[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 6752]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE GREAT REVULSION

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 2, 2006

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce into the 
Congressional Record a piece by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman 
because I believe it is well worth our reading and consideration 
because of its thought- provoking attempt to discuss the discontent 
felt by the American people regarding the Bush Administration.
  He mentions a point in time when Americans will realize that, ``their 
good will and patriotism have been abused, and put a stop to this drive 
to destroy much of what is best in our country''. Krugman rightly calls 
this hope of his, ``The Great Revulsion''. With Bush's poll numbers in 
constant decline, are Americans finally getting the picture, he asks? 
Bush, at the time after the September 11th attacks in New York and 
Washington, DC, scored with the American people at a solid 70 percent 
approval. However, Bush's numbers are only at a declining 33 percent 
today according to the latest Fox News poll.
  Some of the reasons for Bush's poor numbers are because of failure to 
adequately respond to the enormous need caused by Hurricane Katrina, 
the prescription drug debacle as Krugman called it and the disaster in 
Iraq. With the recent resignation of Scott McClellan as President 
Bush's Press Secretary, there is a sign that something terribly has 
gone wrong. It certainly is not surprising to see so many jumping ship 
from the embattled administration.
  The piece also acknowledged the stark reality that the Bush 
Administration has no real policy on Social Security. His idea about 
privatizing Social Security was one issue that the American public put 
up strong opposition to and it failed. The American people are 
realizing the potential power that they have. There indeed is a need 
for a ``Great Revulsion'' to wake up this nation from its deep sleep of 
blind faith in President Bush and his Republican leadership team.
  I enter into the Record the article published in the New York Times 
by Paul Krugman for its push to make the American people aware of their 
strength. To instill within them the understanding of the wrongs 
committed by the Bush Administration and his supporters. Krugman is 
calling for a move toward accountability, if not from the Congress, 
then from the American people as November approaches.

                [From The New York Times, Apr. 21, 2006]

                          The Great Revulsion

                           (By Paul Krugman)

       ``I have a vision--maybe just a hope--of a great revulsion: 
     a moment in which the American people look at what is 
     happening, realize how their good will and patriotism have 
     been abused, and put a stop to this drive to destroy much of 
     what is best in our country.''
       I wrote those words three years ago in the introduction to 
     my column collection, ``The Great Unraveling.'' It seemed a 
     remote prospect at the time: Baghdad had just fallen to U.S. 
     troops, and President Bush had a 70 percent approval rating.
       Now the great revulsion has arrived. The latest Fox News 
     poll puts Mr. Bush's approval at only 33 percent. According 
     to the polling firm Survey USA, there are only four states in 
     which significantly more people approve of Mr. Bush's 
     performance than disapprove: Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and 
     Nebraska. If we define red states as states where the public 
     supports Mr. Bush, Red America now has a smaller population 
     than New York City.
       The proximate causes of Mr. Bush's plunge in the polls are 
     familiar: the heck of a job he did responding to Katrina, the 
     prescription drug debate and above all, the quagmire in Iraq.
       But focusing too much on these proximate causes makes Mr. 
     Bush's political fall from grace seem like an accident, or 
     the result of specific missteps. That gets things backward. 
     In fact, Mr. Bush's temporarily sky-high approval ratings 
     were the aberration; the public never supported his real 
     policy agenda.
       Remembering, in 2000 Mr. Bush got within hanging-chad and 
     felon-purge distance of the White House only by pretending to 
     be moderate. In 2004 he ran on fear and smear, plus the 
     pretense that victory in Iraq was just around the corner. 
     (I've always thought that the turning point of the 2004 
     campaign was the September 2004 visit of the Iraqi Prime 
     Minister Ayad Allawi, a figurehead appointed by the Bush 
     Administration who rewarded his sponsors by presenting a 
     falsely optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq.
       The real test of the conservative agenda came up after the 
     2004 election, when Mr. Bush tried to sell the partial 
     privatization of Social Security.
       Social Security was for economic conservatives what Iraq 
     was for the neocons; a soft target that they thought would 
     pave the way for bigger conquests. And there couldn't have 
     been a more favorable moment for privatization than the 
     winter of 2004-2005: Mr. Bush loved to assert that he had a 
     ``mandate'' from the election; Republicans held solid 
     disciplined majorities in both houses of Congress; and many 
     prominent political pundits were in favor of private 
     accounts.
       Yet Mr. Bush's drive on Social Security ran into a solid 
     wall of public opposition, and collapsed within a few months. 
     And if Social Security couldn't be partly privatized under 
     these conditions, the conservative dream of dismantling the 
     welfare state is nothing but a fantasy.
       So what's left of the conservative agenda? Not much.
       That's the prediction for the midterm elections. The 
     Democrats will almost surely make gains, but the electoral 
     system is rigged against them. The fewer than 8 millions 
     residents of what's left of Red America are represented by 
     eight U.S. senators; the more than eight million residents of 
     New York City have to share two senators with the rest of New 
     York State.
       Meanwhile, a combination of accidents and design has left 
     likely Democratic voters bunched together--I'm tempted to say 
     ghettoized--in a minority of Congressional districts, while 
     likely Republican voters are more widely spread out. As a 
     result, Democrats would need a landslide in the popular 
     vote--something like an advantage of 8 to 10 percentage 
     points over Republicans--to take control of the House of 
     Representatives. That's a real possibility, given the current 
     polls, but by no means a certainty.
       And there is also, of course, the real prospect that Mr. 
     Bush will change the subject by bombing Iran.
       Still, in the long run it may not matter that much. If the 
     Democrats do gain control of either house of Congress, and 
     with it the ability to issue subpoenas, a succession of 
     scandals will be revealed in the final years of the Bush 
     Administration. But even if the Republicans hang on to their 
     ability to stonewall, it's hard to see how they can resurrect 
     their agenda.
       In retrospect, then, the 2004 election looks like the high-
     water mark of a conservative tide that is now receding.

                          ____________________