Me, I think that people who dislike George W. Bush do so because George W. Bush has done dislikeable things:
Economist.com | Lexington: Bush-hatred is now something that civilised people wear as a badge of honour...
Indeed it is. Why, Lexington needs to only look three or four articles earlier in this week's magazine to find denunciations of Bush's "no-lobbyist-left-behind [energy] bill and of his "increasingly hollow" free-trade rhetoric.
Posted by DeLong at November 20, 2003 12:56 PM | TrackBack
>> his "increasingly hollow" free-trade rhetoric.>> today in London he actually changed it to a "fair-trade" rhetoric...
Posted by: Mats on November 20, 2003 01:15 PMSpeaking as (i hope) a "civilized" person, i don't "hate" Bush. I can't stand him, but that's because he's exactly the kind of person i've always been unable to stand: a shallow, spoiled, ill-informed individual whose success in life has entirely been a result of the helpfulness of enablers who knew his father.
I "hate" his policies. George Bush policies fall into two categories: good ideas that are terribly implemented and bad ideas.
And "lexington," whoever he is, belongs to the surprisingly large number of bush enablers in journalism. it's actually a shame that the economist can't find anyone better to fill that slot.
Posted by: howard on November 20, 2003 01:35 PMLexington is a columnist who made very little sense to me (when I used to subscribe to The Economist). He would, for example, uses like "pity Pres. Clinton:..." followed by some inevitable conundrum, like, "if he heads off deficit spending, then economic growth may be squelched," or something trivial like that. Bagehot does the same thing with Blair, as if these policy trade-offs were somehow unique to [American] Democrats, [UK & Australian] Labourites, or their analogues elesewhere.
"No lobbyist left behind." Cute. Gold star to whomever thought of that.
Posted by: Andrew Boucher on November 20, 2003 02:36 PMWe don't hate the President.
The President hates us.
There's a difference.
You ask, "What has the Bush administration done over the past three years to draw such a concentration of Mr Krugman's intellectual fire?" First of all, note the hidden assumption that the cause is actions by Mr. Bush's administration.
Most of Prof. Krugman's criticism of the President has been about non-economic matters. In fact, Krugman's column routinely blames the President for a surprising variety of problems or imperfections. So do some other NY Times columnists, including Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and Bob Herbert. Apparently this sort of criticism has appeal to the Times's owners and its readers.
If you think the criticisms are accurate, then Krugman is simply being perceptive. If you think the criticisms are inaccurate, then Krugman is either pandering or obsessive.
Also, Paul Krugman is a busy man, with many responsibilities. Writing a column is quicker and easier with a formula: Describe a problem -- conclude that it's Bush's fault.
Posted by: David on November 20, 2003 03:24 PMYou ask, "What has the Bush administration done over the past three years to draw such a concentration of Mr Krugman's intellectual fire?" First of all, note the hidden assumption that the cause is actions by Mr. Bush's administration.
Most of Prof. Krugman's criticism of the President has been about non-economic matters. In fact, Krugman's column routinely blames the President for a surprising variety of problems or imperfections. So do some other NY Times columnists, including Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and Bob Herbert. Apparently this sort of criticism has appeal to the Times's owners and its readers.
If you think the criticisms are accurate, then Krugman is simply being perceptive. If you think the criticisms are inaccurate, then Krugman is either pandering or obsessive.
Also, Paul Krugman is a busy man, with many responsibilities. Writing a column is quicker and easier with a formula: Describe a problem -- conclude that it's Bush's fault.
Posted by: David on November 20, 2003 03:24 PMRemember: hate the sin and not the sinner.
Posted by: john c. halasz on November 20, 2003 03:25 PMPeople hated Clinton with far more passion than anything directed against Bush however I do not recall anyone saying why do so many people hate Clinton.
Posted by: Homer Paxton on November 20, 2003 04:10 PMLexington needs to be taken out to the woodshed. Only a few comments:
1. The slur on Ted Rall was astoundingly viscious and even libelous. Indeed, I rather hope Ted takes the Pearson Group to court for that one. I've read most of his cartoons, and never seen anything that advocated the murder of US troops. It would be astoundingly out of character.
2. So hatred backfires as a strategy? It worked to impeach Clinton and to defeat Gore.
3. Do we really hate Bush? Or is it that we feel like passengers on a bus driven by a well meaning and affable gentleman who is very firmly driving us off a cliff?
I cannot hate George Bush, The behavior of the American people in supporting him, however, does make me wonder if we deserve the nation we've inherited.
Posted by: John Faughnan on November 20, 2003 06:27 PMIt's me. I hate Bush. Sorry guys, but if people accuse you of hating Bush, just tell the "No, you must be thinking of Zizka".
Posted by: Zizka on November 20, 2003 07:23 PM"No lobbyist left behind" has been attributed to Senator McCain (R-AZ).
Posted by: bakho on November 21, 2003 07:38 AMNo lobbyist left behind is great.
Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate ... Money grubber hate leads to Jew hate. (see my blog)
Most haters hate the "tax cuts for the rich". But since, in world human terms, most all US taxpayers are rich, any tax cut is for the rich. The question should be, what helps more poor people learn to live productive lives?
It ain't welfare for the rich lobbyists -- but welfare in general has to be scrapped to scrap welfare for the rich (& powerful).