Saturday, July 21, 2012

Analysis of U.S. Media: Krugman Demonstrates Political Bias

Paul Krugman (Photo Credit: Fred R. Conrad)

In the FDA opinion, Paul Krugman, columnist for the N.Y. Times, demonstrates in the article below his political bias for the Democratic Party. In the article, he assumes that Romney won't release pre-2010 tax returns, because he thinks he is better, and that because of his wealth, he is entitled to different rules than Americans who are not wealthy (plutocracy). To put this in context, it took Obama three years to release his long-form birth certificate. Does this mean that Obama falls into the category of Romney less his lack of wealth prior to entering his presidency? Further, as mentioned in a previous post, there is no requirement or rule that Romney or any other candidate has to release pre-2010 tax returns. The FDA contends that an inclination to privacy is not exclusive to wealthy Americans. Every human being is private on some level.

An objective assessment of Romney based on his actions is that he is a private person; he is hiding things; he thinks he is better; he is.... on and on with assumptions. Political leanings likely underlie these assumptions. Let's just stick to the facts: Romney did not disclose pre-2010 tax returns; he is not required to do so; he has no conviction or pending conviction for illegal wrongdoing regarding his investment businesses. Done. Move on.

Pathos of the Plutocrat
By Paul Krugman

“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” So wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald — and he didn’t just mean that they have more money. What he meant instead, at least in part, was that many of the very rich expect a level of deference that the rest of us never experience and are deeply distressed when they don’t get the special treatment they consider their birthright; their wealth “makes them soft where we are hard.”

And because money talks, this softness — call it the pathos of the plutocrats — has become a major factor in America’s political life.

It’s no secret that, at this point, many of America’s richest men — including some former Obama supporters — hate, just hate, President Obama. Why? Well, according to them, it’s because he “demonizes” business — or as Mitt Romney put it earlier this week, he “attacks success.” Listening to them, you’d think that the president was the second coming of Huey Long, preaching class hatred and the need to soak the rich.

Needless to say, this is crazy. In fact, Mr. Obama always bends over backward to declare his support for free enterprise and his belief that getting rich is perfectly fine. All that he has done is to suggest that sometimes businesses behave badly, and that this is one reason we need things like financial regulation. No matter: even this hint that sometimes the rich aren’t completely praiseworthy has been enough to drive plutocrats wild. For two years or more, Wall Street in particular has been crying: “Ma! He’s looking at me funny!”

Wait, there’s more. Not only do many of the superrich feel deeply aggrieved at the notion that anyone in their class might face criticism, they also insist that their perception that Mr. Obama doesn’t like them is at the root of our economic problems. Businesses aren’t investing, they say, because business leaders don’t feel valued. Mr. Romney repeated this line, too, arguing that because the president attacks success “we have less success.”

This, too, is crazy (and it’s disturbing that Mr. Romney appears to share this delusional view about what ails our economy). There’s no mystery about the reasons the economic recovery has been so weak. Housing is still depressed in the aftermath of a huge bubble, and consumer demand is being held back by the high levels of household debt that are the legacy of that bubble. Business investment has actually held up fairly well given this weakness in demand. Why should businesses invest more when they don’t have enough customers to make full use of the capacity they already have?

But never mind. Because the rich are different from you and me, many of them are incredibly self-centered. They don’t even see how funny it is — how ridiculous they look — when they attribute the weakness of a $15 trillion economy to their own hurt feelings. After all, who’s going to tell them? They’re safely ensconced in a bubble of deference and flattery.

Unless, that is, they run for public office.

Like everyone else following the news, I’ve been awe-struck by the way questions about Mr. Romney’s career at Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he founded, and his refusal to release tax returns have so obviously caught the Romney campaign off guard. Shouldn’t a very wealthy man running for president — and running specifically on the premise that his business success makes him qualified for office — have expected the nature of that success to become an issue? Shouldn’t it have been obvious that refusing to release tax returns from before 2010 would raise all kinds of suspicions?

By the way, while we don’t know what Mr. Romney is hiding in earlier returns, the fact that he is still stonewalling despite calls by Republicans as well as Democrats to come clean suggests that it could be something seriously damaging.

Anyway, what’s now apparent is that the campaign was completely unprepared for the obvious questions, and it has reacted to the Obama campaign’s decision to ask those questions with a hysteria that surely must be coming from the top. Clearly, Mr. Romney believed that he could run for president while remaining safe inside the plutocratic bubble and is both shocked and angry at the discovery that the rules that apply to others also apply to people like him. Fitzgerald again, about the very rich: “They think, deep down, that they are better than we are.”

O.K., let’s take a deep breath. The truth is that many, and probably most, of the very rich don’t fit Fitzgerald’s description. There are plenty of very rich Americans who have a sense of perspective, who take pride in their achievements without believing that their success entitles them to live by different rules.

But Mitt Romney, it seems, isn’t one of those people. And that discovery may be an even bigger issue than whatever is hidden in those tax returns he won’t release.


  1. Obama was NOT trying to hide anything when he would not release his birth certificate to the public. That was already legally verified before he was even elected. The reason he was reluctant to produce his birth certificate to the public was that nobody had ever asked prior presidents for their birth certificate during office. It is definitely veiled racism when the only black president is asked repeatedly for his birth certificate. I, for one, would not hurry up and produce my birth certificate just because some ignorant yahoo has decided to single me out.

    With 20/20 hindsight, it might have been smarter for Obama to simply post his long-form birth certificate online, to get ahead of any potential problems.

    You know, the same thing that Romney should do with his own "tax problem".

    1. You are probably right regarding Romney. Privacy versus disclosure. Ultimately, it is up to Romney.


Thank you for sharing your perspective.