In his article "Ignorance is Strength," Paul Krugman argues that Republicans have a vested interest in cutting back on education: it will keep their voting base ignorant, and it will maintain the income gap that benefits people like presidential candidate Mitt Romney. This is a bold claim, maybe a little too out there, but it certainly raises some interesting points. While America has long been a leader in education, we are now falling behind, whether it's disparities between urban and suburban schools or the decline in funding for higher education. The author questions conservatives' "traditionalist" values when they attack such a cornerstone of American society.
The author focuses on Romney's answer to a student concerned about the rising costs of college. Romney said something along the lines of "don't pick an expensive school, and don't expect the government to forgive your student debt if you do." Using statistics, the author shows that the costs of college are rising and a cheap school, even a cheap state school, isn't necessarily easy to find.
This article utilizes a delayed thesis structure. Reading the article, you know the author is making an argument for American education but not exactly what his claim is nor how the title relates to the article. But in the last paragraph, he claims that Republicans have moved away from supporting education because "they believe that what you [the voter] don't know can't hurt them." I also think this is an interesting play on words that made me think about what it really meant.