For the most part, people share common goals. Most of us want poor people to enjoy higher standards of living, greater traffic safety, more world peace, greater racial harmony, cleaner air and water, and less crime. Despite the fact that people have common goals, we often see them grouped into contentious factions, fighting tooth and nail to promote polar opposite government policies in the name of achieving a commonly held goal.
It's clear that Paul Krugman at the New York Times could hardly wait to submit his latest column, a Monday polemic which predictably celebrated Republicans' recent failure to roll back ObamaCare. Krugman ventured even further into the realm of fantasy than usual when he conferred nearly angelic status on former President Barack Obama and his administration. His claim: "The Obama administration was remarkably clearheaded and honest about its policies" — particularly in regards to ObamaCare.
Liberal journalist Ana Marie Cox, senior political correspondent for MTV News, who also has a regular interview feature in the back of the New York Times magazine, dusted off some attacks on that undignified “stooge” and “media welfare queen” House Speaker Paul Ryan, in a piece posted Wednesday: “Don’t Pity Paul Ryan --Ryan has never been a thoughtful conservative.”
As network news hosts chat up the idea of running Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president in 2020, the ultraliberal Harvard hero is out with a feisty new campaign book titled This Fight Is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America’s Middle Class. So The New York Times found a reviewer...or just a gob-smacked fan? They let their own socialist professor/columnist Paul Krugman write a fan letter thinly disguised as a book review.
It began by hailing activist professors (now there’s an unexpected twist...)
In his Monday New York Times column, Paul Krugman descended deeper into Democratic hackery, advocating the public shunning of those who would dare interact with the President of the United States, with a strong whiff of the authoritarianism he supposedly sees and opposes in the Trump regime: “The Uses of Outrage.” Krugman has read his left-wing Twitter feed and is on board opposing the “normalization” of the dictator Donald, to the point of encouraging the shunning of anyone who would interact with the president of the United States.
Lena Dunham's HBO show Girls was back for its sixth and final (thank God!) season on Sunday night and the notoriously liberal show shockingly took aim at New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and not-so-shockingly subjected viewers to the eye crime of seeing Dunham naked.
It’s safe to say that liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman still hasn’t gotten over the election. Krugman on Tuesday tweeted, “An American first: a president who was obviously mentally ill the moment he took office. Thanks, Comey.” He then tweeted a link about the President’s claims of voter fraud.
“The most important development of the last half-century in American politics,” believes New York magazine’s Chait, is “the Republican Party’s embrace of movement conservative ideology.” In a Thursday post, Chait cited six books, none of which was written by a conservative, that “help elucidate” this phenomenon. Among Chait’s choices: E.J. Dionne’s Why the Right Went Wrong; Richard Hofstadter’s Social Darwinism in American Thought (“scathingly dispatches a powerful right-wing idea that was destined to endure: the notion that the free market is a perfectly just mechanism for rewarding value and punishing failure”); and Paul Krugman’s Peddling Prosperity (“a powerful critique of supply-side economics…which Krugman aptly dispatches as simply crankery lacking any grounding in serious economic theory”).
There are predictable signs that after eight years of giving the problem inadequate attention and occasional ridicule, the business press has decided that federal budget deficits and the national debt are going to start to matter again. Gosh, I wonder why? The Associated Press's Christopher Rugaber was relatively subtle about it in a report on Uncle Sam's December and year-to-date budget deficits on Thursday. As would be expected, Paul Krugman wasn't subtle at all in his latest New York Times column.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is fighting in the last trench, still fighting the results of the free and fair 2016 presidential election that resulted in for him the unthinkable: A victory by Donald Trump. “The Tainted Election.” "So this was a tainted election. It was not, as far as we can tell, stolen in the sense that votes were counted wrong, and the result won’t be overturned. But the result was nonetheless illegitimate in important ways; the victor was rejected by the public, and won the Electoral College only thanks to foreign intervention and grotesquely inappropriate, partisan behavior on the part of domestic law enforcement."
Though it’s not clear whether the Democratic party will produce a post-presidential-election “autopsy report” like Republicans did in early 2013, there has been a lot of self-scrutiny among liberals since Hillary Clinton’s surprise loss. One example is Kevin Drum's Friday post written in response to a fellow liberal’s cluelessness. After New York Times columnist Paul Krugman claimed to be unaware that “affluent liberals…sneer at the Joe Sixpacks,” an amazed Drum declared, “I'm not here to get into a fight with Krugman, but come on. Sure, the right-wing media fans the flames of this stuff, but is there really any question that liberal city folks tend to sneer at rural working-class folks? I'm not even talking about stuff like abortion and guns and gay marriage, where we disagree over major points of policy. I'm talking about lifestyle.”
On Tuesday, Zach Schonfeld, a senior writer for Newsweek, decided to mine what is "now a massive, unprecedented content graveyard of articles celebrating or analyzing Hillary Clinton's would-be historic victory," presenting "a small sampling ... of what the internet would have looked like on November 9 if Clinton beat Trump, as so many pundits forecast."
It's mildly entertaining, but it comes with heavy and offensive dose of smug self-importance.