Homestead mailing list

[tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>]

   The New York Times
------------------------------------------------------------------------


         January 7, 2005

*OP-ED COLUMNIST*


   Worse Than Fiction

*By PAUL KRUGMAN 
<http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per> 
*

I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel 
because there won't be any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an 
ideology I disagree with - they'll be hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels.

In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an 
affair and writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be 
hiding an expensive gambling habit. A talk radio host who advocates 
harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own 
drug addiction.

In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange 
obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to 
"man on dog" sex. Another will rant about the dangers of lesbians in 
high school bathrooms.

In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security 
a "good man" who turns out to have been the subject of an arrest 
warrant, who turned an apartment set aside for rescue workers into his 
personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers.

In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular 
Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual 
harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second 
thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel.

In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will charge foreign 
policy critics with anti-Semitism. But they will be silent when a 
prominent conservative declares that "Hollywood is controlled by secular 
Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the 
troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore 
repeated complaints that the troops lack armor.

The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to the 
president - won't even bother signing letters to the families of 
soldiers killed in action.

Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself 
as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread 
use of torture.

How did we find ourselves living in a bad novel? It was not ever thus. 
Hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels have always been with us, on both 
sides of the aisle. But 9/11 created an environment some liberals 
summarize with the acronym Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

The public became unwilling to believe bad things about those who claim 
to be defending the nation against terrorism. And the hypocrites, cranks 
and scoundrels of the right, empowered by the public's credulity, have 
come out in unprecedented force.

Apologists for the administration would like us to forget all about the 
Kerik affair, but Bernard Kerik perfectly symbolizes the times we live 
in. Like Rudolph Giuliani and, yes, President Bush, he wasn't a hero of 
9/11, but he played one on TV. And like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to 
cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation.

Once the New York newspapers began digging, it became clear that Mr. 
Kerik is, professionally and personally, a real piece of work. But 
that's not unusual these days among people who successfully pass 
themselves off as patriots and defenders of moral values. Mr. Kerik must 
still be wondering why he, unlike so many others, didn't get away with it.

And Alberto Gonzales must be hoping that senators don't bring up the 
subject.

The principal objection to making Mr. Gonzales attorney general is that 
doing so will tell the world that America thinks it's acceptable to 
torture people. But his confirmation will also be a statement about ethics.

As White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales was charged with vetting Mr. Kerik. 
He must have realized what kind of man he was dealing with - yet he 
declared Mr. Kerik fit to oversee homeland security.

Did Mr. Gonzales defer to the wishes of a president who wanted Mr. Kerik 
anyway, or did he decide that his boss wouldn't want to know? (The 
Nelson Report, a respected newsletter, reports that Mr. Bush has made it 
clear to his subordinates that he doesn't want to hear bad news about 
Iraq.)

Either way, when the Senate confirms Mr. Gonzales, it will mean that 
Iokiyar remains in effect, that the basic rules of ethics don't apply to 
people aligned with the ruling party. And reality will continue to be 
worse than any fiction I could write.

/E-mail: krugman AT nytimes.com/


Copyright 2005 
<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html> The New 
York Times Company <http://www.nytco.com/> | Home 
<http://www.nytimes.com/> | Privacy Policy 
<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html> | Search 
<http://query.nytimes.com/search/advanced/> | Corrections 
<http://www.nytimes.com/corrections.html> | RSS 
<http://www.nytimes.com/rss> | Help 
<http://www.nytimes.com/membercenter/sitehelp.html> | Back to Top 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/07/opinion/07krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=#top>