The Richard Hofstadter Drinking Game

"[T]he G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit," Paul Krugman warns today:

The state of mind visible at recent right-wing demonstrations is nothing new. Back in 1964 the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay–

Drink!

Actually, you could develop a whole multi-trigger drinking game based on anti-Tea Party columns, though it may prove as potentially deadly as the Century Club. In addition to the obligatory Hofstadter reference, tip your glass whenever you read that...

2) Not only are things just like Hofstadter wrote back when interracial marriage was widely outlawed, they're actually worse. (Krugman variation: "But while the paranoid style isn't new, its role within the G.O.P. is.")

3) The real leader of the modern GOP is fill-in-the-blank non-office-holding bogeyman/woman. (Krugman's completism: "Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.")

4) The underlying motivation for tea party Republicans is racism. (Though Krugman fell short [this time], his pagemate Frank Rich delivered the goods Sunday: "Only if [NY-23] were situated in Dixie — or Utah — could it be a more perfect fit for the narrow American demographic where the McCain-Palin ticket had its sole romps last year.")

5) Somehow, despite becoming a regional party of (racist) southern whites, the Republican Party is MORE POWERFUL THAN EVER in thwarting the will of our Enlightenment Democrats. (Krugman: "In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state's fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable[.]")

6) Previous generations of Republicans, no matter how evil we said they were at the time, were wise intellectuals compared to the rabble today. (Krugman: "At this point Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reasonable elder statesman of the G.O.P. And he has no authority.")

7) Even though both parties have drastically and unapologetically expanded the size and scope of the federal government (as well as almost all 50 states) over the past decade, the real public-policy crisis bedeviling us today is the fact that conservatives "hate" government. (Today's exemplar is E.J. Dionne: "The media almost never discuss what the sweeping dismantling of public services inherent in the rhetoric of the anti-government movement would mean in practice.")

8) The very Republic is under imminent threat from these ominous, possibly violent right-wing crazies. (Krugman: "[T]he takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it's very bad for America."

Krugman today scores a 6 out of 8 in the Hofstadter Drinking Game, which means you can get a pretty good buzz on. Sure beats reading all 700 words.

I think I'll link to Jesse Walker's "Paranoid Center" piece once a week for the next seven years.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Krugman: Krugman: "[T]he takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it's very bad for America."

    Leaves the question open as to how bad for America is the takeover of the Democratic Party by the irrational left, which Krugman represents in a neat, perfect, fleshy package.

  • Bruce Majors||

    It's the standard Demwit flatulence: You must love and obey us because the GOP is full of bad peeps.

    Many of both need to be guillotined,and I mean that literally. Krugman needs to be denied burial afterwards, left for the feasting of his fellow vermin.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    the standard Demwit flatulence: You must love and obey us because government is your friend and the private sector is entirely composed of villains and bad, bad people.

    Fixed it for ya.

  • Tony||

    I'll go ahead and drink, but I'm gonna have to double up for the fact that Reason is bitching about too many citations of a single 20th century intellectual during Ayn Rand week(s).

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Rand slaps that bitch Krugman, even from the grave.

  • Bruce Majors||

    He'd make a good Rand villain: runty, fugly, and a paid whore who lies in service of the State to get celebrity and, he hopes, pussy.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Really? He doesn't seem to dress like he's particularly concerned with getting laid.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Supposedly his early work on technical aspects of trade policy is actually good.It's what his Nobel was awarded for and it has nothing to do with his Keynesian witch doctoring on behalf of Obama. So one assumes his whoring and flaking is for money, celebrity and getting laid. I don't think many women (or men) off campus are interested in pudgy ugly little professors unless they have money or celebrity or access to power.

  • ||

    On what grounds do you call him a whore? Because he holds a different view of economics than you do, you assume he operates in bad faith?

    There are certainly hacks on all sides in this world, but I have a hard time seeing Krugman as one of them. By your own nonsensical logic, the man won a Nobel. He doesn't need a column in the NYT to get him laid.

  • ||

    Paul Krugman has never won a Nobel Prize.

    That is because there is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in Economics.

    What Krugman won was the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".

    That is all.

  • Flyover Country||

    Yes, he does operate in bad faith. At this point he is little more than a Democratic party/Obama shill. Now that
    Democrats are in power he contradicts what he said when Republicans were in power.

  • ||

    By your own nonsensical logic, the man won a Nobel. He doesn't need a column in the NYT to get him laid.

    Ummm if he did not write shill for the NYT what would he do?

    Publish new economic work?

    I don't think so. He solved a very small niche puzzle in economics that no one is using or even finds interesting enough to study anymore.

    In the economics world Krugman is a has-been.

  • Enyap||

    Yes, he does argue in bad faith, considering his encouragement of the housing bubble, which he now denies, and his sudden change of heart on the deficit when obama got elected.

  • ||

    On what grounds do you call him a whore? Because he holds a different view of economics than you do, you assume he operates in bad faith?

    Well, the fact that his own actual Economics textbook lauds the very Bush tax cuts that he excoriates in his Times column as preventing a far deeper recession really doesn't suggest he's the pinnacle of intellectual integrity.

  • MattXIV||

    WRT his NYT column, there's no way he believes what he says - when a notable neo-Keynsian routinely misapplies neo-Keynesian models in a way that curiously happens to allow him to avoid mentioning potential side effects of his policy agenda, I have to assume it's intentional.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    "[T]he G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit," Paul Krugman warns today... and [t]he Democrats exploit the people they want to take over.

    Fixed it for Tony.

    Say, isn't that Krugman's jizz in your hair? That stuff isn't really as good a hair gel as they said it was in that Ben Stiller movie, y'know.

  • Kroneborge||

    ha, one of my liberal friends had actually sent me Krugmans article, nice to send this back to her, lol

  • Bruce Majors||

    That is the purpose of Krugman (and in another column here today, Tedium Tatters). In Randian terms they are the witch doctors and mystics who supply ideological myths to justify the tyrants. Little airhead demwits cut and paste and parrot their catechisms,certain that it must mean something because Harvard, Nobel committees or the MacArthur Foundation said so.

    They all need to die bloody in the revolution. After a fair trial before a citizens' tribunal.

  • Matt Welch||

    Bruce, have you been sampling the product again?

  • Bruce Majors||

    What product? I have been totally sober since the last Reason happy hour back in 1999.

  • Matt Welch||

    So many lies, so few words!

  • eb||

    that i know is a lie

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Maybe I'm not being quick enough on the uptake, but I can't figure out what the thesis of Krugman's article really is. Could it really be that vague? Phoned in, perhaps?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    8) The very Republic is under imminent threat from these ominous, possibly violent right-wing crazies.

    Ha! Were it only true!

  • Bruce Majors||

    Someone publish his home address on the net in the hopes that it will be.

  • 24AheadDotCom||

    This is a fun post, but it's going to have zero impact on Krugman.

    Now, if someone were to grab their video camera and go put Paul Krugman on the spot and then upload it to Youtube and make it part of his "permanent record", well, that would have an impact.

  • ||

    I'd like to grab my video camera and put the young women in the picture on the spot. But I wouldn't post it to YouTube, just keep it for my personal enjoyment.

    But seriously, what is up with that girl scratching her foot in the background? Athlete's foot is a pretty huge turn-off.

  • Bruce Majors||

    This is the most intelligent comment on this list. Even better than mine.

    Are you single, Dot? What are you wearing?

  • juris imprudent||

    My skin just crawled right off of my body and headed for the decontamination chamber.

  • Solanum||

    That's the closest thing to a compliment Lonewacko has ever given the Reason staff. Nice job, Matt!

  • mark||

    Is there any particular reason Reason has not yet re-implemented the "nofollow" tag in blog comments?

  • Attorney||

    In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state's fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable

    That's some Nobel-level logic skillz at work right there. No normal brain could've pulled that one off. No sir.

  • juris imprudent||

    It pains me to say this, but he is right about what the GOP has devolved to in CA. It isn't applicable to the country as a whole because in CA you need a 2/3rds majority to pass a budget or increase a tax. This is why the Repubs were willing to consign themselves to nearly permanent minority status here.

  • Enemy Of The Revolution||

    But Paul Krugman is really smart. He won the Nobel prize, and they only give that to people who really deserve it, right?

    Oh wait, never mind.

  • Bruce Majors||

    He is the first Disney character to win one. Sleepy, Dopey, Grouchy, Mopey, Cranky and Robert Reich are all terribly jealous.

  • ||

    Had to giggle at a Paul Krugman article discussing big rumps.

  • Sir Krugs-a-Lot||

    Iiii like Frank Rich and I can not lie

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I admit I'm a bit jealous of Krugman. I'd like to do some good work, get a Nobel Prize and then parlay that into collecting paychecks for writing dozens of barely coherent articles about the same subject.

  • matt||

    If only that was what Krugman were doing.

    How many Krugman columns about Comparative Advantage have you seen lately?

    I guess calling people racist pays better...

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Or envious of Krugman, rather.

  • anon||

    From left to right, yes, yes, yes, yes after a couple beers.

  • ||

    You'd do Krugman after a couple of beers?

  • Barney Frank||

    I'd do Krugman WITHOUT drinks.

  • ||

    yes after a couple beers.

    After you've had them, or her?

    She looks like she might be ready for you, if the latter.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Why doesn't Paul Krugman clean his fingernails? Or manicure them so that he more closely resembles one of the more advanced primate species?

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Wha-?

  • ||

    Is this all the left has in it? Solipsism?

    Talk about jumping the rational shark.

  • Keith||

    Krugman's assertion that Tea Party protesters and right-wingers in the G.O.P. are responsible for California's fiscal woes is the most absurd claim I have ever seen in a NYT opinion piece.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Is that what he was implying? Because whatever it was he was insinuating, I couldn't quite wrap my brain around it. His claims were definitely very far from compelling.

  • Bruce Majors||

    So Keith,I take it you are unfamiliar with the work of Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd.

  • ||

    The California GOP certainly bears a lot of responsibility for the mess that the state is in. Why wouldn't it? Despite being a tiny minority they actually hold a lot of power in the legislature, particularly with regards to the budget. I don't see what gets them off the hook for anything.

  • ||

    Unless a tiny minority in California's legislature is able to unilaterally pass bills spending gobs of money, there's no way they bear any responsibility for the state's yawning budget hole whatsoever.

    The results of the state's attempts to kick the can down the road with the special initiatives earlier this year show that the "ungovernable hordes" in California are not quite the tiny rump Paul Krugman imagines them to be.

  • Clemsonuee||

    I'm sorry, who is the Krugman you all are talking about? All I saw was a photo from what I assume is a MADD pamphlet.

  • Gene Berkman||

    Frank Rich says "Only if [NY-23] were situated in Dixie — or Utah — could it be a more perfect fit for the narrow American demographic where the McCain-Palin ticket had its sole romps last year."

    Ha! New York 23 gave a majority to Barack Obama last year. The vacancy occurred because the incumbent Republican Congressman accepted a post in the Obama administration.

  • hmm||

    Krugman posts on reason are some sort of deja vu. They are all so similar with on of two pictures.

    Of course Krugman is a tard, and a complete fucking worthless shit stain outside of economics. He's especially vile in the role of historian and political pundit. So all threads relevant to him and these things look the same. Like Charlie Brown's teacher talking.

  • ||

    There's a great parody floating around the intertubes where they took the shot of Krugman reading the NYT and photoshopped a Playboy in its place. Wish HnR would use that one on one of these posts.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    a 2007 Media Matters report ranked her third among all columnists in terms of the number of newspapers that carry the column, just behind George Will and Cal Thomas.

    Wow Cal Thomas is #2?I've liked ol' Cal ever since I read that essay by his neighbor (author/mathematician) Rudy Rucker but his columns are kind of bland and inoffensive for a rightwing social conservative.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    Damn this was for the Kathleen Parker/Kerry Howley thread.Kinda fits here though.

  • Marc||

    What is Krug drinking? I thought it was a beer, but it looks too small. Then I thought that maybe his hands are just huge. Is it a shot of something? Is that not foam, but rather Bailey's floating on top? Is he drinking half-pints out of half-size pilsener glasses?

    The whole picture is insane.

  • juris imprudent||

    Guinness in a champagne flute?

  • ||

    yeah, or some kind of fruitified lambic...

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Krug's too much of a candyass for the adult-sized glasses.

    Besides, free-range, fair-trade, environmentally-friendly beer is expensive, even at his wages.

  • Paul||

    "[T]he G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit," Paul Krugman warns today:

    I smell Krugman trying to make the facts fit the narrative... anyone else?

  • Paul||

    I'm not even sure where to begin with this one. Krugman can't believe the crap that comes out of his Smith-Corona. I mean, he just can't.

    Why doesn't he just write:

    "As long as one Republican roams the land, our plans never be realized!"

  • ||

    Boncentration Bamps!

  • anon||

    Borderline-JB at reason and almost no comments on the awesomeness? What the fuck kind of libertarians are you?

    As a 22-year-old shallow male, I will posit that the beer-bonging chick should feel free to replace the hose with my penis.

    That is all.

  • someone||

    Whoa there, thats Katherine Mangu-Ward in the picture. Be nice.

  • anon||

    Oh, I am nice. She would be honored by the Wang of Destiny.

  • ||

    Well, I will say she is quite a liquidity trap. Paul Krugman could explain why that allows you to suspend all rules of sense and reason.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Yeah, that chick is extremely hot. But the problem is, after doing that beer bong, she'd probably throw up while riding you.

    Still might be worth it, though.

  • ||

    Question: At what point does Reason's carping about the center-left's paranoia over right-wing paranoia become paranoid itself? Be careful, because you seem to me to be getting awfully close.

  • What the fuck ever||

    What the fuck ever.

  • anonymous||

    Paranoia is not the same as obsession.

  • rst||

    Good Lord that man is dim for a Nobel winner.

  • ||

    But if tea party republicans win big then how will the party shrink? Obviously I'm to shallow to understand the brilliance of Dr. Krugman's arguments.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    It's simple:

    Anyone who isn't a loyal, cock-sucking Democrat, is a racist capitalist woman-hater who eats live kittens.

  • Chad's Inner Voice||

    Oooh! Oooh! I'm here!

  • ||

    (Today's exemplar is E.J. Dionne: "The media almost never discuss what the sweeping dismantling of public services inherent in the rhetoric of the anti-government movement would mean in practice.")

    What a fucking shame. An honest discussion would dispel much of the fear.

    "Hey, you know all those government programs that impoverish the country? They actually don't do shit for you. Other than make you poorer. And your kids. And their kids. Wanna get rid of of them?"

  • Capitalist||

    "Hey, you know how Washington D.C. is always hoovering up huge percentages of your paycheck to pay the salaries of federal employees so that they can afford a big enough internet pipeline to look at porn all day? Well, if you don't keep the money coming for these welfare programs of ours, they aren't going to be able to keep surfing for porn. Some of them might even get fired. Are you really so heartless that you're not willing to let these people earn a living wage? C'mon, vote for the party of Barney Frank again, you kitten-eating wife-beating greedy drapetomaniac homophobic RACIST! Don't go voting against what's in your best interest. It's in the Bible: Judas Priest was for free health care and Matthew, Mark, Duke, and Tom were all against tax cuts."

  • JB||

    Krugman = retarded fetus.

  • Baby Killer||

    He advocates abortion, but somehow escaped the curette himself.

    Yeesh, why don't you abortionists actually abort someone who needs the killing for once?

    A fetus, retarded or otherwise, doesn't write newspaper columns advocating for big government. He doesn't bring frivolous lawsuits against you, award peace prizes to mass murderers, or advocate that conservative moms be raped and murdered.

    Leftists like Krugman do all these things. Why aren't you advocating in favor of aborting them?

  • ||

    Krugman is in what we like to call the 171st trimester ....

    (apologies to South Park)

  • Franco||

    I can't get past the idea that the GOP shrinking to such a small minority is worse for the Democrat agenda.

  • Morris||

    "I think I'll link to Jesse Walker's "Paranoid Center" piece once a week for the next seven years."

    Right. Just keep repeating the same stupid right-wing libertarian dogmas. No need for thinking here.

  • mark||

    Glad to see you admitting it.

  • j.i.am||

    What is Krug drinking?

    Probably ostrich piss or something he found that he thought was cool to drink by watching that gad-awful movie Sideways.

  • M. Simon||

    Krugman: "In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state's fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable.

    There is a certain measure of truth there. The CA party is a socon party in a liberal state. What they need is a libertarian Republican Party.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I loved Sideways!

  • Mike M.||

    Guess for Krugman, this beats writing about the 10.2% unemployment and all the utterly failed Keynesian attempts to create jobs.

  • ||

    Well, if you look at how this upward-sloping line intersects the x-axis to the left of this downward-sloping line and then measure the horizontal distance between that and the GDP output gap, you'll see that there are no failed Keynesian measures, only failures to make them BIG enough!

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    I think instead we should take a look at my upward-sloping penis as it intersects with the downward-sloping line of the beer bong girl's vaginal lips and measure the horizontal distance between that and my nutsack and observe how that distance changes as I thrust in and out.

  • ||

    I always preferred Doug, anyway.

  • ||

    Gay Blade is probably sipping a Zinfandel and taking one in his "rump party" after writing that brilliant piece.

  • ||

    Thanks for this concept. MSNBC might be watchable using this game.

  • John||

    This drinking games leaves out the essential rule: Drink when they use the phrase "teabagger" or "tea bag" instead of "tea party."

  • ||

    Gosh, you mean a small vocal minority can gum up the machinery of the Federal Government?

    And here I thought that was how it was supposed to be. Factions and all that, checks and balances, "mechanism" as the Framers called it.

    Thanks for that enlightenment Herr Doktor Professor. Now I understand.

  • Noel||

    Hillary Clinton: “[W]e do bear some of the responsibility, frankly, for helping to create the very terrorists that we’re now all threatened by."

    Osama bin Laden: “We are sure of Allah’s victory and our victory against the Americans and the Jews as promised by the prophet peace be up on him…We are sure of our victory."


    In other words, America was created for terrorists to defeat…and America created the terrorists to defeat!

    That sounds exactly like Hofstadter’s “projection of the self” mirror-imaging.

    Hillary bin Clinton, meet Obama Rodham-Laden!

    We all knew Hillary was a Goldwater Conspiracy Girl back in ‘64…but she still is today!

    At least, that’s my Conspiracy Theory. And I’m sticking to it.

    Until the Bilderbergers prove me wrong.

    Great post--Drink!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement