-By Matthew J. O’Connor
One of the left wing’s most vocal and pernicious purveyors of liberal rhetoric is the Nobel prize winning, new age globalist professor of macroeconomics, Paul Krugman. Professor Krugman is one of the left’s most respected economic advisers and has gained much notoriety over the past decade as a constancy providing economic theory and political punditry [centered left of left ] – communicated through a certain arrogance and hubris on a level somewhere between the stratosphere and Valhalla.
One only has to periodically read and watch Mr. Krugman to detect the vanity and self-righteous indignation he holds for those who challenge his findings or opinions; it is quite fascinating and at the same time quite instructive into the politically liberal mindset. A mindset which the ubiquitous Professor Krugman staunchly guards and promotes throughout the media as the liberals’ economic attack dog; code name, Professor K-9.
If political and economic commentary were to be displayed in terms of mathematical formulas, Professor Krugman would insist upon showing up in every equation as the sole factor in the form of, “K9 LI” standing for K-9 Liberal Ideology – serving to offset & cancel out anything and everything non-liberal. In specific terms of a visual equation, Mr. Krugman’s Liberal “one-upmanship’ would look like this: (K9 LI x K9 LI x K9 LI ) divided by K9 LI = K9 LI. Which essentially translates into the written as, “don’t even try to have an alternate conservative opinion because I, Professor K-9, rule the universe of opinions.”
The economic sleight of hand and political obfuscation from which Professor Krugman operates is truly astounding and only outdone by the equally astounding reality that he is rarely challenged in the mainstream media on his facts, figures, assumptions, proclamations and conservative maligning. When there is a rare challenge, Professor Krugman begins to immediately discredit such by shredding the very idea that an opposing idea could even exist. This is typically done by grafting former president, George Bush to the opposing idea and then moving to an encyclopedic economic dissertation into the world of the esoteric professorial psychobabble, in order to run out the clock . . . rarely engaging in discussion beyond ideology . . . as the keeper of liberal political theory, rational debate could uncover certain ideological deficiencies and this would be bad for liberalism . . . enter, Professor Krugman à la K-9 mode.
Professor Krugman was recently on a pre-passage promotional tour of Obamacare and had tirelessly argued for a full-on single-payer component versus the “one step at a time” Trojan Horse approach. However, understanding the fleeting political viability of his preferred complete & immediate single-payer healthcare approach, Professor Krugman subsequently lobbied President Obama hard to go against the will of the American people in passing the Trojan Horse iteration of Obamacare. And now immediately after Obamacare’s passage, Professor Krugman is digging-in by helping Team Obama paint those who oppose Obamacare (the majority of Americans) as anything, but reasoned.
Take a look at the following excerpted March 25, 2010 New York Times Op Ed by Professor Krugman. For those having even moderately been following the last 14 months of the Obama administration and democrats leading the house and senate, you will find such vitriol astounding, but quite lackluster if you are familiar with Professor Krugman and his alter ego, Professor K-9.
“I admit it: I had fun watching right-wingers go wild as health reform finally became law. But a few days later, it doesn’t seem quite as entertaining — and not just because of the wave of vandalism and threats aimed at Democratic lawmakers. For if you care about America’s future, you can’t be happy as extremists take full control of one of our two great political parties.
. . . What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party’s leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was “Armageddon.” The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee’s chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on “the firing line.” And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.
All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.
No, to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president. Like President Obama, Bill Clinton faced a G.O.P. that denied his legitimacy — Dick Armey, the second-ranking House Republican (and now a Tea Party leader) referred to him as “your president.” Threats were common: President Clinton, declared Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, “better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.” (Helms later expressed regrets over the remark — but only after a media firestorm.) And once they controlled Congress, Republicans tried to govern as if they held the White House, too, eventually shutting down the federal government in an attempt to bully Mr. Clinton into submission.
Mr. Obama seems to have sincerely believed that he would face a different reception. And he made a real try at bipartisanship, nearly losing his chance at health reform by frittering away months in a vain attempt to get a few Republicans on board. At this point, however, it’s clear that any Democratic president will face total opposition from a Republican Party that is completely dominated by right-wing extremists.”
For today’s G.O.P. is, fully and finally, the party of Ronald Reagan— not Reagan the pragmatic politician, who could and did strike deals with Democrats, but Reagan the antigovernment fanatic, who warned that Medicare would destroy American freedom. It’s a party that sees modest efforts to improve Americans’ economic and health security not merely as unwise, but as monstrous. It’s a party in which paranoid fantasies about the other side — Obama is a socialist, Democrats have totalitarian ambitions — are mainstream. And, as a result, it’s a party that fundamentally doesn’t accept anyone else’s right to govern.
In the short run, Republican extremism may be good for Democrats, to the extent that it prompts a voter backlash. But in the long run, it’s a very bad thing for America. We need to have two reasonable, rational parties in this country. And right now we don’t.” Prof. Krugman’s 3-25-10 NYT op ed
Professor Krugman’s above op ed is as shameful as it is laughable in its conspicuous silence of the bitter partisanship and destructive highhanded approach the democrats and Obama administration engaged in over the course of the past 14 months in ramming through their unilateral brand of healthcare legislation. A process that turned the entire legislative system on its head from all of the overt and covert attempts to change the rules and procedures and shield Americans from the process & debate.
For any reasonable minded person who, even vaguely, followed the healthcare politics of the Obama administration and congressional democrats over the past 14 months would, in good conscience, have to conclude such political conduct to be egregious in nature and completely at odds with the constitutional principles underpinning our representative style of governance. The future authors of history will surely not be kind to such iniquities of governance.
Memo to Professor Krugman: the overwhelming majority of Americans are reasonable, law abiding and hardworking individuals who, while not Nobel prize winners and professors of economics, operate with good old fashioned common sense – the kind of sense exhibited by the founding fathers.
The American people are beginning to learn what’s in the 2,700 pages of the newly enacted healthcare legislation and it, along with the aforementioned process, just doesn’t pass the smell test. And speaking of the smell test, you are coming across as rather ripe yourself, Professor Krugman.
____________
Matthew J. O’Connor is the founder of Clarion Advisory, LLC , a politically conservative media production company and currently serves as the executive editor of ClarionAdvisory.com, a site featuring conservative political commentary and the continuous aggregation of national and international news covering politics and business.
Prior to forming Clarion Advisory, Matt worked within the commercial insurance industry, serving as a broker and vice president within a division of an international fortune 500 brokerage with offices based in Los Angeles, California.
Matt was born and raised in Minnesota and is a 1991 graduate of Saint John’s University. Matt currently resides in South Orange County, California with his wife Arlene, a clinical psychologist & consultant, and their three young children.
Matt’s passion is writing and publishing and advancing the conservative cause.
When not writing, Matt enjoys racing around after his children attending his sons’ baseball and soccer games and daughter’s dance and drama performances. And working on his hook in golf and newly re-discovered interest in downhill skiing.
Matt welcomes comments and can be reached at, editor@clarionadvisory.com.
Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.