Today is the birthday of Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman. I just finished reading his book The Great Unraveling, published in 2003, and was stunned to discover how presciently he described the situation we are facing in 2011. The introduction to this book alone is worth the purchase price.
In the introduction he references Henry Kissinger’s 1957 doctoral thesis, titled A World Restored. Kissinger’s description of a stable government faced with a “revolutionary power” which does not accept the government’s legitimacy described not only Europe during the French Revolution, but, in Krugman’s mind, the U.S. government and the American right-wing in the 21st Century.
It seems clear to me that one should regard America’s right-wing movement—which now in effect controls the administration, both houses of Congress, much of the judiciary, and a good slice of the media—as a revolutionary power in Kissinger’s sense. That is, it is a movement whose leaders do not accept the legitimacy of our current political system (pp. 5-6).
Remember, this was written in 2003. Though we now have nominal control of the White House and Senate, there has been little if any substantive change. Viewed in this framework, the actions of the Republican Party—extreme favoritism toward the rich—disdain toward and scapegoating of the poor—make perfect sense. Krugman continues:
There is ample evidence that key elements of the coalition that now runs the country believe that some long-established American political and social institutions should not, in principle, exist—and do not accept the rules that the rest of us have taken for granted (p.6).
He suggests that the Heritage Foundation, which is behind much of the right-wing ideology, doesn’t just want to cut back the New Deal social safety net programs; it sees their very existence as a violation of basic principles—of the way they think America should be. Expansionist foreign policy, tearing down the wall between church and state—Krugman argues that the right is engaged in an all-out battle to re-make America in their own narrow-minded image. He says:
Suppose, for a moment, that you took the picture I have just painted seriously. You would conclude that the people now in charge really don’t like America as it is. If you combine their apparent agendas, the goal would seem to be something like this: a country that basically has no social safety net at home, which relies mainly on military force to enforce its will abroad, in which schools don’t teach evolution but do teach religion and—possibly—in which elections are only a formality (pp 7-8).
Sounds like he was writing with a crystal ball by his side eight years ago.
Krugman then turns back to Kissinger’s thesis and draws a parallel between the response of the French nobility in the 18th Century and the behavior of the American political and media establishment at the dawn of the 21st. Kissinger wrote:
Lulled by a period of stability which had seemed permanent, they find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertion of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework. The defenders of the status quo therefore tend to begin by treating the revolutionary power as if its protestations were merely tactical; as if it really accepted the existing legitimacy but overstated its case for bargaining purposes; as if it were motivated by specific grievances to be assuaged by limited concessions. Those who warn against the danger in time are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation to circumstance are considered balanced and sane…But it is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion. (p. 8)
(all emphasis mine)
His suggestions on how we should respond to this revolutionary attack on our country are couched in the framework of journalism, but should be universally applied:
1. Don’t assume that policy proposals make sense in terms of their stated goals.
i.e. Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security had nothing to do with the stated goal of strengthening its finances. The invasion of Iraq was framed in terms of reducing the risk of a terrorist attack, while most experts suggested it would have the exact opposite effect. Look for the story behind the story.
2. Do some homework to discover the real goals.
Would that today’s stenographers in the media would remember their journalistic roots and apply a little investigation and critical thinking to their reporting.
3. Don’t assume that the usual rules of politics apply.
” Why don’t the usual rules apply? Because a revolutionary power, which does not regard the existing system as legitimate, doesn’t feel obliged to play by the rules” (p. 16).
In other words: they will not let anything as trifling as conscience, ethics or traditional ideas of propriety stand in the way of their ultimate goal. From Nixon’s: “When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal,” to the Bush Administration’s cavalier dismissal of the Geneva Conventions, IOKIYAR is the only ethos guiding their behavior.
4. Expect a revolutionary power to respond to criticism by attacking.
“A revolutionary power, which doesn’t accept the legitimacy of the existing system, also doesn’t accept the right of others to criticize its actions. Anyone who raises questions can expect a no-holds-barred counter-attack” (p. 16).
This seems to be the raison d'être of Fox News. To repeat Republican talking points, and attack anyone who challenges them with a force far out of proportion to the criticism. How else could a centrist like Barack Obama be labeled a Socialist by a significant minority of the country, when nothing he has done has been in the same hemisphere as socialism?
5. Don’t think that there’s a limit to a revolutionary power’s objectives.
The Bush tax cuts in 2001 were sold as a “rebate” to the American people. Once they were passed, the administration pushed for even more tax cuts, changing the rationale to “stimulus” then “long-term economic growth” and Congressmen who’d voted for Round 1 had a difficult time explaining why they were against Round 2, and if they did, I’m sure they would have been called flip-floppers. And here we are in 2011 with the same tax cuts being justified by the same bogus analysis—“we can’t raise taxes in a recession—the rich people will use the money to create jobs.” It’s still a load of crap. Go back to point 1—look for the real motive behind their actions. Krugman’s analysis:
Only now is respectable opinion beginning to acknowledge that the administration’s real goal, all along, was to eliminate taxation of capital income and sharply reduce if not eliminate the progressivity of the tax system—and that the initial appeasement by moderates removed the main obstacle toward that goal. Moreover, I’m not even sure that zero taxes on capital and a flat tax on wages mark the limits of the administration’s ambitions. Poll taxes, anyone? (pp 18-19)
He continues:
There must be limits somewhere to what the right will actually attempt to accomplish. It may move us to a tax system in which poor people pay a higher share of their income than rich people, but it won’t take us to a system where rich people actually pay less than poor people—or will it?
Reiterating Henry Kissinger's admonition above:
It is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to its ultimate conclusions (p. 19).
Krugman concludes:
I don’t know where the right’s agenda stops, but I have learned never to assume that it can be appeased through limited concessions (p. 19).
This is what we’re up against: a coordinated effort to re-make America for the benefit of the few at the expense of the rest of us. They will not back down, they will not stop. When we counter them on one front, they attack on another. Negotiating with the Republicans will not appease them—it will only take them another step closer toward their ultimate goal. Thank you, Mr. Krugman, for your continuing work in exposing the actions and motives of those who wish to make such terrifying fundamental changes in our democracy.
I only wish Barack Obama and his team had read this book before they took office.