If you want a good example of the sheer partisan degeneracy that now marks Paul Krugman's New York Times columns, check out today's. It's about the rise of nepotism in America's political system. It's a worthwhile point, and one I've made myself on several occasions. But Krugman manages to make it an entirely partisan issue. Every example of nepotism he gives is Republican or conservative, implying a seamless connnection between family favors and his increasingly unhinged idea that America is now in the grip of a brutal plutocracy. He doesn't mention Al Gore or Nancy Pelosi, for example, two of the most prominent Democrats whose families were already in the business. Not to mention the Browns of California. When it comes to obvious examples of liberal aristocrats - the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, the Sulzbergers - he lets them off the hook because they're, er, liberals. The brown-nosing of Sulzberger was particularly egregious. For Krugman, it seems, non-liberal aristocrats are by definition repulsive, since all non-liberals are by definition selfish and cruel and heartless. If you don't believe that the government should be the primary means for helping others, you're immoral. This guy used to have a brain. Now he only seems to have bile.
Krugman is right in that many of our leaders are basically just aristocrats at this point. The Founding Fathers did not intend for politicians to make a career out of politics, but unfortunately it has come to that. But for Krugman to claim that the Bush's and fellow conservative families are everything that is wrong with America today simply shows how far to the left Mr. Krugman has gone. At least he has the gall to mention the Kennedy's. Nevertheless, Krugman clearly has his blinders on.