One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.Paul Krugman, polarizer in chief. Is it really that hard to find a middle ground between "the poor deserve the rich's money" and "taxation is theft?" No, it's not. The more this goes on, the greater the chances that 2012 finds voters looking long and hard for opportunities to reject BOTH parties. Even if it means voting for ex-party-members who are just as likely to be opportunists as committed independents. Give me a candidate I can vote for to represent "neither," and I'll vote for him. Time to send the message both parties need to hear.
The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.
There’s no middle ground between these views.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Krugman: Long Live the Fray
Paul Krugman thinks there's the way one side sees it, and the way the other side sees it. And that's it:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Translation: "The American people have rejected my faction, so now I want them to reject the other faction so my faction will be back on an equal footing."
ReplyDeleteHaving spent most of a decade pointing out that Krugman is a relelntless whore for the left, I am less than surprised when he continues to be one.
True. My interest here, though, is in pointing out how partisan whores will often also act as whores for the fray, the bipolar view of politics. Usually as an unnoticed side affect of being a partisan whore, but still.
ReplyDeleteI REALLY hope I am not the only one getting tired of it, and thinking it's a big part of the problem.
Even adding a small handful of independent senators and congressfolk might make a difference. What if we had a senate with 57 on one side, 39 on the other, and then 3 real (i,e, not Bernie Sanders) independents. The efficacy of any filibuster would depend on independents acting as the refs, deciding whether there was merit to delay.