House of Eratosthenes

There’s a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled “Freedom of Speech,” depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.’s “Four Freedoms,” shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don’t like what he’s saying, but they’re letting him speak his mind.

That’s a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls, where angry protesters — some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting “This is America!” — have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform.

Where to begin?

I always took it as a given that the painting was about “ordinary” citizens, once given the courage to find a voice, being entitled to use it. The man speaking, after all, is in casual clothes that indicate a humble working and social status, and it’s obvious that this was central to Rockwell’s intent. But of course it isn’t central to the intent of Krugman, who wants to champion the cause of the poor, powerless and oppressed Congressmen who are determined to vote bills into law that they haven’t read.

Secondly, if the argument is one about anecdotes that suggest one side or the other is connected to some kind of organizational structure, with the matter settled upon the discussion of the first or second such anecdote, verified or not — that isn’t much of an argument, is it? Is this how the nation’s most prestigious economist decides things? I suppose that beats the snot out of “every single idea on the ideological spectrum is better than the idea to its immediate right, but not as good as the one to the immediate left” which is how I previously thought Mr. Krugman decides what’s wonderful and what’s odious. But it seems to me the former forensic method is simply a thin, purely cosmetic justification for the latter. Could someone place a call to the New York Times and inform Krugman that some of these mobs on the left have been known to benefit from central coordination as well? Judging by his remarks here, it should come as quite the learning experience.

Thirdly, I notice Krugman’s logic defeats itself. If these are isolated cases of nutbars and whack-jobs speaking out at town hall meetings, interrupting these poor, poor oppressed legislators who want so badly to vote on bills they haven’t read…but the real mainstream Americans understand what a wonderful idea it is to have this universal healthcare (in this bill the Congressmen haven’t read)…the solution is quite simple. Just stop holding the town hall meetings. Stop talking to us. Just pass the whole mess into law, and in the next election cycle the constituents can decide whether they thought that was a swell idea or not. After they’ve spent two to four years living with the consequences and had an opportunity to receive the benefits of that wonderful, wonderful state-provided health care.

Stop talking, start doing. That would shut down the enemy’s propaganda machine right then & there, wouldn’t it?

I realize it’s become cliched to ponder “What Would The Founding Fathers Think of X” and everyone wants to resurrect the gentlemen who gave us Independence within some mythical bubble, in which the old white guys in knee breeches and wigs, who seldom agreed with each other on much of anything, magically march in lock-step with whoever’s speaking about it. It’s not an honest way to argue about anything, and we try to stay away from it. Still and all, in this case, I have to wonder what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams would have to say about what so obviously weighs on Paul Krugman’s mind here — the right, and the ability, of the powerful to speak out over the objections of those who lack any real power to stop them, and are committed to living with what results from the decisions of those powerful people, be it good or bad.

I try to envision a train of thought any one of them would use, just before announcing “and so this economist you have, Paul Krugman, is absolutely right and you should listen to him.” I’m not having much success with this. Such a train-of-thought would suppose that this nation was put together to make sure our elected representatives would be able to pass poorly-thought-out laws upon how the rest of us live out our lives — how our bodies are to be maintained — with an absolute minimum of fuss, hassle, thought or challenge.

Many’s the Krugman column that has inspired me to question: Upon what planet does this fellow live? This one’s just more of the same. Planet Propaganda, I guess. Krugman’s a shill, but that’s just stating the obvious.

It’s a bitch when those democrat-party paychecks don’t clear, huh Paul?

Well, we have our own economist, Thomas Sowell.

Whose brain seems to be perpetually fully engaged in the real world.

I forced myself to read Krugman’s article this morning to see for myself what he had to say after the news guys pointed it out on the air this morning. *Ugh*.

Condescending, smug …. [pttthh!]
- philmon | 08/07/2009 @ 11:55
Who’s brain, that is 😉

Where’s your damned grammar checker when I need it?
- philmon | 08/07/2009 @ 11:55
Sigh, had it right the first time. And now, to see if I can find my brain clutch.
- philmon | 08/07/2009 @ 11:57

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Krugman on the Town Hall Rent-a-MobsFriday, August 7th, 2009

Krugman on the Town Hall Rent-a-Mobs
Friday, August 7th, 2009