Paul Krugman argues in the NYT that the Republican party of today is no different from what it was under Reagan (contrary to what Time Magazine says this week) based on the following:
- Both administrations supported private healthcare
- Both had bad attorney generals
- Both administrations served the wealthy
- Both were against big government
- Both appointed people based on loyalty rather than credentials
While I’d take issue with most of these points, the fact is, that even if these were true it’s hardly enough evidence to bring about this rather forced speculation that the country would be in the same situation today if Reagan were president as it is today under Bush.
Krugman also apparently is unwilling admit that Reagan did any good for the country while in office–something that I think few honest, thinking people are willing to deny. This in the same breath as praising Clinton for governing well.
Here’s an excerpt in which Krugman attempts to characterize conservatives as people who “see no point in governing well.”
Don’t Cry for Reagan – New York Times
Why is there such a strong family resemblance between the Reagan years and recent events? Mr. Reagan’s administration, like Mr. Bush’s, was run by movement conservatives — people who built their careers by serving the alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. And both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package.In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs.
If expertise is irrelevant, who gets the jobs? No problem: the interlocking, lavishly financed institutions of movement conservatism, which range from K Street to Fox News, create a vast class of apparatchiks who can be counted on to be “loyal Bushies.”
I’m not buying it. The sweeping generalizations about conservatism are plainly false and contrived. You can find parallels between any two administrations and the ones mentioned here are weak and inaccurate at best. Reagan and his administration were in a league altogether different of that of Bush and as presented in the Time article, there is more than enough evidence to corroborate this.
Filed under: Politics | 2 Comments
I would have to strongly agree with Paul Krugman. Reagan and his economics has given birth to this administration – he’s the reason the republicans are what they are. He deregulated businesses so that they have become the unethical insatiable monsters they are, feeding off the inequality that capitalism spawns. He abolished the truth in media where you can have propaganda posing as ‘news’, where smearing and lying is allowed, where it’s not against the law for the a newspaper or network to tell lies, mislead, etc. There is no accountability anymore. I blame the republicans and I blame Reagan for this culture of “every man for himself” and “screw the little guy”. And let’s not forget Reagan breaking the law when he sold arms for hostages. Oliver North took the fall but we all know Reagan went behind Carter’s back to negotiate with Tehran. Reagan’s legacy is delusional – it’s a fabrication that the right needs to promote because they have done nothing to enhance democracy, to better people’s lives so that we can all be part of the American dream. They do not foster competition, they want to eliminate it entirely by eating up all the smaller businesses and creating these mega corporations. They even have the infamous reputation of wanting to do business with fascists during WWII because it appealed to their sensibilities on how to run a country. And Project for the New American Century is an offshoot of that camaraderie with fascism. The Republicans have always been a scary group of people. They’re the scourge of this nation and they have managed to convince working class people that they care about them when history bears out nothing of the sort. They have attracted very questionable types to their party. KKK, Neo-nazi’s, fundamentalists, etc. Cry for Reagan? Not in my lifetime.
Kaz,
If you’re anti-capitalist I’d first suggest reading this article. There’s really not much else I can say, I can however comment on your generalizations that anti-capitalists seem so prone to make.
The proportion of ethical to unethical businesses in America is a testament to the efficiency of capitalism. The economy is strong. The poorest Americans are among the richest in the world.
I’m not sure how you’d begin to back this up. I suppose you could point to some other more enlightened socialist country with a freer press?
Is that why there’s a scandal a month and someone gets fired every month in the Republican administration? I’d say that was accountability. Obviously it’s not the Republicans firing their own but it shows that the system works. This is, incidentally, another example of the difference between the Bush/Reagan administrations as well.
I suppose you’d like to force your ethics on everyone in America and decide just how much everyone ‘deserves.’ How much money should the government give me every month if I decide not to work? How much life insurance do I deserve? How much is it my social responsibility to ‘donate’ to the poor? How can we force the rich to be ‘generous.’ I’m sure that’s what the Republicans and Reagan thought when they wake up in the morning–’How can I screw the little guy today?’
As far as Tehran, doing business with Facists in WWII, Project for a New American Century etc. That’s fine. Think what you want, half of it has nothing to do with with the argument about Reagan (which you’ve mostly skirted anyway) and is just your beef with the Republican party as a whole. There are more than enough examples to draw from showing the same type of behavior from the Democrat party.
Then your final generalization:
Um. Which party has a former KKK member in the senate? Oh yeah, the Democrats.