Saying that Paul Krugman had a great column in the New York Times is redundant. If Krugman wrote it, and it’s published, it should be assumed that it’s great because all of his columns are great.
Today, Krugman takes on House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who Krugman believes is “more radical — and more powerful — than [Newt] Gingrich ever was.”
Krugman’s news peg for the essay is DeLay’s work (or lack thereof) on the expanded child tax credit for the working poor. But that’s just the beginning of a column that you really should read. Krugman also notes:
* DeLay’s role in a suspicious quid pro quo in which an energy company was encouraged to contribute to DeLay’s political groups in exchange for a “seat at the table” in negotiations over an energy bill.
* DeLay’s “K Street Strategy” that threatens punishment for DC lobbying firms, which have historically been open to working with both parities for their clients’ interests, which try to maintain working relationships with Democrats.
* DeLay’s work with the redistricting scandal in Texas’ state house, which not only included an “unprecedented power grab,” but also led to misuse of the federal Department of Homeland Security.
* DeLay’s anti-environmental agenda, including his description of the Environmental Protection Agency as “the Gestapo.”
* And, of course, DeLay’s religious agenda, including his stated goal of promoting a “biblical worldview,” as evidenced by him attributing the Columbine shootings to evolutionary biology being included in the school’s curriculum.
Krugman concludes, “Many of those who minimize the threat the radical right now poses to America as we know it would hate to live in the country Mr. DeLay wants to create. Yet by playing down the seriousness of the challenge, they help bring his vision closer to reality.”
To be sure, the column is a damning portrait. Krugman left out several of DeLay’s “greatest hits,” but I’m sure it’s only because of limited space.
I wasn’t necessarily going to mention the column on the blog today, assuming that most of you already know what I think of DeLay. But I read the column again and it reminded me of something.
I was having a conversation a few months ago with a Republican acquaintance (for whom I have no nickname). Naturally, our chat turned to politics. My Republican friend said he didn’t quite see what the big deal was about the GOP’s bold embrace of conservatism and conscious shunning of moderation. After all, he said, Democrats are on the left, Republicans are on the right. There are a handful of centrists on both sides, but they don’t drive either party’s agenda, he said.
He acknowledged that DeLay is sometimes shockingly right-wing, but noted there are plenty of equally left-wing lawmakers in Congress who are Democrats. Neither party, as far as he was concerned, could take the moral high ground of supposedly representing the middle.
Krugman’s column on DeLay reminded me of why I think my GOP friend is terribly mistaken. Yes, there are some very liberal Democratic members of Congress and there are very conservative Republicans. The difference, as far as I’m concerned, is about leadership and agenda.
Over the last 10 years, Republicans in Congress have identified their most consistently right-wing colleagues and promoted them as party leaders. They see Newt Gingrich and they make him Speaker of the House. They see Tom DeLay and they make him House Majority Leader. They see Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum and they make him Senate Conference Chairman. They see Trent Lott and they make him Senate Majority Leader. They see people like Jesse Helms and John Ashcroft and they make them powerful committee chairmen (and later Attorney General).
Democrats, meanwhile, go out of their way to reserve leadership positions for moderates. Whether you love Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Harry Reid, and Martin Frost or not, I think everyone can agree they aren’t radical leftists. Yet these are the leaders the Dems choose to set their agenda, fight for their causes, and speak for their party.
Are there Dem members of Congress who are as liberal as DeLay is conservative? Yeah, probably. Lawmakers like Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, and Barbara Lee come to mind as pretty liberal folks — not that there’s anything wrong with that.
But that’s largely the point. Dennis Kucinich is not the Dem leader in the House. If he ran for the post, he’d lose. Dems don’t want to be — either by perception or by reality — an entirely liberal party working exclusively on liberal issues. The idea is to be a center-left party with moderate leaders.
The difference between Dems and Republicans becomes all the more startling when you see the GOP select people like DeLay as their leader in the House. It’s not the GOP caucus’ fault voters elected DeLay, that’s the fault of voters in Sugarland, Texas. But the party should be assigning him to obscure committees where he can’t hurt anyone and barring him from appearing on TV on behalf of the GOP. He should be the crazy uncle they hide in the attic. Instead the GOP rewards his extremism with power.
And it’s another reason I just have to shake my head when I hear Ralph Nader say there’s no difference between the parties.