Margaret Thatcher once said of the profession, economists are okay if you don’t inhale. What are we smoking? What is the danger of talk?
Paul Krugman is an eloquent liberal economist. He referred to Trump supporters and indeed the entire anti-globalist movement independent of Trump, who he says will “shrink” after the election, as having the position “We don’t like people who don’t look like us.”
My interest is not in whether the liberals or conservatives are “right.” It is in whether Krugman asked anyone on the other side of the fence if his summary actually reflected their views! If he did not, then he’s not speaking as a professional, but as a hate-mongering political operative himself. Worse than Trump, because actually, that is an extremely broad indictment, accusing some 44% of the American population of being Hitlerian.
Most of us do like people who don’t look like us. They are fascinating. Exploring them and their culture is much more interesting than exploring some barren rock in the solar system. I fondly recall every minute of my trip to Turkey in 2011.
More important is whether they act like us. But there again, most of us are fascinated. People just like us are boring. Neither of these things are issues with the 44% Krugman targets with his hate speech. I suspect that to some degree, he doesn’t even realize this. If he does, then he really is a hate monger who is doing it deliberately. I will send him a tweet and see if I can get a response and post it here if he replies.
The question is, are they threatening to change the way we live, either intentionally or unintentionally? And will the change be good or bad for all concerned?
Variety is good. We need some countries to try out socialism, and some to try out individualism, and different religions and other cultural values. We accused communism of being in error because they thought they could centrally plan one way of doing things for the whole world. But one way of doing things for a country I do not object to. In fact, it is necessary in many cases. Otherwise, nothing gets done, there is just chaos. We can’t have both opportunity and socialism.
Is America the land of opportunity? Then some will come to be better off than others, much better. Is America the land of equal wealth where the good of the many outweighs the good of the few? Then there is no opportunity for anyone, is there?
There is an old saying, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” That is all the anti-globalists ask. They don’t hate anybody. I know I don’t. Well, except I guess I’m coming to hate people who’d force globalism on me.
So I celebrate differences in culture and appearance. If I get tired of the U.S., I can go to one of those “different” countries and live. My wife is Russian, and I’ve thought of going to live there. When I go to Russia, I act as they do. I do not criticize their government. I have spent the night in a Russian village and eaten the village bread, far from the internet, and many cold outdoor steps from the toilet. I have driven in Russian traffic, hiked in Russian mountains, and gone out drinking with a Russian policeman, ex special forces, and his wife. My wife voted communist in the 2012 election. I don’t go there and advocate that they change. All the 44% asks is that people not come here and advocate we change, change our working conditions, change who we marry, change our laws, give up our jobs and way of life. They also ask that countries do not trade with us in such volume and at such prices that the trade forces similar changes. This is not hate. It is respect both for ourselves and the culture and way of life of others, in which we (should) agree not to meddle.
Obama meddled in the Middle East, saying they ought to overthrow their governments. What was the result? Hundreds of thousands dead, millions of migrants threatening to change Europe, governments overthrown and then re-overthrown because it didn’t work out and the new governments were more oppressive than the old.
“Politically correct” speech is the art of labeling a thing something that it is not, to manipulate a population into submission. It was practiced in the Soviet Union, and in every dictatorship I’ve ever known. The essence of free speech is that to some people it always seems incorrect. So I’m completely opposed to political correctness. It is just an attempt to usurp power by those who haven’t actually been voted into office. That is why “media bias” is so objectionable.
Another example shows even Fox News, former bastion of conservatism, has gone over to the dark side, using political correctness to manipulate us into a Clintonesque World Government in which every country is equally impoverished. Newt Gingrich calls it “inflammatory language,” and Megan Kelly is using it to distract attention away from policy issues of trade and jobs and illegal migration by focusing on personal behavior. Fair enough, Newt concedes. If you want to have sexual predators to talk about for the next 8 years, put Bill Clinton back in the East Wing.
Shuler Research 
Well said!
LikeLike