Krugman’s biased and unfounded ‘Nixonland’
(Update below)
Paul Krugman has finally hit the bottom. Today he slanderously employed stereotyping to ambiguously and unsubstantiatively accuse Barack Obama Supporters of turning the Democratic Party into “Nixonland.” According to Krugman (quoting Adlai Stevenson), Nixonland is “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win.” Krugman’s piece is incredulous and intentionally ill-targeted.
Krugman self-righteously asserts that “the bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre.” I cannot disagree with his assertion; however in his pontification he adapts and employs the very venom he decries. Furthermore, he provides absolutely no scope or definition to his term “Obama supporters,” and thereby stereotypes all Obama Supporters.
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.
…
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
So, exactly what are the heinous crimes committed against Hillary Clinton and who are the countless Evil-Intended Obama Supporters that committed them?
No one could intelligently or credibly imply or infer that “a land of slander and scare” and ” land of smash and grab” is the equivalent of a limited few. Anyone with a modicum of intellect can argue Krugman’s posit is framed around tens of millions of people and countless cases. But contrary to his broad-based accusations, Mr. Krugman cites merely two references of the Obama Supporters’ Evil Intent. And of the two, one is highly subject to interpretation, which can vary significantly especially among African-Americans.
First, Krugman attacks the interpretation of Hillary Clinton’s remarks on Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King, Jr.
During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.
Based on Krugman’s applied critical thinking, there can be and is only one interpretation of the Reasonable Remark that was incredulously interpreted as an “outrageous denigration of Dr. King” Of course, there is no room for debate on that issue. Mr. Krugman, is a member of the Media Elite, and thereby qualified for deity status. He has deemed and certified the singular acceptable interpretation. There cannot and must not be any deviation from the deity’s certified opinion.
Since Mr. Krugman is not an African-American, it is unlikely he has ever endured the long-term effects of the historic oppression of African-Americans. Therefore, I do not believe he possess the psychological profile to apply the equivalent or appropriate thought processes. Until Mr. Krugman can provide evidence that clearly confirms he is qualified to mentally process and reason on the same basis as African-Americans on matters of this type, he should refrain from rendering his incredulous opinions as if he were an African-American.
I can easily see where the Reasonable Remark could be interpreted both ways. Dr. King did not have the official capacity to make or implement laws, however when put in context with many of the Clinton’s statements, one can easily interpret the Reasonable Remark as minimization of Dr. King’s efforts and influence. It cannot be dismissed as a possibility.
Unfortunately, no one knows what Hillary Clinton was thinking at the time (or any other time for that matter) If Hillary Clinton had no knowledgeable ill-intent, then at minimum one could question her critical thinking skills. Presidents must think before they speak. We’ve certainly experienced enough damage throughout the world as a result of a president that does not or cannot think before he speaks.
Another argument that can be made against the Reasonable Remark Clinton made was the possibility of a slam to Sen. Ted Kennedy. Clinton made the remarks right after Kennedy endorsed Obama. And Clinton failed, for whatever reason, to mention the important role President John F. Kennedy had in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. It was President Kennedy’s initiative, not President Johnson’s. Johnson finished what Kennedy started.
Krugman’s second and last reference of the Obama Supporter’s Evil Intent was the David Shuster “pimping” incident and various other, but unspecified, inappropriate remarks made by others at MSNBC.
And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.
As I have said previously, what Shuster said was wrong. And like Hillary Clinton, I have no idea what Shuster’s intentions were. Regardless of his intention, he messed up royally and should have known better.
So, Krugman cites two incidents, one of which is highly debatable, and consequently condemns millions of people, the Obama Supporters. On that basis, Krugman eviscerated millions of people with with an unsubstantiative argument based on some of the employees at MSNBC. How does that constitute “a land of slander and scare” and a “land of smash and grab.” It doesn’t. Krugman, the economics professor should be able to understand this concept — he committed macro-slandering and incredulous macro-accusations.
Where is the balance in his piece? There is no balance. Did Krugman focus on the venom spewed by Hillary Clinton supporters? No. A quick visit to TalkLeft (example here) or Taylor Marsh’s site (example here) will provide ample evidence of anti-Obama venom spewing and trashing of fellow liberal bloggers.
Krugman’s accusations are reckless, unbalanced, and self-serving to his well documented anti-Obama campaign. If his intention is to attack MSNBC pundits and reporters and extraordinarily vocal critics of Hillary Clinton’s LBJ-MLK remark, then he should specifically reference them as well as their specific comments. It is reprehensible and unconscionable to make assertions about all Obama Supporters without qualification and substantiation. Furthermore, Krugman might consider a little balance in his next column. I don’t believe all of Hillary Clinton’s or any other candidates supporters qualify for deity status as Mr. Krugman represents.
Update: See related post.
Hillary Clinton has hammered Barack Obama repeatedly by declaring her 35 years of experience decisively trumps his “lack of experience,” and that only she is ready to be president on “day one.”