Dr. Krugman, Being the intelligent man that you are I know you are well aware of the problem of Democracies in history. I also believe that you are aware that the traditional power approach to a Democracy's desire to create and follow a Hero doesn't work.
For that reason I also am not convinced that your suggestions have much basis in historical reality. The professionals here in doing what you suggest are all on the other side and by that I mean in the fundamentalist churches where they are used to this kind of grass roots support. If you want to attack someone you must find a way of "getting their goat" about Ralph Reed and his "Christian" approach to Cleland. Don't hold back. The only other option to reining in your civility is to walk away. The passive approach, if used actively, can be very powerful. A large percentage of the population staying home from elections overtly could do a lot of good if the statement is clear. The lopsided Media situation is a good example. If it is not done well it can seem like pouting but done correctly it will make a statement both here and Internationally. Business moves when they lose business. Organize boycotts but use the moral statement instead of giving them the high ground by using the abortion issue. Historically both the so called right and left points of view are Liberalism. Point this out. They are two children with the same Mother. If you boycott an election then you must be prepared to play Thomas Moore and you also must remember that even though he removed the King's moral authority he was personally martyred for it. This is the place where the children either grow up and work out strategies that work or they take refuge in being a victim. The Republicans were down for years after FDR and they learned to stick it out. The point is are we as strong? We must learn four things. 1. that UNITED WE STAND is a Republican motto for their own party. When it was applied to 9/11 America became emotionally Republican in that moment. We must come up with another advertising model that is just as strong and represents Democratic Individualism. How strange to hear Republicans claiming to be Libertarians for example. We have to remember that all serious campaigns begin at the grass roots. David Gergen that old Republican said that "when Republicans lose they circle the wagons but when Democrats lose they begin executions." 2. The first rule of Propaganda: "Accuse the opposition of doing what they see you doing and put it on a constant feedback loop." e.g. "Bill Clinton was a terrible sleaze but Gingrich, Livingston and the others were only terrible because Larry Flynt outted them." The only answer to this is a return to the "Fairness doctrine" in the Media and until that happens money will simply rule. 3. The rule of money: According to the Media, money is dirty for Democrats but is a part of the Republican concept of "values." Let me give you an example. A concert pianist practicing the Hammerklavier Sonata is not valuable work but a typist typing irrelevant letters is. The difference is that the first is not paid while the second is. That is the rule of money. Strategic giving, thinking, etc. It is the foundation of Game theory and of the reason for the wealthy's existence in their own minds. It is also your problem to solve as an economist since it began in economics and with that turn away from intrinsic value with the Unitarian Master Jevons who loved "usefulness" but felt guilty about taking pleasure in anything as value. 4. The Assault on education: Yesterday I was told by one of my old students that she was banned from giving a speech by the wonderful Canadian writer Boyce Richardson that took America and the American President to task for his response to 9/11 and his hypocrisy for supporting the terrorist school at Fort Benning, Georgia. Richardson's speech was within the parameters of the assignment but the professor said that it was "too opinionated". I asked my old student what that meant and she said that he was Christian and that it took the Christians to task for hypocrisy. Because I am sworn to protect that student's identity and would not like to see this in print I will simply say that the school was close and that it's mandate is as a "communications" school. The assault has already begun to return the Universities to the time that I experienced in the early sixties when I was only allowed to be contentious if I protested a "secular humanist liberal" and it helped if their name indicated that they were non-Christian. (Tulsa U., Oklahoma) I would suggest that you take Simpson to task no matter how genial an old man he happens to be at Harvard. As the business minded Republicans would say "nothing personal, just business." It took many years for the right and left to work out a compromise in England. Today we complain believing that America escaped that in its development. I believe that it is a mistake to think that adolescence can be skipped in any developmental system having to do with humans. The rule for the next seventy five or so years is going to have to be "tit for tat" and that is just the way things are. The point is whether we have the strength and cleverness of the Right Wing or not. I'm a musician and I would remind you that concertos for only one hand don't make very interesting works. I would also remind you that one of the early right wing pillars in this was Samuel Lipman, a failed concert pianist as is Dr. C Rice. Incorporating the left hand into a severely right dominant performer is tough. It takes many years and great mental strength and stubbornness on the part of the performer. Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble, Inc. and Training 200 West 70th Street, Suite 6-C New York City, New York 10023 212 724 2398 [EMAIL PROTECTED] November 8, 2002 Into the Wilderness By PAUL KRUGMAN or those of us who think the nation has taken a disastrous wrong turn these past two years, Tuesday's election changed everything and nothing. Clearly, we're going to have an extended sojourn in the political wilderness. Even criticizing the Bush administration's policies will become far more difficult. It will be hard even to find out what it's up to; the most secretive administration in the nation's history will now be even less forthcoming. And anyone who criticizes the administration, even on purely domestic issues, will be accused of lacking patriotism. After all, that strategy worked even against Senator Max Cleland, a genuine war hero who lost three limbs in his country's service. What hasn't changed is the fundamental wrongness of this administration's direction. Too many pundits, confusing politics with policy - or engaging in sheer power worship - imagine that a party that wins a battle must be doing something right. But it ain't necessarily so. Political victory doesn't make a bad policy good; it doesn't make a lie the truth. But what do we do about it? Some of my friends are in despair. They fear that by the time the political pendulum swings, the damage will be irreparable. A ballooning federal debt, they say, will have made it impossible to deal with the needs of an aging population. Years of unchecked crony capitalism will have destroyed faith in our financial markets. Unilateralist foreign policy will have left us without real allies. And most important of all, environmental neglect will have gone past the point of no return. They may be right. But we have to behave as if they aren't, and try to turn American politics around. It won't be easy. There are essentially no moderates left in the Republican Party, so change will have to come from the Democrats. And they are deep in a hole. It's not just Sept. 11. As Jonathan Chait points out in The New Republic, the Republicans also have a huge structural advantage. They can spend far more money getting their message out; when it comes to free publicity, some of the major broadcast media are simply biased in favor of the Republicans, while the rest tend to blur differences between the parties. But that's the way it is. Democrats should complain as loudly about the real conservative bias of the media as the Republicans complain about its entirely mythical liberal bias; that will help them get their substantive message across. But first they have to have a message. Since the 2000 election, and especially since Sept. 11, much of the Democratic leadership has argued that the party must play it safe - don't criticize the Bush administration too much, don't propose anything drastic that will offend corporations and the wealthy. What we should have realized, and what Tuesday's election disaster confirms, is that this plays right into Republican advantages. Talk radio and Fox News let the hard right get its message out to its supporters, while those who oppose the juggernaut stay home because they don't get the sense that the Democrats offer a real alternative. To have a chance of breaking through the wall of media blur and distraction, the Democrats have to get the public's attention - which means they have to stand for something. It's obvious what the Democrats should stand for: Above all, they should be the defenders of ordinary Americans against the power of our burgeoning plutocracy. That means hammering the Republicans as they back off on corporate reform - which they will. It means defending the environment against the administration's sly, behind-the-scenes program of dismantling regulation. And it means doing what the party has refused to do: coming out forthrightly against tax cuts for corporations and the rich - both the cuts passed last year and those yet to come. In the next few months the Bush administration will once again demand tax cuts that benefit a tiny elite, in the name of economic stimulus. The Democrats mustn't fall for this line again; they must insist that the way to stimulate the economy is to put money in the hands of people who need it. If the Democratic Party takes a clear stand for the middle class and against the plutocracy, it may still lose. But if it doesn't stand for anything, it - and the country - will surely lose.
