Paul Krugman: Missing Molly Ivins

Paul Krugman pays tribute to Molly Ivins:

Missing Molly Ivins, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Molly Ivins, the Texas columnist, died of breast cancer on Wednesday. I first met her more than three years ago, when our book tours crossed. She was, as she wrote, “a card-carrying member of The Great Liberal Backlash of 2003, one of the half-dozen or so writers now schlepping around the country promoting books that do not speak kindly of Our Leader’s record.” ...

Molly never lost sight of two eternal truths: rulers lie, and the times when people are most afraid to challenge authority are also the times when it’s most important to do just that. And the fact that she remembered these truths explains ... her extraordinary prescience on the central political issue of our time.

I’ve been going through Molly’s columns from 2002 and 2003, the period when most of ... the press cheered as Our Leader took us to war on false pretenses, then dismissed as “Bush haters” anyone who complained... Here are a few selections:

Nov. 19, 2002: “The greatest risk for us in invading Iraq is probably not war itself, so much as: What happens after we win? ... There is a batty degree of triumphalism loose in this country right now.”

Jan. 16, 2003: “I assume we can defeat Hussein without great cost to our side (God forgive me if that is hubris). The problem is what happens after we win. The country is 20 percent Kurd, 20 percent Sunni and 60 percent Shiite. Can you say, ‘Horrible three-way civil war?’ ”

July 14, 2003: “I opposed the war in Iraq because I thought it would lead to the peace from hell, but I’d rather not see my prediction come true and I don’t think we have much time left to avert it. That the occupation is not going well is apparent to everyone but Donald Rumsfeld. ... We don’t need people with credentials as right-wing ideologues and corporate privatizers — we need people who know how to fix water and power plants.”

Oct. 7, 2003: “Good thing we won the war, because the peace sure looks like a quagmire. ...

“I’ve got an even-money bet out that says more Americans will be killed in the peace than in the war, and more Iraqis will be killed by Americans in the peace than in the war. Not the first time I’ve had a bet out that I hoped I’d lose.”

So Molly Ivins — who didn’t mingle with the great and famous, didn’t have sources high in the administration, and never claimed special expertise on national security or the Middle East — got almost everything right. ...

Was Molly smarter than all the experts? No, she was just braver. The administration’s exploitation of 9/11 created an environment in which it took a lot of courage to see and say the obvious.

Molly had that courage; not enough others can say the same.

And it’s not over. Many of those who failed the big test in 2002 and 2003 are now making excuses for the “surge.” Meanwhile, the same techniques of allegation and innuendo that were used to promote war with Iraq are being used to ratchet up tensions with Iran.

Now, more than ever, we need people who will stand up against the follies and lies of the powerful. And Molly Ivins, who devoted her life to questioning authority, will be sorely missed.

_________________________
Previous (1/29) column: Paul Krugman: The Sum of All Ears
Next (2/5) column: Paul Krugman: The Green-Zoning of America

[Note: Links to columns added.]

Comments

[calmo]

Nice tribute. And such a clear note to recognize honesty ahead of deference to authority, rank or craft.

[dale]

Let's honor the living as well as the dead. I met Paul Krugan when he came to Portland on his Great Unraveling book tour. He too was one of those few public voices who was willing to stand up to the follies and lies of the powerful.
So thanks and goodbye to Molly Ivins. And thank again to Paul Krugman. Keep up the good work Paul.

says...

Who is Paul Krugan?

[anne]

What bothers me so, is that it was so easy to understand how crazed American foreign policy became in 2002 as we drove to war and an occupation that was rarely considered or mentioned but was taken so for granted that the defensive phrase "cut and run" was a reporters staple from the time the Iraqi government was deposed.

We need to ask why and how Molly Ivins knew and Paul Krugman knew what so few knew, what too many, especially many in political office, do not know even now. We need to leave Iraq immediately.

Thank you, Molly and Paul.

[maria]

The most contemptible thing now, I believe, is the pusillanimous Congress that is unable to do anything with any teeth to stop this crazy President from pushing further into his folly. If this Congress had any cojones or guts, or was able to respond to the popular will, it could bring this war to an end right now. It hasn't the guts to do so. Cowards. The damn cowards.

[richard]

It was easy to spot the fiasco in Iraq ahead of time. Look at dubya's business dealings years before: several failed enterprises, a few with questionable SEC filings and a sweetheart investment in the Rangers while his Daddy was moving into higher circles. The same has been said of Nixon as well.

So I guess I just don't get the right-wing, shoulder-shrugging "Who could have known" or the more moderate variation "Well it was a mistake then, but we have to follow it out now". No, we don't - we have the option to call both this presidency and this foreign policy what they are: mistakes.

[ken melvin]

It was the parade and the marching music; that, and the sense one got from looking at Bush that something was amiss. In the late fifties, I think, I saw two young girls watching Jerry Very Reverend Falwell for the first time roll in the floor with laughter. They just knew.

[anne]

This is the level of Republican hypocrisy that reminds us all how far the Dems have to go. I tell you what. Let's all hold hands together and sing, "Oh the Farmers and the Cowboys Should Be Friends!" Just not, please, Newt Gingrich, the man whose contribution to civility was to recommend that all Democrats be referred to with such words as cowards, traitors, commies, godless, liars and other such bipartisan-promoting terms.

Please, anyone but Newt.

Now, from my hours spent battered and half brain dead listening to the fatuous, self-important commentators of our nation, I learn that the people of this country did not elect liberals to Congress last week. Nope, they elected populists! Well, gosh all hemlock. I'll be go to hell. Populist! I AM one. Honest -- been a populist so long I'm on my third bottle of Tabasco.

Who knew? ...

[anne]

Guess the voice?

http://www.creators.com/print/opinion/molly-ivins/now-they-re-all-for-bipartisanship.html

November 14, 2006

Now They're all for Bipartisanship
By Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas -- Having watched election coverage nonstop all week, I sometimes wake screaming, "Bipartisanship!" and scare myself.

Of all the viral members of the media who have been suggesting that the Dems cooperate with their political opponents, the one who rendered me almost unconscious with surprise was Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich, the Boy Scout. Newt Gingrich, the man who sat there and watched Congress impeach and try Bill Clinton for lying about having an extramarital while he, Newt Gingrich, was lying about having an extramarital affair. (This all took place during his second marriage. The first one ended when he told his wife he was divorcing her while she was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment.)

This is the level of Republican hypocrisy....

[maria]

I like all the posts. But I demur re Nixon. Nixon did not have a succession of business failures in his record, and certainly no family to pave his way. He was the exemplary self made man (politician). What one needed to realize early about Nixon was that he would stop at very little (an early Rove?) to attain his goals. He was right about Alger Hiss, but he liked to smear his adversaries, e.g., Helen Douglas ("pink right down to her panties"). Not really comparable to Bush. And as Carl Bernstein has said, "Bush has done the nation far more damage than Nixon ever did."

[Peter Schaeffer]

This is not fair to Bush. Michael Lind argues that Bush is Only Fifth Worst, and better than Nixon, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and James Madison. In my view, this is wrong. Bush is much worse than James Madison who got a decent outcome from the War of 1812.

[STS]

I miss Molly Ivins too, but let me honor her by indulging in a little humorous political invective of my own.

Bush rates very low on the "presidential quality" list, of course, but doing Teh Decider justice involves a different comparison. President George III is indulging in a type of "personal Government" which King George III of Great Britain resorted to in the early 1770s. The ministry of Lord North and 'The King's Friends' led pretty directly to the incompetent handling of the American crisis and lost King George his hold on America. Both Georges exemplified poor judgment in choice of political advisors.

Another good comparison is to King Charles I. A "less talented" son of a mediocre King, Charles inherited a lot of inept retreads from his father's government, indulged in self-righteous doctrinaire religious pomposity and drove his people into a civil war which was punctuated by his trial and execution. President George III is unlikely to be beheaded, but perhaps having SMU refuse to host his Presidential Shrine (er ... Library) could be regarded as a similar repudiation.

Ok, so I'm not as funny as Molly Ivins. But I'm not a Texan either.

[maria]

Peter: Bush cannot be easily compared to the others you mention, since the full extent of the damage Bush has wrought is yet to be seen. Already I would think he has done more damage than any of the others, and we have not yet gotten the full bill for his stupidities.

[calmo]

my estimate of Pete climbs to new heights with that rescue of w...and I am nearly distracted to the point of being misled, but anne rescues me with that 3rd bottle of Tabasco.
yes, anne who lives here, who must be typing over red-hot keys now that I think about it, whose taste for convoluted arguments and appraisals runs very close to those of the late Ivins.
Molly: "The president of the United States does not have the sense that God gave a duck. So it's up to us. You and me."
anne: "Leave Iraq now."
U go girl.

[Ashley]

Molly Ivens will be greatly missed. But an even more important question is: Who will pick up the slack in her absence??

Peter: All of the Presidents you cite as worse than Bush have one thing in common. They were exemplary men who, not as President, did great things for their country. Up to being President, Dubya has done little to distinguish himself as even a decent man. Further all the others are dead and the full raifications of their actions are open. The mess Dubya got U.S. into will take years to clean up. The analogy to Vietnam is correct in one respect - this is an action that will taint the U.S for a generation. I have a bad feeling my grandchildren will be called to serve in Iraq as my more able bodied friends, neighbors and colleagues have.

[gordon]

Well, yeah, I guess it was good to worry about the peace but it would have been even better to notice that invading foreign countries is contrary to the UN Charter.

[Noni Mausa]

The conversation that makes me nutso:

Q: Isn't that the president there? Sure looks like him...

A: Yes? Why yes, that's him. (Takes off hat)

Q: Hey, he's...he just threw that cluster bomb! Did you see that!!? It got the convenience store and all the kids inside!

A: Quote 131: "War is always ugly."

Q: And look...look at that bundle of wires coming out of his house! Jesus, he has wiretaps on all his neighbours!

A: Quote 92: "Desperate times require desperate measures."

Q: (grabs A's sleeve) And listen, I just looked over the fence in his backyard -- he's got a bunch of blindfolded guys back there, in cages! Isn't that kidnapping? That's just sick!

A: Quote 27: "If it saves even one [American] life, it will be worth it."

Q: [punches A]

[anne]

http://krugman.page.nytimes.com/b/a/258152.htm

February 2, 2007

A Political Know-It-All Who Really Knew It

Joy Overstreet, Vancouver, Wash.: I appreciate your taking the time to re-read Molly's columns so you could figure out what made her special. I think you nailed it — she spoke the truth as she saw it, and she saw surprisingly clearly. Her column ran in my local daily paper as the sole progressive voice in a pretty conservative sea. Now I'm trying to figure out whom to suggest to the editors as a replacement for her — someone who combines her wit, wisdom, and generosity of spirit. I'm open to nominations, but recognize she'll never be replaced — only followed.

Paul Krugman: I agree - there are great progressive voices out there, but nobody with that combination of guts and wit.

Paul Dorell, Highland Park, Ill.: Molly Ivins had the benefit of watching Dubya close-up while he was the governor of Texas, which was a solid education in his weaknesses as a leader. When he ran for the presidency, she warned us, but too few listened. Apparently a large number of Americans were unable to recognize that they oughtn't elect someone who reminded them of themselves.

Paul Krugman: What struck me is how different people got to the truth of this administration from very different angles. Molly got it from knowing Shrub in Texas, Ron Suskind got it from deep investigative reporting, I got it, to the extent I did, from the fiscal lies. If there were so many paths to truth, how come so few people found it? ...

[David P. Appleby]

Molly Ivins had the courage of her convictions, a gift of expressing truth in memorable lines which we will all treasure and remember. The future of our nation and our democracy depends on the willingness of citizens to face the truth and act upon it.