Full Metal Krugman
Krugman has gone on a rampage lately. Usually that's fun, but this time the target is Senator Obama, and I have to say it's getting on my nerves. I'll lay out the background in this post, and then I'll write a post explaining why I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with Krugman.
I believe it all started with Social Security. Krugman wrote a blog post attacking Obama for buying into the idea that Social Security faces a crisis. Krugman played a substantial role in the liberal pushback against Bush's privatization agenda, and I'm inclined to think he's right on the merits (Social Security is not in serious trouble financially, unlike Medicare). Krugman followed up here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.
Somewhere in the middle of all that, the Obama campaign released this.
Krugman keeps returning to the same theme: Obama is a fool for trying to be non-partisan in a partisan world. Obama has been duped by the conservative movement and/or the clueless, superficial chattering classes (Russert, Matthews, et al.).
I'll write more about this later, but I want to make a few observations. It's important not to get bogged down in the individual policy issues here. I'm inclined to think that Krugman is right about Social Security, healthcare, etc. Certainly some of Obama's rhetoric has been mildly troubling. The thing is, though, that Krugman is Krugman. If he wanted to steer Obama toward a better position, he could pick up a phone (maybe he tried, but couldn't get a signal). I guarantee you that any Democratic campaign would take Paul Krugman's call. He could call up Austen Goolsbee and say, "Hi, I'm Paul Krugman. Dude, I invented friggin New Trade Theory. Have you heard of it?"
But I don't think Krugman wants Obama to run a better campaign. I think he wants Obama to lose. What's strange is that Obama isn't really the frontrunner (except, possibly, very recently), and Senator Clinton is much more beholden to anti-progressive forces than Obama is.
Also, of course, Krugman is drawing sweeping conclusions from a few data points. That worked well when the data points indicated that Bush was a lying, incompetent idiot. That's an extrapolation that has proven highly accurate. In this case, Krugman is going on the war path over a few incidents that, even if they are revealing, can't possibly allow inferences to be drawn with such confidence.
Finally, Krugman isn't just having a chat with some colleagues or something. He's writing a very influential column and a blog that must be at least somewhat popular with the kind of Democrats who vote in primaries. His attacks have to be seen as something more than mere commentary - they are an attempt to take Obama out. But why? I'll try to give a convincing answer in my next post.
I believe it all started with Social Security. Krugman wrote a blog post attacking Obama for buying into the idea that Social Security faces a crisis. Krugman played a substantial role in the liberal pushback against Bush's privatization agenda, and I'm inclined to think he's right on the merits (Social Security is not in serious trouble financially, unlike Medicare). Krugman followed up here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.
Somewhere in the middle of all that, the Obama campaign released this.
Krugman keeps returning to the same theme: Obama is a fool for trying to be non-partisan in a partisan world. Obama has been duped by the conservative movement and/or the clueless, superficial chattering classes (Russert, Matthews, et al.).
I'll write more about this later, but I want to make a few observations. It's important not to get bogged down in the individual policy issues here. I'm inclined to think that Krugman is right about Social Security, healthcare, etc. Certainly some of Obama's rhetoric has been mildly troubling. The thing is, though, that Krugman is Krugman. If he wanted to steer Obama toward a better position, he could pick up a phone (maybe he tried, but couldn't get a signal). I guarantee you that any Democratic campaign would take Paul Krugman's call. He could call up Austen Goolsbee and say, "Hi, I'm Paul Krugman. Dude, I invented friggin New Trade Theory. Have you heard of it?"
But I don't think Krugman wants Obama to run a better campaign. I think he wants Obama to lose. What's strange is that Obama isn't really the frontrunner (except, possibly, very recently), and Senator Clinton is much more beholden to anti-progressive forces than Obama is.
Also, of course, Krugman is drawing sweeping conclusions from a few data points. That worked well when the data points indicated that Bush was a lying, incompetent idiot. That's an extrapolation that has proven highly accurate. In this case, Krugman is going on the war path over a few incidents that, even if they are revealing, can't possibly allow inferences to be drawn with such confidence.
Finally, Krugman isn't just having a chat with some colleagues or something. He's writing a very influential column and a blog that must be at least somewhat popular with the kind of Democrats who vote in primaries. His attacks have to be seen as something more than mere commentary - they are an attempt to take Obama out. But why? I'll try to give a convincing answer in my next post.
posted by James | 10:37 PM
2 Comments:
still waiting..
Responsive comment for a bot. And, come to think of it, humanlike grammar and capitalization errors... You are, indeed, a bot, like me, right? I mean, who else reads this drivel?
Post a Comment
<< Home