In his column "A Tale of Two Moralities," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman once again reaches for the bottom of the sewer. He is covering for his thoroughly wicked column from earlier this week where he dared to lay a huge amount of the blame for last week's tragedy in Tuscon on conservatives. Now he's attempting to walk that back...without actually walking it back. As hard as he tries to be "nice" and "fair" and whatnot, he misrepresents his ideological opponents and inflates those on his own side in order to keep up with the "narrative". Worse, he hypocritically wants to say we need to figure out a way to come together, to find common ground; but, he wants it done on his terms. As a conservative, that is completely unacceptable. Neither Krugman or the liberals are going to define the rules since they don't exhibit the civility they want conservatives to display.
Allow me to rip his column to shreds.
Krugman's column can be drilled down to how he defines liberals and conservatives (the rest of it is based on them). Here's how he defines those on his side:
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.
See? Aren't they wonderful, compassionate people? Here's how he defines we conservatives:
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.
Is that all we are? I don't think so.
First off, Krugman doesn't bother to address where we get our crazy ideas. Maybe he should look here:
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;...
These words are supposed to hold true to not only those whom Krugman calls "affluent" but those whom he calls "less fortunate", although he doesn't define either of these terms. The two items above from the U.S. Constitution define individual liberties, liberties based on Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. So it isn't that we conservatives derived our beliefs out of whole cloth, but are based on what is supposed to be the law of the land, although the federal government, including the Supreme Court, has done much to subvert those rights.
Krugman's definition of those who are liberal makes it appear that the "affluent" don't help the "less fortunate". Except that isn't true. The "affluent" already help out the "less fortunate", that would be just about all of the rest of us, by providing opportunities for us to earn our own income through work. Can Krugman actually name one of those who is "less fortunate" who do as much as the "affluent" do in providing work for the rest of us? (Quick answer: no.) What Krugman and the Left want is for the affluent to provide an additional income stream, via the federal government, for those who, for whatever reason (retired, unemployed, disabled, laziness, etc.), don't work, the "social safety net". Some of these functions have historically been the function of private charities, which conservatives support far more than liberals, but the federal government has injected itself as an unfair competitor with these charities, something not at all mentioned by Krugman.
Krugman makes sure he defines conservatives in as negative a light and as simplistically as possible. The truth, the real truth, which isn't the "truth" spread by Krugman and the "community-based reality" (the Left), is far more complex. We believe in the liberty to create jobs, the liberty to be charitable, the liberty to support our families, the liberty to be treated equally under the law, the liberty to freely speak, the liberty to freely worship, the liberty to freely petition our government, the liberty to freely bear arms, the liberty to keep our property, the liberty to have counsel, the liberty to make sure the government is of, by, and for the people.
One could legitimately argue how Krugman's definition of liberals does fall somewhat within the powers given to Congress in the Constitution. But Krugman refuses to acknowledge that there are limits to how far government should go, and ignores how rotten government handles the role Krugman wants it to play. He omits one other critical factor; the federal government is only authorized to do things that don't violate other parts of the Constitution. The federal government couldn't enact a federal income tax until the 16th Amendment put it in the Constitution. The federal government can't falsely use the Commerce Clause to violate our right to bear arms. The federal government can't enact laws that violate free political speech. And as far as I'm concerned, the federal government can't redefine the word commerce to mean that each American is a thing to be under the federal government's complete control if Obamacare remains in place. But all that doesn't matter to Krugman. He sees people who are "affluent" and he sees people who are "less fortunate", and then lies about how the "affluent" don't help those who are "less fortunate", when I've shown they most assuredly do. He doesn't mention all of what the "affluent" do because it would wreck the "narrative" he wants to promote.
Krugman ends his piece thusly:
It’s not enough to appeal to the better angels of our nature. We need to have leaders of both parties — or Mr. Obama alone if necessary — declare that both violence and any language hinting at the acceptability of violence are out of bounds. We all want reconciliation, but the road to that goal begins with an agreement that our differences will be settled by the rule of law.
Krugman calls conservatives - and even liberals - children that the government needs to control. Which completely undercuts the idea that he wants reconciliation; he wants we children to submit to his rules and behave accordingly. It doesn't matter that he uses language hinting at the acceptability of violence because...he is the "great" Paul Krugman.
Here's some "eliminationist rhetoric" for Krugman. If I owned the New York Times, I'd fire Krugman's worthless proktos (Greek for tuchus) within 10 seconds. The only job this jerk is qualified for is as a Walmart greeter, and even that's a stretch.
Egotistical, narcissistic, hypocritical, trash. So are every one of his columns.