Political Provocateur

Paul Krugman has an interesting new column today in the New York Times. His arguments goes something sorta like this: Conservatives oppose Obama’s policies because they…don’t like Obama and want him to fail. How does Krugman know this? Because some conservatives expressed happiness at the fact Chicago didn’t win the bid for the Olmypics. And that, by the way, only proves that conservatives oppose healthcare reform only because they…are against Obama.

With me so far? Good, because Krugman also wrote that the modern conservative movement has the “emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year old.”

Krugman may be close to hitting the mark on that point (a group of D.C. conservatives were caught on tape cheering when Chicago lost the bid. It’s hard to believe they were cheering for any reason other than the fact Obama lost- which is absurd and a little childish), but the rest of the article is full of untruths and logic gaps. According to Krugman, conservatives have a problem with spite. It’s the reason they cheered when Chicago lost the bid, and it’s the reason they oppose healthcare reform. Yes, Krugman concedes that liberals and conservatives follow two very different philosophies, so opposition is normal. However, the Democrats have opposed in the past with much more thoughtfulness and rationale:

In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

The Republican campaign against health care reform has been about keeping Medicare? Uh, one neoconservative (that would be Michael Steele) and a few other Republicans writing op-eds about not doing anything to Medicare hardly characterizes the entire movement of opposition.

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.

The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.

So to Krugman, conservatives opposing policies really means that they’re secret agenda is to undermine Obama’s right to govern. How about it just means that conservatives really, really dislike liberal policies?

 And…was Krugman around this past August when Americans spoke out by the thousands, protesting Big Government and healthcare reform? And yes, I’m pretty sure most of those protestors would identify as conservative or libertarian. So the public does “buy the conservative ideology.”

(While it’s rediculous to be happy the 2016 Olympics won’t be in Chicago simply because Obama lost, I do think it is a “blessing in disguise.” Reason contributor Steve Chapman explains why).