"Ignorance Isn't Strength"

97silverlsc

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
953
Reaction score
0
Location
High Bridge, NJ
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Ignorance Isn't Strength
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 8, 2004

I first used the word "Orwellian" to describe the Bush team in October 2000. Even then it was obvious that George W. Bush surrounds himself with people who insist that up is down, and ignorance is strength. But the full costs of his denial of reality are only now becoming clear.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have an unparalleled ability to insulate themselves from inconvenient facts. They lead a party that controls all three branches of government, and face news media that in some cases are partisan supporters, and in other cases are reluctant to state plainly that officials aren't telling the truth. They also still enjoy the residue of the faith placed in them after 9/11.

This has allowed them to engage in what Orwell called "reality control." In the world according to the Bush administration, our leaders are infallible, and their policies always succeed. If the facts don't fit that assumption, they just deny the facts.

As a political strategy, reality control has worked very well. But as a strategy for governing, it has led to predictable disaster. When leaders live in an invented reality, they do a bad job of dealing with real reality.

In the last few days we've seen some impressive demonstrations of reality control at work. During the debate on Tuesday, Mr. Cheney insisted that "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." After the release of the Duelfer report, which shows that Saddam's weapons capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, at the time of the invasion, Mr. Cheney declared that the report proved that "delay, defer, wait wasn't an option."

From a political point of view, such exercises in denial have been very successful. For example, the Bush administration has managed to convince many people that its tax cuts, which go primarily to the wealthiest few percent of the population, are populist measures benefiting middle-class families and small businesses. (Under the administration's definition, anyone with "business income" - a group that includes Dick Cheney and George Bush - is a struggling small-business owner.)

The administration has also managed to convince at least some people that its economic record, which includes the worst employment performance in 70 years, is a great success, and that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." (The data to be released today, which are expected to improve the numbers a bit, won't change the basic picture of a dismal four years.)

Officials have even managed to convince many people that they are moving forward on environmental policy. They boast of their "Clear Skies" plan even as the inspector general of the E.P.A. declares that the enforcement of existing air-quality rules has collapsed.

But the political ability of the Bush administration to deny reality - to live in an invented world in which everything is the way officials want it to be - has led to an ongoing disaster in Iraq and looming disaster elsewhere.

How did the occupation of Iraq go so wrong? (The security situation has deteriorated to the point where there are no safe places: a bomb was discovered on Tuesday in front of a popular restaurant inside the Green Zone.)

The insulation of officials from reality is central to the story. They wanted to believe Ahmad Chalabi's promises that we'd be welcomed with flowers; nobody could tell them different. They wanted to believe - months after everyone outside the administration realized that we were facing a large, dangerous insurgency and needed more troops - that the attackers were a handful of foreign terrorists and Baathist dead-enders; nobody could tell them different.

Why did the economy perform so badly? Long after it was obvious to everyone outside the administration that the tax-cut strategy wasn't an effective way of creating jobs, administration officials kept promising huge job gains, any day now. Nobody could tell them different.

Why has the pursuit of terrorists been so unsuccessful? It has been obvious for years that John Ashcroft isn't just scary; he's also scarily incompetent. But inside the administration, he's considered the man for the job - and nobody can say different.

The point is that in the real world, as opposed to the political world, ignorance isn't strength. A leader who has the political power to pretend that he's infallible, and uses that power to avoid ever admitting mistakes, eventually makes mistakes so large that they can't be covered up. And that's what's happening to Mr. Bush.
 
Please post something other than Paul Krugman. I don't even bother to read that guy anymore. A left-wing nut-job if I have ever read one.
 
you mean as opposed to the Right wing wacko thats in office now?
 
Yeah, I'll bet there's a lot of Russians in bread lines these days that would've thought the same way as you BEFORE their government went up in smoke.
Hell, I'd like to know what anyone who supports Bush thinks is an example of how we're better off now than we were before Bush came into office.
 
Remember the Democrats talking about the loss of 3,000,000 jobs less than a year during the Primaries.

Now they talk that we have lost 585,000 jobs. Well, in 3 to 4 months, we will have a job GAIN scenario wiping out of the Clinton legacy and 9/11. How soon we forget...

The Clinton recession lost over 2,000,000 jobs with the tech bubble burst and the corporate scandals he presided over.

9/11 lost over 1,000,000 jobs.

What you should be saying to yourself is thank God that tree trunk of a man named Gore didn't get in and continue the downward spiral of the Clinton years.

We are now enjoying the greatest rate of growth in 20 years. Better than the '80s and the 90's. You guys have got to stop drinking the Kool_Aid and get a grip!
 
continue the downward spiral of the Clinton years.
You must have been drinking heavily during those years - I recall something somewhere saying Clinton presided over the biggest economic growth in like 60 years or something like that.

What happened to this bush promise from 4 years ago?

"The $1 trillion it takes to fund the personal savings accounts comes out of the $2.4 trillion surplus," he said. "It stays in Social Security. It doesn't leave Social Security, it becomes a part of the younger workers' retirement plans." SOURCE

That was your boy GW making the statement. Hows that surplus doing?

Please Bryan, dont talk about economic policy and GW. Its laughable to do so. Better stick to terrorism, thats GW's only talking point.


deficits_gdp.gif
spending_explosion.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 1st 7 years of Clinton's terms were great. He presided over one of the biggest technological advances ever made in humankind, and the reason you can easily go out and post all this non-sense. The Internet.

Remember all the jobs that were available. You didn't even need to have a brain, just apply and you were hired. Remember all the spending by consumers. Hell, their stock portfolios were doubling every year so why not go out and buy that new BMW or take the 3 week vacation. Money was almost free. People certainly weren't earning it.

Why don't you go down to Austin or out to Silicon Valley and talk to the people that used to make $100,000/yr and now can't even find a job. If you want to pin that on someone, pin it on Clinton.

The last year of Clinton's term was a disaster and he got out just in time. The last year also happened to coincidence with his raising the tax rates and dividend rates which always take a few years to decimate the economy.

Just like after Jimmy Carter, Reagan had to come in and fix things. 12 years later we are fat and happy and go thru a small recession and we get Clinton. Boom, the internet and we have half-dozen more good years. The bottom drops out because of all the false accounting, false expectations and 9/11 and the people bring in Bush to fix it. Now that he is demonstrating that he has fixed things, it is time to be all fat and happy again and the libs try to vote him out. The ecomomy will continue to grow under Kerry for a few more years until his policies take effect and back into the toilet we go. Then we will be bringing in McCain or Guiliani to fix things and the cycle will continue.

And that the truth of it in a nutshell. As simply as I can explain it for you 'economists'.
 
Get real! You're gonna try to blame the fall of the tech sector on CLINTON?! I'll bet you blame gun manufacturers for gun violence too.
The BIG question is what's all this spending on Iraq and the "war on terror" going to cost us down the road.
 
I notice that says "Budget Deficit" and not "Actual Deficit", Joey, cause there wasn't a reduction in the deficit under Clinton as that misleading graph tries to show. And you know that cause we have discussed this before.
Katshot said:
I'll bet you blame gun manufacturers for gun violence too.
I'm seriously glad to see you have some common sense with the gun violence statement, as that is a typical liberal thought process to blame the manufacturers.
 
Katshot said:
The BIG question is what's all this spending on Iraq and the "war on terror" going to cost us down the road.
The real big question you SHOULD be asking yourself is...

What is it going to cost us if we try to save some money on Iraq and the "war on terror".

What is the value of a major US city?

What is the value of 1 life, 10 lives, 1000 lives (like in the Iraq war) or maybe a couple million?

You guys have no clue as to what you are actually risking to benefit your own selfishness.
 
Katshot said:
Get real! You're gonna try to blame the fall of the tech sector on CLINTON?!
You want to give him the credit for it right? I mean, after all, it was Gore that invented the Internet! :bowrofl:

It is typical of liberals to try and have it both ways. I'm not blaming or accusing you. Most liberals simply don't know any better because they believe all the garbage the liberal Main Stream Media feeds them. Garbage in, garbage out. I know many of you are just parroting phrases fed to you from the media. Guys like Kbob and I are just trying to put you guys on a different diet.
icon12.gif


Thankfully, over 50% of the population says they don't believe the MSM anymore. Now we just need to work on the other 50% and show them the light.

This is 'hard work'
icon7.gif
but I'm willing to step up to the challenge because so many of you continue to be 'misinformed'
 
Clinton was a sh'ty president, hands down. He did jack sh'te in his tenure yet he looks good because of A - the internet and B - Reagan. Reagan may have been nuts, but this country was RICH AS HELL from what he did. Remember, economic policies don't always 'act' right away. Bush inherited Clintons mess. Now, I don't support either Bush nor Kerry. In fact, I believe that whoever wins, we're all f'ked, but Bush didn't make the economy bad.
 
Maybe Bush didn't make it bad but he sure made it worse! And the deficit, and the environment, and our credibility in the world, and.........you get the picture.
All you right-wingers sound like Rush and Shaun, and all the others. Come off so arrogant and just twist what the left says to suit your purpose. the problem is that an aweful lot of people are starting to wake up and realize that just because they hear something on a commercial, it doesn't make it so. I mean come on, all those Kerry-bashing commercials with nothing more than a bunch of sound bites strung together in an effort to make him sound like he's saying things he never meant. Sound bites that are taken totally out of context and used against the person is a serious cheap shot. But that's what I would expect from a bunch of corrupt good ol' boys that are just trying to keep the status quo because it lines their pockets so well.
 
Katshot said:
But that's what I would expect from a bunch of corrupt good ol' boys that are just trying to keep the status quo because it lines their pockets so well.
I had to do a double take, cause that line could apply to the UN (namely France and Germany and Russia) getting paid off by Iraq.
 
Paid off? They had long-standing deals, and stood to lose a ton if they pulled out and joined the coalition. Either way, it's all about oil and money anyway. What building were we guarding during and immediately after the attack?
 
Katshot said:
Paid off? They had long-standing deals, and stood to lose a ton if they pulled out and joined the coalition. Either way, it's all about oil and money anyway. What building were we guarding during and immediately after the attack?
We didn't go over there to destroy the nation of Iraq. Saddam and his cronies had a history of slash and burn tactics when retreating. Can you name a more important place that we should have guarded first in order to protect the ONLY source of income for the Iraqi people? If the oil industry in Iraq were left unguarded, we would be looking at a much bigger bill in Iraq, and I know that's not what anyone wants. And yes, they were "paid off", so quit defending those bums.
 
Well, according to Kerry, we failed in Iraq because we didn't guard their nuclear facilites.
icon12.gif
 
The death of Liberalism

Great article if you so choose to read it.

http://www.kgoam810.com/viewentry.asp?ID=316609&PT=PERSONALITIES

Partial Conclusion...
"The Liberals are supposed to be in favor of human rights, civil rights, liberty, freedom, and all that. But not for Iraqis, I guess. In America, but nowhere else. 300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq, not our problem. The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you want another country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe and ineffective to do so, in America. Why don't we see Liberal Peace Activists demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The Liberals are supposed to be in favor of human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalsim, diversity, etc. American Liberals who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism.

And American Liberals just don't get it."
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top