Gay Patriot Header Image

My Nephew Takes on Paul Krugman . . .

. . . and wins.

When I returned to my Dad’s after a day with my one of my younger brothers, his son and daughters, my blogging nephew (the second son of my older brother) was frantically typing away on his grandpa’s (the PatriotFatherWest) laptop.  He told me he was taking issue with Paul Krugman’s latest column.

As my nephew blogged, I picked up the New York Times from the kitchen table and read the column. To take issue with this fact-free attempt to label Republicans would be akin to shooting fish in a barrel. But, to do so with well-directed sarcasm is quite a gift. And that’s how my nephew did it, observing:

As for the basis of your entire column that the Republican party has become the “party of stupid,” it is just sophomoric and pointless. Your column didn’t express any new information or perspective, it just reiterated old liberal talking points that you have recylced and reused in each of your past columns.

Mitchell nails it. Instead of showing exactly how the Republican energy policy is merely a push from more drilling with no new ideas, Krugman, like some angry left-winger responding to one of our posts, digresses from the issue at hand and recycles the standard liberal criticism of the president. He lied us into war in Iraq! He (along with his minions and supporters) questioned the patriotism of those who disagreed with him! He screwed up the response to Hurricane Katrina!

Oh and his supporters worshipped him as some kind of Great Leader!  Um, what do any of those accusations have to do with Republican energy policy, the ostensible subject of the column?

Had Krugman bothered to familiarize himself with McCain’s energy policy — or that of any Republican putting forward policies to promote exploration for and development of new sources of energy before he wrote his anti-Republican rant? Or did he just assume it was “Drill here! Drill now! Drill here! Drill now!” because that policy fit his stereotype of a party beholden to the oil industry?

Seems, just like all too many on the left today, Krugman would rather insult Republicans than understand our ideas.

As my nephew puts it:

If I wanted a rehash of liberal views on the last eight years, I could have watched a Michael Moore film or read the Daily Kos or picked up a kilo of Mary Jane and seen what came to me.

It seems that for all his economic education, Paul Krugman has become little more than an angry left-wing blogger but with a platform on (what once was) our nation’s most prestigious newspaper.

Even an incoming college freshman can see that. If you don’t believe me, just check out his post.

Why do Bush-Haters Repeatedly Bring Up their Animosity?

Bookworm’s recent post about her reluctance to come out as a Republican in liberal Marin County really hit home with me (linked in this excellent post).   It wasn’t just that it reminded me of my own past reluctance and that of other gay conservatives to come out about our political inclinations in gay circles.  It was also the insight she provided into the mind of a good number of leftists in our nation’s blue enclaves.

I strongly encourage you to read that post.  I expect it will strike a chord  with those gay conservatives who, like me, live in areas similar to Marin.  You may well recognize your neighbors in her description of hers.  While Bush-hatred has become their consuming passion, like her, you still may see them as multi-dimensional human beings:

Barring their monomaniacal animosity towards Bush and the Republicans, they’re otherwise very nice:  they’re hard workers, loving parents, good neighbors and helpful and reliable friends. 

I’ve seen the same things among a number of my friends and even critics of this blog who correspond with me. Even as they are consumed with hatred for the president and his political party, they can be accomplished in other endeavors and decent human beings, provided of course they steer clear of political discourse.

But, all too many of them seem all too eager to steer the conversation in a political direction. In late June, Bruce posted on a business dinner he had attended earlier that month. He was enjoying a pleasant repast with a gay liberal Democrat when all of a sudden that latter “let loose,” delivering a string of invective about the president, the vice president and the GOP.

Bookworm writes of similar outbursts:

My in-laws who are, like me, 9/11 neocons (down in Los Angeles) have stared open-mouthed at colleagues who use staff meetings to revile Bush and the Republicans —all to the cheers and huzzahs of the other staff members.

Why do these people find it necessary to turn conversations to politics in situations where politics aren’t even on the agenda? And not a civil discourse about candidates, elected officials, their policy proposals and assorted ideas, but an emotional outburst against certain national figures — and one political party.  Why, in short, do they repeatedly bring up their hatred of Bush?

Perhaps, this aspect of the post so resonated with me because I first read it on Wednesday, I was wondering why some of our critics insisted on bringing up their hatred of Bush in posts not even referencing the president or his policies. Heck, they weren’t even posts about politics, but instead about movies.

This hatred may explain why there is more profanity on left-leaning blogs.

But, ever trying to understand things, to find their meaning, I wonder not at the explanation for that profanity, but at this obsession with the object(s)* of their animosity? Why must they dwell on their hate?

Their hatred’s not going to go away even if Obama wins.  They’ll find another way to vent.  While they have found a political target for their venom, their hatred has roots deeper than their political convictions and concerns about the incumbent President of the United States and his likely successor. 


* I had written object as I began the post, but realized that some on the left are starting to bring up their hatred of McCain even in conversations or in fora unrelated to politics.