Today’s Paul Krugman column in the New York Times, “Climate of Change” emphasizes the need for a ‘crisis of democracy’.
Though, I’m neither shy to call a spade, a ‘spade’ nor call Paul Krugman an ‘unapologetic, authoritarian, fascistic mouthpiece for the elite’, Mr. Krugman is widely respected and truly believes what he writes. I respect his articulation and expression to be incredibly crafty and the result of much labor, so I torture myself with his regular NYT column.
Today, Mr. Krugman discussed the ‘new’ direction of the State in its ways to intervene in the marketplace calling it, “budgeting we can believe in.”
But, there’s an interesting tidbit at the end of the ‘Sage of Progressivism’ Nobel Laureate’s column:
So we have good priorities and plausible projections. What’s not to like about this budget? Basically, the long run outlook remains worrying.
According to the Obama administration’s budget projections, the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P., a widely used measure of the government’s financial position, will soar over the next few years, then more or less stabilize. But this stability will be achieved at a debt-to-G.D.P. ratio of around 60 percent. That wouldn’t be an extremely high debt level by international standards, but it would be the deepest in debt America has been since the years immediately following World War II. And it would leave us with considerably reduced room for maneuver if another crisis comes along.
Furthermore, the Obama budget only tells us about the next 10 years. That’s an improvement on Bush-era budgets, which looked only 5 years ahead. But America’s really big fiscal problems lurk over that budget horizon: sooner or later we’re going to have to come to grips with the forces driving up long-run spending — above all, the ever-rising cost of health care.
How does Mr. Krugman say that the economy will “stabilize” after running up the debt:GDP ratio and “come to grips with the forces driving up long-run spending”?:
I at least find it hard to see how the federal government can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases on the middle class. Whatever politicians may say now, there’s probably a value-added tax in our future.
How this tax increase on the middle class would result from policies enforced by a president who promised to ‘rebuild this economy from the bottom-up’ by ‘strengthening America’s middle class’ can come as a surprise to anyone who can read and wishes to be well-informed is the real surprise. But this raises the greater dilemma: the People are not inherently stupid, but aggressively kept uninformed with the illusions of endearing smiles, populist rhetoric riddled with catchphrases, and the left-right paradigm.
There is reason that our elected officials are marketed at us in order for us to buy them as products as opposed to understand them: were we to understand them, we wouldn’t consent to their authority. That’s what the liberal [sic] elite think tank, The Trilateral Commission, discusses in their publication, The Crisis of Democracy.
The ‘crisis of democracy’ for the liberal [sic] elite isn’t that we, the People, fail to participate. The ‘crisis of democracy’ is when democracy is actually democracy — that a well-informed population would demand and carry out measures for the State to perform the will of the masses, as opposed to serving the elite.
As Samuel Huntington, the Commission’s author of the section titled, “The United States,” writes:
The effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups… In itself, the marginality on the part of some groups is inherently undemocratic, but it also has been one fo the factors which has enabled democracy to function effectively.
The liberal [sic] elite rationale that for “democracy to function effectively”, the “‘institutions of indoctrination’ — schools, churches [, media] — were not doing their job” and must employ “inherently undemocratic” measures to ensure “apathy and noninvolvement” on the part of the People who are to be governed raises the question: effectively for whom?
Search this blog for how the elite MSM covers Palestine, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Iran. Are these groups, institutions, and State bodies perfect angels? Absolutely not, but they’re all ‘crises of democracy’ and the ignorance of fact in how these States are covered is so evident that it must be deliberate, given the overwhelming resources at the American MSM’s disposal.
Tom DeLuca — political science professor, civil rights activist, and renowned scholar on the theory and practice of democracy — calls this the “science of liberal politics” and the people governed are “political victims”.
Mr. Krugman doesn’t “blame Mr. Obama for leaving some big questions unanswered in this budget” because there’s “only so much long-run thinking the political system can handle” during crisis because in crisis the People aren’t supposed to make reasonable accusations as to why the crisis exists and abolish the institutions responsible; the People are supposed to get their emotions in order, watch the Oscars, let the elite come up with something, sit back, and obey their masters.
Again, I don’t doubt for a second that Mr. Krugman truly believes what he researches, supports, and expresses, but the Newspeak surrounding him gives the impression that he is a ‘realist’. It’s getting to the point where you can’t even use that word anymore because no one knows what it means anymore — the way it’s twisted to subjectively exalt figures of influence and power. There’s nothing either real nor progressive about solutions [sic] that are nothing more than near-sighted.
- Even at minimal degrees of morality, democracy — in just about any form — carries a violent moral hazard, but for now we’ll look at the romantic ideal to which many religiously adhere.
- Noam Chomsky, Failed States (New York: Metropolitan, 1996): 216
- Samuel P. Huntington, “The United States” in The Crisis of Democracy (New York, NYU Press, 1975): 114
- Tom DeLuca, The Two Faces of Political Apathy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995): 59-70
- DeLuca 181
- To Mr. Krugman’s defense, my last blast on one of his columns was that his analysis was completely ignorant to the long-term effects of his theories.