Last year, I applauded Rick Santorum’s middle class rhetoric. In particular, I liked his speech at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference where he blasted the RNC for its long line of business owners who came up on the stage and proclaimed that they did, in fact, build that. He said, “One after another, they talked about the business they had built. But not a single—not a single—factory worker went out there. Not a single janitor, waitress or person who worked in that company! We didn’t care about them. You know what? They built that company too! And we should have had them on that stage.” It seems that now that the Republican Party is looking to garner some populist cred, people are starting to notice that Santorum really can talk that talk.

This morning, just like I did last year, Matt Yglesias noted that while Santorum does talk that talk, he doesn’t walk that walk. The evidence is clear. And it is the same with every Republican: his budget. As Yglesias said:

The truth of the matter is that populist rhetoric is not exactly hard to find in the Republican Party. Paul Ryan is a great talker. When given half a chance, he will talk about big corporations that pay no taxes. In fact, this created an uncomfortable moment during Ryan and Romney’s joint interview with 60 Minutes last year. Yet Ryan is the author of the middle class destroying House Republican “budget.”

There are a few ways to look at this. It could be that these guys are just lying and that they don’t care about the middle class. I think that’s unlikely. It could also be that they really do think that supply side economics is the way to help the middle class. While I think this is true, it isn’t the core reason for their cognitive dissonance. When Jack Kemp was pushing supply side economics back in the 1980s, I understand it. It seemed like a wild idea—even George Bush Sr called it “voodoo economics.” But it was at least plausible. But after 30 years of such policies, there is no longer any doubt: supply side economics was just a con game that justified taking wealth and income away from the poorer classes and giving it to the richer classes. So no reasonable observer can now think that giving even more money to the rich will help the middle class.

What distinguishes Santorum and Ryan is that they aren’t reasonable observers. Ryan hasn’t moved beyond Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, and what he heard Jack Kemp say 30 years ago. I’m sure that Santorum doesn’t read or listen to anyone who doesn’t tell him the same thing. So these guys can hang onto their airy notions of helping the “common man” without ever seriously looking at how their economic policies might affect him. And what that means is that what matters first and foremost to these guys is helping the rich. But always with a sprinkle of tinkle.

Yesterday, I talked to my father and he expressed his concern about the Benghazi attacks and that no one was ever going to be punished. I probed him a little to find out who exactly should be punished. I wanted to know if he was talking about the attackers or the government officials. It was the latter, of course. And that meant one thing: dad had been watching Fox News again. I tried to turn the conversation onto more friendly ground. I said that we didn’t actually know that there was any wrong doing in the government regarding Benghazi, but that the new revelations about XKeyscore were really unsettling. It turned out this was not friendlier territory.

My dad is a perfect example of the American conservative: reasonable in the extreme when people aren’t shouting at him from the TV. But Fox News propaganda sinks into his brain effortlessly. I know this because I hear Fox News talking points coming out of his mouth. In the case of the NSA spying, he told me that he didn’t mind as long as the government kept us safe. That was shocking because (1) that is the opposite of what he has always said and (2) that is exactly what conservative media are now pushing. So we ended up having a detailed conversation to pinpoint exactly what was acceptable to him. We determined that listening into his phone calls was fine because he doesn’t have anything to hide. But the government installing a video camera in his kitchen was not fine. I could never get clarity on why one was okay but the other was not. Maybe he cooks naked when no one is around?

I think the distinction lies in the fact that one issue has been politicized and the other has not. No one is talking about putting video cameras in our kitchens. And so it is easy to see how absurd that is. But the government tapping all telephones, that’s not absurd; that’s fighting terrorism! This is why all the nonsense we hear from government officials about the terror plots that were broken up by programs like XKeyscore are so dangerous. Good news sources have managed to put these claims in the farcical context they deserve. But conservative sources report them as the gospel truth.

My father has always been a smart and independent man. But he’s now 80 and much more prone to just believe what he’s told. And so I think Fox News is committing elder abuse. But maybe they think they have to be simplistic in how they put out information. People think the same thing about kids. It both cases, however, it is wrong. And regardless, for most people who disseminate information it is just easier to provide a simple narrative of good and bad rather a complex one about real people and issues. For Fox News it is that as well as having a political ax to grind.

I have never doubted that people like my dad really are conservative. But when I talk to him away from the influence of Fox News, he’s much more like Richard Nixon or even Dwight Eisenhower. It is only when the TV hits him over the head with “propaganda as truth” that his opinions start to gel with the modern Republican Party. But we must continue to talk to people like my father and even try to make alliances. Because the cold hard truth is that the Republican Party is not looking out for the interests of people like my dad.

Afterword

For the record, my father is neither rich nor a social conservative. So he is part of that large part (but not majority) of the Republican Party who really do vote against their own interests. Although I’m not sure just how much he votes Republican anymore. And he’s not aligned with any party officially.

I have a bone to pick with Paul Krugman. His column today is quite good, Republicans Against Reality. The first half of the article is about Republican dysfunction. He highlights last week’s transportation bill fiasco. It’s an old story. Talk to any conservative (and sadly many liberals as well) and they will tell you that there is loads of wasteful spending in the government. But when you ask them what ought to be cut, the first thing they say is: foreign aid. There are two problems with this. First, foreign aid really does help us out globally by pushing back against all the bad stuff we do. (And note: Israel gets by far the most foreign aid of any country.) Second, foreign aid only makes up about 1% of the federal budget.

So the problem the House Republicans are having is that they’ve gone along with Paul Ryan’s new mythical budget. But when it comes to actual policies, the House members don’t like it because it requires cutting programs that their constituencies like and depend upon. So vauge notions of cutting “waste”: gooood! Concrete ideas of cutting actual programs: baaad!

The second half of Krugman’s article is about how the Republican leadership is reaping what it sowed. He writes:

That is mostly true, but I take exception to the claim that the Republican Party has abandoned the social conservative base. Just in terms of policy, they got things like the Defense of Marriage Act and Terri Schiavo. But more important, they’ve gotten really conservative judges throughout the federal court system. I don’t have any doubt that if Roe vs. Wade came up for a vote in the Supreme Court that it would be overturned. So social conservatives have gotten what they want.

Now it is also true that the socially conservative judges happen also to be economically conservative. I’ve always found this strange; how does the Bible relate to thinking that businesses have way more rights than individuals? But that is the state of modern conservatism. Also, it is important to remember that the social conservative base of the Republican Party is itself fairly wealthy. This was discussed in detail in Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State. In general, poor people can’t spend all their time picketing abortion clinics.

This may seem like a minor point, but I think it is important to understand our adversaries. The Republicans are not running a bait and switch on the social conservatives. What’s more, the social conservatives are generally the economic conservatives. The Republicans are doing right by them. The problem is that these people are a distinct minority. When Republicans win it is because few people vote. I think Mitt Romney understood the issue well:

Afterword

Just to be clear: yes, I do believe what I wrote in the quote. The rich are hugely more dependent upon the government than the poor, even though that dependence doesn’t so much come in the form of direct cash payments. Conservatives as a group think of themselves as victims. Just watch Fox News; it is amazing the amount of whining you hear. What do you think the whole “War on Christmas” is about? And finally, they don’t take personal responsibility. They want everyone to think they do and doubtless they’ve convinced themselves. But we are all dependent upon each other and to deny that is not not take personal responsibility. Nor is it taking personal responsibility to only get news from sources that flatter your prejudices. And what are we to make of people who want to constrain the consensual behavior of others?

Update (5 August 2013 10:00 am)

I mistyped the headline with “verry” instead of “very.” That was because I originally had, “Republicans Been Berry Berry Good to Social Conservatives.” But it struck me as kind of racist, so I went with the “very” and added “have.”

It is widely accepted that Gwyneth Paltrow is one of the most slappable people in Hollywood. I, of course, am an iconoclast, but even my powers of contrariness are not great enough to like her. In fact, I dislike her so much that I even fast forward through “He Plays the Violin” in 1776 because I hate watching her mother—who looks just like her. (I also hate that they used the very weak singer Blythe Danner when Betty Buckley belts out that song so beautifully on the original cast album.)

A couple of weeks ago, The Savory published an article, Gwyneth Paltrow’s Most Obnoxious Food Quotes. She’s written two cookbooks, but that apparently is not the problem. One thing that really comes across in the quotes is just how clueless she seems to be about the lives of non-millionaires who actually have to work for a living. She also has what can only be termed an unnatural relationship with Vegenaise.

My favorite quote, by far, was the following:

Coming from a normal, self-aware person, I would think that was a clever line. But there is no indication that she’s joking. I think she just doesn’t realize what she’s said. “Don’t the chicken parts get stuck in your veins? You should see a doctor about that!”

I don’t watch Up with any consistency anymore. I think Steve Kornacki is good—one of the best people that MSNBC has. But he lets a lot of nonsense go by that Chris Hayes never would have. For example, this morning Republican strategist Rick Wilson was allowed to go on at length about things that just aren’t true. He’s not a total idiot like Amy Kremer, but he sure wasn’t insightful, even about the Republican movement. And Kornacki let him make some blanket statements about Obama that just weren’t true. It was sad to see.

The best part of the show was after Wilson went on at length (Of course!) about how he wanted the NSA to “scoop up” all the data in other countries. That struck me as typically stupid conservative. It goes right along the lines of people thinking that the Constitution only applies to citizens, even though that’s not what the Constitution says. There is this idea that only America matters. I have a hard time stomaching this kind of anti-international, parochial world view. Luckily, Yglesias was there to hit back:

This caused Wilson to backtrack and refine what he was saying, but it was clear that he’d been nailed. The exchange is at the end of this clip, but it is well worth checking out:

Afterword

I really like seeing Matt Yglesias on the TV. He is clearly a quiet person who hasn’t studied broadcasting. It is nice to see a wonk just being a wonk.

On this day in 1511, art historian Giorgio Vasari was born. Pianist and Wolfgang’s sister, Maria Anna Mozart was born in 1751. Poet Samuel Rogers was born in 1763. Automaker and antisemite Henry Ford was born in 1863.

The half-sister of Marilyn Monroe, Berniece Baker Miracle is 94 today. I bring it up only to imagine what might have been. Blues great Buddy Guy is 77. Director Peter Bogdanovich is 74. Singer and lyricist Paul Anka is 72. Saxophonist David Sanborn is 68. Arnold Schwarzenegger is 66. I’m not even sure what he is. Actor Jean Reno is 65. So he will not be working anymore. Lawyer Anita Hill is 57. Actor Laurence Fishburne is 53. Actor Lisa Kudrow is 50. Director Christopher Nolan is 43. And actor Hilary Swank is 39.

The day, however, belongs to the great British novelist Emily Bronte who was born on this day in 1818. There is not a lot to say about her. Wuthering Heights is the most satisfying of the Bronte sisters’ novels. And I have never read any of the poetry—or at least I don’t remember any of it that I read or which one of the sisters might have written it. She appears to have been very shy. If her sister Charlotte is to be believed, she rarely left the house. All of that makes me the more fond of her. Regardless, she left us as much of a testament of her life as we need in her great novel. We celebrate her life by reading it.

Happy birthday Emily Bronte!

Last week, Robert Reich wrote an article trying to explain, Why Republicans are Disciplined and Democrats Aren’t. Basically he argued that this is because of the kind of people who are attracted to the two parties. Republicans tend to lean toward authoritarianism, and thus it isn’t surprising that their politicians would be good at delivering the same brainless talking points over and over and over again. I don’t think there is much question of this. When I was a libertarian, I hated the Republican Party and still had a certain fondness for the Democrats for exactly this reason. (Sadly for the movement, most people are exactly the opposite, which ought to tell you all you need to know about libertarianism as a practical matter.)

What confuses me is that according to Reich, it ever was so. He quotes Will Rogers saying, “I’m not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” He likely said that before the first World War. But I’m not sure it means what Reich claims. After all, people normally make that kind of joke about whatever organization they are associated with. But I do think the joke works because Democrats have long recognized themselves in it and Republicans have felt superior for that reason. But is that image correct?

In many ways, the Republican Party has always been conservative. When the party started in the 1850s, it had a very compelling slogan, “free labor, free land, free men.” The “free land” part of that referred to the fact that plantation owners tended to own all the good farm land in an area. As a result of this, free (white) farmers were kept down because the system was proto-feudal. But it’s clear that the slogan is laser focused on slavery. The first and third phrases are about slavery and the second is about slave holders. The truth is that from the beginning, the Republican Party was very much pro-business, although it is certainly true that business then was quite different from now.

Moving forward into the progressive era, Theodore Roosevelt would seem to push against the idea that the Republican Party was always conservative. But his liberal policy of trust busting was very unpopular within his party and he eventually went on to run as a Progressive. That can certainly be seen as a practical matter—he just wouldn’t admit defeat. But that was also true of Joe Lieberman, who has also stood outside his party on important issues.

Since I was a kid, I’ve wondered how it is that a liberal party becomes a conservative party. I think what I’ve talked about here is part of the issue—but not all of it. To some extent, the GOP has reached its current position by starting out as rather conservative—at least on economic issues. Equally important, in many ways the party simply hasn’t evolved. In the 1950s, there were lots of Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower who had made their peace with progressivism and the New Deal. But there was always a strong minority in the party that accepted nothing—people who wanted to return to 1880. During the beginning of Obama’s presidency, there was a wave of conservative concern about the 17th Amendment to the Constitution: direct election of senators. That was a movement that started in the 1890s that became law in 1913. This part of the party has been ascendant in recent years.

In many ways, the party has regressed. There is a tendency among all of us to learn narrow lessons rather than broad ones. For example, most Americans now think the Nazis were bad simply because they killed so many Jews and other “undesirables.” But even without the Final Solution and the racism, the Nazis were a terrible authoritarian political movement. I think the same thing is going on with Republicans regarding slavery. There is little doubt in my mind that if slavery were an issue today, most Republicans would be apologists for it. The Christians would rightly note that slavery is in the Bible; it wouldn’t be their fault; it is God’s law. The economic conservatives would make arguments like, “Slavery is not optimal, but eliminating it would be terrible for the economy.” Conservative economists would come up with complex models to show how slavery actually makes poor whites better off than they would otherwise be. Am I going too far here? Maybe, but I seriously doubt it based upon some of the outrageous claims that otherwise good economists have made over the last 5 years especially.

I’ve come to the conclusion that what ties conservatives together is authoritarianism. Their rhetoric is all about freedom, but you hardly need to scratch the surface to see what they really think. Tax cuts are not for the poor, they are for the power elite. And when taxes are cut to a point where the poor pay no federal income taxes, Republicans grouse about how outrageous that is. And that’s the best case they have for not being an authoritarian party. Certainly their positions on guns, war, welfare, abortion, and just about anything else you can think of are explicitly authoritarian. Does anyone really doubt that if abortion was a medical procedure done to men that it wouldn’t be controversial?

The Republican Party is doubtless more authoritarian than it has ever been. But for a long time it has been authoritarian and the roots of this have always been present. What’s more, there has been a steady trend toward authoritarianism in the Republican Party. And the opposite has been the case with the Democratic Party. And this is why, despite my great disappointment with it, I self-identify as a Democrat. It is also why any thoughtful person should distance themselves from the party of Abraham Lincoln. Because other than the issue of slavery, they weren’t so great. And today, it hardly stands out as a party that would end slavery.

Reed Richardson had a great catch last week. He wrote, “To be fair, the House GOP’s website also has a whole button solely devoted to its jobs plan, which entices you to click it with a promise of ‘Get all the details here.’ That’s true, if by ‘details’ you mean one sentence each of talking points on 10 empty policy platitudes…” So I decided to take a look.

Energy Independence: An “all of the above” approach that expands American energy production will help create jobs, boost manufacturing, and make energy more affordable.

This isn’t a platitude so much as a disingenuous statement. An “all of the above” approach is not a bad idea. The government should be investing heavily in renewable energy. But that’s not what the GOP is calling for. What they want is reduced regulation and tax incentives that will allow the exploitation of known carbon based energy sources. In addition to the problem with global warming, this approach will not do much to create jobs. As Richardson noted, the State Department has determined that the Keystone XL pipeline will create a total of 35 permanent jobs. That begs us to ask the question, “Why is this pipeline being pushed so hard by conservatives?” The answer is the same as always: there are huge profits to be made by companies that are already sitting on huge piles of cash.

Lowering Health Care Costs & Bolstering Research: Repealing ObamaCare, enacting patient-centered reforms, and eliminating wasteful government spending so we can focus on disease and disorder research will improve care, and bring down the costs that strain families and make it harder for small businesses to hire.

There is absolutely no evidence that Obamacare is causing companies to limit hiring and the greater number of people getting healthcare will increase the number of jobs in that field. Remember, Republicans don’t dislike Obamacare because of the individual mandate; they dislike it because it raised taxes on the rich. The rest of this is just a series of meaningless platitudes, but there is a fair amount of disingenuousness as well. For example, somehow reducing government spending is going to cause a greater research focus on disease. If history is any indication, they mean ever more innovative drugs for erectile dysfunction.

Expanding Education Opportunity: Reforming federal education policies to empower parents with choice and equal opportunity to seek great teachers and schools, and improve access to college and training, will better prepare students for tomorrow’s job market.

By “equal opportunity” they mean give all parents a set amount of money for their child’s education. That way the rich won’t have to pay as much for their private educations and the poor will only be able to afford the worst educations. Equality of opportunity!

Simplifying the Tax Code: A simpler, flatter tax code without all the loopholes will be fairer for everyone, bring jobs home, and help make American innovators and manufacturers more competitive.

This is something I talk about with conservatives a lot. They like the idea of a flat tax and getting rid of loopholes. But they change their tunes when they get a little information. One of those loopholes is a huge one for the middle class: the mortgage interest deduction. A flatter tax code means one where the rich play less. Whenever conservatives talk about “simplifying” the tax code, what they mean is raising your taxes and lowering the taxes of the rich. That’s a given. If they really want a flatter tax code, why don’t they start with the payroll tax? It is highly regressive. But no; they want to flatten the only tax in all of the United States that is reasonably progressive. Also note that when all taxes are taken into account, our system is barely progressive, and as incomes get very high, the system becomes regressive.

Controlling Spending: Stopping wasteful spending, strengthening priorities like Medicare, and replacing the president’s sequester with smarter cuts and reforms that help us balance the budget—just like families do—will help pay down our debt and preserve the American Dream.

This is not a platitude. This is simply a prescription for recession. This is exactly the opposite of a job creation plan. And the statement that we should balance the budget “just like families do” is totally wrong. This is conservative propaganda that the GOP knows is wrong. It’s shameful. (And note “the president’s sequester.” Yeah. That’s what the president wanted. It had nothing to do with the Republican Debt Ceiling threat.)

Fostering Innovation: Keeping the Internet free from government regulation, stopping cyber-attacks while protecting our privacy, and modernizing our laws will help promote technological innovation and entrepreneurship.

Platitudes, platitudes, platitudes! Anytime someone tells you they want to protect you and your privacy (as does Obama all the time regarding the NSA), you know they are lying to you. As for modernizing our laws, that could mean patent reform, which would be a good thing. But I have zero confidence in the GOP actually doing that even if they are suggesting it.

Reforming Immigration & Border Security: Securing our borders, enforcing our laws, and making the process of becoming a legal immigrant fairer and more efficient will help America remain a magnet for the brightest minds and hardest workers.

Here is another supply side approach to the economy. The idea is that by allowing businesses to get lower paid workers from abroad, they will make more money. But what will this lead to? More hiring of lower paid workers from abroad? There is, of course, no mention of a path to citizenship, even though that would improve the economy and reduce the federal debt. Of course, as seen above, the GOP doesn’t care about federal debt, just federal spending.

Reining in Red Tape: Removing artificial government barriers and red tape will preserve and strengthen Americans’ ability to build, grow, and compete with anyone.

This is Republican boilerplate. But it is also exactly the opposite of what we should be doing right now. Businesses are sitting on piles of cash. Now is the perfect time to force them to clean up. It wouldn’t hurt normal business investment and it would create jobs.

Expanding Markets for Manufacturers & Small Businesses: Opening new markets for American-made goods will help lower prices for consumers, create better, higher-paying jobs for workers, and attract new investments in the United States.

I assume this is a plea for more and more supposed free trade agreements. These really don’t do much in terms of creating jobs. What they do do is increase profits so that America’s corporations can have even bigger piles of money to sit on.

Stopping Waste & Fixing Broken Government: Responsible oversight of government operations will help remove obstacles to growth and ensure accountability for taxpayers.

More platitudes. But even more important, this point is exactly the same as “Reining in Red Tape.” And that’s true of most of this list. The GOP can’t manage to come up with any good ideas to promote the economy and job growth. But given that, they can’t even come up with ten independent ideas. It is pathetic when you consider that there are actual free market ideas that they could have included. But they aren’t interested in the free market. They entire raison d’etre is to help those who are already successful keep and expand their wealth.

From all of this, you can see why the Republican Party needs its own media sources. Anyone outside the true believer bubble can easily see that all the Republican rhetoric about freedom and “level playing fields” means nothing when it comes to actual policies.

Yesterday on the cover of the New York Times, Jonathan Martin wrote one of those stupid Villager articles we all know and despise, Some Democrats Look to Push Party Away from Center. This is an issue I’ve been ranting about for years. There is no “center.” All the mainstream press does is define the “center” somewhere to the right of the Democrats and to the left of the Republicans. What that means is that the Republicans can and have moved the “center” far to the right, just by being extreme. The effect is that the left is defined by a practical approach to politics and the right is defined by the most extreme elements of our political system. As a result, we end up with a “center” that is skewed to the extreme right.

Ezra Klein pushed back on Martin’s article, There’s No Such Thing As ‘The Center’. He puts a different take on what the “center” actually means. “It’s more a reference to an amorphous Washington consensus.” That’s another way to look at that is undoubtedly more accurate. Because the truth is that on social issues, the far right turn of the Republican Party has not caused the mainstream press to move the center of debate on gay or abortion rights. It is just on economic issues—the issues that the nation as a whole cares the most about—on which the center gets constantly pushed to the right, despite the fact that nation is far to the left.

The whole thing makes me wonder—and I’ve written about this in the past—does the press move the economic playing field further to the right because the Republicans move right or does it work the other way around. I’m afraid it is the latter. When it comes to social issues, the country is relatively divided. But liberal economic ideas are hugely popular. So I doubt that the Republicans would have moved so far right if it hadn’t been that they got no push back from the press. A great example of this is the “professional moderate” industry. I wrote this last year about Serious Centrist Saletan’s Selfishness:

And this is what is happening with people like Jonathan Martin. (And even Ezra Klein at times!) They are surrounded by like minded people who have the exact same interests that they have. Thus they think they really are being objective; they are blind to their own assumptions. A good example of this is how “free” trade agreements are really unpopular but in the mainstream press, it is considered radical and stupid to suggest that these agreements are anything but the best possible policy.

To a large extent, this is why I applaud biased news sources. If you are reading this blog, you know that I am biased. I don’t claim to be “objective.” Just the same, I would never intentionally misinform you. And I try very hard to provide the strong counterarguments, when they exist (in the current political environment, that is sadly rare). But knowing my biases allows you to decide if you are going to listen to me. Much worse are people like Martin who play the part of objective reporter when they have as many skewed opinions as I.

Afterword

Here are a few other recent articles I’ve written on this subject:

• Pretend Liberals
• Why Dems Aren’t Economically Liberal
• Conservative and Liberal Lies About Each Other
• Unacknowledged Media Bias

This is a very interesting catch by Dean Baker. He created a Google Trends report that shows that searches for the keyword “hyperinflation” are back down to where they were before the financial crisis. As Baker noted, this is good news. But the whole thing disturbs me. Why would the financial crisis stir concerns about hyperinflation? Recession? Sure. Even famine and political instability make sense. But not hyperinflation.

The reason that people were concerned about hyperinflation was that certain people on the right were pushing it as a scare story. Inflation is a standard obsession among conservatives. People who think about economics with any kind of seriousness know that moderate inflation is a good thing—especially right now when individuals are trying to deleverage. Moderate inflation makes debt more manageable and spurs economic activity. Conservatives hate it because it helps the poor and hurts the rich.

Many years ago, I read a primer of libertarianism. It made the standard case for the gold standard. Specifically, it noted that the government never had to print more money. If money because scarce, it would simply go up in value: problem solved! Unfortunately for the libertarians, it isn’t so simple. First, if one can increase his wealth by holding on to money, there is an active disincentive for business investment. Second, any person who owes money will see that amount go up over time.

As a practical matter, the first issue is most important. Deflation would really put a drag on the macroeconomy. As a philosophical matter, the second issue is critical. Conservatives often argue that inflation is bad because it steals money from people. But they have no such concerns about deflation. So what they are effectively saying is that they care about inflation when it harms lenders but not when it harms borrowers. That’s a critical point.

It is hard to get people riled up about inflation when it has generally been too low the last 25 years. That’s why conservative commentators have latched on to the idea of hyperinflation. And this all happens in the context of a world in which not only hyperinflation but high inflation is becoming a thing of the past. Paul Krugman wrote a good article on the complete absence of triple-digit and the great decline in double-digit inflation, The Death of High Inflation. So it is good that people in general have calmed down about the threat of hyperinflation, but I don’t expect this to last. Soon the conservatives will be back with a new reason why we are turning into, “Zimbabwe! Zimbabwe, I tell you!”