A "revolutionary power." That's how Paul Krugman has described the radical right in America. And he has warned that "people who have been accustomed to stability can't bring themselves to believe what is happening when faced with a revolutionary power, and are therefore ineffective in opposing it."
Ironically enough, he cites Henry Kissinger's PhD dissertation which "describes the problems confronting a heretofore stable diplomatic system when it is faced with a 'revolutionary power'—a power that does not accept that system's legitimacy ... a movement whose leaders do not accept the legitimacy of our current political system."
Krugman argues that the radical right in America should be viewed as a revolutionary power which believes "that some long-established American political and social institutions should not, in principle, exist" and that does "not accept the rules that the rest of us have taken for granted."
All of this was in the introduction to Krugman's book The Great Unraveling which was published in 2003. Too bad we didn't pay attention then because now it just might be too late. The good news is Professor Krugman also provides the following five suggestions for dealing with a revolutionary power:
"1. Don’t assume that policy proposals make sense in terms of their stated goals.
When you're dealing with a revolutionary power, it's important to realize that it knows what it wants, and will make whatever argument advances that goal. So there should be no presumption that the claims it makes on behalf of its actions make any sense in their own terms. ... Journalists find it very hard to deal with blatantly false arguments; by inclination and training, they always try to see two sides to an issue, and find it hard even to conceive that a major political figure is simply lying about the content of his proposals. ... Revolutionary movements, which aren't concerned about the rules of the game, have no compunction about misrepresenting their goals."
"2. Do some homework to discover the real goals.
... This is a general principle for understanding what's happening: do some homework to find out what these people really want. I'm not talking about deeply hidden motives; usually the true goal is in the public domain. You just have to look at what the people pushing the policy said before they were trying to sell it to the broader public. ... Again, this is hard for journalists to deal with: they don't want to sound like crazy conspiracy theorists."
"3. Don’t assume that the usual rules of politics apply
... Why don’t the usual rules apply? Because a revolutionary power, which does not regard the existing system as legitimate, doesn't feel obliged to play by the rules. Are there hints of scandal regarding administration personnel? No matter: Fox News, The Washington Times, and The New York Post won't follow up on the story—instead they'll harass other media outlets if they try to make it an issue. ... 'But they wouldn't do that!' protest reasonable people—and a normal regime wouldn't. But we're not dealing with a normal regime here, we’re dealing with a revolutionary power."
"4. Expect a revolutionary power to respond to criticism by attacking
A revolutionary power, which doesn't accept the legitimacy of the existing system, also doesn’t accept the right of others to criticize its actions. Anyone who raises questions can expect a no-holds-barred counterattack. ... Here’s a bit more from Kissinger: 'The distinguishing feature of a revolutionary power is not that it feels threatened, but that nothing can reassure it (Kissinger’s emphasis). Only absolute security—the neutralization of the opponent—is considered a sufficient guarantee.”
"5. Don't think that there's a limit to a revolutionary power's objectives
There must be limits somewhere to what the right will actually attempt to accomplish. ... I don’t know where the right’s agenda stops, but I have learned never to assume that it can be appeased through limited concessions. Kissinger again: 'It is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion.' ”
Krugman concludes on a hopeful note ... or he did in 2003. "To hope for a turnaround, you have to believe that most Americans don't really support the right’s agenda—that the country as a whole is more generous, more tolerant, and less militaristic than the people now running it. ... I have a vision—maybe just a hope—of a great revulsion: a moment in which the American people look at what is happening, realize how their good will and patriotism have been abused, and put a stop to this drive to destroy much of what is best in our country. How and when this moment will come, I don't know. But one thing is clear: it cannot happen unless we all make an effort to see and report the truth about what is happening.
