just following the advice of the Heritage Foundation, which urged him back in 2001 to "make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second." And the base doesn't mind: the Bernie Kerik affair — Mr. Giuliani's attempt to get his corrupt, possibly mob-connected business partner appointed to head the department of homeland security — hasn't kept Mr. Giuliani from becoming the apparent front-runner for the Republican nomination.
What we need to realize is that the infamous "Bush bubble," the administration's no-reality zone, extends a long way beyond the White House. Millions of Americans believe that patriotic torturers are keeping us safe, that there's a vast Islamic axis of evil, that victory in Iraq is just around the corner, that Bush appointees are doing a heckuva job — and that news reports contradicting these beliefs reflect liberal media bias.
And the Republican nomination will go either to someone who shares these beliefs, and would therefore run the country the same way Mr. Bush has, or to a very, very good liar.
Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular New York Times columnist.
© 2007 The New York Times
36 Comments so far
Show AllIt is irritating to even watch the Republican debates. The one held at the Reagan Library resulted in everyone using Reagan as a prop, everyone trying their best at a Reagan impersonation. It left me wanting Reagan as a "write in" candidate with the exception of Ron Paul, the real traditional conservative in the group at about one person rating in the polls.
How many of these guys support real disciplined spending, small government and protecting the constitution? Those were the benchmarks for real traditional conservatives. What we obviously have in the GOP currently are neo cons, and entirely different species hybred Republican. So no want wants to talk about the real issues, the most reckless spending in history under the Bush administration, the gargantuan government he has formed and his relentless attack on the constitution. And no one so far wants to put the real questions to the candidates on these issues, especially Fox News.
Brahms,
Interesting psychoanalysis. I took the liberty of ignoring Krugman's irony to make a point.
Your mitzvah is accomplished. You protected Krugman from the humorless and the clueless. Congratulations.
realitychecker,
Thank you for catching the humorless cluelessness of fd32. There's a certain type of left-winger, usually someone who has merely sapped their politics up from their social environment rather than a real, independent thinker, that has no ear at all for irony or the tongue-in-cheek. If you read that column and think that Krugman is somehow absolving Bush, I would say you need a reading comprehension course.
Dr. Krugman is right. The GOP nominated Bush & Cheney knowing them to be white-collar criminals (see Krugman's book, "The Great Unraveling"), spent millions on propaganda, including known lies, and corrupted the electoral process to get them elected. They have much to answer for, and there's no evidence that the core of the party regrets it. They still pay millions to comforters like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and characterize even centrist papers like the NYTimes as left wing rags. They still are a force to be dealt with seriously, by a people united to reject them, and to achieve anti-Republican control of the White House and bulletproof majorities in Congress. We must develop party initiatives that will encourage women and non-whites to vote in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the interewted and sleepwalking right.
The support of torture is nothing to do with protecting themselves against torture - it is simply the joy of bullying a member of an out group. Why do bullies bully? Because it's fun. This is what happens when they get hold of serious political power.
For Salia, The Republican victory of 1860 disproves your assertion. One could also argue the Whig party gained power as a third party too, as it filled the political vacuum created by the erosion of the Federalists. Lastly, in many states--especially the in midwest--third parties have placed memebers in governor's mansions, statehouses, and mayoral offices. A most interesting example is the great success enjoyed by the Socialist Party in Milwaukee. Third Party success rests on citizens engaging in Participatory Democracy, not the Polyarchic system most accept as being democratic.
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy— but that could change." ...
Governor George W. Bush - 5/22/98
Ron Paul is also against torture, as is McCain. Paul also opposes illegal wiretaps and e-mail reading and supporte ending the war on drugs. Sadly, he won't get the nomination
Reoublicans equal Barberism equals end of civilisation.
W. is truly a ghastly president, but we should thank our lucky stars he IS incompetent (Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, Social Security, Medicare Drugs, No Child Left Behind, illegal domestic spying, torture, etc.).
If he were competent, he would be Hitler.
Don't forget, Bush won, and he and his trusted followers continue to win in spite of the Democrats. They must be doing something right.
Your cause-and-effect logic is incredibly faulty . Bush wins because American citizens are incredibly uninformed and lazy . Bush wins because members of Congress , except for a few , are timid and opportunistic .
To paraphrase your logic : The sun "rises" in the east and sets in the "west" ; therefore , the sun must go around the earth , right ?
There's talk of history books in fifty years. Think about that. Sure, there may not be any books in fifty years, due to technology. Or there may not be anybody to read books in fifty years. Joseph Galloway, in another Common Dreams piece, spoke of 614 days more of Bush. I will spend each of those days savoring this life, such as it is. The world is coming apart in many ways. This U.S. administration is a symptom of a grand malaise that grips the world. Go in the bathroom and look on the wall over the sink. We're so clever, aren't we? With our technology?
We who post here are but a tiny fraction of the whole. Tiny. We're like hostages to the multitudes, to be swept along with whatever shall be prepared for us. We can see what would be a better way. But it shall not be. Savor each day, and mourn the children.
Ron Paul is the only ethically viable candidate on the Republican side. It was appalling to see the reports on the debate (which I admit to not watching because of my liberal bias, and because I might have thrown up or smashed my expensive television set). The "righteous" indignation of Rudy to Mr. Paul's efforts to place 9/11 within a context was disgusting. Mr "America's Mayor" did sweet f**k all to improve NY's emergency response between the first WTC attack and the one that eventually succeeded so spectacularly. Who was asleep at the wheel? Why are we still unable to even try to understand the enemy? How can we hope to "defeat" those on a mission we don't comprehend? We can pretend that we were attacked because Bush told us, "They hate our freedom," but most knowledgeable and half-way educated people realize that there was so much more to their motivation than that. Ron Paul should be allowed to elaborate.
Bush as the figure-head du jour gets and deserves plenty of blame. That's obvious. And a little too facile.
So, where to place blame? Look in the mirror every one. There's plenty to go around, and around.... Now that that's done with. How 'bout taking some responsibility. for a change. Hmm.....
Peace!
Well Paul, that's pretty much how it all looks to all us folks down here in Okeefenokee Swamp.
Feels to us like this is act 2 of a political revolution, so stealth that most people don't even realize it happened.
But they have this real sense of having lost somerthing.
The piece was great, but somehting about the choice of tense in the last sentence stopped me: "... And the Republican nomination will go either to someone who shares these beliefs, and would therefore run the country the same way Mr. Bush has, or to a very, very good liar."
The phrase "would therefore run the country" sounded so ... deliberate that it got me thinking about the real possibility of our electing a Republican President in 2008. Could it happen?
And given what your piece has to say, what kind of validation of their extremist ideology would the Right take another Republican victory to mean ... given the virulence of their ideology?
Do we think that another Democratic defeat is a possibility?
The Democrats are certainly (and characteristically) shredding their own as if it's all but assured that at least one of them will win. Or should I say, "like there's no tomorrow."
Should they (or we) be so sure?
Consider this:
Bush will not pull out of Iraq right now. If he does:
… he'll look like a failure
… and of course, the "base" will lose heart.

He has shifted responsibility for staying in or leaving Iraq to the capable hands of General D. H. Petraeus. Gen Petraeus is a military professional with a sound knoweldge of tactics and strategy and that particular "theater of war.". BTW, he is also the first of his kind that Bush has freely consulted with - and listened to - since he stared his "crusade."
But come September, Bush will accept the judgment of Gen. Petraeus.
He'll agree, "It's time we left."

He'll "Aw shucks" his way through a press conference.
He'll cop-out and coin-a-phrase in one glorious moment: "Hey, I tried. I'm the Try-er!"
He'll nod and make a face … and then save face with his base.
The White House will then set a time-line for withdrawl.
This time around, Bush and Rove (back in business again) will be all too obliging in allowing us to see video of soldiers coming home from Iraq.
Because this time, they're alive.
Flags unfurled, instead of draped over coffins.
All through the Fall and into the New Year, we'll see American troops "leaving Iraq" and "coming home."
Cable news will be filled with interviews with their spouses and neighbors, and teary B-roll of VFW Welcome Home Picnics in small town America, with small town families and kids. And heroes returning. But.
We won't know … and we won't ask, how many are staying behind.

- To "defend freedom" and guard a fledgling democracy

- To "protect Americans" - consultants and contractors - who are there heroically "building freedom."

- To "guard the military installations" (which will then be legion) put there to "protect freedom"
- To guard the O.-I.-L. (shhhh!)
Then …
Anti-war Democrats will wither on the campaign trail.
Well-rounded, progressive candidates will by then be so beaten and bloodied by extremists from within their own party, they will disgust us and we will reject them … even though they are our best hope.
Bush will continue his rehabilitation and somehow regain his innocence (and approval ratings) throughout the Summer.
Born Again … Again
The Republicans will begin their deadly momentum toward November, promising a "New Morning" (again).

America meanwhile, will grasp onlt some of this. Mostly they will slumber like Little Nemo, dreaming of candy.
- Christmas will be approaching. Wii 3D will ship in small quantities. Pre-order now!

- 50" high definition plasma flat screens will go on sale for under 500 USD. Reserve yours today!

- PS: It will be made in China.
Hollywood will do its part too:

The dumbed-down will get even dumber.

The lewd behavior index will get recalibrated
Everyone … I mean everyone, will feel so much better.
Someone will notice Iraq is no better off than it was after "Mission Accomplished".
Someone will ask, "Why couldn't we have brought our troops home sooner?"
Someone will mention John "Who Will Ask A Man To Be the Last to Die" Kerry ... and then go back to sleep.
They continue to die, these Americans, these Iraqis, these Afghans, by the dozens, the hundreds, the thousands.
And we hardly notice.
Because they die and are maimed in smaller (and somehow more agreeable?) numbers.
And besides ... they're comig home ... right?
Because many do not:
Gas holds at three dollars. (again)
Nintendo stock goes through the roof (again).
So does Halliburton (again).
And every night, Rudolph Guiliani gets on tired knees and prays for a return to the darkness that will give him the White House.
***********************************************************************************************************************
"We have met the enemy and it is us"
-P
Be careful about giving the devils free publicity on this forum. Saila, where can we read about normal, functional democracy in progress?
If every citizen out there had to read commondreams.org for two hours a day, corporate America would shut this website down!
The only Republican Presidential candidate who makes any sense is Ron Paul.....and we know he's too honest for Republicans to consider him.
I'd love to see an Independent Kucinich/Paul ticket in 2008.
The really sad thing is that there are no Democrats willing to openly challenge this. The Democrats are all too spineless to take this on directly. So, no Democrat who runs against them would be willing to directly challenge the myth of an Islamo-fascist super conspiracy run by Dr. No who is about to take over the world. Instead, the Dems will let the myth stand and compete on who can look tougher on defense. Of course, this spinelessness from the Democrats means that many Americans are left believing Republican bs.
Anyone can win elections when you control the media and the computers that count the votes.
The leaders of all groups tend to be frauds. If they were not, it would be impossible for them to retain the allegiance of their dupes. The executive secretary of an employers' organization is usually just as much a wind-bag and bunco-steerer as the head of a labor union. Both imitate the politicians who run every democratic country.
HL Mencken
gsemsel May 18th, 2007 2:35 pm
Aside from the fact that Bush didn't "win" either of his elections, what is this, "his trusted followers continue to win." You mean Tom DeLay? Paul Wolfowitz? Alberto Gonzales? Scooter Libby? Well, the list goes on and on. What planet are you from anyway?
Don't forget, Bush won, and he and his trusted followers continue to win in spite of the Democrats. They must be doing something right.
Krugman makes no mention of Ron Paul, the republican who was anti-war from the start. This should be no surprise considering the NY Times was pro-war from the start, and considering Krugman's criticism of reserve banking.
http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/goldbug.html
Ladies and gentlemen of America:
You baffle me in a lot of ways. First, you vote an asshole into office, then you start whining and bitching that he's an asshole. Second, a lot of you think you have a democracy. Well, think again. When Democrats screw it up and you wanna kick 'em out, you HAVE TO vote Republican. And when Republicans screw it up, you kick them out of office, guess what, by HAVING TO vote for the filthy Democrats that you had rejected before. Can't you see that you have no choice and that you're stuck! Of course, some of you can claim that you have voted for a third party. But that was also an exercise in futility because the system is set so that no third party could win the office of the presidency. Just show me one example in your 300-year history, and I'll eat my hat. Both parties know this, and know that you're stuck, that your vote doesn't mean anything. Out of desperation to stop the current war, you gave the House and the Senate to the Democrats, but you only got a surge. Wasn't that like showing you their middle fingers?
Your problem will never, ever be solved until you have real opposition parties, and that will only be possible when the system removes the barriers for establishing new political parties. Abolish campaign financing, and give equal exposure time to all parties. This is going to be an uphill battle because the current two political parties—which in reality is only one party-- will fight this idea tooth and nail. They want to always have you stuck.
The burden for achieving this falls on the shoulder of all progressive sites and bloggers. The sooner they start by educating people and calling for action the faster you will get a responsive peoples'government. This business of posting your opinions about the articles that you read here and there, is just a safety valve. It would not get you anywhere.
I do not carefor the little bit of PAUL Krugman I have read in the past, and while what he says here is ok, he is one of those "liberals" who are not very liberal in actuality. And it is written for the establishment newspaper the New York Times. The worst of evils might be the Republicans, but there are no stellar front runners in the Democratic party stable. Perhaps it will be better to have one of the three Republicans for four years in order to show the Democrats that corporate and politicial types such as Hilary and Obama are not the best of the lot that can be elected, and search for someone who is not totally beholden to corporate and standard, fear ridden responses of the Hilary, Obama, Dodd,Biden--a joke if there ever was one--and Edwards types. Hilary is just as likely to sell out to corporate America as Bill did; she will undoubtedly reley on the same people who gave us NAFTA and the rest of the Clinton fiascos. Krugman aids and abets the standard political type, and like the NY Times, he is not to be trusted for any serious comments. Criticizing the Republicans is like throwing a rock in the ocean: you can't miss but what is the point?
Quote from Michael Parenti's Introduction to 'Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit' by Gregory Elich:
"Is all this militaristic aggression a sign of policy failure or success? According to some critics, including many who identify themselves as being on the left, U.S. foreign policy is repeatedly bungled, timid, overextended, heavy handed, confused, overcome by unintended consequences, overly dependent on military solutions, and so forth. If we are to believe these critics, the individuals in power are just not very smart, certainly not as smart as the critics themselves. Indeed, in regard to presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the power wielders are depicted as downright stupid.
I beg to differ. We are the ones who are being stupid when we think our enemies, the reactionary purveyors of international finance capital are stupid - those who enjoy triumph after triumph while wielding power on a global scale. If they are so dimwitted and inept, how do they manage to enjoy such success in recreating and advancing the conditions of politico-economic hegemony while selling the American people a bill of goods?"
fd32- lighten up, his "too hard on Bush" comment is tongue in cheek. It is directed at all those people that think Bush is the problem- it's their ideology. Of course the media is part of the problem- it's called corporatism. When people read history books 40, 50, 100 years from now, the American form of Government will most likely be known as simply Capitalism, not Democracy or anything else. Beating up on Krugman to me seems silly. He may not go as far as you want, but he gets a lot of it right. It's like the multiple posters on this site who constantly claim that electing a Democrat will not change anything. Really? Anything? I am not a Democrat, I am a member of the Green Party, but to say nothing would change is simply foolish. I agree that we would not see fundamental change, or really, any meaningful change that I advocate, but there would be some change. Even though most elected Dems today are imposters, they still have to stand up for some liberal policies, it's the only way they can carry on this charade. Having said all that, I still won't vote for almost any Democrat.
matt donuts,
To a starving beggar, crumbs are a treasure.
There are certainly many intelligent and capable progressives in the US, Kucinich being one, but none of them have any chance to be elected President in 2008 (you and I have the same chance as Kucinich -- zero). Maybe we can elect a progressive after some economic collapse or other catastrophe, but, then again, that could just as likely lead to total fascism (especially if Republicans are in control at that moment) that would make Orwell's dystopian future look like a sweet dream by comparison.
In any event, you go into an election with the electable candidates you have, not the ones you wish you had. Progressives can choose to be totally irrelevant this election cycle or they can try to put pressure on one of the mainstream Democratic candidates to do something to get their support. None are very attractive, though Hillary and Biden appear to be the worst of the lot, with Hillary being the most difficult to predict but most likely the most dangerous.
There are an infinite number of degrees of evil, and I think progressives should recognize the importance of making distinctions, because, frankly, some of those people pose a much greater threat to our future than others.
Jaded Prole:
"Otherwise the entire rotten system lies exposed for what it is." Blessed be Bush who has helped to expose the rot, which spread like virus around the globe. Blessed be King who exposed his nakedness. Blessed be fervor, which mobilize anti-genes to cure an ailment.
When lemmings follow piper into deep waters, they help to clear room for healthier generations.
Mr. Krugman's logic escapes me. He declares that we have been "too hard" on President Bush, too hard because there are apparently other moral imbeciles in the Republican party. I see. I suppose that we have also been too hard on Charles Manson because there are, after all, other killers out there besides ol' Charlie.
Those who fully appreciate the malignancy which IS the American mainstream media are all washed out, our rage is spent, there is nothing more to prove. Those who continue not to understand what is being done by the media, or who claim not to, or who claim to understand perfectly well and approve of it, are simply beyond redemption and should be recognized as being in bad faith and, thus, unworthy of any attempt to educate them. It is to this morally, intellectually and civically impaired group that the Republican candidates are, as usual, projecting, polls be damned. They know that, polls aside, they will always have the media behind them, the voting machine sprites behind them, corporate money behind them, and dedicated armies of criminal campaign fixers behind them. And they know that a dangerous third party candidate is effectively out of the question, thus leaving them the frail and barely-discernible-from-Republican Democrats with whom to contend.
The problem is, unquestionably, larger than George W. Bush, larger, even, than the entire Republican party. The problem is a confused and broken nation which has been run by thugs for so long that people can no longer imagine what it might be like to live in an America that is not. Show me a candidate who can say "NO" to the Pentagon, "NO" to Israel, "NO" to corporatism, and I'll show you a Ralph Nader...ah... has anyone seen Ralph?
the U.S. military has asked the producers of "24" to cut down on the torture scenes-We just ask for fair and balanced news.
Let them stick to a failed policy because it's sticking to them like glue. They will continue to discredit themselves. If only there were a principled opposition to point that out and elections were really possible, we'd be in great shape. Otherwise the entire rotten system lies exposed for what it is. . .
a dead on commentary. watching the republican debate saddens and scars me to no end
agreed...though, i would point out that Ron Paul DID get a smattering of applause when he told the truth about American foreign policy...there ARE still reasonable Republicans out there...few they may be...but I have little faith they can bring the party back from the abyss...
The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society are crypto-fascist organizations that have wide support in the Republican Party. It seems that we need to ask ourselves whether or not we subscribe to fascist conformity or not in the days ahead.
The Republicans are currently stuck in an election strategy that does not look promising in the years ahead. They depend on receiving campaign money and positive press coverage as a result of working to further enrich the wealthy and other corporate elites, and they use this money to fool the gullible and unsophisticated into voting for them (e.g. Romney certainly knew that what he said was nonsensical, but he was appealing to the functionally illiterate).
A big part of their base has been the easily manipulated and gullible religious right. The strategy with regard to that group is outliving its usefulness however, as many members of the religious right appear to have recognized they have been played for suckers, and over time the elder socially conservative religious voters will be replaced by young people who are much more liberal on social issues.
Another part of their base is made up of racists and immigrant-bashers, but as the Latin American population in the US increases, the advantage to appealing to this group dwindles.
And even the most important part of their base, the wealthy elites who know what the game is, will most likely drift away at least to some extent as they emigrate (as Halliburton executives have to Dubai) away from this country of fading wealth and power and increasing debts and poverty.
Rove could not have known precisely what the limits would be to his propaganda success with his current strategy, but it seems he is now learning just what those limits are. And, though I hate to admit it, I know he is a very clever fiend and he will adjust his strategy as necessary.