Krugman speaks up, many years too late!

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2016

Just look at the very first comment:
In this new post, Paul Krugman speaks up, much too late, about the "abnormalization" of Candidate Clinton.

This "defining" of Clinton has been underway for 24 years. Krugman quotes the heroic Jonathan Chait, who actively enabled this game during the vast bulk of that era, but has begun fighting back in the past week or so:
KRUGMAN (9/26/16): [A]s Jonathan Chait says, the problem hasn’t just been the normalization of Trump, it has been the abnormalization of Clinton. Consider the AP report on the Clinton Foundation. An honest report would have said, “The foundation arguably creates the possibility of self-dealing and undue influence, but we’ve looked hard and haven’t found much of anything.” Instead, the report played up meetings with a Nobel Peace Prize winner as being somehow scandalous.

And it’s still happening, if not quite so relentlessly. We’re still seeing reports about how something Clinton did “raises questions,” “casts shadows,” etc.—weasel words that allow reporters to write negative stories regardless of the facts.

I’ve compared this to what went down in the 2000 campaign; Nick [Kristof] compares it to what happened in the runup to the Iraq war. Pick your analogy.
"Pick you analogy," Krugman says. In the case of Campaign 2000, just don't discuss it with the public until sixteen to seventeen years have passed!

Two points should be made. First, the abnormalization of Clinton involves much more serious journalistic dysfunction than the normalization of Trump.

Newspapers like the New York Times have been running from Trump's craziness and/or dishonesty, dating to the period when he made himself King of the Birthers. But the "abnormalization" of Clinton, Clinton and Gore has been going on forever. Hillary Clinton has been massively "defined" in the process. It is many years too late to notice this problem now.

Second point: The very first comment to Krugman's post shows the problem with Krugman's permissive "pick your analogy" hook. Comments like these should make a progressive tear his or her last remaining hairs:
COMMENT FROM WALTHAM, MASS. (9/26/16): A thoughtful, nuanced post by Krugman. I still think a large part of the double standard applied to Hillary is due to misogyny. Or, more accurately, the power-relationship between men and women. This pushy broad is intruding on a formerly all-male preserve. I don't think most people realize how deeply this anti-feminist instinct runs in most men.

Yes, it is an instinct, and an ancient one at that. Today, we can see resistance to women's progress in many parts of the world. In the Islamic culture sphere, it is often violent.

I'm sure I'll get intensely defensive replies from male readers to this comment, as I have in the past. But they only serve to confirm me in my understanding of this issue.
Pseudo-progressive, please!

In a word, that comment is deeply clueless. It's the kind of perspective a progressive adopts when he lacks the first freaking clue about the journalistic history here—for example, about what "went down" in Campaign 2000, Krugman's chosen analogy.

The abnormalization of Candidate Gore had nothing to do with gender, but it's the same abnormalization which has been delivered to Hillary Clinton. Self-admiring pseudo-progressives insist on cramming this conduct into the high-minded frameworks they like. Their cluelessness about the larger picture stems from twenty years of silence from the likes of Krugman and Chait.

Once again, Krugman cites "the Clinton Rules" in today's post. It's good that he does so, of course. But those journalistic rules have been in operation forever. People like that first commenter have simply never been told.

Here's how Krugman closes his post. This too is deeply clueless:
KRUGMAN: I doubt that reporters or even editors have thought of themselves as trying to elect Trump; many of them will be horrified if he wins. But they went all in on Clinton Rules, under which sneering at and razzing a Clinton is considered good for your career. It’s really more like high school than high journalism, but it may have horrendous consequences.

A lot depends on whether the same behavior continues for the final stretch. If the media report on the debates the way they did in 2000—if substance is replaced by descriptions of Clinton’s facial expressions, her sighs, or how she “comes across,” while downplaying Trump’s raw lies, say hello to the Trump White House. And history will not forgive the people who made it possible.
History will not forgive the people who made it possible? Press corps enabler, please!

As we explained many years ago, the mainstream press corps is unique among American elites. Unlike every other professional or industry group, the mainstream press corps gets to decide what gets written about itself.

For that reason, the press corps' conduct in Campaign 2000 has gone completely unexplored and undiscussed, despite the many years we spent detailing it. The Clinton Rules may have horrendous consequences? Careerist cracker, please! As we've noted again and again, they already have!

Perhaps the horrors of a President Trump will produce a break in the press corps' ironclad code of silence, which is reliably maintained by the usual professors. But we can think of no reason to assume that any such thing will occur.

People like Krugman and Kristof and Chait have always made the smart career play over the many years of this mess. Their active role in the code of silence has us on the verge of an era of Trump.

Fearful, they've finally started telling the truth. But they've told the truth extremely slowly over these many ridiculous years. If history stands on its feet to complain, it will complain about them.

45 comments:

  1. Crazy actions are a lot worse than crazy-sounding talk. I forgive Hillary for voting for the Iraq war. It was a mistake, but she didn't know that the intelligence showing Saddam's nuclear development was incorrect.

    However, the disastrous overthrow of Khadafy in Libya was crazy. Aside from the lack of a plan of what to do next, there was no reason for it. Khadafy had ended his nuclear weapon development at our request, so nukes weren't the reason. I have never heard a sane and sensible reason offered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't do very well with "sane and sensible."

      Delete
    2. David, the US action in Libya was very reasonable and neither crazy or disastrous. You appear to be massively misinformed about Libya. Qaddafi was going to be overthrown whether the US got involved or not, and likely by the kind of extremists that upset you so much. NATO decided to proceed with a very small amount of military action to prevent civilians from the violent threats of brutal dictator Qaddafi. The US involvement was extremely small, a few missiles, one day of drone attacks, a few support ships and aircraft. Libya was already a disaster, NATO interceded to prevent crimes against humanity. Libya has suffered the consequences any country suffers when a brutal dictator is toppled. It is rebuilding and the extremists are being pushed out. You were upset in the comments here that the US did not intervene in Syria (a vastly different situation) so I think it is more likely you are not so misinformed, but instead trying to misinform to further your own selfish agenda.

      Delete
    3. David's partly right, as sometimes happens.

      You, 5:10 are an idiot.

      You refer to "small" intervention in Libya and lack of intervention in Syria.

      You are dreadfully wrong on both counts. The Iraq war itself constituted a huge intervention in Syria, essentially compromising its borders and generating huge flows of refugees and armaments.

      This leaves aside the direct, material interventions by the US in Syria including covert supply and training for dissidents and rebels.

      Your estimation of minimal intervention in Libya is similarly flawed, neglecting in the first instance the veneer of legitimacy given to the quite large involvement of outside forces that was given by the entirely illegal US action.

      Delete
  2. "The abnormalization of Candidate Gore had nothing to do with gender, ...."

    How soon they forget, even the redoubtable Bob Somerby.

    "Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct, he's practically lactating."

    ReplyDelete
  3. The constant interruptions of her--not gonna play well with women voters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you are woman or are you mansplainin?

      Delete
    2. "The constant interruptions of her ...."

      Did you keep track? Leah Libresco of 538 did.

      Guess what - you're full of shit.

      She separated an interruption - where a candidate commandeered the other candidate's response, from a fleeting interruption - where a candidate interjected while the other candidate continued his/her response.

      Libresco's tally: Clinton had zero interruptions and three fleeting interruptions while Trump had three interruptions and twenty-four fleeting interruptions.

      Pushing an easily-refuted HDS narrative is just pathetic.

      Delete
    3. HDS? Harry Dean Stanton? The 27 fleeting interruptions certainly were annoying to me. I have read that there is data proving that men interrupt women more that they interrupt men. But I could be wrong and would love to see evidence that I am wrong.

      Delete
    4. That's one interruption every four minutes in 100 minute span. Annoying by any measure.

      Delete
    5. http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/03/19/google-chief-blasted-for-repeatedly-interrupting-female-government-official/

      Delete
    6. the interruptions were just rude. let the lady talk...there was a framework to allow for responses.

      Delete
    7. Call her a lady again, just so we understand how non-sexist and magnanimous you are toward the women-folk.

      Delete
    8. wow, I defend her and still get yelled at!!! we have come to the point where we just yell at people even when we agree with them!!!

      what is wrong with calling her a lady exactly? is she not a lady? Lady is essentially New York slang...not an insult. Why don't you try to stop and understand before you start yelling at people. what should I have called her? Some people on this board are just jerks...they must be doing it on purpose because no one can possibly be that f*cking stupid. I am sure Mrs. Clinton would have no problem with my post, so I don't know why the moral police on Bob's blog do...

      Delete
    9. Lady is an antiquated term from our Victorian past that has a lot of baggage, including chivalry, protecting women while keeping them from full participation, and underlining their need to be separate and cosseted because of their frailty. It emphasizes gender in a situation where gender is irrelevant.

      Think about whether the male equivalent (is there one in NY slang?) would be OK in the same context -- probably not.

      You said: "...let the lady talk" As if she needed permission or help to do so. As if she were not a person with her own voice.

      Secretary Clinton would not criticize you because she doesn't sweat the small stuff but these casual insults that people like you don't even recognize as offensive are a source of irritation that women endure every day in an unrelenting stream.

      Delete
    10. I never said she needed permission or help to do so. and I was not insulting the lady...and btw, I know some women that still like chivalry and being treated like a lady, my wife included. so before you get your panties in a bunch and think you know all about my motives for using a word, and think you know all about "people like me", just relax and stop being so uptight. I thought Trump was rude for interrupting the woman (is that better?). he should have let her get her two minutes like the rules of the debate dictated, that's all I was saying. "people like you" just love to read into sh*t and see insults where there are none...you should really learn to stop and listen before you assume you are all knowing and know what a person thinks and feels about women. I have nothing but respect for women, and have had a lot of strong women role models in my life, so I take exception to a holier then thou a** like you telling me how I think and feel

      Delete
    11. It isn't about how YOU think and feel. It is about how your choice of words makes others think and feel. Narcissism means never having to worry about that.

      I think there is a subreddit somewhere that is missing your voice.

      Delete
    12. Hey 4:02,

      Did you ever stop to think that maybe he should choose his words better, but you're acting like a jerk about it? You're talking about subtleties of language, but you don't understand tone?

      Delete
  4. Trump had some good moments that will resonate with his supporters on trade and crime. The part where he nit her on the DNC and Bernie was effective. But by the end he looked a bit rattled and rambled on too long. Hillary had a good opening and finished really strong. She should get some momentum out of this, but I'd be surprised if it's huge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You either were watching a different debate than I did or you're yet another Trump hack.

      Delete
    2. Does everyone have swear allegiance to Clinton or get insulted? I agree that she won big. And predicted she would kick ass in the debate on this very blog yesterday. Frankly, if the question were more issue oriented she would have won even bigger. I just thought he looked like he had some momentum at that point in the debate. Before it fell apart. Not that I expected much out of him.

      Delete
    3. Trump seemed to me to be better prepared and more presidential. Clinton looked tired and had too much make up. Trump has her cold on some points and Clinton did great on trade and taxes but let's be honest, people hate Hillary. Some hate her because she is a woman which although not fair, is very, very understandable. Ours is a Patriarchy in every single way. I'm no fan of Trump but as we all can see from the polls, he has a very good chance of winning. Let's hope the best person wins. Thank you and have a blessed day.

      Delete
    4. 4:37. Take your Trump trolling and burn in hell. You wear your racial animus and country bumpkin ignorance on your sleeve with every dumbass post. I'll kick your ass jerk.

      Delete
    5. Listen, Trump makes some good points that shouldn't be ignored (before anyone yells at me I am voting for Hillary). For example, I think he is right that a good number of politicians have sat idly by while the middle class of the country were sold up the river for the past 30-40 years. We also need law and order in the streets or else we don't have a country. With that said, the jobs that have left aren't coming back. We need to figure out how to position ourselves to create jobs working within the new economy. And the last thing we need are tax breaks that will add 5 or 10 trillion to the debt.

      Delete
    6. Anon at 10:46 -- I agree with @5:43. Take your Trump trolling and burn in hell.

      Delete
    7. why the hostility 11:02. people like you are what's wrong with this country. the Others make a valid point and you are so blinded by partisan motives that you can't concede, for one minute, that the guy actually made a good point. instead you just throw grenades from the safety of your keyboard. believe me, and if you knew me you would know, I am not trolling for trump. personally I can't stand the guy and would never vote for him. but he is right, unless you think that anarchy in the streets in the way to go...or that the middle class should continue to take it up the a** for the benefit of politicians and their crony friends. wake up and take your partisan blinders off. You are as bad as the republicans that refuse to work with President Obama just because. You are proving Mr. Somerby right on this thesis about demonization of The Others - on full display right here on his blog. Keep posting jerkoff.

      Delete
    8. Those praising Trumps early performance in the debate are like saying the Titanic sailed perfectly for days.

      Delete
    9. If there is one thing Donald J Trump is an expert on, it is middle class workers, contractors, and students at his get rich quick scam university taking it up their ass for his benefit.

      Delete
    10. I fell asleep at the end, that must be what happened LOL

      Delete
  5. Today the NY Times says Clinton chided Trump for bungling facts. They might as well have said she scolded him like a fishwife. And those facts are so hard to keep straight. Better: Clinton fact-checked Trump's lies.

    This is what sexism and bias looks like. She isn't scolding him -- she is contradicting him -- because this is a debate and that's what debaters do. Evoking images of nagging moms and wives is wrong.

    And Trump didn't just misremember a few facts. He blatantly lied about his own statements. He didn't BUNGLE, he LIED. She wins the debate hands down and we still have to put up with this crap.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The fact that Trump used the word "big-ly" twice should disqualify him from the presidency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His son claims he is saying "big league" not bigly. He doesn't enunciate. Toward the end of his meltdown he was sounding like a thug.

      People made fun of Sanders accent but Trump also has one. It gets stronger when he is upset or tired.

      Delete
    2. I watched it in real time and don't buy that at all

      Delete
  7. After this debate I think even less of both candidates. For me, Trump didn't look Presidential. Hillary doesn't understand business economics. One reason we've had a recovery was low fuel prices. Lower costs encourage business expansion and job creation. Yet, Hillary thinks that switching to higher cost energy and higher taxes will create jobs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Trump didn't look presidential, especially with all the interrupting, but he made a couple of points that are worth thinking about (how do we maintain law and order, how do we create jobs in this country). I thought Hillary did ok - I am not sure I would have been able to keep so calm in her position - she acted like quite the lady (that one was for the word police on the blog). She should have spoke more about her positions rather than just direct people to her website to read about them (I tend to believe that most people just won't do that, but I could be wrong). Overall, I thought they both did ok and had some valid points...now I wait for some partisan hack to tell me to burn in hell because I am willing to listen to the other side.

      Delete
    2. Hillary is not running for CEO. She is running for President. Companies are not noted for caring much about their employees, beyond what they are coerced into doing by unions or law. The US Government exists to care about and protect the people of our nation. That is a HUGE difference between a CEO (who won't even pay taxes) and the president, who must be concerned with the welfare of everyone.

      If you are suggesting that Hillary, being a frail and lowly woman, can't do business math, remember that she will surround herself with people who can (e.g., Janet Yellin).

      Thinking like a businessman, you fail to include the cost to our planet in your assessment of what constitutes low cost energy.

      Unlike you, Hillary has read the reports that show that corporations given tax breaks do not invest the extra money in their businesses or their employees. They sit on it. That's why lowering taxes doesn't create jobs either. However, investing in new industries (like alternative energy technology) will create new jobs in the US that cannot be stolen by other countries lacking the expertise to compete. Those higher taxes can fund research at universities that can help us maintain our leadership in the global economy by developing new industries and technologies.

      Most businessmen think near-term and worry only about keeping their stock prices high so they can increase the value of their own options and holdings. That doesn't produce the planning needed to grow our economy on the larger scale.

      I am glad Hillary doesn't think like a business person.

      Delete
    3. I too am willing to listen to the other side. Tell me, DinC. what does looking "Presidential" look like?

      Delete
    4. I'd say the constant interrupting alone was very un-presidential

      Delete
    5. Some of my friends who are Trump supporters believe that it was the moderator who was interrupting Trump and that he had to speak over Clinton because she wouldn't let him get a word in edgewise. They apparently missed that the candidates were supposed to be taking turns and they clearly disliked the fact-checking and attempts by Holt to keep Trump focused on the question. It is fascinating to hear how different their reactions were to the debate. That's what the "other side" is like.

      Delete
    6. David is a troll from the other side and look at the crap he posted here.

      They can be reasoned with ...........NOT!

      Delete
  8. Just look at that first comment. Pseudo-blogger please. You don't read your own comments. Why should we read Krugman's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ooh - you found another hypocrisy! You'll have happy-pants all day!

      Delete
  9. My marriage of 3 years was sinking and i was devastated. My husband broke up with me and I got no explanations from him. for me to get him back, i have to find a solution, I went to 3 different spell casters they all failed to bring back my husband, I really wasn’t sure anymore if spells were real so as i was making a search one morning i saw some great reviews about happylovespell2@gmail.com, I was a bit skeptical at first but a friend asked me to try and see what happens, so I requested for a love spell from this spell caster, he said he will take his time to do a love spell that will bring my man back to me, after some days my husband reconciled with me, It felt good to have my husband back, when he returned he said he would never leave me again. I saw him transform, all thanks to Dr happy he was like a father to me when i loose hope. now my lover is more open, with happy Spell I know love spell is real, Thanks to Dr happy Spell for getting me my man back. I appreciate all his time, effort, and energy he puts during the spell cast. contact him on via mail happylovespell2@gmail.com he is the best of all spell casters Add him on Whats-pp +2348133873774??????.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AM A LIVING WITNESS AND A BENEFICIARY OF DR OGUDU LOVE SPELL, PREGNACY SPELL AND MARRIAGE REUNITING, CONTACT HIM NOW FOR YOUR MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS SOLUTION WITHIN 48 HOURS OF CONTACTING HIM

    My name is CINDY SCOTT am from BELARUS, am a woman who loves and cherish my husband more than any other thing you can imagine on earth surface. My husband was so lovely and caring after 9 years of marriage he was seriously ill and the doctor confirm and said he has a kidney infection that he needed a kidney donor, that was how I started searching for a good Samaritan who can help,doctor has given me a periodic hour that he will live just 2 days left, that was how I ask the doctor if I can be of help to my husband that was how he carried out the test,the confirming was successful, I was now having this taught that since 9years now we got married I have not be able to get pregnant can I be able to get pregnant again after the surgery? That was the question I ask the doctor, he never answer his response was do you want to lost your husband? I immediately reply no I can't afford to loose him. After the operation i and my husband came back home and live happily as husband and wife should. After 7months my husband came home with another lady telling me, that is our new wife that will give us kids and take care of us, that was how I was confused and started crying all day, That was not enough soonest my husband ran away with the new find love and never keep in contact with me. Since then I was confuse don't no what to do that was how I went back to the doctor and tell him everything, he told me that, this is not just an ordinary thing that he have heard of us situation so many times but he knows a man who is a voodoo spell caster who can help me out of my present situation that he has directed more 6 woman to him and they all came back with positive stories and testimonials about him that I should tell him all my problem that he can help me out that was how i contacted him and i did as instructed. After 3days and I have done what he ask me to do, my husband started searching for me that was how we settle he also told me not to worry that I will get pregnant, this month making it the fifth Month I contacted him am now 3months pregnant. These great spell cater is a great man, if you are in any kind of problem you can contact him here on his email OGUDUSPELLTEMPLE@YAHOO.COM...WHATSAPP NUMBER +2348106058254...WEBSITE...http://oguduspelltemple.wixsite.com/drogudu

    ReplyDelete