0

Paul Krugman, economist and Op-ed columnist of New York Times wrote in his article under the title, “G.O.P. Candidates and Obama’s failure to fail" - August 10.

The shared premise of everyone on the Republican side is that the Obama years have been a time of policy disaster on every front. Yet the candidates on that stage had almost nothing to say about any of the supposed disaster areas. And there was a good reason they seemed so tongue-tied: Out there in the real world, none of the disasters their party predicted have actually come to pass. President Obama just keeps failing to fail. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/opinion/paul-krugman-gop-candidates-and-obamas-failure-to-fail.

What does “fail (failure) to fail” mean? Does it mean President Obama keeps failing as it has been predicted, or it should have been?

Is “fail to fail” a popular turn of phrase?

What’s wrong with simply saying “President Obama just keeps failing (to deliver his promises)”?

  • 1
    Fail to meet expectations. Fail to launch. Fail to succeed. Similarly, "fail to fail" implies that failure is expected. It's perhaps rumsfeldian, a la "known unknowns." – stevesliva Aug 11 '15 at 6:21
  • 2
    It means simply that the Republicans keep expecting Obama and his policies to fail, but this failure never happens. – Hot Licks Aug 11 '15 at 12:43
2

The context here is political and (especially) economic theories that (according to Paul Krugman) many conservative politicians and economists subscribe to and that yield scientific (or quasi-scientific) predictions about what will ensue if certain economic policies are pursued under certain conditions. According to Krugman, anti-Keynesian economists (and their political supporters) warned of failure on various fronts as a logical outcome of the policies that President Obama announced and pursued from the early stages of his presidency.

Because a patina of scientificness is associated with economists' predictions (some economists express their theories as immutable laws, back their theories up with data-heavy explanations, and often use complicated algorithms to model real-world outcomes), it's embarrassing for the promoter of a particular economic model when the outcomes it predicts don't materialize.

Krugman asserts that various conservative economists have long predicted that a number of Obama's policies would fail miserably; under the circumstances, it would clearly be a problem for those theories if, in the real world, the criticized policies "failed to fail."

3

"failed to fail" means he (President Obama) did not fail as they predicted/hoped. They predicted that major disaster would happen because of his policies and actions so his "failure to fail" is actually the same as saying "succeeding". It is not common.

  • 1
    Or if not succeeding, at least having a neutral effect. – Kevin Krumwiede Aug 11 '15 at 6:48
  • Would appreciate some documentation of any indicator that hasn't gotten better during Mr. Obama's presidency. – Brian Hitchcock Aug 12 '15 at 7:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.