GOP-The Party of Stupid
Know-Nothing Politics
So the G.O.P. has found its issue for the 2008 election. For the next three months the party plans to keep chanting: “Drill here! Drill now! Drill here! Drill now! Four legs good, two legs bad!” O.K., I added that last part.
And the debate on energy policy has helped me find the words for something I’ve been thinking about for a while. Republicans, once hailed as the “party of ideas,” have become the party of stupid.
Now, I don’t mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly don’t mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives.
What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”
In the case of oil, this takes the form of pretending that more drilling would produce fast relief at the gas pump. In fact, earlier this week Republicans in Congress actually claimed credit for the recent fall in oil prices: “The market is responding to the fact that we are here talking,” said Representative John Shadegg.
What about the experts at the Department of Energy who say that it would take years before offshore drilling would yield any oil at all, and that even then the effect on prices at the pump would be “insignificant”? Presumably they’re just a bunch of wimps, probably Democrats. And the Democrats, as Representative Michele Bachmann assures us, “want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, take light rail to their government jobs.”
Is this political pitch too dumb to succeed? Don’t count on it.
Remember how the Iraq war was sold. The stuff about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds was just window dressing. The main political argument was, “They attacked us, and we’re going to strike back” — and anyone who tried to point out that Saddam and Osama weren’t the same person was an effete snob who hated America, and probably looked French.
Let’s also not forget that for years President Bush was the center of a cult of personality that lionized him as a real-world Forrest Gump, a simple man who prevails through his gut instincts and moral superiority. “Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man,” declared Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal in 2004. “He’s not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.”
It wasn’t until Hurricane Katrina — when the heckuva job done by the man of whom Ms. Noonan said, “if there’s a fire on the block, he’ll run out and help” revealed the true costs of obliviousness — that the cult began to fade.
What’s more, the politics of stupidity didn’t just appeal to the poorly informed. Bear in mind that members of the political and media elites were more pro-war than the public at large in the fall of 2002, even though the flimsiness of the case for invading Iraq should have been even more obvious to those paying close attention to the issue than it was to the average voter.
Why were the elite so hawkish? Well, I heard a number of people express privately the argument that some influential commentators made publicly — that the war was a good idea, not because Iraq posed a real threat, but because beating up someone in the Middle East, never mind who, would show Muslims that we mean business. In other words, even alleged wise men bought into the idea of macho posturing as policy.
All this is in the past. But the state of the energy debate shows that Republicans, despite Mr. Bush’s plunge into record unpopularity and their defeat in 2006, still think that know-nothing politics works. And they may be right.
Sad to say, the current drill-and-burn campaign is getting some political traction. According to one recent poll, 69 percent of Americans now favor expanded offshore drilling — and 51 percent of them believe that removing restrictions on drilling would reduce gas prices within a year.
The headway Republicans are making on this issue won’t prevent Democrats from expanding their majority in Congress, but it might limit their gains — and could conceivably swing the presidential election, where the polls show a much closer race.
In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the country’s problems. It’s not going to happen — not as long as one of America’s two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy.

Why am I surprised that my narrow minded critics who comment on my website question the credentials of one of the finest economists around. Gail presumes to question Paul Krugman’s writing abilities while the other guy misses the point entirely in his rush to defend the GOP. Just to clarify and educate. Paul Krugman teaches economics at Princeton University and was the winner of the John Bates Clark medal for the best American economist under the age of 40. He writes a twice weekly column for the NY Times. When you get your degree in either English or Economics Gail you can critique Krugman.
Please, I beg of you get a library card or just start reading something other than The Greenville News. That’s just sad.
Roxanne
Reader Comments (14)
Actually, that's EXACTLY what's happened. Just "talking" about drilling intimidates the spectulator market. And when that happens, the price of oil plummets. That's why the price has dropped as much as 50 cents per gallon in the past few weeks. Or does Mr. Krugman think that happened magically? If the author doesn't understand that this is how the market works, he shouldn't be writing articles like this. It makes him look foolish.
The fact is, in 2007, the United States imported 66.19% of it's oil. In 10 years, the worldwide demand for oil is projected to increase by 40%. If Krugman simply bothered to do the math, perhaps he'd join the 70% majority of Americans who are rightly shouting, “Drill here! Drill now! Drill here! Drill now!" Unless, of course, he'd rather remain among the stupid. Which is where you can usually find him.
I've got a better idea, Roxanne. Let's read Paul Krugman himself back in February, 2001 -- so we can all see how WRONG he was about the "looming recession." He wrote:
"One hears that George W. Bush likes to give people nicknames. So I hereby propose that he be known as Chicken Little. After all, he has been running around saying ''The sky is falling! Hurry up and pass my tax cut!'' And that of course means that we should dub Dick Cheney, who has been the administration's point man for economic pessimism, Chicken Big Time."
"With one exception, the economic data don't support such gloomy views. The unemployment rate has ticked up slightly, but it is still lower than anyone would have thought possible only a few years ago -- and in much of the country labor markets remain tight. Business payrolls actually expanded faster from November through January than they did in the previous three months...."
"There's no mystery about why the administration is so eager to pronounce the economy flat on its back -- Mr. Bush wants to use fear of recession to bully Congress into rushing through his tax cut, without worrying about little details like whether it would actually help, or whether we can actually afford it. But it's still a remarkable departure from the usual principles of economic policy. Has there ever before been a case of a U.S. administration deliberately undermining confidence for the sake of political advantage?"
And, of course, the Bush tax cuts that followed jump started America out of what was -- as everyone now agrees -- a very bad economy. In retrospect, Krugman was completely wrong and as full of vitriolic bias as always. And I don't need a library card to see that. Obviously, you value Mr. Krugman's credentials over his track record, Roxanne. How sad.
Don't flatter yourself, Roxanne. Those who have commented here are critics of the over-rated Paul Krugman, and not yourself.
1. In a New York Times article entitled “Quagmire of the Vanities”, Paul Krugman argues that raising troop levels in Iraq is nothing more than the vanity of President Bush refusing to admit defeat and that US troops should be pulled quickly. Could he have possibly been any more WRONG on that one?
2. Krugman wrote a New York Times column entitled “Democrats and the Deficit” on why all his harping about the importance of the budget deficit should now be disregarded. In fact, he declared that Democrats should forget all his previous writings about the importance of a balanced budget and spend money on whatever they want. How’s that for consistency?
3. As a political commentator, Krugman has an uncanny ability to take a seeming reasonable problem that most people already recognize as a problem and turn it into a one-sided shrill rant full of half-truths against the Bush administration. A perfect example of this is his “Outsourcer in Chief” article, which showcases his disregard for disclosing the whole truth and/or the complexity of an issue like outsourcing. In fact, he leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind that serious and rigorous analysis of political events is way beyond him. However, if you can muster the stamina to wade through this pompous little diatribe, you’ll discover what a truly miserable human being this man actually is. Wait, I take that back –- it wouldn’t be fair to human beings.
What a typically liberal, incredibly elitist remark. You do your party nothing but harm with comments like that, Roxanne.
Those are the facts and they are indisputable sources. You people are entitled to all of your flawed opinions, but there is only one set of facts.
You can drill anywhere you want, it won't matter much. This nation chose dependency long ago on foreign oil. Our nation has known about this problem since WWII. Do you really think that we invaded Iraq because we wanted to spread liberty and democracy at the cost of nearly a QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLARS A DAY?? Or that we really thought Saddam was a threat??? Get a clue people. The "War on Terror" is a "War for Resources". Our military is ONE HUNDRED times the size of Iraq's.
This is an election ploy by desperate Republicans who have made such a mess of our economy and put us in so much debt that they are trying to turn their weakness into a strength. "Swiftboating" I think they call it.
"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper."
Barry (I guess that makes Jefferson a liberal elitist also)
Thomas Jefferson,
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.
... the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors ...
Since you have no facts to post, just use words like "liberal" and "wackadoo". Try "ozone man" that worked so well for Bush 1. Speaking of drugs, if you can clear your bloodshot eyes, please notice the Dept. of Energy report says it will save 75 cents a BARREL.
So we should "drill now, drill everywhere" for 75 cents a BARREL?????? And you are criticizing an award winning economist???
Try reading "Blood and Oil" by Michael Klare. You might just learn something about global oil dynamics. Or just keep name calling since that is all you have left.
Either way, we live in a free country, you have the right to be wrong!!!!