Paul Krugman of The New York Times believes the conservative movement is adolescent.
He comes to this conclusion based on the reaction many conservatives (myself included) had when we learned last Friday that Chicago would not get the 2016 Olympics:
So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.
But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.
Where does one begin?
Paul Krugman is hardly in any position to be the arbiter of civil political discourse.
After all, this is a man who back in August 2004 referred to Bill O'Reilly as a "quasi-murderer" when the two appeared on Meet the Press with the late Tim Russert.
Five Augusts later, Krugman was amongst many liberals who accused those protesting at the health care town hall meetings of having racial animus. Krugman wrote, "(T)hey’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is."
Let it be said that he who is without spite cast the first stone.
Now I admit that when the news came to attention while I was in an elevator I pumped my fist and said, "Yes." Krugman can call me immature to his heart's content. But my reaction wasn't that I didn't want the Olympics to return to the United States. In fact, I was fully prepared (as I suspect many people were) for Chicago to win the vote. If Chicago had been awarded the Olympics chances are there would have been baseball. I've never been to Chicago and it would have been as good a reason as any to go especially if those games had been played in Wrigley Field.
But as I wrote back on Friday awarding Chicago the Olympics would have been done for all the wrong reasons. If Chicago had been awarded the 2016 Olympics it would have become "The Obama Olympics." Sorry Paul, nothing against Chicago or America. It was about Obama and his strange set of policies and priorities.
Shortly before President Obama took office, Krugman made this observation:
Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.
Perhaps Krugman has some growing up to do.
Then again some people just never learn - Nobel Prize or not.