The Anchoress tries to make sense of Paul Krugman’s foul message on the 9/11 anniversary.
Perhaps what we’re seeing with Krugman is merely a high-profile manifestation of a widespread phenomenon in recent years, and perhaps much of our national recent history. Krugman has had his faith shaken, and he’s reacting by lashing out at familiar enemies. He looks out his window and sees the world is not as it should be, and he concludes it must be the fault of those who he has opposed and denounced all along.
In Time’s 2009 cover piece on Glenn Beck, David Von Drehle wrote, “The old American mind-set that Richard Hofstadter famously called “the paranoid style” — the sense that Masons or the railroads or the Pope or the guys in black helicopters are in league to destroy the country — is aflame again, fanned from both right and left.”
I observed after that piece that the outbursts of Joe Wilson, Kanye West, and Serena Williams spurred a thousand columns, blog posts, and web comments observing that America seems angrier, ruder, more intemperate today. Before then, it was the town hall meetings and tea parties. Our media elites look at it all and lament the return of “paranoia.”
Perhaps. But our national mood isn’t quite so simple as anger or paranoia; it’s a low-flame that’s been burning for a while, spurred by disturbingly regular moments when millions of ordinary Americans feel like the ground has fallen out underneath their feet, and the unthinkable has occurred.
Think back to about fourteen or fifteen years ago, and everything you thought you knew at that moment.
You knew no president would be so reckless that he would get caught having sex with an intern in the Oval Office.
You may have worried about your kid’s safety at school, but you knew two alienated teenagers couldn’t turn their rage into a massacre.
You “knew” that the winner of the presidential election was the candidate who got the most votes.
You knew absentee ballots get counted, whether or not the race was close or not. You knew a vote was a vote, and “dimpled chad” was the kid in your child’s kindergarten class photo.
When you looked out at the New York City skyline, you knew it would look the same the next day.
If you knew were Afghanistan was, you knew those loons beating women and blowing up Buddhas were bad news, but they were on the other side of the world and you had a lot more closer to home to worry about.
You knew the only thing being sent through the mail that could kill you came from the Unabomber. You knew that if deadly poison ever came through the mail, it wouldn’t be coming from a government scientist.
You knew a giant company like Enron with a big corporate headquarters and commercials couldn’t be a big scam. After all, serious professional economists like Paul Krugman worked for them as consultants.
You knew that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You knew that when the United States sent its troops into harm’s way, it knew the mission and how it would accomplish it.
You knew that American soldiers didn’t humiliate their prisoners for fun, and didn’t take pictures of it.
You knew that you could trust priests.
You knew that you’d never see a breast during the Super Bowl halftime show.
You knew that television news anchors checked out their sources before reporting a huge story right before an election. You knew that if an anchor got it wrong, other news media would jump all over them, and the defining mission of figuring out the truth wouldn’t be left to a bunch of no-names working in their pajamas.
You knew hurricanes could get pretty rough, but you figured every big Gulf Coast city was ready for them.
You knew that governors didn’t sleep with hookers, at least not the ones who started their careers as prosecutors busting prostitution rings.
You knew the value of your house would almost always go up each year, some years a little, some years a lot.
You knew gas prices went up and went down, but that you would probably never pay more than three bucks a gallon.
You knew not to drink the water in Mexico, but that food here in America – tomatoes, jalapenos, peanut butter, ground beef – was always safe.
You knew the Cold War was over, the days of Russian troops marching across borders and occupying parts of other countries were long gone.
You knew the markets could bounce around, but that nobody talked about them collapsing and another Depression descending upon us. Your money was safe in institutions like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, you spent your paycheck on gadgets at Circuit City and the Sharper Image, furniture from Bombay Company, books from Borders and toys from KB Toys, and the Big Three in Detroit would always keep making cars. The last thing you would ever see would be the big guys on Wall Street going to Washington and begging the federal government for cash.
You knew that recessions usually ended within a year; they didn’t drag on, with high unemployment, year after year after year…
You figured you could pick up your copy of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Rocky Mountain News, or the Christian Science Monitor every day until you died and never see those events in the headlines. It was about as likely as a federally-funded community group offering assistance to child prostitution rings.
The past fifteen years have been one rude awakening after another, where one unspoken assumption after another kept getting smacked around by a bipolar furious reality.
In light of this, perhaps it’s less surprising that Americans turned to a new, untested figure to lead the country in 2008; we learned the hard way that some of those who we thought were tested, trustworthy, and reliable turned out to be just the opposite. But it’s also less surprising that Americans aren’t willing to take grand promises of health care reforms on faith, or believe that further investments of time, effort, blood and treasure will eventually build a stable Afghanistan. Negotiations with Iran, raising the debt ceiling, a sweeping overhaul of regulations covering financial institutions, the umpteenth federal “jobs plan” – day after day, we’re asked by our leaders to trust them, on matters large and small.
Americans are scared, but it’s a different fear than post-9/11. Looking back, that fear was almost reassuring; our enemy had a face and the potential victim-hood of everyone we passed on street bound us in momentary brotherhood. The guy who ordinarily irritated us with the loud radio became our temporary ally. Every night before bed, we could look around, see everyone laying themselves down where they had the night before, and feel a sense of victory for the forces of order, safety, and domestic tranquility.
Today we’re not merely fearful but beleaguered. We’ve been pummeled by years of being forced to recalculate who we trust and what we know to be true. We’re experiencing dual crises of trust and authority. It’s not that every person and institution we encounter is dishonest, corrupt, reckless, or malicious. But we’ve encountered just enough on a grand scale this decade and a half to create doubt about everyone else.
It’s better than worrying about whether your bus or train or office will blow up, but we’re now on guard from ubiquitous sleeper agents of incompetence: the guy down the street who buys a house he can’t afford and abandons it, the SEC agent who ignores the warning signs on Bernie Madoff, the broker who is caught off guard by a market crash, the congressman who thinks economic recovery is one make-work project in his district away.
Perhaps, as 2012 approaches, what Americans really yearn for is a leader who they can look at and conclude, deep in their bones, “I trust that person.”
Perhaps Americans yearn for someone to say: "It's all a crock. I know it. You know it. Let's take the fire axe to it."
Calling the most cherished social program of all time a "Ponzi scheme" would be a good start.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree to an extent. However, what is driving Krugman and others on this anniversary is self loathing. On September 11, 2001, they, along with most Americans and even the world, found themselves looking to George W. Bush to salve their fear and protect them. This lasted for days, even weeks, but the further assaults never came. Then we moved into Afghanistan followed by Iraq, driving the threat even further away. Slowly, they settled down, only for some like Krugman the realization that they have clung to Bush in the hour of need provoked a feeling for which they could never forgive Bush.
Along comes Obama, offering an end to Bush as President. A diametrical end. But that hasn't really worked out. Instead of terrorists, Americans fear for the future in a diminished America. The anniversary was just the last straw. Old feelings, new disillusionments, only anger was left to spew forth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWisdom is what you learn after you know it all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWHAT an excellent article. It will be interesting to see what can be added to it. No wonder there is an underlying current of anxiety everytime one thinks of security.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's someone worse than Madoff. Read then forward this link to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim - I have read since the Kerry Spot days and this might be one of your finest moments (OK, maybe not better than the Obiwan series but....)
While some or many of those 15yr comparisons might be evident to all of us, seeing them compiled in that way is striking.
Peggy Noonan wrote a piece several years ago about he destruction done to our institutions and the uncertainty that sowed (to the glee of some on the Left btw). Your list is a continuation of that thought process and I just wonder when and how it will end. After all the trust is gone, it gets ugly.
Thanks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKrugman is just disillusioned that after finally electing a true progressive to the nations highest office that all the promises that the progressive left has always believed would come true on such a day have not happened. Lyle Rossiter wrote and interesting book called "The Liberal Mind" in which he opines that liberal philosophy is essentially immaturity. He makes an interesting case and it helps explain the actions of one like Krugman as nothing more than tantrums thrown by a teenager who thinks life has treated him unfairly because he parents won't buy him a BMW.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you for this excellent article.
Yesterday, I watch Man of the Year, a 2006 Comedy film.
The film ended with something like this: "the politicians are like the diapers; you have to change them frequently. Think before you vote."
I agree. More years is making them less independent. They are beginning to work for the special interest groups, and not for you.
If something can be added to your article, I would add:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe knew that if the fuel price goes up the cost of leaving goes up too.
We know now that if the fuel price ever goes down, the cost of leaving never will.
I see you watched Men in Black over the weekend...
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhatever you call it...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've seen a breast at halftime of the Super Bowl. Had nothing to do with the show, of course...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCouldn't you make a list like that for any 15 year period?
Think 1930-1945 for starters....
15 years ago I knew that no nation could kill millions of people in gas chambers.
15 years ago I knew that the US of A would not elect a socialist 4 times.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen I read the linked (Anchoress) article, what came into my mind was, Burns's:
"Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie,
O, what a panic's in thy breastie!"
That, and C S Lewis's reference to Thomas Cartwright's "hatred, so massive, and so thoroughly reconciled to conscience..."
What it comes down to is that Krugman is mad. Not angry, insane. And it is a warning to all who follow politics. Christ, in forbidding us to hate our enemies, was not stating only what was needed for our souls, but even (at a lower level) for our sanity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePaul Krugman was right during the Bush years, and he's right now. Paul Krugman told the truth about those who manipulated the aftermath of 9/11 for political purposes - but now the professional distorters want him to pay the price.
ENOUGH. We stand with Paul Krugman - join us if you've got Paul's back too:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat kind of a bot are you?
Oh, and -- "Paul Krugman is being targeted by Donald Rumsfeld and the same Neocon McCarthyites that targeted the Dixie Chicks for speaking out – and we need to get his back."
Have you not updated this site in past 8 years?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have a simpler explanation, because there is an aspect of Krugman's post that speaks to me. The silver lining in the days and weeks immediately following 9/11 was the sense we all had that our shared trauma gave America an opportunity to rediscover what was best about it. There was a palpable sense that here was a catalyst for Americans to focus on what unites us and to work together for a common goal. My own memories of 9/11 will always be clouded by the knowledge of how quickly it instead became a point of division and rancour. Krugman merely takes that feeling one step further by pointing fingers at those who were in a position to have engineered a different result.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThen he should also be "pointing fingers" at his own like-minded commentariat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There was a palpable sense that here was a catalyst for Americans to focus on what unites us and to work together for a common goal."
Working toward a common goal is all well and good provided everyone agrees upon said goal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMany believed that George Bush 'stole' the election of 2000, one common goal was to destroy him as a president.
Small wonder that the rest of the country didn't line up to pursue that goal.
Some like Krugman are still after such goals using 'My way or the highway' , 'Compromise is what everyone else must do in order for me to get what I want' thinking.
I have nearly a diametrically opposite view of what is best about this country compared with Krugman. Forgive me for not 'working towards' his goals, or for even thinking that we can find a common ground.
Frankly, it seems naive at this point to think that being attacked by terrorists would paper over the deep divisions between the disparate views of what this country should be.
What a great column! Really nailed it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim-
Great stuff as always. I've tried to get you to respond on Twitter and, sadly, never have you. Even Jonah has!
Anyway, that last line about who, deep in their bones, Americans will trust. I'm pretty much as right-wing as they come on most economic matters and am in favor of a strong projection of American power across the globe, and continually upgrading our forces for all emerging threats. The intangible benefits of this system that the US military has kept in place since WW-II I believe are too large to even imagine quantifying. Socially, also pretty conservative, staunchly anti-abortion, etc., but also pretty absolutist on the First Amendment and against the drug war.
All of this is a long way to say that Gov. Perry should be exactly my cup of tea, plus or minus. That "trust" thing though, I don't have it yet. And I personally think that if you don't have a twinge of it immediately, you're unlikely to get it. Romney, on the other hand, does give me that feeling, despite my concerns about his obvious wishy-washi-ness on certain things.
Just my food for thought.
Blake
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse