The New York Times
There would seem to be an opening for politicians who are right wing on social issues like immigration and wokeness but are also genuinely populist in their spending priorities. 1Such politicians exist in other countries. For example, Giorgia Meloni, the Italian prime minister, whose party has deep links to the nation’s fascist past, ran last year on a platform calling for earlier retirement for some workers and increases in minimum pensions and child benefits.
2So why aren’t there such figures in the G.O.P.? To be fair, during the 2016 campaign Trump sometimes sounded as if he might turn his back on Republican economic orthodoxy, but once in office he pursued the usual agenda of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy combined with benefit cuts for the rest.
Part of the answer may lie in the American right’s general mind-set, which valorizes harshness, not empathy. People who are drawn to MAGA tend to imagine that solving society’s problems should involve punishing people, not helping them.
Also, we shouldn’t underestimate the power of ignorance: MAGA politicians, 3who generally disdain any kind of expertise, may not have any clear idea of what the federal government does and where tax dollars go.
1. False analogy • The statement implies that Meloni is for Italy what a Republican with populist economic policies would be for the US, without regard to the very different political and economic backgrounds of the countries and political parties in question.
2. Straw man • Krugman asserts there are not any Republican politicians with populist economic policies, but there actually are Republicans who favor trade protectionism, raising minimum wage, strengthening anti-trust regulation, and protecting Social Security from cuts.
3. Ad hominem • Attacking the intelligence of the opposing side, and accusing them of willful ignorance. Also a "sweeping generalization" fallacy, as many GOP politicians do recognize numerous experts in numerous areas.
Note that there being one or more apparent fallacies in the arguments presented in this article does not mean that every argument the arguer made was fallacious, nor does it mean there are not other arguments in existence for the same or similar position that are logically valid. Also note that checking for fallacies is not the same as verification of the premises the arguer starts from, such as facts that the arguer asserts or principles that the arguer assumes as the foundation for constructing arguments. For more about this, see our 'What is Fallacy Checking?'
Without in any way limiting the author’s [and publisher’s] exclusive rights under copyright, any use of this publication to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.
Comments