Paranoia Strikes Deep

by Paul Krugman



  Back in 1964 the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay
  titled, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," which reads
as
  if it were based on today's headlines:

     Americans on the far right, he wrote, feel that "America has
been
     largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are
     determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final
     destructive act of subversion."


  - - Last Thursday there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to protest
  pending health care legislation, featuring the kinds of things
we've
  grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at
  Dachau with the caption "National Socialist Healthcare."

  It was grotesque — and it was also ominous. For what we may be
seeing
  is America starting to be Californiafied.

  The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn't a
fringe
  event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leadership — in
fact,
  it was officially billed as a G.O.P.press conference. Senior lawmakers
  were in attendance, and apparently had no problem with the tone of the
  proceedings.

  True, Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican, offered some
  mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is
"mild." The
  signs were "inappropriate," said his spokesman, and the use of
Hitler
  comparisons by such people as Rush Limbaugh, said Mr. Cantor,
"conjures
  up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."

  What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the
  people it used to exploit.

  The state of mind visible at recent right-wing demonstrations is
  nothing new.

  Back in 1964 the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay
  titled, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," which reads
as
  if it were based on today's headlines:

     Americans on the far right, he wrote, feel that "America has
been
     largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are
     determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final
     destructive act of subversion."

  Sound familiar?

  But while the paranoid style isn't new, its role within the G.O.P. is.

  When Hofstadter wrote, the right wing felt dispossessed because it was
  rejected by both major parties. That changed with the rise of Ronald
  Reagan: Republican politicians began to win elections in part by
  catering to the passions of the angry right.

  Until recently, however, that catering mostly took the form of empty
  symbolism. Once elections were won, the issues that fired up the base
  almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite.

  Thus in 2004 George W. Bush ran on antiterrorism and "values,"
only to
  announce, as soon as the election was behind him, that his first
  priority was changing Social Security.

  But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long believed that
  history was on their side, so the G.O.P. establishment could, in
  effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little longer: once
  the party consolidated its hold on power, they'd get what they
wanted.

  After the Democratic sweep, however, extremists could no longer be
  fobbed off with promises of future glory.

  Furthermore, the loss of both Congress and the White House left a power
  vacuum in a party accustomed to top-down management.

  At this point Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reasonable
  elder statesman of the G.O.P. And he has no authority: Republican
  voters ignored his call to support a relatively moderate, electable
  candidate in New York's special Congressional election.

  Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush
  Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media
  figure than a conventional politician). Because these people aren't
  interested in actually governing, they feed the base's frenzy
instead
  of trying to curb or channel it. So all the old restraints are gone.

  In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York
  race. But maybe not: elections aren't necessarily won by the
candidate
  with the most rational argument. They're often determined, instead,
by
  events and economic conditions.

  In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in
  the midterm elections. The Obama administration's job-creation
efforts
  have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously
  high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall
  Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the
  mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas,
  but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.

  And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already
  happened in California could happen at the national level.

  In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party
  with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big
  enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state's fiscal
  crisis.

  If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the
  country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an
  ongoing economic disaster.

  The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the
  irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is
  happening here — and it's very bad for America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=1
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=1>





Reply via email to