Death of the Machine
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
“There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.” So declared Mark Hanna, the great Gilded Age political boss.
Karl Rove has often described Hanna as his role model. And predictions that Mr. Rove and his disciples would succeed in creating a permanent Republican majority — I have a whole bookshelf of volumes with titles like “One Party Nation” and “Building Red America” — depended crucially on the assumption that the G.O.P. would have vastly more money than its opponents. It might even, some thought, match the 10-to-1 advantage Hanna gave William McKinley when he ran against William Jennings Bryan.
Oops. According to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, in the current election cycle every one of the top 10 industries making political donations is giving more money to Democrats. Even industries that have in the past been overwhelmingly Republican, like insurance and pharmaceuticals, are now splitting their donations more or less evenly. Oil and gas is the only major industry that the G.O.P. can still call its own.
The sudden burst of corporate affection for Democrats is good news for the party’s campaign committees, but not necessarily good news for progressives. Before I get to the down side, however, let’s talk about why business seems to be giving up on the G.O.P.
To some extent it’s a matter of cold political calculation. Polls, plus a wave of G.O.P. retirements, suggest that next year the Democrats will expand their majority in the House, which is already bigger than anything the Republicans ever had during their 12-year reign. Of the 34 Senate seats up for election, 22 are held by Republicans, and major Democratic gains seem all but inevitable.
(Continued here.)
New York Times
“There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.” So declared Mark Hanna, the great Gilded Age political boss.
Karl Rove has often described Hanna as his role model. And predictions that Mr. Rove and his disciples would succeed in creating a permanent Republican majority — I have a whole bookshelf of volumes with titles like “One Party Nation” and “Building Red America” — depended crucially on the assumption that the G.O.P. would have vastly more money than its opponents. It might even, some thought, match the 10-to-1 advantage Hanna gave William McKinley when he ran against William Jennings Bryan.
Oops. According to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, in the current election cycle every one of the top 10 industries making political donations is giving more money to Democrats. Even industries that have in the past been overwhelmingly Republican, like insurance and pharmaceuticals, are now splitting their donations more or less evenly. Oil and gas is the only major industry that the G.O.P. can still call its own.
The sudden burst of corporate affection for Democrats is good news for the party’s campaign committees, but not necessarily good news for progressives. Before I get to the down side, however, let’s talk about why business seems to be giving up on the G.O.P.
To some extent it’s a matter of cold political calculation. Polls, plus a wave of G.O.P. retirements, suggest that next year the Democrats will expand their majority in the House, which is already bigger than anything the Republicans ever had during their 12-year reign. Of the 34 Senate seats up for election, 22 are held by Republicans, and major Democratic gains seem all but inevitable.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Krugman brings up a good point that it’s not just the Halliburtons that have found the US government to be a good customer.
It’s the little guys that we have not heard about but seem to prosper. Before the Duke Cunningham bribery case had anyone ever heard of MZM Inc. ? How about The Landon Companies before Don Young decide that if he needed a Bridge to Nowhere that Florida should get a road also ? Locally, the connections between John Thune and DM&E have been well documented.
Besides those that get “in” as legislation is being written, there are those that are created after the legislation is enacted. For example, Neil Bush’s company Ignite! which has profited from the No Child Left Behind program and Hurricane Katrina relief .
Blackwater may be in a cross-breeding of the two. If you read Jeremy Scahill’s book Blackwater : The Story of Most Powerful Mercenary Firm in the World , it tells the story of how Eric Prince and his family’s theo-con and neo-con beliefs lead to their support of the Republican Party. (The chicken and egg question aside as to who supports who but the association of the Family Research Council and AMWay no doubt helped advance the Gingrich Revolution.) They have been around since the end of the Cold War and increased their business because of the “need” for their services. There is probably a better case to be made for Blackwater services but how anyone can possibly explain the overcharges and kickbacks by Halliburton ?
Krugman’s closing point is most troubling … will there be a difference in the next administration ?
Halliburton has already announced that it will move its headquarters to where it sees in core business – Dubai and the oil region.
I suspect that Blackwater’s services will be used by the next administration.
In previous columns, Krugman has noted the financial support that Clinton has received from the pharmaceutical industry and that her health care program is not as ambitious as Edwards / Obama. Edwards has tried to make this an issue, but so far it does not appear to be sticking.
Post a Comment
<< Home