We can keep this simple. Paul Krugman writes (correctly enough) about how the Republican side of the 2012 presidential race is a cage match between the "totally cynical" (take a bow, Willard) and the "totally clueless" (that's you, rest-of-field).
Most of the column teases and defends that concept. Fair enough, and a good read.
But I'd like to look at his close, a world in which one of the clueless might win. The Professor (my emphasis):
Of course, given the terrible economic picture and the tendency of voters to blame whoever holds the White House for bad times, even a deeply flawed G.O.P. nominee might very well win the presidency. But then what?If the guy next door gets fired for screwing up royally at work, you can comfortably say the obvious: "Deserved it. Folks, take note; don't screw up at work."
The Washington Post quotes an unnamed Republican adviser who compared what happened to Mr. Cain, when he suddenly found himself leading in the polls, to the proverbial tale of the dog who had better not catch that car he’s chasing. “Something great and awful happened, the dog caught the car. And of course, dogs don’t know how to drive cars. So he had no idea what to do with it.”
The same metaphor, it seems to me, might apply to the G.O.P. pursuit of the White House next year. If the dog actually catches the car — the actual job of running the U.S. government — it will have no idea what to do, because the realities of government in the 21st century bear no resemblance to the mythology all ambitious Republican politicians must pretend to believe. And what will happen then?
If that happens at home, it hurts to the core, and the rest goes unsaid. America is turning into a very tough town indeed.
GP
