The Conscience of a Liberal- Review

Update: 8/4/23

Oliver Darcy on the latest Trump indictment

There is a correlation here. Darcy is equating dissidence as violence. The correlation is the attitude towards dissent, which is shown in Krugman's book.

quote from Darcy : "The draconian rhetoric, once reserved for the likes of tyrants and dictators, has become commonplace in right-wing media when referring to President Joe Biden and the elected government he leads."

Let's suppose for a moment that the "draconian rhetoric" is actually true. Is it violence to point that out? If it is violence, then that is supposedly wrong in the face of tyranny and dictatorship. It would seem to fly in the face of the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence asserts the right of the people to alter or abolish forms of government that have become destructive to their happiness: quote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Constitution states unequivocally that "Congress shall make no law" regarding free speech. So, how is it that speech has now become illegal? For if it is "violent" to oppose liberals, then there can be no free speech. The freedom to agree with liberals is no freedom at all.

There is no argument that violence occurred on January 6th, but the truth behind what caused it is being hidden. To claim we cannot say that there may be nefarious intent behind their accusations of insurrection, is part of the problem. The protest itself was in consequence of the belief that the election was not honest, nor accurate. Is it illegal now to say that?

If so, we now have the tyranny that the Founders fought against in 1776. It would appear that we are to accept the coup against our rights and the true soveriegnty of the nation, which was founded upon "We The People".

Indeed, some of the devices that King George III used against the colonies in that time are being practiced today. These are "pretended" offenses, and judgment is going to be carried out in a place where the former President has little chance of prevailing. Washington DC votes for Democrats more than 90% of the time. This is no accident that this venue was chosen, because it is very unlikely that the Democrats would prevail anywhere else.

Washington DC is doing the same as King George III in trying to set up an unwarranted jurisdiction over all of us. WE THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT to oppose such designs. This is true regardless of what Krugman, Darcy or the rest of these people have to say against it.

The Declaration of Independence USA, 1776

Read the Declaration and see how a tyrant behaves, then examine the words of these people and decide for yourselves whether or not their behavior is coming very close to the same. It may well come to violence again in the near future, but it won't be insurrection, for the people want their rights back. A government that has repudiated its founding is the insurrection to be fought against.

originally posted on Nov 28, 2010

This is a political book, not a book about economics.  To begin this review
of Krugman's book, let's begin with these two quotes:

"Because in the end, democracy is what being a liberal is all about."

"...movement conservatism has been antidemocratic, with an attraction to
authoritarianism, from the beginning..."

This is Krugman's dichotomy in a nutshell.  It is a black and white definition.
Good and evil.  Good guys and bad guys.  There can be no place in between.  No
other way.

If democracy and liberalism is one and the same, and movement conservatism is
antidemocratic and authoritarian, there isn't much room for dissent. Therefore,
you must agree with liberals, or you must become an Eisenhower type Republican.
As Krugman said, Eisenhower Republicans offered no real opposition to liberalism.
Active dissent from liberalism means authoritarianism in his formulation.  Very
handy way of disposing of dissent.  Just attach a pejorative label upon opponents
who strongly disagree.

Krugman unabashedly seeks equality as a value in itself.  A question arises: Is
equality a worthy object of pursuit in its own right?  To Krugman, it would seem
to mean the absense of strife.  But what about the pursuit of wealth?  Is that
pursuit a worthy goal?  This book is mostly silent on that subject.  What little
that is said would indicate that the pursuit of wealth is a secondary issue.  If
inequality is a problem, how do you reconcile that with the pursuit of wealth?
Krugman's answer: sacrifice it to the greater value of equality.

He argues that inequality is the cause of the political nastiness that exists today.
Yet, it is entirely acceptable for liberals to be partisan, while it is not
acceptable to be partisan and against liberalism.  What if you don't want to be
equal?  What if you want to excel?  Does that make you at fault for disturbing the
community just because you want more for yourself?  Moreover, it does not follow
that shunning the pursuit of wealth creates abundance.  The abundance has to come
from somewhere.  Does it not come from those who want to excel?  It doesn't come from
those who just want to be equal and for everybody else to be equal.  If so, then
how can that be possible?  What reason is there to produce for no profit?  It cannot
come from those who demand equality and adherence to that standard from all.  In
the end, by that standard, all must remain at their stations.  If a little strife is to price
for pursuit of wealth, isn't it worth it?  Conversely, if equality for all is the
price of peace, then isn't that price too high?

Perhaps these arguments are probably too simplistic.  But that is generally what
Krugman is saying.  He blames inequality for our politics today.  He blames
inequality for poor economic performance.  But he fails to show why equality
produces wealth.  He can show the plausibility that inequality can contribute
to poor economic performance, but that is not the same as saying that equality
produces wealth.  To make that claim, it would stretch credulity to the breaking
point.  He blames strife on the inequality of wealth, but he shows no way to
reduce strife by having more production of wealth from all.  Instead, pursuit of
wealth must not be encouraged for the good of the community.

But is the pursuit of wealth is a problem?  Or is the reaction to it that must be
examined?  What are the possible reactions?  You can encourage it in order
that more might have it, or you can discourage it so that nobody can have it.
If pursuit of wealth is the problem in itself, then you must discourage it as Krugman
indicates.  There can be no other possibility.  If the pursuit of wealth is not the
problem, then there are other possibilities.  Such as encouraging it so that more
can have it.  But Krugman doesn't favor this.

In short, Krugman says that inequality distubs people, so it should be remedied.
He doesn't recognize that there are other ways to deal with this, and insists that
others must agree with him.  If not, they must be bad people.  It is hard to
reason with someone who thinks those that disagree are bad people and that they
are morally inferior, and that their moral view must be discouraged.  There has to
be a better way.  Krugman's book doesn't show the way.  It's his way or the highway.
But he is all for Democracy.  After all, he is a liberal.  The other guys are bad guys.