ADVERTISEMENT

A MAGA America Would Be Ugly

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,418
58,906
113
By Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
If you aren’t feeling a sense of dread on the eve of the midterm elections, you haven’t been paying attention.
We can talk about the conventional stakes of these elections — their implications for economic policy, major social programs, environmental policy, civil liberties and reproductive rights. And it’s not wrong to have these discussions: Life will go on whatever happens on the political scene, and government policies will continue to have a big impact on people’s lives.
But I, at least, always feel at least a bit guilty when writing about inflation or the fate of Medicare. Yes, these are my specialties. Focusing on them, however, feels a bit like denial, or at least evasion, when the fundamental stakes right now are so existential.
Ten or 20 years ago, those of us who warned that the Republican Party was becoming increasingly extremist and anti-democracy were often dismissed as alarmists. But the alarmists have been vindicated every step of the way, from the selling of the Iraq war on false pretenses to the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


Indeed, these days it’s almost conventional wisdom that the G.O.P. will, if it can, turn America into something like Viktor Orban’s Hungary: a democracy on paper, but an ethnonationalist, authoritarian one-party state in practice. After all, U.S. conservatives have made no secret about viewing Hungary as a role model; they have feted Orban and featured him at their conferences.
At this point, however, I believe that even this conventional wisdom is wrong. If America descends into one-party rule, it will be much worse, much uglier, than what we see in today’s Hungary.
Before I get there, a word about the role of conventional policy issues in these elections.
If Democrats lose one or both houses of Congress, there will be a loud chorus of recriminations, much of it asserting that they should have focused on kitchen table issues and not talked at all about threats to democracy.

I don’t claim any expertise here, but I would note that an incumbent president’s party almost always loses seats in the midterms. The only exception to that rule this century was in 2002, when George W. Bush was able to deflect attention from a jobless recovery by posing as America’s defender against terrorism. That record suggests, if anything, that Democrats should have talked even more about issues beyond economics.
I’d also say that pretending that this was an ordinary election season, where only economic policy was at stake, would have been fundamentally dishonest.



Finally, even voters who are more worried about paychecks and living costs than about democracy should nonetheless be very concerned about the G.O.P.’s rejection of democratic norms.
For one thing, Republicans have been open about their plan to use the threat of economic chaos to extract concessions they couldn’t win through the normal legislative process.
Also, while I understand the instinct of voters to choose a different driver if they don’t like where the economy is going, they should understand that this time, voting Republican doesn’t just mean giving someone else a chance at the wheel; it may be a big step toward handing the G.O.P. permanent control, with no chance for voters to revisit that decision if they don’t like the results.
Which brings me to the question of what a one-party America would look like.
As I said, it’s now almost conventional wisdom that Republicans are trying to turn us into Hungary. Indeed, Hungary provides a case study in how democracies can die in the 21st century.
But what strikes me, reading about Orban’s rule, is that while his regime is deeply repressive, the repression is relatively subtle. It is, as one perceptive article put it, “soft fascism,” which makes dissidents powerless via its control of the economy and the news media without beating them up or putting them in jail.
Do you think a MAGA regime, with or without Donald Trump, would be equally subtle? Listen to the speeches at any Trump rally. They’re full of vindictiveness, of promises to imprison and punish anyone — including technocrats like Anthony Fauci — the movement dislikes.
And much of the American right is sympathetic to, or at least unwilling to condemn, violence against its opponents. The Republican reaction to the attack on Paul Pelosi by a MAGA-spouting intruder was telling: Many in the party didn’t even pretend to be horrified. Instead, they peddled ugly conspiracy theories. And the rest of the party didn’t ostracize or penalize the purveyors of vile falsehoods.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


In short, if MAGA wins, we’ll probably find ourselves wishing its rule was as tolerant, relatively benign and relatively nonviolent as Orban’s.
Now, this catastrophe doesn’t have to happen. Even if Republicans win big in the midterms, it won’t be the end for democracy, although it will be a big blow. And nothing in politics, not even a full descent into authoritarianism, is permanent.
On the other hand, even if we get a reprieve this week, the fact remains that democracy is in deep danger from the authoritarian right. America as we know it is not yet lost, but it’s on the edge.

 
I don’t need to bring China into the discussion
What?

Anyway, 2017-2019 was basically the same as Obama's second term. GDP growth didn't get much better like Trump promised. He didn't do squat about healthcare and couldn't even get rid of Obamacare. Also, deficit spending grew and so too did our debt.
 
"Ten or 20 years ago, those of us who warned that the Republican Party was becoming increasingly extremist and anti-democracy were often dismissed as alarmists. But the alarmists have been vindicated every step of the way...."
Sorry, Paul...You were one of the idiots who called Mitt Romney the "most dangerous candidate in history" and said that Paul Ryan's responsible budgets were "evil and draconian", so everyone was correct in tuning you out. Of course, most rational people stopped paying any attention to you whatsoever as soon as you said the internet was just going to be a fad.
 
What?

Anyway, 2017-2019 was basically the same as Obama's second term. GDP growth didn't get much better like Trump promised. He didn't do squat about healthcare and couldn't even get rid of Obamacare. Also, deficit spending grew and so too did our debt.
Corruption in the administration went up by 1000% or whatever number that would be...but @ihhawk likes corrupt people in charge of his country.
 
😂😂Paul Krugman😂😂😂
The guy every other economist looks at when they’re having a bad day to make themselves feel better.
A political hack masquerading as an economic expert. He was even given a prize y’all! He MUST be good!
😂 😂😂😂😂
 
Sorry, Paul...You were one of the idiots who called Mitt Romney the "most dangerous candidate in history" and said that Paul Ryan's responsible budgets were "evil and draconian", so everyone was correct in tuning you out. Of course, most rational people stopped paying any attention to you whatsoever as soon as you said the internet was just going to be a fad.

In Paul's defense, he had no idea trump would ever be a candidate.
 
😂😂Paul Krugman😂😂😂
The guy every other economist looks at when they’re having a bad day to make themselves feel better.
A political hack masquerading as an economic expert. He was even given a prize y’all! He MUST be good!
😂 😂😂😂😂
If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2024, will you vote for him?
 
Sorry, Paul...You were one of the idiots who called Mitt Romney the "most dangerous candidate in history" and said that Paul Ryan's responsible budgets were "evil and draconian"
Links?

Nobody thought Mittens was the most dangerous candidate in history. Most of us could remember 4 years previous when we still had the war criminal President, George W Bush. So I'll be surprised if you can find a link for this part.

Meanwhile, Ryan's budget had some good points, and some awful points. If you were a liberal, you hated the barely hidden agenda to tank Medicare. If you were fiscally responsible, you should have hated the part where said he would balance the budget in 10 years, but failed to count the $1 trillion in interest on the debt that he was intending to run up. I suppose some - maybe including Krugman - might have called those deliberate disasters "evil and draconian."
 
If Trump is on the ballot in 2024, he will become the President again.
After today, Rs will own the election machinery in enough states to win no matter who they nominate. Legally. Because they changed (or will change) the rules. No matter how the vote turns out.

America doesn't seem to care. Because gas is up, and soup costs more than it did. Those are much more important than democracy, or the climate crisis, or women's rights....

It's inflation, stupid, and it doesn't matter who's responsible or who will handle it better . . . just blame it on the guy in the White House.
 
Links?

Nobody thought Mittens was the most dangerous candidate in history. Most of us could remember 4 years previous when we still had the war criminal President, George W Bush. So I'll be surprised if you can find a link for this part.

Meanwhile, Ryan's budget had some good points, and some awful points. If you were a liberal, you hated the barely hidden agenda to tank Medicare. If you were fiscally responsible, you should have hated the part where said he would balance the budget in 10 years, but failed to count the $1 trillion in interest on the debt that he was intending to run up. I suppose some - maybe including Krugman - might have called those deliberate disasters "evil and draconian."
How could you possibly forget all of the rhetoric about Romney that made sane people tune the left out when it came to everything afterwards? Here's a good piece on it.

In 2012, Krugman called Mitt Romney a “charlatan,” pathologically dishonest, and untrustworthy. He said Romney doesn’t even pretend to care about poor people and wants people to die so that the rich could get richer. Romney is “completely amoral,” “a dangerous fool,” “ignorant as well as uncaring.

 
Last edited:
After today, Rs will own the election machinery in enough states to win no matter who they nominate. Legally. Because they changed (or will change) the rules. No matter how the vote turns out.

America doesn't seem to care. Because gas is up, and soup costs more than it did. Those are much more important than democracy, or the climate crisis, or women's rights....

It's inflation, stupid, and it doesn't matter who's responsible or who will handle it better . . . just blame it on the guy in the White House.
This. The country is dying because of our own stupidity, which has been predicted for a couple hundred of years. People think short term, are easily fooled. and can't adjust the way they think about things.

The Republican party is corrupt. Clearly. Voters just ignore the indictments and arrests over the last 40 years. There is nothing that says Republicans are better on the economy. They have massively added to the deficit when in office. Voters don't care. Whomever pulls the strings behind the scenes for the Republican party long gamed all of this brilliantly. If today and the next few weeks goes poorly they will be the only ones holding power for a LONG time.

It was a helluva playbook used back in the 1930s. The wealthy will never have to worry about losing a dime from anywhere because they will be protected in government and by the most powerful military in the world.

Again, well played. Evil AF, but well played.
 
Sorry, Paul...You were one of the idiots who called Mitt Romney the "most dangerous candidate in history" and said that Paul Ryan's responsible budgets were "evil and draconian", so everyone was correct in tuning you out. Of course, most rational people stopped paying any attention to you whatsoever as soon as you said the internet was just going to be a fad.
When you Google Mitt Romney "most dangerous candidate in history" it brings up a single hit, and it's you.
 
Not by the popular vote. No way...but because Democrats won't be allowed to win, legally, by states with red legislatures. Fascism.
I agree that he likely loses the popular vote but squeaks out a win very similar to 2016.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
That’s because cigarette man’s posts from then are scrubbed. He acted exactly the same way then as he has acted with Trump.
I was unaware cigaretteman had so much influence to be scrubbing Paul Krugman's archives from the internet.
the-more-you-know.gif
 
By Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
If you aren’t feeling a sense of dread on the eve of the midterm elections, you haven’t been paying attention.
We can talk about the conventional stakes of these elections — their implications for economic policy, major social programs, environmental policy, civil liberties and reproductive rights. And it’s not wrong to have these discussions: Life will go on whatever happens on the political scene, and government policies will continue to have a big impact on people’s lives.
But I, at least, always feel at least a bit guilty when writing about inflation or the fate of Medicare. Yes, these are my specialties. Focusing on them, however, feels a bit like denial, or at least evasion, when the fundamental stakes right now are so existential.
Ten or 20 years ago, those of us who warned that the Republican Party was becoming increasingly extremist and anti-democracy were often dismissed as alarmists. But the alarmists have been vindicated every step of the way, from the selling of the Iraq war on false pretenses to the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


Indeed, these days it’s almost conventional wisdom that the G.O.P. will, if it can, turn America into something like Viktor Orban’s Hungary: a democracy on paper, but an ethnonationalist, authoritarian one-party state in practice. After all, U.S. conservatives have made no secret about viewing Hungary as a role model; they have feted Orban and featured him at their conferences.
At this point, however, I believe that even this conventional wisdom is wrong. If America descends into one-party rule, it will be much worse, much uglier, than what we see in today’s Hungary.
Before I get there, a word about the role of conventional policy issues in these elections.
If Democrats lose one or both houses of Congress, there will be a loud chorus of recriminations, much of it asserting that they should have focused on kitchen table issues and not talked at all about threats to democracy.

I don’t claim any expertise here, but I would note that an incumbent president’s party almost always loses seats in the midterms. The only exception to that rule this century was in 2002, when George W. Bush was able to deflect attention from a jobless recovery by posing as America’s defender against terrorism. That record suggests, if anything, that Democrats should have talked even more about issues beyond economics.
I’d also say that pretending that this was an ordinary election season, where only economic policy was at stake, would have been fundamentally dishonest.


Finally, even voters who are more worried about paychecks and living costs than about democracy should nonetheless be very concerned about the G.O.P.’s rejection of democratic norms.
For one thing, Republicans have been open about their plan to use the threat of economic chaos to extract concessions they couldn’t win through the normal legislative process.
Also, while I understand the instinct of voters to choose a different driver if they don’t like where the economy is going, they should understand that this time, voting Republican doesn’t just mean giving someone else a chance at the wheel; it may be a big step toward handing the G.O.P. permanent control, with no chance for voters to revisit that decision if they don’t like the results.
Which brings me to the question of what a one-party America would look like.
As I said, it’s now almost conventional wisdom that Republicans are trying to turn us into Hungary. Indeed, Hungary provides a case study in how democracies can die in the 21st century.
But what strikes me, reading about Orban’s rule, is that while his regime is deeply repressive, the repression is relatively subtle. It is, as one perceptive article put it, “soft fascism,” which makes dissidents powerless via its control of the economy and the news media without beating them up or putting them in jail.
Do you think a MAGA regime, with or without Donald Trump, would be equally subtle? Listen to the speeches at any Trump rally. They’re full of vindictiveness, of promises to imprison and punish anyone — including technocrats like Anthony Fauci — the movement dislikes.
And much of the American right is sympathetic to, or at least unwilling to condemn, violence against its opponents. The Republican reaction to the attack on Paul Pelosi by a MAGA-spouting intruder was telling: Many in the party didn’t even pretend to be horrified. Instead, they peddled ugly conspiracy theories. And the rest of the party didn’t ostracize or penalize the purveyors of vile falsehoods.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


In short, if MAGA wins, we’ll probably find ourselves wishing its rule was as tolerant, relatively benign and relatively nonviolent as Orban’s.
Now, this catastrophe doesn’t have to happen. Even if Republicans win big in the midterms, it won’t be the end for democracy, although it will be a big blow. And nothing in politics, not even a full descent into authoritarianism, is permanent.
On the other hand, even if we get a reprieve this week, the fact remains that democracy is in deep danger from the authoritarian right. America as we know it is not yet lost, but it’s on the edge.


I'm skeptical MAGAism could take over America.

It's relatively substanceless.

I am much more worried republicans cheating to win elections and stay in power.

I'm skeptical they could install, or win over populace with a specific, ideology.

I'd take it the other direction: less than Orban.

We don't, not now at least, have enough people on the right that want to do what Orban has done procedurally.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT