How Krugman Gives Democrats a Free Pass in his Rolling Stone Article: The Great Wealth Transfer

In Rolling Stone, Paul Krugman details how George W. Bush policies have helped the rich to scam everyone else out of a decent (let alone fair) share of the American pie. Krugman may very well be correct that the U.S. could soon face the economic inequality of Latin American, and that that inequality could end up permanently locked-in. Nevertheless, he fails to mention several major contributing factors, and it's noteworthy that he mentions none for which the Democrats share blame. For starters, he doesn't once mention a century of court rulings allowing corporate personhood, nor does he discuss the Clintonian policy of globalization and its fallout for average workers.

Curiously, Krugman neglects the major role that Clinton's Telecommunications Act of 1996 played in censoring public discussion and awareness of the problems of economic inequity. Foisted on the U.S. public with lies that it would increase competition in (and hence diversify) the market place of ideas, it did the opposite. Afterwards, major media companies went "from around 80 in 1986, to 5 in 2005." As a consequence, the number of voices in the media that speak honestly on behalf of average workers has narrowed, especially since the gigantic conglomerates that own and sponsor the media are guided by profit-driven policies which are at odds with unions and fair compensation for workers. Although little in Krugman's Rolling Stone article would be difficult for the average worker to grasp, most Americans who rely on T.V. for news hardly hear a word about labor issues, except perhaps for those who are prosperous enough to purchase cable where they can watch the likes Lou Dobbs. Similarly, Krugman mentions nothing of the PR machinery of government and corporate punditry and propaganda, especially in the form of VNR, all of which the media giants freely embrace in order to perpetuate the big economic lies: that the economy is better; that anyone can make it if they try; that tax breaks help the little guy (even though they almost exclusively benefit the wealthy). As with pretexts for invading Iraq, there are also well-funded Orwellian PR campaigns to sell American workers a big bag of lies about the economy.

Though George W. Bush could very well be the most corrupt president in U.S. history, Krugman's article would have Americans think that Bush and his rubber-stamp Republican cronies are alone to blame for the demise of the American middle class. Just as the impeachment movement tends to conveniently neglect Congressional Democrats' vast complicity in the U.S. disaster in Iraq, it's journalism like Krugman's that fosters public denial of the fact that Democrats are also complicit in stripping the average American of the type of liberty that only comes with some basic level prosperity--what until now was known as the great American dream. Now, the realization of that dream becomes increasingly tentative as the average American lives by credit and the U.S. dollar is further devalued by deficits. While I'm pleased that Krugman champions the plight of the average worker, I wish he would better explain that Washington Democrats also share blame for the decline of the middle class. Otherwise, he comes off as little more than a partisan shill who opens the door for Democrats to enact further policies which ensure the fruits of American labor continue to be redistributed upwardly.