Skip to main content

The eliminationist rhetoric of ... Paul Krugman!?

Words mean things. Words have consequences.

If it is dangerous and wrong-headed for rightwings to scream tyranny about the Obama administration's success in pressing its own agenda because such inflammatory rhetoric, well, inflames people...

So how about the word Treason in the mouth of one of the most important national spokesmen for progressive/liberal policies--to wit, Paul Krugman:

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.


He then goes on to recap global warming science before returning to his treason meme:

Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.


Here's the problem--if I really have to spell it out: to characterize the dissent of elected representatives from a political agenda (even stupid dissent) as treason is to invoke all the images that go with it: Benedict Arnold and the only crime punishable by death mentioned in the US Constitution.

Krugman is way over the edge here. His historical rhetoric, for at least the past year, has not just been over the top but (given his academic credentials) willfully misleading. Anyone who disagrees with his economic analysis (including other Nobel Laureates in Economics) is not merely wrong, but dishonest.

Now he has equated certain votes by 49% of the US House of Representatives as treason.

This is not mere hyperbole. This is exactly the sort of demonization and eliminationist rhetoric about which our liberal and progressive friends have been warning us will end in violence.

Or else it isn't. On either side.

Comments

Delaware Dem said…
You're right. It is perfectly legitimate to oppose the cap and trade bill. I disagree with the bill's critics, but those critics are not traitors to the planet or to America. Maybe Krugman is being ironic himself, but I doubt it. Instead, I fear the use of hyperbolic, absolute and eliminationist rhetoric is here to stay, and Krugman is saying, "hey, if the right wing can do it for the last eight years, and during the last six months in opposition to Obama, then fuck it, I can do it too."

That same right wing cannot complain, but you and I can.
UNRR said…
"That same right wing cannot complain, but you and I can."

Yeah right. I guess you missed eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome from the left. Extremist rhetoric happens regularly on both sides.

This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 6/30/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Hube said…
Yep, UNRR. And DelDem, of ALL people, should know about eliminationist rhetoric, right Mr. Shoot All Republicans?
Anonymous said…
always use his full name and title

Enron Paul Krugman, paid shill.
Instalaunch flocker said…
No discussion of Krugman's commentary can be complete without noting that among his credentials he is a former Enron advisor.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and