The Ugly Truth Paul Krugman Analysis

The New York Times columnist David Brooks calls it “the greatest political shock of our lifetime.” At the end of August, it seemed as though Donald Trump was destined to fail in his bid to become the 45th President of the United States. After months of new revelations of sexual harassments and use of vulgar language, spectators of the political sport were almost certain that Secretary Clinton would win, and then that fateful day came. Everyone, including some of Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters were shocked at the outcome of the election, leaving many to ask how such a thing could happen. While still shocking, ideas and concepts learned in the Election the President seminar have helped to explain the process, the results, and even the candidates themselves.

He talks about how America is easily manipulated by images. They cannot differentiate between lies in the truth. Many people in America are illiterate or barely literate. They could read somewhere around a 6th grade level. This affects them when they have to vote since they do not make decisions off facts. Moreover, politicians are very aware of that. Their campaigns are made so they could get emotions out of the audience rather than go based off facts. “We prefer happy illusions. And it works because so much of the American electorate, including those who should know better, blindly cast ballots for slogans, smiles, the cheerful family tableaux, narratives and the perceived sincerity and the attractiveness of candidates. We confuse how we feel with knowledge” (Hedges). Politicians use the slogan such as “yes we can” and they would tell stories so we can sympathize in voting for them. They make fake that they will take care of all of your problems as healthcare, schooling, taxes and a nation united. Yet, when the candidate wins, they forget about promise that they made in the campaigns. Matt Taibbi’s article “How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable” stated, “Like the actual circus, this is a roving business. Cash flows to campaigns from people and donors; campaigns buy ads; ads pay for journalists; journalists assess candidates…Nine out of 10 times in America, the candidate who raises the most money wins. And those candidates then owe the most favors” (Taibbi). This quote shows it does not matter if people vote or not, their votes are not a key factor in the campaigns it is the donors. When the campaigns are over, the illiterate have no voice once again. Politics is not about the ideas about the ideas

November 8, 2016. As the clock ticked from day to dust, the American population sat down to the conclusion of the forty fifth presidential election. Within moments, the fate of the nation was broadcasted into the homes and hearts of millions. For the some, the results of the election bought upon a sense of joy and excitement. However, for the other half of America’s citizens, hearing the call for Trump to presidency emitted feelings of sadness, disappointment, and above all else, confusion. How did a multi-billionaire businessman defeat a former First Lady of the United States and Secretary of State to become the president on the United States? In fact, how did a man of such little constitutional knowledge obtain the amount of political attention

Donald Trump’s nomination can be clearly seen as not the result of electoral flubs or the chance of history, but the result of a decades old movement. In campaign after campaign there have been candidates appealing to the same nativist tendencies, and voters who support them. It further shows another instance of a movement building within and without a party ultimately capturing the party and nominating one of their own. In Bryan’s, Reagan 's, Clinton, and Trump’s cases political commentators at the time were stunned that the party bosses could be so

“The Limit of Trumpism,” discusses how Trump’s agenda has kept him in the presidential election. Many have tried to follow his agendas but have caused them to lose the primaries. The article also demonstrates the limits to Trump. The biggest fault Trump has is reaching minorities. Instead of trying to entice minorities he is bashing immigrants. The author believes that this area of ignorance is causing Trump to lose in the polls.

Establishment Republicans are not sniggering at Donald Trump’s antics anymore, especially as he threatens to go solo in November if party insiders scheme to deny him the nomination. Echoes of similarly irate conservative Teddy Roosevelt and his “Bull Moose” party sinking the Republican (GOP) national campaign in 1912 get louder every time Trump wins a primary state. After the real estate mogul announced his candidacy in June last year, party leaders contentedly sat back in the peanut gallery ridiculing his naked attempts at demagoguery. Later, they dismissed Trump’s surging poll numbers as an electoral blip sparked by fringe sections of the party base that loathed the GOP’s handling of Congress.

Maureen Dowd asserts that less in a year into the Trump administration, he has left America disappointed by his blunders. She identifies his unwise decisions and poor judgment calls such as selecting unqualified cabinet leaders, the healthcare bill that worsened the issue rather than fix it, and his broken promise of bringing his business acumen to get D.C. working again. She iterates her disillusionment with Trump’s lackluster performance in order to leave no doubt that he is not the best representative of the United States of America. Dowd directs her letter towards Trump but she desperately pleads with the Americans who are on the fence or defensive of Trump’s suitability for the presidential office to realize his actions are not acceptable.

Mair’s article is to convince the reader, actually convince would-be voters, that Mr. Trump and Mr. Trump alone is to blame for how ugly the 2016 Republican campaign has become, and for this reason is not worthy or qualified to be the Republican nominee. The underlying purpose of Mair is to keep the Republican establishment from seceding control of the Republican Party to an outsider, qualified or not. Simply put, those in power don’t want to lose that power. Republican insiders like Mair are fighting for their political livelihood and the power that comes from it. Mair writes this article in-the-face of the popular, non-establishment support Mr. Trump receives, and despite-the-fact that the Trump campaign has already defeated fourteen of the sixteen Republican candidates. No one expected Mr. Trump’s campaign to proceed this far, but then again, the media, political pundits, and political establishments that have been in control of their political messages did not anticipate a billionaire with deep-pockets and a loud-mouth to shake things up the way he did. The Trump campaign has created a political movement and has both the Republican and Democratic establishment worried about the future of politics in our country and their own future within that

Fahrenthold article titled (“Seven candidates against the man who isn’t there)”-Donald Trump lack of participation in debates on FOX news tonight, David argues it could provide an opportunity for other candidates such as Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. His excessive confidence could lead to his downfall or victory. Both authors support their claim by providing counterintuitive statements in their articles, In Fahrenthold’s article he states that Donald trump not showing up could provide opportunities for other candidates but at the same time his absence might still influence the debate.In Cillizza’s article he primarily makes a list of the winners and losers in the present race but his thought might be a little biased due to its subjective tone, and finally both authors uses humour to connect to the reader, the humour used is to keep the reader engaged and releases tension. Cillizza and Fahrenthold’s purpose is to challenge and confront the reader and the candidates themselves by pointing out their weaknesses and ways for them they could improve, in order to provide the United states with a well equipped candidates/presidents for

In the article “What Trump’s NFL, Curry remarks should signal to his base,” Julian Zelizer argues about how because Trump is “immature” and “divisive”, he is destroying America’s unity(Zelizer). He also points out that Trump did not blame or harass the white supremacists after the Charlottesville incident which is why this current problem or race is occurring. The author criticizes Trump on “blaming others, rather than offering real economic relief” which leads him to believe that Trump is distracting everyone from his campaign promises(Zelizer).

Krugman uses facts to drive and support his articles, even supplying the source of the evidence such as the “recent report by the investment firm Lazard,” and this allows the audience to draw their own conclusions, but he does not forget to include his opinions, for instance in his article, “When China Stumbles,” he admits “that [he’s] not as relaxed about this as the above analysis says [he] should be.” This input of opinion often leads to his articles being more emotional. For example, in his article, “Michigan’s Great Stink,” Rick Snyder’s insensitivity towards the public provokes Krugman and he insists that, “you wouldn’t expect controversy about spending enough to provide key public goods like basic education or safe drinking water,” which

Krugman’s own feelings and his intentions for his audience become apparent in the first line of the article: “Are you angry about the white nationalist takeover of the US government?” (1). Krugman’s use of a rhetorical question and the pronoun “you” emphasizes each person’s moral obligation to oppose a government that they are outraged by. The phrase: “You are definitely not alone” (1) unifies his outraged audience against Trump, which will strengthen the impact of his call to action. Krugman’s call to action brings attention to the immediacy of the situation and suggests that outrage is the moral obligation of the audience: “Outrage at what’s happening in America isn’t just justified, it essential. In fact, it may be our last chance at saving democracy” (4). Krugman, however, knows

Donald’s Trump’s victory in the 2016 election is very complex. The political mishaps that have occurred since JFK’s presidency reshaped the American psyche of who the president should be. This chain of dissatisfaction with the federal government led the American people to hope for a president who is honest, free of corruption, and supportive of the middle class. Trump recognized the American need for a new kind of president and took on a persona that perfectly exemplified this. The Trump Mythology is the belief that Donald Trump is a transparent, honest politician; however, this is only part of the equation. Belief in the Trump Mythology contributed to his victory, but it is also important to acknowledge the respective roles of demographics, voter turnout, and Hillary Clinton’s flaws. An interesting difference between the Kennedy Mythology and the Trump Mythology that is worth noting is the role of the media. Throughout the Kennedy Era, popular media fed the people’s fascination of Kennedy’s Camelot, perpetuating the mythology. Donald Trump, however, was largely hated by popular culture. American media ultimately discounted Donald Trump as a viable contender for the presidency.

     In the event of an integrated Europe, constructivists recognize that to completely avoid conflict, each state will have to succumb to a “European identity” and all individual identities will have to become merely “cultural gems” within the European system. This, they argue, can be achieved with the success of several steps including economic, judicial, and security integration . The first step has already been attempted with the establishment of the Euro, the common European currency, which has been outperformed by its monetary competitors. A great amount of trust will have to be secured between states before a common court or army can be established, and most likely with as little success as the common currency. So, even by these simplified guidelines the outlook for the creation of a new “European

Paul Krugman is well known for his New Trade Theory, International Trade Theory, and for his weekly columns in The New York Times. Krugman has written more than twenty books and textbooks explaining economics for a general audience. Krugman is a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and Centenary Professor at London School of Economics. What is critical in Krugman’s approach is he united two fields, which traditionally are separated- trade and geography. He has found a way to explain some issues in economic geography by using the trade theory. He won a The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2008 for his New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. By examining the effects of economies of scale on consumers’ goods and services he is able to explain the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth.