Obama Officials Think Krugman Is Naive: Newsweek's Evan Thomas

Newsweek's Evan Thomas, who has the big cover story on the rather prickly relationship between the White House and Paul Krugman, offered a rather surprising insight into the relationship between the two.

Speaking to MSNBC on Monday, the longtime magazine scribe said that the Obama administration is not "too crazy about Krugman" (no surprise, considering how much criticism Krugman has laid on the White House's economic policies) and that, in private, they "think he is naïve."

"They think he is naive, that his idea of bank nationalization is not going to work," said Thomas. "But they are careful not to criticize him on the record."

"You know, I think the administration is trying to ignore Krugman, quite frankly," Thomas went on. "But they can't entirely because he has a big voice. You know, that platform of the New York Times, that's a big platform. And he's got his Nobel Prize. You have to take him seriously and can't just ignore him."

This is telling, not least because Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, was more prescient about some of the current financial and economic woes than key members of the Obama brain-trust.

But from conversations I've had with the administration, I'm not sure if it is entirely true. Krugman does levy some of the harshest critiques at the president's policies -- critiques that sting both because of who Krugman is and where (professionally and philosophically) he comes from. The White House, however, has consulted with him on many matters -- though not all. Krugman, for his part, told Newsweek that "the White House has done very little by way of serious outreach."

Moreover, officials in the executive office view him not as naïve but rather as someone who happens to come from "a different ideological perspective."

That said, the relationship works two ways. And it is Krugman, not the Obama White House, who has publicly leveled charges of naivety. From Thomas' piece comes this excerpt:

"In the 2008 election, Krugman first leaned toward populist John Edwards, then Hillary Clinton. 'Obama offered a weak health-care plan,' he explains, 'and he had a postpartisan shtik, which I thought was naive.'"

Comments

[flossophy]

The POTus is calling the Kettleman black.

[bswell]

Bottom line--we did not vote for Obama because we wanted to employ the Rubin team. You are what you eat.......­..........­.......

[HappyMarsden]

I see. So both Krugman AND Obama are "naive".

God help us all.

[LeftTexas]

Krugman iis a Nobel prize winner. This economic team takes the prize alright.

[mcartri]

It all boils down to the fact Krugman is an actual progressive who doesn't have to deal with "That zoo on the Hill"(LBJ's quote). Wall street essentially owns our government. The rare exceptions such as Vermont U. S. Senator, Bernie Sanders, demonstrates how money has corrupted a country on life support.

[flossophy]

Bernie... the most irrelevant politician in office. He's a living relic of a bygone era.

[reliant1]

The Economic Prize - offered by the Nobel Committee is relatively new (1960ish) and has never held much clout in academia beyond getting to say Nobel and Economics in the same breath.

The Prize (which is its true moniker) is probably going to dissapear in a few years - the Nobel family wants it gone.

Krugman won the Economic Prize for specific theroies he worked out in the 70's regarding trade.
He was recognized for the worth of those decades old theories just as Dr. Nash was recognized for his early work....

There is no Nobel Prize for Economics. There is the Economic Prize given by the Nobel foundation and mistakenly called a Nobel Prize by everyone. Actually, I think it is called the Memorial Economic Prize or maybe Economic Memorial Prize....

The Prize in Economics is a memorium to past works - Krugman took the Prize for his older works. That Prize has nothing to do with his current theories or postulations and it does not validate them in any way.

Perhaps if the Nobel grandson does not have his way and remove the Economic Prize then in a few decades Krugman may be in the running for his current theories.

If owning the Prize is an automatic bestoyal of complete economic superiority and qualifies one to immediately begin work in the gov't....t­hen I'd prefer Dr. Nash (with or without his invisible friends) to be given full power. His Prize is better then Krugmans and for better theories.

[flossophy]

thank you... Krugman is a political hack who hasn't done a scholarly piece of economic work in over a decade. And he always looks like a frightened squirrel.

[Gosseyn3]

"he had a postpartisan shtik, which I thought was naive.'"

Yeah, and he was absolutely right about that too!

[quantumspin]

Obama is doing the bidding of the banking elite, and could care less about America's domestic issues and economy.

We need leadership that is committed to the United States, not the global economy. Right now, with about 12 trillion handed to the banks with no strings, no performance requirements, we see Obama place draconian requirements on the last heavy industry in America (autos), as he makes threats against GM and Chrysler that he has never ever made toward the financial industry. What does Mr. Obama think America is going to do in the future, make rugs? His view of America is distorted and wrong, and will see the country slide further down the income scale. Get a tent.

[breakingpoint]

Obama is starting to look like a tool for the wealthy socialistic elite who rule the revolving door between Wall Street and DC.

What a shame, such potential.

[johnie2xs]

Don't give up on him just yet. I'm sure he has surprised you, as I know I have been surprised.

I don't know why he's taking the stance he has thus far, but I will not be surprised by whatever his next move might be.

And be assured; There is a next move.

[flossophy]

We tried to tell you that last summer... but you couldn't get past all the hope n change.

Just like every other American Id0l winner... Obama will release a CD with only 1 good track on it.

[BlackYowe]

Krugman has an over sized ego.

[Helzapoppin]

He also has a better track record of being right than Obama's two economic bozos

[quantumspin]

I will agree to this extent: when I worked for a major corporation, we had what we called 'the boat rowers,' and the 'ones who sat in comfort, telling the rowers how to row, never getting their hands dirty with actual work.' Krugman reminds me of the latter, tossing critique-bombs, and then running off to hide in his safe tenured office at Princeton. Meanwhile, Geithner and others are in the battle, trying to make things work for those of us who don't have tenured jobs for life. . I don't agree with handing the banks trillions while Americans suffer, but Krugman is not in that issue. He does strike me as an observer without a stake in the real economic lives of American citizens.

[HappyMarsden]

Oh, so that means he shouldn't say anything about the administration, regarding mistakes that could cost the LIVES of those "real American citizens"? Smart thinking, you!

[Gosseyn3]

Some people have earned the right to their oversized egos. When someone knows what he's talking about, what would you have him do? Shut up about it?

[OffTheLows]

thank god Obama believes this because it is absolutely true. There are many economic professors and journalists who spout off while having no clue what effect their prescription would have on the capital markets... I'd like to see Krugman actually run a company for a few years to see how much he really knows rather than write columns in the NYT and give lectures.

[SecretSister]

"the Obama administration is not 'too crazy about Krugman' (no surprise, considering how much criticism Krugman has laid on the White House's economic policies) and that, in private, they 'think he is naïve.'"

I think that the "Obama administration" must be referring to Geithner, Summer, and associates. I don't believe that the President is necessarily having a problem with Krugman's opinions.

After all, President Obama has always encouraged all dissenting and diverse opinions.

[texanna]

Pres Obama and his financial braintrust may consider Krugman naive, but what else would you expect from the likes of Geithner, Summers, et al who to a one are heavily invested in the current morass and in saving their bidness buddies from too much financial loss. Of course, the Pres can surround himself with whomever he pleases, but it is a bit disconcerting to me that he hasn't included someone like Krugman, Stiglitz, or Galbraith.

[coultersnemesis]

I am with Krugman--the day we all agree on policy will be a very scary day, indeed. Read Madison in Federalist 10--'special interest' factions are the natural result of two things: liberty and fundamental inequalities. And until that day, until all inequalities are removed, all factors that determine different fundamental interests amongst the members of the body politic, there will be NO SUCH THING as post-partisanship. The only way to achieve post-partisanship agreement without removing our fundamental differences would be though removing liberty.

[atpal]

Is that the same naive post-partisan shtick that won the election?

[coultersnemesis]

Krugman is half right: it is ONLY shtick. Any student of politics knows that in a two-party system, parties win majority by appealing to as many voters as possible. Good, we won the majority., now we have to deal with all the center-right 'allies' we let in to our fold. Naturally, in a two-party system you get moderate policies that try to appeal to as many people as possible, while ignoring tough issues--like health care. This is why Krugman is correct--TOUGH, divisive issue like health care and carbon taxes will not get tackled by Obama because he seeks the safe middle, where he will win no support for the "progressive agenda" so as he has done with health care, as Krugman predicted, Obama is abandoning progressive issues.

[Eris23Skidoo]

Yeah, who's naive now?

[HappyMarsden]

Obama is "naive now". And no, it's not the same "post-partisan shtick". Post-partisanism was not in the election, goofus. It was in Obama's outreach to Repubs on the bailouts. You know, the steak dinners, and such. They turned around and flubbed their noses at him. THAT was "post-partisan naivete". Now you know.

[Jaybot]

Ah, the new meme arrives, "Krugman is naive." It's a good thing to, the last one, "Krugman is an egomaniac", has become quite stale, having been echoed well past the saturation point. It's good that the Democrats have finally managed to get their messaging apparatus in place. It's just a pity they didn't get it together while there were some actual Republicans in power.

[iblog]

Yeah...wai­t until the Presidential election come up in 2008, then Democrats will have to prove that they can organize a coalition of....

wait a minute.

[coultersnemesis]

..of sellouts.

[KofTX]

OKAY, okay...I GET IT. Everyone wants to change the current system to fit their ideology and blah, blah, blah. Well, that's what revolutions are for. I helped elect a President, not a revolutionary. When you are willing to be that revolutionary, get back to me. Otherwise, I will continue to support/hold accountable President Obama to a realistic standard that is founded upon what is possible in our current paradigm of government. Going on and on about what President Obama should be doing is really counterproductive and BORING. If you think that Obama wasn't the BEST candidate who actually had an opportunity to WIN, then fine...com­plain all you want. If you voted for the guy based on what you projected on to him versus what he said he was and would do, spend a few hours on Youtube and you'll see this was your fault. But don't for one more second get raptured up in self-righteous, populist anger and blame Obama for the situation our country is in without looking in the mirror first. Face it, love him or hate him, he's the best we could hope to get out of the current system. Let's make the very best out of it.

[tavote08]

Ditto!!! Say it loud...

[Eris23Skidoo]

Please don't say ditto...pl­ease don't say ditto....

[coultersnemesis]

in a democracy, there is no need for revolution. Your painting of activists who worked hard to elect obama because they believe he can "be the change" they seek as 'revolutionary' is so d u m b. Quite honestly, it is also very offensive that you attempt to paint those exercising their democratic rights as some type of rebellious 'revolutionaries'. Thumbs down.