Title : How can the NYT think this photograph an illustrates "The Paranoid Style in G.O.P. Politics"?
link : How can the NYT think this photograph an illustrates "The Paranoid Style in G.O.P. Politics"?
How can the NYT think this photograph an illustrates "The Paranoid Style in G.O.P. Politics"?
The article, from 2 days ago, is "The Paranoid Style in G.O.P. Politics/Republicans are an authoritarian regime in waiting" by Paul Krugman. (The phrase "The Paranoid Style" is an invocation of the 1964 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" by Richard Hofstadter.)
The photograph — which is a nice photograph by NYT photographer Damon Winter — shows anti-Kavanaugh protesters. The signs make that clear. Perhaps the idea is that "paranoid" Republicans characterize Democratic protesters as crazier than they really are. The only slightly "crazy" sign is the one that shows angry-face Kavanaugh wearing one of those hats that hold 2 beer cans with a tube feeding beer into the hat-wearers mouth. The protesters' faces look not crazy but — if I had to choose one word — concerned.
I haven't read a Paul Krugman column in a long time, but because the headline/photograph combination raised a question for me, I'm going to read to get my answer.
Krugman begins at a level that I consider rash. He calls Kavanaugh "a naked partisan who clearly lied under oath." This is why I don't read Krugman. It's red meat for readers who are hungry and know what they want. The Supreme Court's "moral authority" is "for the foreseeable future," "destroyed."
If there's one person who should not use the phrase "the foreseeable future," it's Krugman. It's alway a silly phrase. We're not psychics. We don't see into the future. But Krugman is famous for writing, the day after the 2016 election, that the financial markets will never recover from the election of Donald Trump. He should know he got burned and be careful.
Back to this new column. Krugman accuses Republicans — based on their performance during the Kavanaugh hearings — of "contempt for the truth" and "a rush to demonize any and all criticism." He sees Republicans as susceptible to "crazy conspiracy theories" because Kavanaugh accused the Democrats of making "a calculated and orchestrated political hit" and seeking "revenge" for Hillary Clinton's loss of the election. Kavanaugh's statement, according to Krugman, was a "completely false, hysterical accusation." Completely false? That sounds... hysterical.
Trump made things worse, Krugman says, by "declaring, falsely (and with no evidence)" that some anti-Kavanaugh protesters were getting paid. How can Krugman know that the President has no evidence? How can Krugman know that the it's false to say they were paid? Does Krugman have evidence conclusively proving that the protesters were all self-funding? I'd like to see an investigation into the inner workings of the protests, and I do think there shouldn't be accusations without evidence, but criticism of the accusers should model proper concern for evidence, or everyone seems to be putting partisan fervor above scrupulous adherence to the truth.
Midway through the column, Krugman shifts from saying that the GOP uses the "paranoid style" to the announcement: "the G.O.P. is an authoritarian regime in waiting." In Krugman's analysis, when those who hold government power use the paranoid style, it's evidence that they're going for authoritarianism. Krugman lists some things — evidence? — "investigations," "scandals," "tax cheating," "self-dealing," "possible collusion with Russia," and then asks "Does anyone doubt that Trump would like to go full authoritarian, given the chance?"
Well, of course, many people doubt that Trump would like to go full authoritarian! Why did Krugman write a question in such an extreme form that any intelligent, fair person would have to answer yes? Is he paranoid?
I'm not quick to guess paranoid. I think it's more likely that he's angry, cynical, tired of losing, and aware of his readership. In other words, he's deeply entrenched in the very sort of political discourse he's hoping to critique. It's paranoid when they do it. Uh huh.
His last line is another look into the "foreseeable future": "If you aren’t terrified of where we might be in the very near future, you aren’t paying attention." Be scared! Be very afraid! Be terrified... of the way those other people are spreading fear!
And I still don't know why that's the right photograph. I can only guess that the idea is: Look at these very real, sincere faces. Surely, they paid their own expenses.
Thus Article How can the NYT think this photograph an illustrates "The Paranoid Style in G.O.P. Politics"?
That's an article How can the NYT think this photograph an illustrates "The Paranoid Style in G.O.P. Politics"? This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article How can the NYT think this photograph an illustrates "The Paranoid Style in G.O.P. Politics"? with the link address https://infotodays1.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-can-nyt-think-this-photograph.html
0 Response to "How can the NYT think this photograph an illustrates "The Paranoid Style in G.O.P. Politics"?"
Post a Comment