Tag Archives: Paul Krugman

Charlie Kirk And That War On Women

In the wake of the Charlie Kirk slaying, Micah Beckwith–Indiana’s Christian Nationalist Lieutenant Governor– reportedly said “From the history of mankind, there’s always been truth-speakers who have been speaking God’s truth and the enemy comes at them – the devil and his lies. They’ll try to silence those people. Charlie was one of those people. He was speaking truth and the enemy, the devil and his minions, try to silence him. I think what’s happening is actually the exact opposite effect. I think what you’re going to see is that there are going to be many more like him that are now going to rise up and start speaking where he left off. There’s a saying in the church throughout Christendom, ‘The blood of the martyr is the seed of the church.”

I was heartened by a recent poll (paywall) that pegged Beckwith’s support in Indiana at a robust 9%. Still, I think it’s worthwhile to examine some of the “truths” that Beckwith thinks Kirk was speaking.

In a recent Substack, Paul Krugman looked at Kirk’s approach to women–an approach that is shared by Christian Nationalists, much of MAGA, and other Rightwing radicals.

Kirk was a counterrevolutionary, a revanchist, who deftly exploited a vision of a lost American gender ideal and the accompanying feelings of dislocation and humiliation on the part of men. Specifically, he wanted to reverse what Claudia Goldin (winner of the Nobel in Economics in 2023) has called the “quiet revolution” in women’s role in American society that occurred between the late 1970s and early 1990s.

Krugman points out that Goldin’s “quiet revolution” didn’t refer to the increasing numbers of women in the paid labor force, a trend that had begun in the 1940s, and had mostly culminated by the late 1970s. Rather, it referred to a radical change in the nature of the kinds of jobs that American women held.

While many women held paid jobs by the early 1970s, young women still tended to see work outside the home as occasional and provisional, as a way to earn modest amounts of money rather than as a fundamental part of their identity. The revolution, according to Goldin, happened when young women began to think about jobs in the same way young men always had — that it wasn’t simply “work” but a career.

As a result, women lived their lives differently. And as Krugman notes, that change has had large ramifications for men. 

The changes in women’s status were results of access to contraception and the passage of anti-discrimination laws, and what Krugman describes as a “multiplier effect”— the more that women delayed marriage and childbirth, the more they trained for careers, the easier it became for others to do the same. And as he also pointed out, “rising divorce rates led many women to doubt whether marriage was a safe haven that obviated the need for an independent career.”

Charlie Kirk argued strenuously that this was all a mistake and should be reversed. Krugman quotes him: “Having children is more important than having a good career.” 

Kirk was calling on America to stop being the society it is and go back to being the kind of society it hasn’t been for generations. Or, rather, he wanted us to enact his fantasy about what our society once was like. If you imagine that America before the quiet revolution was a nation in which all marriages were happy and all stay-at-home wives were contented, you should read Betty Friedan — or the novels of John Updike.

Krugman and others have pointed out that Kirk never bothered to offer serious policy proposals. But his hostility to women’s equality clearly resonated with many young white men — “men who resent their status in modern America and believe that their lives would be better if we returned to an older social order.”

Krugman concluded by recognizing that, in today’s America, we have “a society that appears to be problematic for many men.” There is a reason Kirk’s revanchism grew his support among them.

Appealing to resentments is the whole strategy of MAGA, Trumpworld and Christian Nationalism–not by suggesting ways to ameliorate unsatisfactory situations, not by advancing policy proposals that might mitigate such situations, but by the far simpler tactic of finding some “other” to blame. 

It’s a strategy that evidently works with a significant number of Americans, and it explains the rise of “religious” zealots like Micah Beckwith and clever grifters like Charlie Kirk–opportunists who wage war on women, immigrants, gay people and people of color…

Comments

Suicide By MAGA

Most of us have read about “suicide by cop”–a (hopefully rare) situation where someone desiring death purposely provokes a standoff with police. I don’t think MAGA cult members are that intentional, but I do think the result will be the same. The pandemic was a precursor: data shows that the MAGA science-deniers who refused to be vaccinated against COVID died in far greater numbers than more sane Americans.

Who coined that phrase “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”?

The Trump administration has already taken a meat-ax to medical research, derailing promising research into cures for cancer and Alzheimer’s and other deadly diseases. Those cuts will hurt all of us–Red and Blue alike. But as Paul Krugman recently pointed out, the administration’s radical changes in social spending, immigration policy and tariffs won’t simply hurt tens of millions of Americans — they will land disproportionately on Red, rural Americans.

The first thing you need to understand is that while rural Americans like to think of themselves as self-reliant, the fact is that poorer, more rural states are in effect heavily subsidized by richer states like Massachusetts and New Jersey.

This reality makes it inevitable that the standard conservative fiscal agenda — tax cuts for the rich, benefit cuts for the poor and middle class — hurts the heartland more than it hurts major metropolitan areas. But MAGA’s Reverse Robin Hoodism goes far beyond the standard conservative agenda, in ways that will be especially devastating to rural areas and small towns.

I’ve previously posted about Trump’s horrendous “Big Beautiful Bill” that will rob the poor to further enrich the wealthy. The bill contains savage cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, programs that will hurt all poor folks; but will disproportionately devastate Trump-supporting rural areas.

Krugman notes that Medicaid is a far more important program than most Americans realize.

Almost 40 percent of children are covered by Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in deep red states like Alabama and Mississippi. Medicaid pays for 42 percent of births in America. And more to my point, Medicaid covers a higher fraction of the population in rural than in urban counties. So deep cuts in the program will hit Trump-supporting regions especially hard.

Ditto the impact of the drastic cuts to food stamps.

Many people–even those who are opposed to the “Big Beautiful Bill”– fail to recognize its very foreseeable impact on rural hospitals.  Hospitals in areas with low population density and a high percentage of patients who cannot pay for care struggle to stay open even now. Without Medicaid reimbursements at current levels, most will close. 

Most of us also fail to understand the role that Medicaid and Medicare spending play in supporting what Krugman calls “rural and left-behind local economies.”

For example, the economy of West Virginia no longer rests on coal mining, which employs very few people these days. It would be more accurate to say that the foundation of West Virginia’s economy is federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid. That is, in deep red West Virginia, Medicare and Medicaid are directly and indirectly a major source of income.

We are already seeing the impact of Trump’s immigration vendetta on the nation’s farmers.  Our agriculture relies heavily on hired workers, and some two thirds of those workers are immigrants–most of whom are undocumented. Farmers are already seeing the results of the threat: even workers who are legal residents or native-born citizens feel unsafe from the ICE goons who very clearly think all Brown people are illegal immigrants–so we see growing reports of workers decamping out of fear of arrest and deportation.

And then there’s the trade war.

In case you haven’t noticed, Trump hasn’t yet delivered a single one of the 90 trade deals he promised to negotiate by July 8. China has already retaliated, and others will follow. And U.S. agriculture is highly dependent on exports…

While many are now realizing that Trump’s policies will produce social and economic disaster, relatively few understand that the disaster will fall disproportionately on rural Trump voters. But of course it will. For the purveyor of Trump bibles and Trump meme coins, screwing the little guy has always been his personal style of grift. It remains to be seen if rural Trump supporters will awaken from their naivete.

Krugman is kinder than I am. I have given up any illusion that Trump voters are merely naive or uninformed. I’m pretty sure that MAGA voters are so wedded to their racism and grievance that they will support their own suicide if that’s what it takes to “own the libs.” 

Comments

That “Big Beautiful Bill”

Ever since Trump’s abominable “Big Beautiful Bill” emerged from the House, we’ve been buried in analyses of what it will do–essentially, rob the poor to further enrich the obscenely wealthy. But I continue to think about the initial reaction of Paul Krugman. What did this Nobel-prize-winning economist think in the immediate aftermath of the House passage?

Krugman began by noting that he’d expected House Republicans to pass this “surpassingly cruel, utterly irresponsible budget” in the dead of night, in an effort to escape notice. And as he said, “they tried! Debate began at 1 A.M., and if you think that bizarre timing reflected real urgency, I have some $Melania coins you might want to buy.”

The House has now passed what must surely be the worst piece of legislation in modern U.S. history. Millions of Americans are about to see crucial government support snatched away. A significant number will die prematurely due to lack of adequate medical care or nutrition. Yet all this suffering won’t come close to offsetting the giant hole in the budget created by huge tax cuts for the rich. Long-term interest rates have already soared as America loses the last vestiges of its former reputation for fiscal responsibility.

What struck me most about Krugman’s reaction to this massively irresponsible–indeed, evil–budget was his enumeration of what that budget ought to look like. Krugman isn’t one of the “fiscal scolds” who want to eliminate all deficit spending, but he is worried that the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path–a path that this horrific bill will worsen. He acknowledges that the path to fiscal sanity will require some hard choices and tradeoffs. But he also insists that we could immensely improve our current situation with a series of easy choices, “actions that would mainly spare the middle class and only hurt people most Americans probably believe deserve to feel a bit of pain.” He proceeds to list four of them.

First, get Americans — mainly wealthy Americans — to pay the taxes they owe. The net tax gap — taxes Americans are legally obliged to pay but don’t — is simply huge, on the order of $600 billion a year. We can never get all of that money back, but giving the IRS enough resources to crack down on wealthy tax cheats would be both fiscally and morally responsible, since letting people get away with cheating on their taxes rewards bad behavior and makes law-abiding taxpayers look and feel like chumps.

As he notes, Republicans are doing the opposite, by starving the IRS of resources and trying to make tax evasion great again.

Second, we could crack down on Medicare Advantage overpayments. The insurance companies running Medicare Advantage game the system and get overpaid; one recent estimate found that Medicare is at risk of overpaying Medicare Advantage plans between $1.3 trillion and $2 trillion over the next decade.

Third, Krugman advises going after corporate tax avoidance, especially by multinational firms using strategies to make profits that are earned in the United States look as though they were earned in low-tax nations like Ireland. “Such maneuvers cost the Treasury around $70 billion annually.

And finally,

We should just get rid of Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cut. That tax cut wasn’t a response to any economic needs, and there’s not a shred of evidence that it did the economy any good. All it did was transfer a lot of money to corporations and the wealthy. Let’s end those giveaways.

Would doing all these things be enough to put America on a sustainable fiscal path? Honestly, I don’t know. But they would make a good start toward putting our fiscal house in order. And none of them would involve the “hard choices” fiscal scolds tell us we need to make.

As Krugman concludes, the politicians who aren’t even willing to do these things have no business lecturing anyone about fiscal responsibility.

Krugman doesn’t speculate about why we don’t do the “easy” things, but I will. We don’t do them because we have elected people who don’t consider themselves representatives of the people who voted for them, but obedient servants of the plutocrats who funded them. And nothing will change until enough of those voters send an unmistakable message to the cowards and quislings that “time’s up.”

I’ve previously quoted a scholar whose research suggests that peaceful protests by 3% of a population are enough to send that message. That translates to something like ten million people. Our next chance to achieve that goal is No Kings Day, tomorrow.

Please participate. Time is running out to save the America we thought we inhabited….

Comments

When America Really Was Great…

America really has been great–or at least, greater. Of course, a lot depends upon one’s definition of “greatness.” Donald Trump rather obviously confuses the term “great” with the term “much”–in his limited and twisted worldview, rich people are great because they have lots of money, celebrities are great because they command lots of attention, and countries are great if they control more territory.

So–in Trump’s mind, Elon Musk must be great because he has lots of money. Trump himself must be great because the media is paying attention to him (it’s irrelevant that much of that attention is highly critical–it’s attention!) If the United States “acquires” Greenland and Gaza, and takes back the Panama Canal, that will make America great again.  

People with more (and considerably more active) brain-cells tend to define greatness differently. 

Paul Krugman recently considered the “greatness” involved in constructing the Panama Canal, and the greatness–okay, intelligence– displayed by our decision to turn ownership over to Panama.

Yes, it was a spectacular feat of engineering. But even more important, it was a triumph of medical science and science-based policy. To build the canal, America first had to conquer yellow fever and malaria. This meant understanding how these diseases were spread, then implementing widespread preventive measures that ranged from isolating infected patients with mosquito netting to eliminating sources of standing water in which mosquitoes could breed.

The success of these measures was an extraordinary achievement. But then, for much of the 20th century America led the world both in medical research and in the application of that research to public policy. This one-two punch of knowledge and knowledge-based action led to an incredible decline in the rate of death from infectious disease.

Why did the U.S. decide to turn that “spectacular feat of engineering” over to another country? Because it was in our national interest to do so.

America gave up the canal, not out of a spirit of generosity or wokeness, but because U.S. occupation of the Canal Zone had become a strategic liability rather than an asset. By the 1970s changes in transportation patterns had greatly diminished the canal’s economic importance; its military value was almost nil. At the same time, U.S. occupation of the zone had become a flashpoint for anti-Americanism, and it was obvious that defending the canal against sabotage and potential guerilla warfare would be difficult if not impossible.

Of course, weighing the pros and cons of continuing to own the canal requires the application of intelligence to sufficient accurate information–a process clearly beyond the capacities of our egomaniac co-presidents.

As Krugman also notes, quite accurately, America’s real greatness–the attributes that have earned us the global respect and deference that Trump is busily dismantling–relied to a significant extent upon our leadership in science and medicine.

Now Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a crank who rejects vaccines in particular and medical science in general, is on track to become the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The National Institutes of Health have effectively been shut down. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have stopped releasing crucial data. If you go to CDC’s website, there’s a banner across the top reading “CDC’s website is being modified to comply with President Trump’s Executive Orders,” which mainly means purging anything that hints at concern over social inequality.

This country didn’t become great by bullying other nations (although we have certainly done our share of bullying). It didn’t become a beacon for the rest of the world because of slavery or Jim Crow, but instead for our constant struggle to fulfill the Constitution’s promises of liberty and equality. 

Donald Trump evidently thinks “greatness” requires picking on trans children, reversing the social acceptance and economic progress of women and minorities, and ethnically cleansing Gaza. He evidently thinks that scrubbing all mention of climate change from government websites will stop the globe from warming, that ignoring scientific facts of which he disapproves will make those facts disappear, and that being the center of attention means he’s important. 

Trump spent four years in the Oval Office and still has no concept of how government operates or what the rule of law means, or what American government is for.

We the People will never be able to teach him anything–he’s clearly incapable of learning. But we can–and must–disabuse him of the notion that he’s entitled to exercise unfettered power.

Comments

The Shutdown

One of my favorite economists, Paul Krugman, has abandoned his New York Times column after 20 plus years. He has, however, continued his daily subscriber letter, which I receive, and in a recent one, he addressed the  embarrassing pre-Christmas clown show that threatened to shut down the government. He titled the essay–quite appropriately–“The Chaos Monkeys Have Already Taken Over the Zoo.” 

In an earlier Times piece, written before passage of the last-ditch, last-minute deal to keep government over, Krugman had written

Speaker Mike Johnson (soon to be ex-speaker?) is scrambling to put a budget deal together to avoid a government shutdown tomorrow. What a Holiday Gift from President Musk and First Laddy Trump. More at The NY Times here.

They couldn’t even wait till January to unleash the chaos. Classic hubris — too bad the country and the world are within the blast radius.

One more thing. Assuming Johnson is unable to remain Speaker in the next Congress, the days and weeks it might take the GOP to select a new ‘leader’ might take them past the deadline to certify the election.

(I hadn’t considered that possibility, and quite probably, neither did the congressional monkeys, aka “the usual suspects.” An inability to certify Trump’s election, brought on by the most MAGA members of the House, would have been..interesting…)

Krugman was far from the only observer who pointed out that the reasons “President Musk” gave for torpedoing the initial bipartisan measure were mostly bogus. His enumeration of the items in the measure he found unacceptable included a number that weren’t actually included in the measure. (I’m sure everyone reading this is shocked by the revelation that Musk is happy to depart from the truth when it serves his purposes…) A number of reports have zeroed in on what was apparently the real reason he wanted to kill the measure.

As the Hill explained,

In a Friday letter to congressional leaders, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) claimed Musk derailed the deal that would have avoided a government shutdown “in order to protect his wallet and the Chinese Communist Party at the expense of American workers, innovators and businesses.”

The spending agreement released Tuesday included a bipartisan provision to limit and screen U.S. investments in China, among dozens of other proposals attached to the 1,500-page bill.

As the CEO and largest stockholder in Tesla, Musk has extensive business connections to China. The company operates a major manufacturing plant in Shanghai and has sought to build deeper connections with Chinese companies.

Interestingly, although the final bill did not include Trump’s demand to scrap the debt ceiling, it did omit the provision that would have curtailed Musk’s business with China. Musk evidently had more clout with lawmakers than Trump–quite possibly because he has ample resources to fund his threat to primary any legislators who failed to knuckle under.

What is most stunning about this particular “Chaos monkeys” episode is that the entire fiasco was triggered by a man with no official government authority–a man who has never submitted himself to the electorate, who has never received a single vote– yet clearly considers himself a co-President, and just as clearly, intends to use the considerable power of his purse to protect his personal financial interests, if need be, at the expense of the American public’s interests.

Musk is by far the richest of Trump’s proposed governing cabal, but he’s not the only billionaire, nor is he the only one who will bring multiple conflicts of interest to a designated role. The grifter-in-chief proposes to surround himself with other rich men (almost all of his designees are White “Christian” males) who are equally ignorant of government operations and constitutional constraints. They are clearly unconcerned about what policies might be in the national interest. Their first impulses will be to protect their own sources of wealth (or, in the case of RFK, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, to impose their loony-tunes worldviews on the country.)

The dictionary defines Kakistocracy as “government by the least suitable or competent citizens of a state,” and Corporatism as economic control by powerful corporate interests.

I think we’re there.

Comments