Opportunism Springs Eternal
On February 11th, the New York Times published a piece by op-ed columnist Paul Krugman titled “Hate Springs Eternal.” In this piece, Krugman hearkens back to the glory days of the mid-50’s when presidential hopeful Adlai Stevenson saw his opponent’s running mate, a young, starry-eyed Richard Nixon’s tactics of as the type of thing that would open the door for a political climate filled with dirt digging and mud throwing, lies and innuendo. A happy place Stevenson called “Nixonland.” While Krugman rightfully identifies the standards of campaigning today as being precisely what Stevenson warned about, he goes on to ask, validly, “why, then, is there so much venom out there?. . . Most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.” ( full article)
Now, I’m not the first to find Krugman’s conclusion here shocking, but I will go so far to say he’s gone past absurd and landed firmly in the muck of ridiculousnesses in his narrow, offensively skewed presentation of the Democratic contest.
Pardon me, but is it not one of the cornerstones of our system that we can vote for whomever we feel most qualified? Krugman is missing something in what’s either a simple glance or a simplistic understanding of polling numbers. The reason Obama is more likely to win again McCain compared to Hillary is a simple fact that everyone with half an ear in what’s happening should know: Hillay is divisive. She also comes across as deceptive by presenting a liberal facade on one side while taking countless contributions from shadow sources to finance her campaign. These things make her less endearing to independents and undecided voters who’re cleave themselves between her and McCain in match ups. Obama doesn’t have this problem. It’s not venom, it’s likability and the impression that with someone who can bring people together for the good of the nation might get some things accomplished.
Which leads to this “cult of personality” business. Labeling Obama’s following as a a cult of personality is nothing more than the latest attempt at degredation for a man who has inspired hope. Naturally, the term inspires images of WWII dictators who were raised on such pedistols and given such unquestioning support that their populations were willing to die (or kill) en masse for them. While Stevenson was warning about Nixonland, tens of thousands of Chinese citizens were dying of starvation or disease in China because Mao’s cult of personality. Is Obama’s support anywhere close to this? No. Nowhere close.
Obama’s not running on a cult of personality and it is not venom from his supporters. What brings Democrats, Independents, and Republicans to Obama’s side is just hope. Someone new has entered the political arena; happens all the time. But look at what’s he’s saying. Listen to how he speaks. See how organized he has his house. He has support where Hillary doesn’t because he is better than Hillary. He doesn’t try to say Hillary doesn’t have enough experience, he doesn’t try to say Hillary might have skeletons in her closet, he doesn’t try to say Hillary is relying on a cult following. He’s saying America can be better than it is and he’s making it work without selling out, without relying on former presidents campaigning for her, and without the lies and innuendo and filthy seeds of doubt that are being directed at him as the Clinton’s show their colors and desperation. The Clintons are campaigning in Nixonland while Obama is moving forward. He’s shown that he’s better than that and the American electorate has shown that we are ready to respond to honest politicians.
The answer to your question, Mr Krugman, on why there’s so much venom out there, is easy. There’s so much venom out there because the Clintons can’t think of any other way to win.
Now my question, what favors does Krugman feel like he’ll be entitled to from such a lopsided piece? I think someone wants an position in Clintonland.