Friday, December 16, 2016

An Election Autopsy from Paul Krugman

As usual, one of the very few people who has managed to keep his place in the mainstream media while daring to tell the truth.  I'm going to let Krugman, in today's New York Times, speak for himself:


"It has long been obvious — except, apparently, to the news media — that the modern G.O.P. is a radical institution that is ready to violate democratic norms in the pursuit of power. Why should the norm of not accepting foreign assistance be any different?

...By the way, people who respond to this observation by talking about mistakes in Clinton campaign strategy are missing the point, and continuing their useful idiocy. All campaigns make mistakes. Since when do these mistakes excuse subversion of an election by a foreign power and a rogue domestic law enforcement agency?

...The bigger surprise was the behavior of the news media, and I don’t mean fake news; I mean big, prestigious organizations. Leaked emails, which everyone knew were probably the product of Russian hacking, were breathlessly reported as shocking revelations, even when they mostly revealed nothing...Meanwhile, the news media dutifully played up the Clinton server story, which never involved any evidence of wrongdoing, but merged in the public mind into the perception of a vast “email” scandal when there was nothing there."

I need only add that the behavior of the mainstream media, led in their infamy by Krugman's own New York Times, was no surprise at all to me, or to the many other left wing bloggers who have been desperately trying to raise this subject for years.  Particularly since Ronald Reagan allowed the mainstream press to be virtually entirely bought up by the rich owners of the Republican party, there has been virtually no attempt by them to tell the truth.  They gave the 2000 election to George W. Bush, even though any idiot could see how disastrously unqualified he was, and now they have committed a far bigger crime, selling the country out to a hostile foreign dictator, knowing perfectly well what they were doing.

Well, I'll give Krugman the last word about this:

"...it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements."

Fat chance.

5 comments:

Poll P. said...

After 28 years of being a subscriber, I cancelled the NYT in protest of their bias. The two things I miss are the Mini Crossword, and Krugman's columns.

joseph said...

My alma mater is Wichita State University. In 1968, after participating in the McCarthy children's crusade, I returned to college and talked to our on campus black communist, an instructor of something. I asked who he was voting for. "Wallace, of course," he said. I was stunned. "But he will bring the revolution faster than the other two," he told me. We are in a much more precarious position, both politically and economically. I can only hope he was right.

Green Eagle said...

All I can say is that he was one hell of a pathetic excuse for a Communist. A quick reading of Lenin's "Left Wing Communism- an Infantile Disorder," which we were all reading at the time, Communist or not, would have put an end to that kind of idiotic thinking, otherwise known as "bringing down repression," the favored tactic of the Weatherman jerks. And you know where it got them.

joseph said...

GE,

I didn't say I agreed with him, but we are where we are. We need a real liberal in the FDR mold, not another Democrat who will be the compromiser-in-chief.

Green Eagle said...

Joseph, I didn't think you would agree with him. I'm just pointing out that, as Fidel Castro once said, "One can call himself an eagle without a feather on his back...one can call himself a Communist without a Communist hair on his head."