The thing is, shrill or no, Krugman is right about the voting machines. How can you have democracy if you can't trust the vote count? And with these machines, you really, really can't trust it. They are error prone and hugely insecure. The fact that a partisan owns one of the companies is not the problem. The problem is that there is no audit trail at all for votes or peer review of the software. This allows anyone to cheat, and means that we will never know whether cheating has happened. You don't have to be an armageddonist to see how that makes U.S. democracy less credible.
But yeah, we are all armageddonists, anyway.
It wasn't the best example of Krugman's supposed shrillness, but it was today's article...
And I usually think (shhh) that Krugman's right, even when he's really shrill, so I worry that I am becoming an armageddonist, and I was wondering if anyone else was too.
If the "armageddon" is looming, then you're not really an armageddonist; you're merely a profit. "Armageddonist" implies irrational predictions of a coming collapse; the label can't really be applied once those fears become rational.
Like wealth inequality, level of polarization in US politics hasn't been this high since the 19th century. See for example:
http://voteview.uh.edu/polartalk/polartalk.htm
We're polarizing into armageddonists and anti-armageddonists.
You armageddonists are going to destroy American democracy!
Any true armageddonist knows that sometimes you have to destroy American democracy, to save American democracy.
I dunno about you, but i'm armaggeddon outa here.
heh.