Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 24, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size


The Key to 2014




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
The Mitfords

The Mitfords

By Charlotte Mosley
$26.37

more items

 
Arts and Culture

Nicholas von Hoffman on ‘The Conscience of a Liberal’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 15, 2007
Conscience of a Liberal cover

Read or listen to Krugman’s interview with Truthdig about his new book.

By Nicholas von Hoffman

Paul Krugman’s “The Conscience of a Liberal” has arrived at the apposite moment. The latest figures on income disparity are out simultaneously with this book and they are grim. The Wall Street Journal reports: “The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. ... The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and a bit less than their 13% share in 2000.”

      It is such alarming facts which prompt Krugman to write that, in addition to low- and middle-income families falling behind, there is “... the damage extreme inequality does to our society and our democracy. Ever since America’s founding, our idea of ourselves has been that of a nation without sharp class distinctions—not a leveled society of perfect equality but one in which the gap between the economic elite and the typical citizen isn’t an unbridgeable chasm. That’s why Thomas Jefferson wrote, ‘The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.’ ”

 

book cover

 

Conscience of a Liberal

 

By Paul Krugman

 

W. W. Norton, 352 pages

 

Buy the book

      How the chasm, a grand canyon of disparity between the oligarchic one-tenth of 1 percent and everybody else, came to be is the center of Krugman’s book, which, incidentally, is not a compilation of old columns but a fresh work. His premise is that the narrowing of the gap between income extremes achieved under Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal was reversed and destroyed by a twisted Republican Party captured by “movement conservatives” beginning with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980.

      Delving into the seeming contradiction of the masses continuing to elect Republicans who return the favor by kicking them down the economic staircase, Krugman sets out to solve this sociopolitical riddle. He is not the first person to scratch his head over this. Thomas Frank in his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas” dissected the Republican tricks for getting voters to go against their own interests—invoking abortion, gays, terror, political correctness, etc.

      Krugman buys Frank’s argument but says it is not enough to explain self-wounding electoral behavior. Such Karl Rovian electioneering cannot account for more than a marginal number of voters switching over from the Democratic to the Republican line. The missing element, according to Krugman, is racism.

      In so saying he has nailed it. The reactionaries who isolated the Eisenhower Republicans and took over the party could not have won their string of election victories had they not been able to capture the once solid Democratic South and turn it into a bastion of their own.

      That came about by exploiting the region’s historical white antipathy to African-Americans. The post Eisenhower-Nixon Republican Party has made its lack of enthusiasm for racial equality clear to the white South, beginning with Barry Goldwater’s opposition to civil rights legislation and carrying on through to Reagan’s beginning his presidential campaign in 1980 by making a speech at Philadelphia, Miss., the place where three civil rights workers were lynched in 1964. Reagan turned that bloody spot into hallowed ground for today’s clandestine white, more genteel Kluxers.

      Race being the explosive subject it is, Princeton University professors such as Paul Krugman and many another person safely lodged in our respectable institutions are shy about saying that the GOP’s success rests on profiting from racial prejudice. Whether or not people other than Krugman want to talk about it, the truth is that when Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson made the Democratic Party the party of civil rights, the white South turned to the Republicans, who received these whites with sympathy and sneaky encouragement. Even with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the stink from its quiet exploitation of racial animosities clings to the Grand Old Party.

      But, Krugman argues, the movement to conservatism or reactionary Republicanism cannot count much longer on using Southern white distaste for persons of color to win elections. Without a doubt many younger white people do not share their elders’ ideas about racial superiority, and he points out that the nation’s population grows less white with every passing year. Nevertheless, he may be a trifle too sanguine in foreseeing a happy majority of all races in our future. Racial prejudice runs deep and has shown itself thus far in history to be nearly impossible to eradicate.

      Once in power, Krugman writes, the Republicans cut the New Deal-World War II taxes on the rich so drastically that the present-day dangerous income imbalance resulted. He argues that with each tax cut the plutocracy had more money to buy more political power to use to cut its taxes again.

      This kleptomaniacal cycle was achieved by relying on more than racial antagonisms. Krugman writes: “The nature of the hold movement conservatism has on the Republican Party may be summed up very simply: Yes, Virginia, there is a right-wing conspiracy. That is, there is an interlocking set of institutions ultimately answering to a small group of people that collectively reward loyalists and punish dissenters.”

      Whether that is a conspiracy or brute-force, tunnel-vision politics backed up by big money is open to debate. Either way, the network of publications, television channels, front groups, publishing firms and those intellectual whorehouses we call think tanks, all richly financed, have done fierce work on the liberal cause over the years. The other side, of course, has tried to match the forces of reaction in kind, but it does not begin to have the same kind of money.

      Outside of liberalism itself, the principal target of the right-wing network has been organized labor. Krugman devotes much of his attention to unions because he believes that their near destruction has left the working population of the country almost defenseless and deprived the Democratic Party of election muscle it has not been able to replace.

      There is no gainsaying Krugman’s description of the attack on organized labor and the right wing’s use of the federal government to weaken and defeat unions wherever possible, but that is not the complete union story. The roots of the decline of organized labor begin with the ferocious internal battle between Communist and non-Communist factions in the late 1940s and early ‘50s. The fight inside the electrical and auto workers unions, to name two of the big ones, left labor split and drained of its enthusiasm.

      Given the times, the struggle to rid labor of behind-the-scenes Communist control in those unions wherever it existed was destructive but necessary. If one were to pick a bone with Krugman it might be on his stance that the domestic anti-Communist fights were “paranoid” in nature. True, there was enough paranoia, inflamed by anti-union reactionaries, to go around, but, even so, much of the anti-Communist battling was the real deal.

      At the moment we are close to having no unions. Without them it is much harder to keep the Democratic Party on the straight and narrow. Krugman mentions New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer preventing a move to make our hedge fund billionaires pay the income tax they presently are able to legally avoid. No organized force exists to make Schumer break with his billionaire pals or walk the plank.

      Again and again we have seen Democratic politicians during the primaries tell sweet lies to their “base” only to repudiate them come the general election. This pattern has practically become a tradition in Democratic Party politics. Kid ‘em in February, betray ‘em in November.

      One can hope with Krugman that the unions can be resuscitated to play the role of enforcer or that changes in the population bring with them a liberal tide or that issues like health insurance or the anger over the Iraq war will turn the trick. Krugman tempers his optimism of a better day a’comin’ by recognizing how politically paralyzing are what he calls the “weapons of mass distraction,” the movies, TV and cyberworld, which hourly pour debilitating crap into innocent American brains.

      “The Conscience of a Liberal” ends with a clarion call of sorts, a la Barry Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative,” which electrified a generation of frighteningly committed right-wingers. Although this book will not do much electrifying, it will do much clarifying, and that is no small service.

    Nicholas von Hoffman, a former columnist for The Washington Post and a former commentator for CBS’  “60 Minutes,” is a regular columnist for The New York Observer. He is the author of numerous books, including “Hoax: Why Americans Are Suckered by White House Lies” and “Capitalist Fools: Tales of American Business From Carnegie to Forbes to the Milken Gang.”


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Rick, November 16, 2007 at 8:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It has always amazed me how white people vote against their best interest. How a blue collar family or anyone who punches a time clock can identify with the Republicans is mind boggling. Reagan made it plain that he did not want the Black vote and gave the impression that he was going to make life diifficult for them. So what happened after his landslide victory? The 1986 income tax reform which took away the deduction of interest paid on credit cards combined with an increase in the interest paid for credit. Then he made it difficult to get college loans and threw a tax on employment perks such as using the company car. Blacks did not vote for Reagan, so who got jacked around?

Bush made it plain that he did not want the Black vote, and did not get it. Gasoline was about $25 a barrel when he took office. Today it’s nearly $100 a barrel and the price at the pump has doubled with no end in site. The Enron mess. The crazy stock market. The upcoming depression which will be brought about by Bush and the bust out boys stealing the USA blind won’t hurt those who are used to eating bean. So who is being jacked around?

Report this

By Hammo, November 16, 2007 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

Yes, racism is a significant factor in play, still most notably in the South (as far as black and white) but obviously all over too.

And now, ths friction is not just the white vs. black manipulation, but includes Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants.

A recent news story last week reflects racial issues in very interesting ways: Oprah Winfrey removed a book from her famous book list that has significant racial dynamics involved.

The book, THE EDUCATION OF LITTLE TREE, was written by a man who had a history in the KKK and was a speechwriter for George Wallace. He wrote the book later in his life.

The book though, is about a part-white, part-Cherokee little boy who goes to live with his Cherokee grandparents in the Appalachian Mountain region in the 1930s during the depression.

He learns that in many ways, mainstream “white” culture is seriously flawed, and he learns about Indian ways and other important life lessons.

So, we have white, black, Indian, and by implication, brown racial issues involved in convoluted ways.

The recent news involving Oprah’s decision to remove the book THE EDUCATION OF LITTLE TREE from her book list seems to require further exploration by thoughtful people.

For more information, see the article …

“Oprah bumps book ‘Education of Little Tree’ from list; readers can explore many factors involved”

AmericanChronicle.com
November 9, 2007

http://americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=42576

Report this

By Crimson Ghost, November 16, 2007 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

Krugman’s book is on the mark as far as it goes but misses a crucial factor behind the surge in inequality the last few decades -to wit decades of easy money by the Fed. And easy money is one thing that liberals like Krugman support just as strongly as billionaire Wall Street honchos.

Easy money touched off the speculative asset booms that ensnared so many average folks in “get rich quick” schemes that now are ending in tears. Such policies also are fueling inflation—an inflation that the government continues to cover up via biased CPI numbers

History shows that easy money over time always benefits the wealthy in general and speculators in particular at the expense of average and productive citizens.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has had the courage to criticize the Fed’s easy money policies for the fraud they are.

Report this

By John Borowski, November 16, 2007 at 5:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The reason the right prefers OBama is because these cunning evils know there is satiating racism and bigotry in this country. It would be far easier to rig the elections with OBama running than it would be if Clinton was running against the fascist. All of this is for naught because in a plutocracy (Pluto = wealth cracy = govern) there never was honest elections by the proletariats and there never will be.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 16, 2007 at 4:40 am Link to this comment

What’s interesting is that Krugman has identified the twin tools that the GOP has used to rape the American public: Racism and anti-unionism.

I agree with Krugman 100%, but it’s not news that these are the key twin prongs of the pitchfork driving us toward a new fascist baronial society, such as kept Europe in the Dark Ages for a 1000 years while a very few enjoyed obscene wealth stolen from those who did the work.

I have posted many times here that the demise of the unions was the Republican clarion call, starting with Reagan’s obliteration of PATCO. Never mind that air safety dropped drastically, that there were far more crashes and close calls. 

What’s a few thousand dead passengers against the utopia of no unions to act as NGOs limiting corporate excess?

And the racism? It didn’t start with Reagan in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi. The first hints were in 1964, with Goldwater’s campaign, and dirty tricksters like William Rehnquist attempting to illegally intimidate Black voters.

But it was “The Southern Strategy” of Richard Nixon in 1968 that was the REAL outing of the GOP going after Southern White racists.  Using the code words of “Law and Order” and “States’ Rights” the GOP cleverly manipulated the Red Neck crowd to vote against their own self-interest by pandering to their racism.

Combine racism, and labling unions as “commie” and tools of “northern liberals” (another code phrase subtly referring to Jews and Catholics—the other Southern bigotry—“Christ-killers and papists”) and the GOP had an explosive combination of emotion and irrationality.

Right now, we are FINALLY seeing unions functioning as they are SUPPOSED to function and getting some good ink. The UAW worked out their issues with the auto industry—everyone there is satisfied, if not happy.  The WGA is on strike and there’s no back-lash against them.  Local 1 of the Stage Hands Union is on its first strike in 121 years—and all the other theatrical unions are with them.  Sure, it’s closing down Broadway (8 shows are unaffected), but when the cheapest seats cost more than football play-off tickets, there’s not much sympathy for the poor, poor producers.

We need unions.  We need a resurgence of the Civil Rights movement sans knee-jerk clowns like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  We need the anti-War movement to get organized, like it was in the late ‘60’s.

And we need the Demo-weenies in Congress to grow backbones and balls and stick it in the Re-thuglicans’ faces, hard and loud!

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.