Professor Eng 102 Spring 2013 Summary Paper Gang Of 40

Nameprofessoreng 102 0xxspring 2013 Summary Papergang Of 40 Bynichol

Professor ENG 102-0XX Spring 2013 — Summary Paper Gang of 40 by Nicholas D. Kristof In his article, “Gang of 40,” Kristof argues that the “Gang of Four” ruled China in the 1970s during the days of hard-line communist seclusion. Under the rule of this extremist, drivers were often motivated to proceed at red lights since red signified the revolutionary color of advancing. This resulted in a confusion that marked those times. The author then draws a comparison between America and China.

Here, he argues that Americans do things in grand manner and because of this exceptionalism, America has outperformed China by far as far as extremist ideologues are concerned. He claims that there is no pathetic little foursome. However, he says that there is an unrivaled “Gang of 40” in America. This group, referred to as the Gang of 40, consists of 40 hard-line Republicans who have led to the shutdown of the federal government. It is also the group that is warming up for a debt default, which the author is worried will plunge the world into recession. The Gang of 40, according to Kristof, was trying to save American money but has ended up costing taxpayers billions of dollars. Despite despising Mao suits, Kristof notes, they are similar in that they hold the nation hostage, representing small, unrepresentative figures with little insight into economics or national direction.

Kristof explains that the government shutdown caused by the Gang of 40 has had destructive impacts, including cutting off death benefits to families of defense service members and ending federal support for rape crisis centers. He criticizes the fact that while these shutdowns occur, facilities like Senate and House gyms remain open. Kristof mentions that some Washington restaurants are offering discounts to federal workers and surcharges to Congress members, wishing that members of the Gang of 40 should be made to wash dishes as a form of punishment.

The author expresses concern that hard-liners are downplaying the risk of missing the debt ceiling deadline. Quotes from political figures like Representative Ted Yoho, Senator Rand Paul, and Senator Tom Coburn suggest that some believe missing the deadline might create stability or is a reasonable course of action. Kristof highlights a Pew Research Center poll indicating 54% of Republicans think the U.S. can miss the debt limit without major issues. He notes that the positive feedback from such extremism is dangerous, comparing current political brinkmanship to the pre-Civil War era, where leadership failed to prevent catastrophe.

A key observation Kristof makes is the obliviousness of political players to the risks ahead and their willingness to threaten harm to push their agenda. He critiques the House Republican hard-liners for taking hostages over issues like Obamacare, contrasting their actions with President Obama’s defeat over similar issues, emphasizing that the hard-liners refused to accept loss and instead threatened to cause economic damage. Despite claims that the GOP is responsible for budget management, Kristof asserts that their tantrums and brinkmanship have caused significant economic costs, including rising interest rates on Treasury bills and massive expenditure on debt crises instead of social programs like early childhood education. He characterizes these actions as extremism rather than governance.

Paper For Above instruction

In the article “Gang of 40,” Nicholas Kristof critically examines the political extremism that has led to governmental shutdowns and threats of default in the United States, drawing parallels with historical political totalitarianism in China. He vividly depicts how a minority of hard-line Republicans—referred to as the “Gang of 40”—have held the nation hostage over ideological disputes, with potentially catastrophic economic consequences. Kristof’s analysis highlights the dangers of political extremism, the obliviousness of leaders to impending risks, and the destructive impact of hostage-taking tactics in modern governance.

Kristof begins by contrasting the Chinese “Gang of Four” with the American “Gang of 40,” noting that while the former symbolized authoritarian extremism that led to chaos, the latter embodies a dangerous politicization of governance driven by ideological rigidity. The “Gang of 40” has wielded influence through threats of government shutdowns and default, primarily motivated by attempts to eliminate programs like Obamacare. These actions have led to tangible costs, including the suspension of vital services such as death benefits for military families and support for rape victims. Such measures reveal a profound disregard for the well-being of ordinary citizens, driven instead by political brinkmanship.

Kristof emphasizes that the shutdown and potential default threaten broader economic stability by increasing interest rates and risking a recession. He criticizes the rationale of some politicians who claim that missing the debt deadline could stabilize markets or that a failure to raise the debt ceiling is a reasonable act of political protest. The Pew Research Center poll indicating that over half of Republicans believe the U.S. can safely miss the debt limit illustrates how misinformation and ideological echo chambers exacerbate these risks.

The author draws historical parallels to show how poor political leadership in the pre-Civil War period foreshadowed current dangers, questioning why modern leaders seem unable or unwilling to prevent national catastrophe. Kristof identifies two key features in such political behavior: a dangerous obliviousness to the real risks involved and a willingness to threaten harm as leverage. These tactics undermine effective governance and threaten economic stability, shifting the focus from pragmatic problem-solving to political hostage-taking.

Kristof further criticizes the hypocrisy of the GOP, which claims to prioritize fiscal responsibility but engages in activities that cause economic harm and waste billions on crises. The rising interest rates reflect market fears and suggest that the consequences of these political standoffs will be long-lasting. The shutdown’s impact extends beyond fiscal concerns, affecting vulnerable groups like military families and victims of assault, illustrating how political extremism erodes essential social services.

Furthermore, Kristof advocates for greater accountability and prudence, warning that ideological rigidity not only hampers effective governance but also jeopardizes the nation’s future stability. The analogy to China’s “Gang of Four” underscores how authoritarian extremism leads to chaos, warning that similar consequences could result from America’s current political brinkmanship.

In conclusion, Kristof’s analysis underscores that political extremists, whether in China or the United States, threaten societal stability through their reckless tactics and obliviousness to real risks. He calls for a rational, responsible approach to governance, emphasizing that safeguarding the nation requires leaders who prioritize the common good over ideological perfectionism. Without such leadership, the nation risks falling into a cycle of chaos akin to historical authoritarianism, with severe economic and social consequences.

References

• Kristof, N. D. (2013). Gang of 40. The New York Times.
• Pew Research Center. (2013). Public opinion on debt ceiling issues.
• Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Skocpol, T., & Williamson, V. (2012). The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Oxford University Press.
• Manza, J., & Uggen, C. (2008). Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. Oxford University Press.
• Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press.
• Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What Democracy Is... and Is Not. Journal of Democracy, 2(2), 75-88.
• Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Bloomsbury Publishing.