Economist's View: Paul Krugman: A Failed Revolution
リンク: Economist's View: Paul Krugman: A Failed Revolution.
The Republican revolution is over:
A Failed Revolution, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: After first attempting to deny the scale of last month’s defeat, the apologists have settled on a story line that sounds just like Marxist explanations for the failure of the Soviet Union. What happened, you see, was that the noble ideals of the Republican revolution of 1994 were undermined by Washington’s corrupting ways. And the recent defeat was a good thing, because it will force a return to the true conservative path.
But the truth is that the movement ... was always based on a lie.
The lie is right there in “The Freedom Revolution,” the book that Dick Armey, ... the House majority leader, published in 1995. He declares that most government programs don’t do anything “to help American families with the needs of everyday life,” and that “very few American families would notice their disappearance.” He goes on to assert that “there is no reason we cannot, by the time our children come of age, reduce the federal government by half as a percentage of gross domestic product.”
Right. Somehow, I think more than a few families would notice the disappearance of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — and those three programs alone account for a majority of nondefense, noninterest spending. ...
As long as people like Mr. Armey, Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay were out of power, they could run on promises to eliminate vast government waste that existed only in the public’s imagination — all those welfare queens driving Cadillacs. But once in power, they couldn’t deliver ... the government hasn’t shrunk...
Unable to make good on its promises, the G.O.P., like other failed revolutionary movements, tried to maintain its grip by exploiting its position of power. Friends were rewarded with patronage: Jack Abramoff began building his web of corruption almost as soon as Republicans took control. Adversaries were harassed with smear campaigns and witch hunts: Congress spent six years ... investigating a failed land deal, and Bill Clinton was impeached over a consensual affair.
But it wasn’t enough. Without 9/11, the Republican revolution would probably have petered out quietly... Instead, the atrocity created ... four extra years gained by drowning out unfavorable news with terror alerts, starting a gratuitous war, and accusing Democrats of being weak on national security.
Yet the Bush administration failed to convert this electoral success into progress on a right-wing domestic agenda. The collapse of the push to privatize Social Security recapitulated the failure of the Republican revolution as a whole. Once the administration was forced to get specific about the details, it became obvious that private accounts couldn’t produce something for nothing, and the public’s support vanished.
In the end, Republicans didn’t shrink the government. But they did degrade it. ...
Is that the end for the radical right? Probably not. ... Many of the ideas that failed in the Bush years had previously failed in the Reagan years. So there’s no reason to assume they’re gone for good.
Indeed, it appears that loss of power and the ensuing lack of accountability is liberating right-wingers to lie yet again: since last month’s election, I’ve noticed a number of Social Security privatizers propounding the same free-lunch falsehoods that the Bush administration had to abandon in the face of demands that it present an actual plan.
Still, the Republican revolution of 1994 is over. And not a moment too soon.
_________________________
Previous (12/25) column: Paul Krugman: Helping the Poor, the British Way
Posted by Mark Thoma on December 29, 2006 at 12:15 AM in Economics, Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/7312476
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Paul Krugman: A Failed Revolution:
Comments
"Unable to make good on its promises, the G.O.P., like other failed revolutionary movements, tried to maintain its grip by exploiting its position of power."
yeah, put down the bottle krugman. the g.o.p. is not revolutionary. neither party in america is revolutionary.
after the repubs won in '94 pres. clinton stepped up to the podium at the state of the union and said the era of big govt is over. that is not revolution on either side.
abramoff? how about jim wright and dan rostenkowski of the dem variety.
a pox on both parties and two on krugman's political commentary.
Posted by: | Dec 28, 2006 11:15:32 PM
Is there a mixed message here:
So there’s no reason to assume they’re gone for good.
and
Still, the Republican revolution of 1994 is over. And not a moment too soon.
I fess up to feeling one even if it isn't wedged between the lines here. The reason Clinton can be impeached for a consensual affair and that Bush can conceal his military records is that we have a media that behaves as if it is the RNC (as Kerry put it).
It didn't get there over night and it's not leaving anytime soon.
So the election victory that surely counts as a repudiation, might only be one battle in a larger struggle to really put the Republican Revolution of 1994 (earlier, yes?) in the waste basket.
Posted by: calmo | Dec 28, 2006 11:22:30 PM
please calmo-
the media is the rnc? i like kerry depending on which one we're talking about sometimes but i'll buy his bit on bush's military record when he tells why the standard tour in vietnam was 1 yr and his was a bit shorter. (not that they were firing at pres. bush when he landed the fighter on the carrier and declared "mission accomplished")
Posted by: adam | Dec 28, 2006 11:42:02 PM
The irony of it all is that Bush thought his "elective war" would give him the clout and momentum to cut all those social programs. But his glorious war turned out to be a bummer and when it did any possible clout evaporated immeidately and he found himself mired in a mess that he still can't figure how to get out of. One might say Thank God Iraq turned out to be a mess; think what might have happened if it hadn't.
Posted by: maria | Dec 29, 2006 12:00:32 AM
It is interesting to note, as was mentioned over lunch at my work today, that the Bush Administration has managed to kill more Americans voluntarily in Iraq and Afghanistan than were ever killed by terrorists in 9/11.
Posted by: --Andrew | Dec 29, 2006 1:12:23 AM
Could be a lot of Iranians might be thinking like maria and I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Please adam, such a low blow...on my parenthetical "as Kerry put it".
I need to tell you that I am no huge fan of Kerry or Dean or Hilary or...so many GOPers. [This B it: I am not a fan, but I think you might be. Worse, I think you are not in charge of that choice. Not really, and it is not so much a measure of you, but that under-rated media that is in charge of so many parts of our lives.]
So, did you want to switch from arguing about media neutrality to Kerry/Bush military service records or was it just a half-baked thought that you picked up from the usual sources: the media's habit of demonstrating "fair and balanced" even when there is no comparison?
The low blow is that you have not bothered to distinguish between my agreement with a statement Kerry made about the media during an interview, and mistaking that to be an endorsement of every proposition Kerry ever made. It is the way the media "argues", adam, and I am crushed that you would pick up this sordid little habit...(esp at a time like this: prime time with calmo).
Why should I bother with you (possible Kerry Hater, Swiftboater, latent GOPer, Fascist...Bad Guy) if you show this little bother with me?
Posted by: calmo | Dec 29, 2006 1:25:22 AM
Adam,
Regarding John Kerry, 3 purple hearts and you went home.
Regarding GW, two missed drills and everyone but GW went into the Army.
Posted by: ilsm | Dec 29, 2006 3:54:28 AM
ILSM
"Regarding John Kerry, 3 purple hearts and you went home."
Duh, still and always hateful rubbish about those who fought even in a war in which they did not believe while others merely sneered and wished for ever more war. Duh.
Posted by: anne | Dec 29, 2006 4:04:10 AM
Paul Krugman:
The lie is right there in “The Freedom Revolution,” the book that Dick Armey, ... the House majority leader, published in 1995. He declares that most government programs don’t do anything “to help American families with the needs of everyday life,” and that “very few American families would notice their disappearance.” He goes on to assert that “there is no reason we cannot, by the time our children come of age, reduce the federal government by half as a percentage of gross domestic product.” ...
[These folks were nutty as fruitcakes, and still are. No matter, they lost and the nuttiness is more easily ridiculed and dismissed and compensated for.]
Posted by: anne | Dec 29, 2006 4:26:41 AM
MMethinks Armey a true charlatan believing nary a word he spoke as he pandered to those lately bipedal.
Posted by: ken melvin | Dec 29, 2006 4:50:39 AM
He declares that most government programs don’t do anything “to help American families with the needs of everyday life,” and that “very few American families would notice their disappearance.”
Which is a glaringly obvious fact. As Dean Baker has thoroughly documented, the biggest "welfare bums" in town are corporations and other concentrated interests. Somehow, I'm not holding my breath for Republicans to do anything about this.
Posted by: georgist | Dec 29, 2006 5:02:17 AM
Will be business as usual (corruption, favoritism, puppets of big business) no matter who is in power. To fix it, flatten K street, drastically shorten campaign periods, and cut and slash big money from campaign coffers for starters.
Posted by: callahan | Dec 29, 2006 5:41:19 AM
Dick Armey is a PhD economist.
Armey did find a number of obsolete military bases that fit his definition: "most government programs don’t do anything “to help American families with the needs of everyday life,” The base closings process was painful, but one of the few examples of GOP cost cutting. The base closings were achieved in the 80s when Democrats were still in power.
However the “very few American families would notice their disappearance.” part did not quite work out. The base closings have had an effect on American families that live in towns near the closed bases. Many of those towns have never completely recovered. Many of those folks blame the Dems for the base closings and do not associate them with GOP leadership.
Base closings helped give us the "peace dividend" but the dislocations were never adequately addressed. Bush has reversed the trend and jacked defense spending on trajectory to soon hit $550 Billion up from Clinton's $300 Billion. A major thrust of the next administration will have to be ramping down our defense spending to more reasonable levels.
Posted by: bakho | Dec 29, 2006 5:58:29 AM
The fact that Armey held a Ph.D. in economics is important. There were three such people in the GOP Congress: Armey, Archer and Graham. None were honest men, and the GOP was hideously dishonest on economic and financial issues.
That, to me, says something.
Posted by: Barry | Dec 29, 2006 6:36:10 AM
Why didn't they just listen to THIS GUY?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ta5DmecvGE
You know, the guy who won a ground war in 90 hours.
Posted by: Ninjaplease | Dec 29, 2006 6:40:02 AM
You must mean Phil Gramm spouse of an Enron criminal. Lindsey Graham is a lawyer. Gramm was a Democrat before he was a Republican. I think the Dems canned him for selling out to get Reagan tax cuts passed. Gramm Rudman Hollings was Paygo wasn't it?
Is it all economists turned politician? Or is there something about economists from Texas?
Gramm and Texas A&M presidency (recently vacated by Gates) are sometimes mentioned in the same sentence. Maybe they hope the Gramms will donate some of their Enron profits.
Posted by: bakho | Dec 29, 2006 9:12:44 AM
"when he landed the fighter on the carrier"
Certainly if someone remembers the facts this way, he is providing excellent evidence of Republican media bias.
Posted by: Arne (not anne) | Dec 29, 2006 9:37:52 AM
I learned in the seventh grade that Laissez Faire economics led to the concentration of power and wealth, scams and swindles, financial depressions, and panics.
Then, Milton Friedman got the Nobel Prize (well Kissinger got one, so I guess they're worthless these days), for his ridiculous rationalization of selfishness, and we voted in Reagan. The National Debt was about 900 billion dollars back then, as much as we have wasted in Iraq already.
Now, the Reagan-Bush/Bush National Bad Debt is ten times the size, thanks to selfish "conservatives".
I propose that for the next eight years, all taxes should be paid by those who got the tax breaks since Reagan - the rich, very rich, and super-rich. Income taxes should start at $80k of income, and rapidly escalate from there. After all, in the Glory Days of the Republican party, (the Eisenhower administration), we had two tax brackets above 90%!!
It's time to throw out ALL the crooks of the past, and start over with strict enforcement of strict anti-corruption laws.
Posted by: GKAM | Dec 29, 2006 9:40:26 AM
********
It is interesting to note, as was mentioned over lunch at my work today, that the Bush Administration has managed to kill more Americans voluntarily in Iraq and Afghanistan than were ever killed by terrorists in 9/11.
*********
I guess Roosevelt killed a lot more Americans "voluntarily" in Europe and the Pacific than the Japanese killed at Pearl Harbor.
How idiotic.
Posted by: | Dec 29, 2006 9:50:52 AM
*********
I propose that for the next eight years, all taxes should be paid by those who got the tax breaks since Reagan - the rich, very rich, and super-rich. Income taxes should start at $80k of income, and rapidly escalate from there. After all, in the Glory Days of the Republican party, (the Eisenhower administration), we had two tax brackets above 90%!!
*********
Way stop there, Karl?
How about everyone makes $60k a year and that is that? If you make a penny more it gets taxed and given to one making a penny less.
Put on your thinking cap and figure out what would happen to the economy if we did that.
Posted by: | Dec 29, 2006 9:53:54 AM
How about people making $60K per year pay 15-20% of their income in tax so the government can give away $180 BILLION to weathy bond holders that make 6 figures?
Posted by: bakho | Dec 29, 2006 10:00:02 AM
adam,
bush was a passenger on that COD aircraft not a pilot or in a fighter. COD (Carrier Onboard Delivery) for the codpiece president, Mission Accomplished!!
Posted by: DILBERT DOGBERT | Dec 29, 2006 10:27:11 AM
"How about everyone makes $60k a year and that is that? If you make a penny more it gets taxed and given to one making a penny less.
Put on your thinking cap and figure out what would happen to the economy if we did that."
My guess is that we'd have an all-inclusive middle class, would have eliminated poverty in one feel swoop, would immediately pull millions of people out of inescapable debt due to ARMs skyrocketing and a slight slowdown in offshoring since commerce volume will skyrocket allowing companies to experience very long supply chain shortages possibly rethinking their supply chain management strategies atleast temporarily.
Sounds catastrophic for selfish.
Posted by: Ninjaplease | Dec 29, 2006 10:51:34 AM
If there was even a hint of competency or sense of community in the neocon party, they could have gone much further with their agenda (whatever it is).
I forget exactly what the probllem was that these guys were elected to correct... Last thing I remember, the nation was obsessing over a blue dress.
Years later, we've witnessed Katrina/New Orleans debacle, War, death, a budget mess, a bridge to nowhere, Trent Lott's private railroad project, tariffs on steel, lumber, and sugar, ag subsidies out the wazoo, a huge push to send our social security payments to Charles Schwab, illegalizing re-importing drugs from Canada, and... wait for it, a prescription drug benefit that only benefits manufacturers.
Can somebody please explain what problem these guys were elected to solve? Because it must be an awful one to put up with all this other stuff.
Posted by: Idaho_Spud | Dec 29, 2006 11:06:44 AM
Good for Anne and ilsm. Those who trash Kerry are the lowest of the low. Even lower than the Duchess of Windsor. LOL.
Posted by: maria | Dec 29, 2006 11:49:01 AM
Dear Noname:
WWII was fought for good and valid reasons. The war in Iraq was started by silly lies and for no valid reason at all, unless you think doing whatever Israel asks for is a "valid reason". The idiotic comment, I would say, is yours.
Posted by: maria | Dec 29, 2006 11:53:25 AM
Notice, by the way, that the Chilean public-private pension system that was all the rage as a model for privatizing Social Security has been generating about half the predicted returns and is about to be re-structured by the legislature.
Posted by: anne | Dec 29, 2006 11:56:33 AM
December 26, 2006
Chile Proposes to Reform Pension System
By LARRY ROHTER
SANTIAGO, Chile — Responding to growing complaints that the privatized pension system here is failing to deliver adequate benefits, the Chilean government has recommended that it be supplanted by a system in which the state would play a much larger role. The current system is a favorite of free-enterprise enthusiasts, including President Bush.
The changes, part of a reform package scheduled to go to Congress early next year, include a guaranteed minimum pension for the country's poorest citizens, even those who have never contributed to the private system.
The proposal also contains measures meant to stimulate competition, reducing the high costs to contributors and the extraordinarily high profits for pension fund administrators that analysts blame for some of the current problems.
"This is a radical reform, because it moves us from a system based solely on individual savings to one that includes a pillar of solidarity based on one's rights as a citizen, and not contributions," Labor Minister Osvaldo Andrade told reporters when the plan was announced on Dec. 15. "We are integrating systems that are fundamentally different."
Social Security in the United States, like national pension systems in many countries, is based on a pay-as-you-go arrangement in which workers, employers and the government all contribute. Under the Chilean system, in contrast, workers are required to pay 10 percent of their salaries into private investment accounts that they control; employers do not participate, and the state's contribution has been reduced.
In recent years, that pioneering privatized system has been emulated by a score of other countries and praised by leaders of many others. Mr. Bush, for example, proposed using the Chilean model as the basis for a reshaping of Social Security, calling the system here "a great example" and saying the United States could "take some lessons from Chile." ...
Posted by: anne | Dec 29, 2006 11:57:10 AM
Looking through the index records, the Chilean stock market has been a puzzle for 20 years, offering lower returns than other Latin American markets though the economy has been generally robust. The markedly lower index returns in Chile are puzzling and disturbing because of the importance of the returns for pensions, but Chile offers brilliant returns to financial companies handling pension accounts. Costs matter, but there is more here.
Posted by: anne | Dec 29, 2006 12:06:25 PM
