Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Angry People (France's hard Right = U.S. Republican party)
The New York Times ^ | 04/23/2002 | PAUL KRUGMAN

Posted on 4/23/2002, 3:29:29 AM by Pokey78

A slightly left-of-center candidate runs for president. In a rational world he would win easily. After all, his party has been running the country, with great success: unemployment is down, economic growth has accelerated, the sense of malaise that prevailed under the previous administration has evaporated.

But everything goes wrong. His moderation becomes a liability; denouncing the candidate's pro-market stance, left-wing candidates — who have no chance of winning, but are engaged in politics as theater — draw off crucial support. The candidate, though by every indication a very good human being, is not a natural campaigner; he has, say critics, "a professorial style" that seems "condescending and humorless" to many voters. Above all, there is apathy and complacency among moderates; they take it for granted that he will win, or that in any case the election will make little difference.

The result is a stunning victory for the hard right. It's by and large a tolerant, open-minded country; but there is a hard core, maybe 20 percent of the electorate, that is deeply angry even in good times. And owing to the peculiarities of the electoral system, this right-wing minority prevails even though more people actually cast their votes for the moderate left.

If all this sounds like a post-mortem on the Gore campaign in 2000, that's intentional. But I'm actually describing Sunday's shocking election in France, in which the current prime minister, Lionel Jospin, placed third, behind the rabid rightist Jean-Marie Le Pen. Until very recently, Mr. Le Pen was regarded as a spent force. Now he has scored an astonishing triumph.

As I've implicitly suggested, there are some important parallels between the earthquake in French politics and recent political events in the United States. Let me draw out those parallels, then go to the big difference.

What the French election revealed is that in France, as in the United States, there are a lot of angry people. They aren't a majority; Mr. Le Pen received about 17 percent of the vote, less than Ross Perot got here in 1992. But they are highly motivated, and can exert influence out of proportion to their numbers if moderates take a tolerant society for granted.

What are the angry people angry about? Not economics; peace and prosperity did not reconcile them to Bill Clinton or to Mr. Jospin. Instead, it seems to be about traditional values. Our angry right rails against godless liberals; France's targets immigrants. In both cases, what really seems to bother them is the loss of certainty; they want to return to a simpler time, one without that disturbing modern mix of people and ideas.

And in both cases this angry minority has had far more influence than its numbers would suggest, largely because of the fecklessness of the left and the apathy of moderates. Al Gore had Ralph Nader; Mr. Jospin had a potpourri of silly leftists (two Trotskyists took 10 percent of the vote). And both men were mocked and neglected by complacent moderates.

Now for the important difference. Mr. Le Pen is a political outsider; his showing in Sunday's election puts him into the second-round runoff, but he won't actually become France's president. So his hard-right ideas won't be put into practice anytime soon.

In the United States, by contrast, the hard right has essentially been co-opted by the Republican Party — or maybe it's the other way around. In this country people with views that are, in their way, as extreme as Mr. Le Pen's are in a position to put those views into practice.

Consider, for example, the case of Representative Tom DeLay. Last week Mr. DeLay told a group that he was on a mission from God to promote a "biblical worldview," and that he had pursued the impeachment of Bill Clinton in part because Mr. Clinton held "the wrong worldview." Well, there are strange politicians everywhere. But Mr. DeLay is the House majority whip — and, in the view of most observers, the real power behind Speaker Dennis Hastert.

And then there's John Ashcroft.

What France's election revealed is that we and the French have more in common than either country would like to admit. There as here, there turns out to be a lot of irrational anger lurking just below the surface of politics as usual. The difference is that here the angry people are already running the country.


E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

1 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:29:29 AM by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Well, that's it. Paul Krugman has officially whored off the last ounce of his credibility to the Democratic National Committee.

The funniest part is, many of his lefty academic colleagues no longer even take his technical economic research seriously, because after reading his progessively more insane Times rants, they think he's lost his mind and turned into an angry crank. In short, this entire article is one of psychological projection on Krugman's part.

2 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:34:07 AM by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It's by and large a tolerant, open-minded country; but there is a hard core, maybe 20 percent of the electorate, that is deeply angry even in good times. [...] What the French election revealed is that in France, as in the United States, there are a lot of angry people.

You mean that 15-20% of the population that continued to be filled with massive, psychotic Bush hate even after 9/11? People such as yourself, Paulie?

3 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:36:23 AM by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Does this author really believe what he writes?

There is little or no anger in this country, certainly not on the right...

The usual among blacks, but they are on the Left!

If the American people ever get angry, even a little, this author and everyone else will know about it.

4 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:38:33 AM by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
this right-wing minority prevails even though more people actually cast their votes for the moderate left.

Actually, another thread pointed out that the right of center candidates got 57%. Krugman is often engaged in adding up numbers, but at least in this case he got it wrong.

And then there is the statement that the angry folks in the US are running the country, equating such folks to the angry fringe voters in France. Even assuming that DeLay = Le Pen (with Ashcroft thrown in as a lagnaippe for spice), which is a huge stretch, that statement simply strikes me as bizarre. Bush has been called many things, but an angry right wing extremist is not one of them.

I agree with some of what Krugman writes, but most of that was some time ago. Lately he has been losing it, and become almost a comedic character in his chronic eggagerations, superficiality, errors, and polemicisms. He needs to take a rest, a long rest.

5 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:38:36 AM by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
After all, his party has been running the country, with great success: unemployment is down, economic growth has accelerated, the sense of malaise that prevailed under the previous administration has evaporated.

He starts the article on a false premise. The malaise is not only there, but very great. Why do you think they had the largest abstention ever during the Fifth Republic? On top of that, your average French family is extremely worried about the surge in crime, which the socialists have done nothing to address.

But why do I even bother? The first statement is trash. The rest of the article followed it into the garbage.
6 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:39:49 AM by July 4th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
What do you think of our pal Krugman? He doesn't strike me as particularly moderate. What do you think?
7 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:41:20 AM by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Torie
This dude is a fool. What's so pathetic about this article, is that he is the angry one.
8 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:43:30 AM by rlbedfor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
I'm following the French election with interest. The leftist liberals are throwing angry labels around to discredit anyone who doesn't adhere to their philosophy. This frightens off observors who are fearful of saying anything positive about Le Pen, to avoid being labeled a right-wing racist--or worse.

Le Pen represents a legitimate voting bloc among the French electorate. The media shouldn't demonize him, they should analyze the reason for his appeal to that minority of French voters. The media shouldn't attempt to categorize those voters as potential Nazis. These people have concerns that aren't being addressed (about the effects of Arab immigration, etc.)

That said, I myself have formed no opinion about Le Pen. That's a question for the French people to hash out--not the New York Times.

9 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:44:08 AM by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Let's keep in mind that Paul Krugman is anti-capitalist ... in the mold of Arthur Schlesinger (sp?).

As an extreme leftist, Krugman considers anyone to the right of Mao as "hard Right."

In other words, Krugman's opinion is held hostage by his extremist pro-socialist ideology.

If you thought Krugman was an economic illiterate ... he knows even less about politics.

10 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:44:37 AM by LiberalBuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBuster
The hyperbole of the left makes it difficult to know when there really is an extremist of the right involved. If Le Pen is like a conservative in the US as this writer implies ----then we should be all for him and pray he wins. If he is really an extremist then it's a different matter.
11 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:47:32 AM by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It's only fitting that a Stalinist (Krugman) should find a home at the New York Times, which once (literally) shilled for Stalin vis-a-vis Walter Duranty.
12 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:47:37 AM by LiberalBuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
who have no chance of winning, but are engaged in politics as theater

Like the NY Times editorial pages?

I'm always looking for the byline with a picture of Herve Villechaise and Ricardo Montalban announcing, "Welcome to Fantasy Island."

13 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:48:20 AM by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Like many Americans, Krugman doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to French politics, or, for that matter, the ideologies that inform its supporters.

It is very hard to find a real comparison between Le Pen, the ideology of the FN and of other, populist (but more third positionist) politics to American conservativism.

But, whatever...

14 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:48:32 AM by lavrenti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Does anyone remember how Paul "The Forehead" Begala was talking about "Bush's America" (Oklahmo City, James Bird, etc.). I wonder what Forehead is thinking now ... now that his enlightened socialist Europe is the hotbed of anti-Semitism.
15 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:50:03 AM by LiberalBuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
He is moderate.....for New York he's moderate. Over in East Lansing, he'd be called a liberal. Where I'm from in Livingston County, he's be considered a Communist.
16 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:51:35 AM by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Krugman drank the koolaid in 1992. Since then, he's useless. By the way Le Pen has some serious problems.
17 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:55:36 AM by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBuster
Yes, Barnicle is right when he notes that tens of millions of good people in Middle America voted Republican. But if you look closely at that map you see a more complex picture. You see the state where James Byrd was lynch-dragged behind a pickup truck until his body came apart -it's red. You see the state where Matthew Shepard was crucified on a split-rail fence for the crime of being gay -it's red. You see the state where right-wing extremists blew up a federal office building and murdered scores of federal employees -it's red. The state where an Army private who was thought to be gay was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat, and the state where neo-Nazi skinheads murdered two African-Americans because of their skin color, and the state where Bob Jones University spews its anti-Catholic bigotry: they're all red too.

Begala's column

18 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:57:53 AM by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I hate to say it, but Krugman was excellent on the social security privitization issue (something I fancy myself as knowing quite a bit about), and added up the numbers correctly on the Bush tax cut budget. Of course, he added his own left wing bias into the mix, but the substance was good. Since then, he has been quite horrid. Something simply stopped firing very well upstairs.
19 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:59:47 AM by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBuster

I guess he just likes to use the word "angry" as an epithet, and so refuses to apply it to anyone on his side of the fence.

What is Ralph Nader, if not the Ultimate Angry Man? It is probably true that Ralph Nader won the election for Bush, just as Ross Perot won the '92 election for Clinton. Krugman is quick to see "anger" in the Perot voters, but he's blind to it on the Nader side. I guess when leftists do it, it's because they're "too happy."

Timesink is right that this guy is little more than an ideological crank. Yet this is what the New York Times serves up as 'analysis.' Typical.


20 posted on 4/23/2002, 3:59:50 AM by Nick Danger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson