In our current lesson on propaganda, from the masters on the subject who haunt the macabre lower reaches of the Old Gray Lady, known as the Walter Duranty Papers [1] [2], we learn that “historical narratives matter.”[3] Gee whiz! Didn’t we know that? But it is the twist and redaction of historical narratives matter that really matter today.
In the lesson today, we want to see if the conclusion to pushed up to the front as far as possible in the propaganda sheet and, yes, we see it boldly stated in the title. So much for grinding away at the basics. Give Krugman an A so far. We could have predicted this. But, now for details, as if they were necessary to make the point in the title. The conclusion is known by reading the title. The rest of the article is fluff. Today’s toady tussle begins with the following:
“That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.”
This is a convolution of elementary logic, which is proper and very acceptable in misinformation exercises as it injects a bit of mysticism into the facts to stimulate and confuse the reader. Frequently, experienced redactors fall into their own trap as they may even begin to believe their own bunkum. This has probably happened at the Times many times and the psychological mildew that resulted from this questionable practice was thus probably created like the Frankenstein Monster as a junk assemblage art form is constructed from alleyway and flop house sources. After decades of this practice, the disease persists and probably still sticks to the walls, door knobs and keyboards of the staff cubicles. It appears in most of the opinion pieces. Hence, this becomes the excuse for the infection of new propagandists at the Times, on only kind of person who can print “what is fit to read.” The muddy point being made here is that the New Deal was wonderful and that such actual political failures need to be revisited, redacted and praised. Propaganda can accomplish this. The Times staff is convinced.
Next, comes the expedient political volley against any and all Clinton
“And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.”[underlining is mine]
The attack begins. But the propaganda elements of this piece are not overblown! Here is truth! Since Senator Obama is talking about good times and using inflammatory words and phrases like a ‘sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship,’ his use of these hated terms may be used to link the Senator with the unseemly aspects of capitalists and other successful persons who have destroyed the Marxist Dream.
Now, the connection: Senator Obama has chosen the wrong political icon and worst possible economic model and now advocates something other than FDR and his socialism. No!!! This is the horrible mistake and it must be exposed. Words like entrepreneurship belong to capitalists and the use of dynamism is fit only for a Rambo movie.
This restatement of the premise, a simple amplification that is necessary for the mentally disnimble, now offers a way to place a wedge between a political candidate that is challenging Hillary and her tax hiking entourage. Obama is wrong. A strong distinction must be made here using the Guilt of Association Theory. [4] Here, using the old stale propagandistic stratagem of association of some person or concept with evil, we note that the New York Times has connected the good Senator, leading in the polls in South Carolina
The choice between Hillary and Obama is now clear. [It always was at the Old Gray Lady, but this is propaganda]: Vote for Hillary.
But, we must have some compassion and sympathize with the author’s dilemma here. Krugman, the chief non-economist of the NYT has to juggle some wobbly baubles in this current Coney Island Freak Show Act as he commingles such touchy issues as historical narratives, the images of FDR and Ronald Reagan, race and other salient factors and squish them all into some kind of rubber presentation that translates, propagandistically as:
Vote for Hillary, whose Marxist credentials are impeccable; Vote against Obama.
Here the tax enthusiast needs to show FDR in the best economic and leadership light while trashing Ronald Reagan and simultaneously pushing Senator Obama in the Reagan Camp. Double Whammy! This is tough task given the histrionics on these tangled matters. Of course, FDR did not dent the unemployment rate much [25% in 1933 and still 15% until Pearl Harbor Day 8 years later] and got 400,000 Americans soldiers killed in war and gave us a stunning full year’s debt that nobody predicted could ever be paid off. His New Deal was an unsurpassed tax whoring event. Looking beyond these disasters, FDR was a socialist and his notions were hence acceptable. Henry Wallace would have been a much healthier choice for the left in 1948, but most elements of history have no propagandistic utility for the Times so things like this are not mentioned. Wallace was a True Commie Stooge so the NYT has to be careful here. They cannot seem to be too blatant in the praise of Marxism.
Firstly, Ronald Reagan is still hated by the far left as he was an anti-Communist. Those True Communists and their liberal toadies who could not exactly announce their unanimous support for Stalin chose to be labeled as anti-anti-Communists[5], a clever double negative that was politically acceptable at the time and is still now used. He was attacked by known Communists like the grubby union stooge Herb Sorrell [6] [7]and others who supported Henry Wallace[8] for President. Ronald Reagan successfully fought these monsters and won. He became President.
President Reagan had the interesting diplomatic technique of starting out any formal discussion with a Marxist leader with a long list of reasons why their system was failing.[9] This embarrassed Premier Gorbachev and others, sacred heroes of the revolutions praised by the New York Times. Gorby went down and so did his phony Soviet State
Owing to standard propaganda practices, our krugmaniacal author gives Ronald Reagan some fleeting kudos, which he swiftly retracts:
“For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.”
It did NOT fail! It crushed the left. That is the basis of the hatred of the left in this article.
Thus we view the fulcrum of this article: The Reagan Economic Failure must be restated.
The left-liberals remain sour, maudlin and unhappy, frequently drug-crazed and filled with hatred because tax cuts and conservative fiscal policies bring prosperity to the US
Slogan Time!
Slogging on with the standard propaganda method: Here, we see a thinly-veiled slogan from the left: “The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” This is a customary turn-of-the-crank on the propaganda machine output and is so monotonous it was slightly altered by the Times. Even liberals need some variety in life.
Of course, this is not true as the standard of living all Americans, and most illegal aliens, has risen drastically and leftist process of moving the economic goal posts allows the poverty levels to be continually elevated for political reasons. Those below the median pay little if any federal taxes now. Reagan created 21,000,000 new jobs and doubled federal revenues, factors that the propagandists here fail to mention. He also destroyed the Soviet Union with his political SDI [10], known as ‘Star Wars’ by the left. This was a political masterstroke that the Russians bought like dumb fish on a rusty hook although the US leftists [11] focused on the technical aspects of such a military program stressing that this was not scientifically possible and all that fluff. It was a lethal political stroke. The Times missed the political thrust here and misconstrued the outcome. The Times lost and their allies crashed.
A viewing of the S&P 500[12] shows a sustained growth from the beginning of the Reagan era right up through the Clinton
On a technical note here, the Times cannot condemn Obama for recommending numerous tax hikes although they did urge him to be more vocal about publicly advocating them. [13] He and Hillary are not far apart on this issue, so no wedge is possible.
Frustration and wild lies now grasp the propagandist here with this curious non-historical disgorgement:
“I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for “Morning in America
Ah, take a second look at the S&P 500, the effects took only about 14 months not 14 years. Same for the Bush tax cuts and, reaching back to JFK, the Johnson-Kennedy Tax Cuts. The tax cut as a mechanism of growth and prosperity cannot be questioned by reasonable persons. Only politicians and propagandists need to distort this economic fundamental. We see here that they do make the feeble attempt.
This is frantic and given the upside triangular written structure of articles in the Time, the buzz words and conclusions were given starting with the title so the rest of the article today is meaningless, trivial, repetitive fluff, or needed filler to appease the editors for such writings. The Times is losing money of course. They need bulk not accuracy.
And more:
“And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in theClinton
More guilt by association. More economic fantasies by the Tax Hike Zombie. Bushonomics is not over!
TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX Can we call this tautological, totemical string an example of the variety and objective broadness of Krugonomics? [14]I think so.
Tax is good. Tax more. Taxes create wealth. Taxes create prosperity.
Fact: The Bush Tax Cuts overcame the Clinton-Gore Recession.
Fact: The Reagan Tax Cuts overcame the Carter Recession.
And the final attack on Obama:
“Now progressives[15] have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.”
So, Obama is either wrong or cannot comprehend the greatness of the Reagan Era. Either way, the Times wants Hillary to win.
Article Conclusion: The obvious Marxist Choice is Hillary Clinton!! What else would the Times offer? Have they ever endorsed anyone who did not have impeccable Marxist credentials[16]?
Give Krugman an A+ for this fine work. His is a valiant work of propaganda.
rycK
Comments: ryckki@gmail.com
[1] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the NYT.
[2] The color RED is used in my essays in honor of Walter Duranty, a saint, if there could be one, in the Marxist Archives of Honor.
[3] Debunking the Reagan Myth By PAUL KRUGMAN Op-Ed Columnist. Published: January 21, 2008 .http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?hp
[5] Communist apologists at worse. Communist stooges at best.
[6] Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism by Peter Schweizer, (2002) Doubleday ,New York
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Sorrell
[8] Marxist.
[9] Reagan's War: Ibid.
[10] “Early in my first term, I called a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - our military leaders - and said to them: Every offensive weapon ever invented by man has resulted in the creation of a defense against it; isn't it possible in this age of technology that we could invent a defensive weapon that could intercept nuclear weapons and destroy them as they emerge from their silos? They looked at each other, then asked if they could huddle for a few moments. Very shortly, they came out of their huddle and said, "Yes, it's an idea worth exploring." My answer was, "Let's do it." So the SDI was born, and very shortly some in Congress and the press named it "Star Wars."http://www.ronaldreagan.com/sdi.html.
[11] It is difficult to call these people Americans. They are not worthy.
[14] In honor of the author of this article.
[15] This is politically correct: This was Stalin’s word for American Communists according the Whittaker Chambers in his book Witness.
No comments:
Post a Comment