By BJ Bjornson
Starting from Krugman�s post:
What I found myself thinking about, however, is the way the inequality debate illustrates some typical features of many debates these days: the way the right has a sort of multi-layer defense in depth, which involves not only denying facts but then, in a pinch, denying the fact that you denied those facts.
Think about climate change. You have various right-wingers simultaneously (a) denying that global warming is happening (b) denying that anyone denies that global warming is happening, but denying that humans are responsible (c) denying that anyone denies that humans are causing global warming, insisting that the real argument is about the appropriate response.
I�m not sure there are three levels (yet) on inequality, but we definitely have (a) right-wingers denying that inequality is rising and (b) denying that anyone is denying the rise in inequality, but attacking any proposal to limit that rise.
You might ask, how is it possible to take such mutually contradictory positions? And the answer is, it�s very easy if confusing the debate is your job.
Emphasis mine. I can assure Mr. Krugman that he is far from the only person who has noticed this, and climate change and inequality are far from the only two topics where this dynamic plays out. What is even more annoying, is that this clearly defective logic not only gets a pass in the mainstream media, but winds up dominating the debate for the most part. As DougJ puts it:
I defy you to name even one issue where this dynamic�multiple layers of conservative denialism, with a creamy name-calling filling, topped with the icy frosting of neo-liberal contrarianism and general smart-assery�doesn�t effectively dominate the national discourse.
Let me know if you find one.