Predictable Krugman

Paul Krugman's comments on the election were published today in the NY Times. Krugman's views of America are well known. He is considered the flag bearer for much of the left. In that respect, he does not disappoint.

He begins

President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.

Thus does Krugman define "the right".

Nevermind that Social Security will collapse under its own weight before Krugman's first students reach retirement. In Krugman's world, fixing Social Security equates to "eviscerating" it.

Ignore the fact that the Constitution guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In Krugman's world the first amendment means that religion must not exist at all in a governmental context. Therefore religious displays on governmental property are forbidden as are any expressions of religious sentiment in schools (which are, after all, government-owned.) For Krugman and others on the left, the absence of religion in public life is the only acceptable answer.

Striking what will be a recurring Democratic theme, Krugman insists that what we saw with our own eyes did not really happen.

This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback.

He briefly pauses to take a swipe at the President

I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality.

then moves on to his main point - the Democratic base simply wasn't mobilized enough.

Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage.

Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base.

Come again?

If you accept Krugman's premise that the "religious right" isn't "even a dominant minority", then how does Krugman explain the 59,459,765 voters that cast their ballot for Bush?

He doesn't.

UPDATE: Beldar does.

UPDATE 2: More on Krugman (and other liberals) from Donald Luskin.