I have discussed my (negative) feelings about Paul Krugman in previous posts. As a psychiatrist, I have tried to understand why I despise this man so much--even more than I hate Michael Moore--which is a lot, I admit. There are many reasons that he provokes such a visceral reaction, but his editorial of today takes the cake.
"If the election were held today and the votes were counted fairly, Senator John Kerry would probably win. But the votes won't be counted fairly, and the disenfranchisement of minority voters may determine the outcome. "
How, precisely does Krugman know this? Has he looked into his magic ball? Has he used his magic wand to determine that votes won't be counted fairly (naturally they won't be counted fairly only for HIS side)? Have minority voters been "disenfranchised" because now the polls say that TWICE as many will be voting for Bush than did in the last election? No, he claims that those of you poor deluded people who listen to cable news are getting a "distorted picture" of the polls. The VERY same polls he uses to make his case, I might add. Krugman is lending his voice to give credence to the widely held DEMOCRATIC belief that somehow --because their candidates don't get elected--the system must be rigged. Nevermind that if you look at history, the Democrats themselves have a long, distinguished history of rigging the vote in their favor; "disenfranchising" minorities; and engaging in plenty of illegal behavior to win.
Over and over again, Krugman and people on the Left have insisted that it is the Republicans and the Right who are the origin of hate, war, and suffering. That the Republicans are taking this country to Hitler's Germany. They repeat this mantra like it was a holy chant from the holy book of the Left.
While granting that there is certainly a lot of hate in individuals of both sides (hate, after all, is a HUMAN emotion and all of us are human), the interesting thing about the hate that Krugman generates is that it is disguised and self-righteous. It is then "projected" onto Bush and the Republicans, so that he (Krugman) does not have to take any responsibiity for feeling that way. In Krugman's opinion, his way of viewing the world is the only correct way, so why should he have to provide any evidence? The Gospel according to Paul Krugman. So holy that he never needs to examine his own emotions, beliefs, or premises.
Some part of Paul Krugman recognizes that something dreadful is going on in the world, but he cannot face it directly because it is too threatening to his world-view and his holy scripture; and facing the truth might make him have to go into his own heart of hearts to examine the origins of that dreadful terror. Hence, displacing his anxiety to a less threatening authority figure (e.g., Bush/Republicans) is easier than facing the source of the anxiety.
The three psychological mechanisms (projection, denial, and displacement) that Krugman routinely displays in his writings are the source of almost all human misery, genocide, racism, anti-semitism, sexism, and now terrorism that we see all over the world. If Paul Krugman wants to know where these attitudes originate, then he needs to look in the mirror, not at the Republican Party.
2004 finds the Democrats rather desperate. They stand to lose more than the presidency this election--they stand to lose any credibility they ever might have had with most of the American public. Having given their political party to the anti-American coalition of the extreme Left, they now have adopted the loser slogans of victimhood that this coalition promotes. They have sold their souls--and along with those souls, their country-- for Power.
In Krugman's case, he has also sold his intellect. This man has consistently used his economic and scientific knowledge to distort the truth and bend it in the direction of his own candidate. He has tried this exact same tactic before (see here). Frankly, he is probably going to be the most proactive sore loser of all time on November 2.
Do you remember Dr. Robert Stadler of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? The "scientific" apologist for those totalitarian thugs that wanted to take over the world? Rand thought that people like Stadler carried the greater burden of evil, primarily because he used his intellect to support evil for his own personal gain--even though he knew and understood the consequences of doing so.
Michael Moore is a moron, but he makes no claim to be an intellectual, and his distortions are not in the least bit subtle or clever. Krugman claims the mantle of the intellect--which only proves that intellectuals can be just as moronic as idiots. His is the greater evil, and someday he will have to live with that truth.