I Have A Vision...

No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 6/24/2005

I Have A Vision...

Sue Peehl With Thanks To
Paul Krugman
June 23, 2005

I remember when Paul Krugman was saying that by following this administration's tactics in the economic sphere it became easy for him to detect and anticipate moves and strategies the administration applied in other arenas.  I don't believe Karl Rove and people behind this administration are as "smart" as many claim.  I believe it's more a matter of their complete disrespect and disregard for ethical and societal conventions as well as a distain for our constitution.  They don't play by the rules and they've gotten away with it for so long because most people want to believe that we're all still playing the same familiar games.  Our ideas of lies and contradictions don't exist on their court and if we get caught up in trying to fit what's going on into our ideas of the rules we'll always be behind the eight ball.

In the introduction to Paul Krugman's book, The Great Unraveling, he paraphrases the first three pages of Henry Kissinger's 1957 doctoral dissertation saying they "sent chills down my spine, because they seem all too relevant to current events."  He goes on... "In those first few pages, Kissinger describes the problems confronting a heretofore stable diplomatic system when it is faced with a "revolutionary power" -- a power that does not accept that system's legitimacy.  Since the book is about the reconstruction of Europe after the battle of Waterloo, the revolutionary power he had in mind was the France of Robespierre and Napoleon, though he clearly if implicitly drew parallels with the failure of diplomacy toeffectively confront totalitarian regimes in the 1930s.  (Note: drawing
parallels does not mean claiming moral equivalence.)  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."

Krugman goes on to suggest rules for trying to make sense of the news:

1. Don't assume that policy proposals make sense in terms of their stated goals.

When you're dealing with a revolutionary power, it's important to realize that it knows what it wants, and will make whatever argument advances that goal...

2. Do some homework to discover the real goals.  

There was no widely accepted economic theory, left or right, under which the type of tax cuts proposed in early 2003... made any sense as a way of creating jobs in the short run.  Yet administration officials touted their plan as a job-creation strategy.  Were they misinformed?  No, not really.  Whatever those officials said, economic growth was not their goal.  Moreover, it wasn't hard to figure out what the real goal was.  As I pointed out above, radical conservatives have long advocated an end to all taxes on capital -- and that's what the administration's proposal would in effect accomplish.  So the way to understand the policy was to look at what its architects wanted before they tried to sell their plans to the public.

This is a general principle for understanding what's happening... usually the true goal is in the public domain.  When you learn that the official now in charge of forest policy is a former timber industry lobbyist, you can surmise that the "healthy forests" initiative, under which logging companies will be allowed to cut down more trees, isn't about preventing forest fires.  When you learn that the House majority leader has said that his purpose in office is to promote a "biblical worldview," you can surmise that "faith-based"initiatives aren't mainly about delivering social services more effectively.  When you learn that the architects of the Iraq war have wanted to topple Saddam Hussein for a decade, you can surmise that the war has nothing to do with responding to September 11  ...this is hard for journalists to deal with:  they don't want to sound like crazy conspiracy theorists.  But there's nothing crazy about ferreting out the real goals of the right wing; on the contrary, it's unrealistic to pretend that there isn't a sort of conspiracy here, albeit one whose organization and goals are pretty much out in the open.

3. Don't assume that the usual rules of politics apply.

Washington has long had a routine for scandal.  Some awkward facts come out about an official, the press begins playing up the story; soon the official is quietly urged to resign, and life goes on.

So, when various Bush administration officials began to have problems, people expected the same story line-- but it didn't happen.... 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.

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.

5. Don't think that there's a limit to a revolutionary power's objectives.  

When the tax cut of 2001 was introduced, many moderates downplayed its significance, calling it a modest reversal of tax increases in the 1990s; even if they didn't approve, they thought that it wasn't such a bad idea to let Bush have what he wanted.  When the budget projections used to justify the tax cut proved wildly overoptimistic, moderates urged the administration to reconsider its plans, believing that it might listen and seek a compromise.  The administration responded by pushing for even more tax cuts -- and senators who had voted for the first round of tax cuts had a hard time explaining why they were opposed to more of the same.   

...Kissinger again:  "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....  Those who warn against the danger are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation to circumstance are considered balanced and sane."

Krugman's wrap to the intro:  "I have a vision -- maybe just a hope -- of a great revulsion:  a moment in which the American people look at what is happening, realize how their good will and patriotism have been abused, and put a stop to this drive to destroy much of what is best in our country.  How and when this moment will come, I don't know.  But one thing is clear:  it cannot happen unless we all make an effort to see and report the truth about what is happening."

 

 

---