Paul Krugman Sticks Neck Out, Calls Republicans Racists

The New York Times’ No. 1 liberal wing-nut Paul Krugman (yes, even wing-nuttier than Mo Dowd and Bob Herbert) apparently was short on material for his column today. Because there was no good economic news released in the last couple of days for him to spin and denounce as actually bad news (see his analysis of recent reports on our booming economy that resulted from Bush’s tax cuts as linked Socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders House website), Krugman decided to use expensive Times ink and page space (subscription required) to imply that Republicans are racists -- to put it generously.

What a daring move by the ever-courageous Krugman.

Using the occasion of President Bush’s speech last week to the NAACP, Krugman begins his attack on the GOP by agreeing with Bush’s comment (as did the NAACP audience) that “many African-Americans distrust [Bush’s] political party.” He offers to “fill in the blanks” that Bush didn’t talk about as to why black don’t trust Republicans.

Krugman begins with his usual economic diatribe against Republicans:

G.O.P. policies consistently help those who are already doing extremely well, not those lagging behind -- a group that includes the vast majority of African-Americans ...

The G.O.P. obsession with helping the haves and have-mores, and lack of concern for everyone else, was evident even in Mr. Bush's speech to the N.A.A.C.P. Mr. Bush never mentioned wages, which have been falling behind inflation for most workers. And he certainly didn't mention the minimum wage, which disproportionately affects African-American workers ...

Mr. Bush also never used the word ''poverty,'' a condition that afflicts almost one in four blacks.

A courageous attack, yes? Tax relief helps everyone – not just those “who are already doing extremely well.” The economy improved because of the Bush tax cuts -- remember the old saying “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

On minimum wage, Walter Williams notes that perhaps minimum wage isn’t all that great, especially for blacks:

Minimum wages can have a more insidious effect. In research for my book "South Africa's War Against Capitalism" (1989), I found that during South Africa's apartheid era, racist unions, who'd never admit blacks, were the major supporters of higher minimum wages for blacks.

Gert Beetge, secretary of South Africa's avowedly racist Building Worker's Union, in response to contractors hiring black workers, said, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances I support the rate-for-the-job [minimum wages] as the second best way of protecting our white artisans." Racists recognized the discriminatory effects of mandated minimum wages.

Williams also notes on the “significance” of the minimum wage:

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents.

Krugman then goes on to “the way Republicans win elections.” Obviously, Republicans can only win elections if they cheat, specifically if they repress black voters.

How did the GOP “rise to their current position of political dominance?” Krugman asks.

He begins his answer:

It's hard to deny that barely concealed appeals to racism, which drove a wedge between blacks and relatively poor whites who share the same economic interests, played a crucial role.

Sure, the appeals were barely concealed, and the American public is either so racist that it loved those appeals, or so ignorant that they were unable to recognize them, or both. Good thing Krugman is on the scene to let everyone know how outrageously anti-non-white the GOP is -- and always has been.

He reminds us:

[T]he sainted Ronald Reagan began his presidential campaign with a speech on states' rights in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964.

Oooh. ’Nuf said. All Republicans must be racist since their long-time hero so obviously was. Unbelievable. Krugman and other Democrats love to cited the Kennedys (both John and Bobby -- Teddy, not so much) as part of their proud political lineage. But they fail to remind readers and listeners that the Kennedy boys were not so friendly to Martin Luther King, Jr. -- including conducting wiretaps and getting compromising photographs taken.

Nor do they remind people that it was the Democratic Party that opposed the Civil Right movement and legislation -- not Republcans.

But let Krugman insinuate that Reagan was racist for giving a speech in the same town that civil right workers were murdered 16 years earlier, well, then, all GOPers must have racist tendencies.

Krugman continues his tirade:

These days the racist appeals have been toned down; Trent Lott was demoted, though not drummed out of the party, when he declared that if Strom Thurmond's segregationist presidential campaign had succeeded ''we wouldn't have had all these problems.'' Meanwhile, the G.O.P. has found other ways to obscure its economic elitism.

Of course, it were up to Krugman and other liberals, Lott would have been tarred, feathered, and forced to live out is days on a non-free-range chicken farm.

Lott’s comments were dumb (only because they were not thought out ahead of time), but he was trying to say something kind about Thurmond on the latter’s 100th birthday -- not something racist. (I was working for the Senate Republican Policy Committee when it happened and it was seen -- before it was blown out of proportion -- as politically stupid, but far from racist.)

How have the GOP and Bush “obscured” their “economic elitism” (read: racism)? Krugman claims Bush’s “utter incompetence” in fighting terrorists –- which the right has exploited for political gain (Krugman fails to explain how this incompetence has been translated into positive political numbers -- again, I suppose we should be thankful we have Krugman here to point it all out for us.)

The other obscuring factor?

And there are also the ''values'' issues: abortion, stem cells, gay marriage.

Talk about obscuring reality. The “values” issues are where many in the black community and conservative Republicans are in agreement. Even more outrageous is that Krugman neglects to mention that the pro-abortion movement was started to promote the killing of black babies. Another badge for the Democrats to wear with honor.

Krugman goes on to offer more hard “evidence” of Bush/Republican racism:

A revelatory article in yesterday's Boston Globe described how the Bush administration has politicized the Justice Department's civil rights division, ''filling the permanent ranks with lawyers who have strong conservative credentials but little experience in civil rights.''

Not surprisingly, there has been a shift in priorities: ''The division is bringing fewer voting rights and employment cases involving systematic discrimination against African-Americans, and more alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians.''

Oh, no. Could it actually be true that the Justice Department is prosecuting cases of discrimination that are not perpetrated against blacks? Discrimination is discrimination –- and it’s wrong, regardless of who’s hurt.

But the most ridiculous passage from Krugman’s screed comes near the end and concerns Ohio Secretary of State and GOP nominee for governor Kenneth Blackwell -- which many sensible readers might have missed since they probably quit reading by then.

That’s the trick, you see: save the most blatantly dishonest statements for the end, that way those who care about the truth and are sickened by liberal rants like those of Paul Krugman miss the lies and won’t call you on them. (I suppose I’m a glutton for punishment.)

Above all, there's the continuing effort of the G.O.P. to suppress black voting.

The Supreme Court probably wouldn't have been able to put Mr. Bush in the White House in 2000 if the administration of his brother, the governor of Florida, hadn't misidentified large numbers of African-Americans as felons ineligible to vote. In 2004, Ohio's Republican secretary of state tried to impose a ludicrous rule on the paper weight of voter registration applications; last year, Georgia Republicans tried to impose an onerous ''voter ID'' rule. In each case, the obvious intent was to disenfranchise blacks.

Let me get this straight.

The black (Krugman failed to mention the “Ohio Republican secretary of state’s” name and race) Ken Blackwell went out of his way to disenfranchise blacks.

Mr. Krugman wouldn’t be attempting to hurt the chances of a black conservative whom liberal Democrats fear, would he? Blackwell doesn’t fit the mold that the Left has created for blacks

Who’s the racist?

This is emblematic of the small, small world that 'Inside the Beltway' liberals live in....they talk only to each other, socialize only with each other, and write only for each other.

Indeed.

Many on the Left think in stereotypes ( which, not oddly enough, they accuse us of doing, google projection... ), lumping us all together.

It's one reason I frequently just laugh in their faces, rather than argue.

I view people a individuals, and react to them accordingly- not based on the color of their hide, the gear stowed between their legs, or who they chose to roll around in bed with.

A fun chant used by protesters ( you know, those Professional Malcontents who don't seem to be burdened by jobs, families, or other time-hungry responsibilities ) on the Left Coast runs

"Racist, Sexist, Anti-Gay
Christian Bigots
Go Away!"

Let's break this down a bit, just for fun...

1)- Racist? Well, speaking as a white Southerner who grew up on an Island that was about a third black, we used that "N" word a lot...
We called 'em Neighbors...
First foreman I had was black, too. Oddly enough, we worked together fine.

2)- Sexist? Can't speak for them, but I've always liked women. Married a couple. Like 'em a friends-- there are just enough differences, and similarities, to make things interesting.

3)- Anti-Gay, huh? Well, I don't cotton to this Homosexual Marriage idea some of 'em peddle, and dragging kids into it is completely out of line, but my first brother-in-law was queer as a three dollar bill, and we got along fine. Then again, he was discreet, wasn't interested in children, and never mentioned marrying his partner...

4)- Christian? Well, so far as it's consistent with a life of sin ( hattip: Ambrose Bierce ) and being an Honorary Jew. Go figgur...

So yeah, I'm all that stuff... and I laugh in their faces.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.