What's the Matter with Paul Krugman?

On February 11, Paul Krugman touched off a mini firestorm with his New York Times column, "Hate Springs Eternal," which asserted that Obama supporters had been infected with the disease of Clinton-hating spawned by the right wing. "I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody," wrote Krugman. Then, came the real fireworks: "I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." While Krugman may not have been the first to compare the Obama campaign to a cult (see this insightful piece by Jonathan Tilove of Newhouse News), being the first to do so in the pages of the New York Times raises eyebrows. This came on top of his assertion that it was not the Clinton camp, but the Obama camp that was playing the "race card."

Negative responses from readers came flying in fast and furious. Adding even more fervor to the argument, many expressed "say it ain't so, Joe" disillusionment. The arguments for and against Krugman's assertions can all be found in the comments left on his blog. And while I do think Krugman is dead wrong in his assessments, it is more important to me to dissect his method of reasoning. I have never met Krugman, but I have read enough of his work to recognize how his line of thought parallels that of many (not all) liberal academics I find myself surrounded by in my line of work.

During the Bush years, Krugman has been a champion of liberalism, his Times column providing an oasis in a sea of despair. I first encountered Krugman's writings more than a decade ago, when I was a grad student and he was a Princeton economist producing mild-mannered assessments of the pluses and minuses of free trade. In recent times, I have closely followed and generally agreed with his analysis of the housing bubble and other aspects of the coming economic crisis. But Krugman has become a prominent voice in politics primarily because of his scathing critique of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. Not only does he expose the faulty logic governing the administration's actions, he also condemns such actions as unconscionable.

Nevertheless, times are changing. The wonderful development of the primaries is that anti-Bush voters are such a strong majority that the campaigns have had to articulate what they positively stand for. The basis of Krugman's anti-Bush analysis -- his distress that rational thinking has disappeared from politics -- was previously a source of both strength and inspiration. But this same mindset is now a limitation. I am not a foe of rational thinking, but whether a choice is deemed rational depends on who is deciding what the parameters of choice are. The rational analysis that may prove so vital to studying topics like climate change, demographics, or infectious disease does not equip academics to make sense of social movements. Academics tend to live in a bubble -- one to be sure that is enriched with a diversity of intellectual ideas and creativity. But it is a bubble, nonetheless, in that many academics are by and large divorced from what most Americans consider to be the real world. And this helps to explain why their political analysis can not only strike others as off the mark sometimes but also condescending.

"As I've said," Krugman wrote back to his critics supporting Obama, "you've been played like a fiddle by journalists who hate the Clintons, and just make stuff up about how evil they are." Translation: you are so easily manipulated you are starting to look like a cult. Or, in other words, you're thoughts and actions defy the rationality that is the universal standard for social order. Krugman apparently fails to see the irony in his remarks. In the name of liberal/progressive unity, he is warning Obama supporters not to embrace Clinton-hating because it will eventually be turned against Obama. Yet, what he has done is taken his condemnation of Bush's irrationality and focused the same critique on Obama supporters. What seemed righteous and yielding in the face of Bush now looks rigid and strident in the face of an emerging movement. It's what Obama would call "sloppy thinking."

The liberal side of Krugman's rational thinking is best expressed in his embrace of economic populism and praise for John Edwards's candidacy. Edwards "ran a campaign based on ideas," Krugman writes, changing the dynamic of what would otherwise have been "a cautious campaign." By contrast, Obama does not, in Krugman's eyes, represent real "change" because his call to transcend partisanship means he won't really fight for populist causes. In fact, Krugman has felt it his duty to point out that Obama is really not "progressive" at all, again implying that progressives are being driven by emotion rather than reason. That is why he has spent the last several months trying to demonstrate that Hillary has a more populist health care policy. His pose is something like: I've already thought through all of this, so now progressive change is just a matter of winning votes for the candidate with the best platform. These are the misguided sentiments of an academic with no concept of how social change actually happens.

While Krugman's rational assessment of the candidates' policy proposals is welcome, he should recognize that policy proposals are not the exclusive or even the most crucial site of new "ideas." Obama's first new "idea" is that real progressive change can only occur if we start by changing the way politics operates. This is not something than can be done simply by agitating the Democratic base harder and stirring up resentment of Republicans. It requires new energy to marshal change from the bottom up and new ways of engaging an active citizenry in participatory democracy. Whereas Howard Dean tried to give meaning to a campaign that his grassroots supporters were driving, Obama himself embodies bottom-up organizing. In the world I live in, it's not "cautious" but rather daring to run for President stressing your work as a grassroots community organizer as your formative experience in life. (This 1995 article on Obama's first electoral campaign reveals his progressive roots.) Hillary's suggestion that LBJ was the decisive figure who made Martin Luther King's dream a reality was not racist. However, it revealed her regressive top-down thinking and the limited appeal of her "experience" theme.

Krugman also misses Obama's second fresh approach: the call to shift the terms of political debate. He thinks Edwards did this by injecting economic populism into the campaign. When Krugman writes, "Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues," he is echoing Thomas Frank's "What's the matter with Kansa s?" argument that liberals need to stop fighting irrational "culture wars" and return to the rational bread-and-butter issues that were once the heart of the Democratic Party. In this way, they think the party can win back Reagan Democrats and low-income social conservatives. This type of populism is actually driven by liberal elitism and reductive economism. It assumes that those engaged in the "culture wars" suffer from the disease of false consciousness and the cure is rational economic thinking.

What Obama is proposing, and what Krugman only sees as moderation, is to engage Republicans and independents in a different way. The way to move beyond the "culture wars" is not to ignore culture but to stop seeing our divisions as impassable. Krugman says progressives should lead with their maximum proposals, then compromise only what's necessary to get measures passed. Obama proposes to start political debate by identifying the common values we share in order to develop policies that will be meaningful to a large majority. Evangelical conservatives, for instance, may not support abortion. But if progressives don't write them off as irrational, they may find that the value of compassion is a basis for common cause around issues like AIDS or Darfur. This is a strategy that recognizes the relationship between short-term reform and long-term transformation. Obama tried to point out that progressives needed to learn from the history of how Reaganism deployed such a strategy. The Clinton camp ignored the substantive point and made a guilt-by-association attack ad depicting Obama as a Reaganite.

Obama's third bold approach, which is really the foundation of everything else, is to insist that we need a politics based on hope rather than fear. It boils down to the question of how different America could be if we all bring out the best in ourselves and see the best in others; if we focus on what we are for rather than what we are against; if we unite to face the challenges of our lifetime rather than argue over who is to blame for our failures.

An injection of hope might just expand the realm of what's possible. It might even do so in ways that Paul Krugman's rational mind cannot imagine.

Scott Kurashige is an associate professor of American Culture, History, and Asian/Pacific Islander American Studies at the University of Michigan and author of The Shifting Grounds of Race: Black and Japanese Americans in the Making of Multiethnic Los Angeles (Princeton University Press, 2008).

Comments

[Rossetti]

Mr. Krugman has touched a real nerve for the more thoughtful Obma supporters. Cognitive diisonance is a heuristic tool for intellectual development. Krugman's historical imagination is rooted in the disasterous exceses of political charisma.
America is getting dumber and dumber. inspirational wizards of limited seasoning can use the electoral forum to soar. Almost worhipful the followers embace their new lives as members of the movement. A cult begins to emerge. A distance between the leader and his followers develops. Max Weber saw the danger of the Messiannic cult in the modern state.

[Petey]

Let's face it, in a democracy such as ours, good leadership is important. You think everyone is going to suddenly turn off American Idol as soon as Hillary is elected to begin analyzing the details of her health care proposal?

This hyperbole of portraying leadership as "messianic cult," I suspect, arises from the fact that we progressives have gone so long without it that we're having a hard time recognizing its potential when we see it. We don't want to trust it.

But (for example) Obama is proposing the most transparent and accessible administration we've ever had (contrast his plan to televise the entire health care debate with Hillary's closed-door arrogance in the 90s) -- so you really have no basis for suggesting a nefarious "distance" will emerge between Obama and his "followers­." I'm afraid you are actually guilty, Rossetti, of fear mongering.

[transendentilist]

Bush made the same promises, and look how that turned out. Hillary doesn't talk in abstractions. She talks about working hard and being smart. All I ever hear from obama is hope, hope, hope.

[CanSoc]

If what Prof. Kurashige says about Sen. Obama's approach to government is accurate, I can't help but think that if the Labour government had had this attitude in 1945, socialized medicine amongst the other revolutionary reforms would have taken years, perhaps decades to be accomplished. If Attlee had said the party would be engaged in "identifying the common values we share in order to develop policies that will be meaningful to a large majority" how long would it have taken for social democracy to be established in Britain? For that matter, how long would it have taken for FDR to implement the New Deal? That "progressives should lead with their maximum proposals, then compromise only what's necessary to get measures passed" is how legislation by democratic forces of left or right has occurred throughout history, with the other approach often preparing the ground for reform but not being the instrument of reform itself. "What Krugman says" is simply a description of how reforming legislation occurs and is likely to occur, and to say we should reject it for what is supposedly Obama's approach is to reject how the business of reform through the state is traditionally carried on in a democracy. In urging this approach in place of the traditional one it seems to me that Kurashige's description of many academics "being by and large divorced from what most Americans consider to be the real world" includes himself.

[Boadicea]

I couldn't disagree more. I saw how single payer universal health care emerged in Canada. I watched it closely from start to finish. And you, sir, are dead wrong.

Having lived so long in Canada, it's indescribably frustrating to see how Americans are so petty in their fruitless and idiotic attacks on each other, day in, day out. I have to laugh at the way retro liberals are convinced that throwing nasty words and clever derogatory names at those one disagrees with constitutes "strength.­" If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious. In America, it seems that anger is the most revered emotion. What a pity.

Politics and political punditry in this country resembles more a schoolyard full of bullies than any sort of mature democratic arena. When Obama emerged, I thought "Finally, a Canadian-like politician in my own country!"

Alas, people like Krugman, whom I think is mostly jealous of Obama, will do everything they can to maintain the status quo in this country - stalemate.

[nyscribbler]

Thanks for this wisdom, but I have to disagree with your last sentence. Paul Krugman has shown us a great deal in the last few years. He simply doesn't trust inspiration to improve society. This is more a limitation because of the economic mindset- an academic blindness- than anything we need to attack or decry.

I say ignore these types of arguments from Krugman. Let him get back to his strengths and lets encourage him to look at history from a wider perspective- maybe he'll see what we see.

[CanSoc]

What Canada were you living in when single-payer health care was introduced by Tommy Douglas's social democratic government? His approach was the traditional one I described, not the one Sen. Obama advocates. While telling me I'm "dead wrong", tell me why, a practice which unfortunately is often absent from these posts. As for Obama being "Canadian-like" again you fail to elaborate on your point. What I expect as a satisfactory reply is reasoned argument instead of what I am seeing all too often in posts by Obama supporters, sentimental rhetoric, but then that's what his campaign is largely based on, isn't it?

[skycontrol]

Just off the Press: Krugman is really an Obama supporter.
How else to explain his columns which are less than specious and totally lacking in substantia­tion.His rants have succeeded in encouraging thousands of hrc supporters to look at their candidate very closely. And familiarity does breed contempt. Thank you Paul Krugman! You and Erica Jong are to be thanked for helping the Obama. Thanks for your support!

[stanjz]

People need to point out that Univeral Healthcare isn't government paid healthcare, but government subsidized healthcare. People who cannot afford to donate any of their income to healthcare will be forced to purchase it.

Hillary Clinton's plan will only take into account income and not expenses. It can't take into account expenses because the model would be too complicated and the variations too great. Senator Clinton's plan is a disaster because of the mandate. People don't know and the media isn't addressing this.

[remc]

Thank you Mr. Kurashige, spot on analysis. It seems that the folks most wary of Obama are the ones who have bought hook, line, and sinker into the "us against them" mentality that has been passed off as political discourse for the last twenty-odd years. It hasn't always been this way, and it doesn't have to continue. I honestly believe that a majority of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, will reject divisiveness - which has been taken to sickening depths by the current administration - and vote for Obama in November if given a chance.

[CaptainObvious]

United We Stand - Divided We Fall.

[Georgee]

Thanks Scott for the great article. I am a Obama supporter although I don't agree with 100% of Obama or Clinton economic policy suggestions. I think it's odd for Krugman to attack Obama and embrace Hilary. Their economic policy is not that different. He should be embracing both of them. If one of them becomes the President of the US, it's the dream come true for him. Obama was against the war from the beginning and in my opinion, he has better chance of uniting the country. As Obama says it's hard to materialize any policy ideas, especially the big ones like healthcare. We need a working majority with like-minded dems and reps and independents. Obama is the one who can do that.

[DasBoot]

Scott,

Thank you so much for the insightful analysis. Yes, people have discussed the Krugman column several times on HuffPo already, but your analysis of his underlying assumptions about social change is very compelling.

I think Krugman's hard-headed rational approach was ideal for opposition times, when we all had to remember what we stood for and keep the wagons closed. But now it is time to rebuild the country by forging a new majority coalition. Rove and co. thought they could force such a new coalition, and they failed. Democrats should not make the same mistake based simply on the assertion that they have better arguments.

[Petey]

Very nice analysis. I'm glad you tied in the culture wars. It's a puzzling aspect of Krugman's argument because Obama is profoundly interested in fostering a post-culture-wars environment, which, as you point out, can have a significant pragmatic effect: transforming the political landscape in such a way that a real mandate for a progressive agenda can be forged (whereas Krugman and Clinton both seem content with the well-worn model of both sides putting their demands on the table and then eventually settling for highly watered-down compromises).

But, my point: while Krugman may not be enough of a visionary to recognize the value of actively fostering a post-culture-wars culture, if he indeed wants politics to function independently of the culture wars I would think Hillary Clinton would be the last candidate he'd want to see elected. In many ways her divisive reputation is directly connected to the culture wars. Whether you blame her for it or not, that's just a fact. Her election is not only a backward-facing movement in terms of personalities and political alliances, it also promises to re-fuel the emotions of culture warriors of all stripes (just thumb through the pages of this website to get a taste).

[liberalnfree]

When practically the whole media and the whole country was overwhelmed by war fever, Paul Krugman's emphasis on rationality led him to penetrate the lies about Iraq. He did so courageoously and consistently, and now he is constantly attacked simply because he is not on the Obama bandwagon. Now you seek to marginalize him because he dares to question the efficacy of a "movement" based on feelgoodism, whose aims are difficult to distinguish from hands across America.

Doesn't Krugman's service to progressivism in the past entitle him to a respectful hearing, even if you disagree with his choice of candidate? His complaint about the alleged "cult of personality" came only after he had been subjected to a barrage of vicious attacks by Obama supporters. Now people here go so far as to wonder if racism is involved in Krugman's preference for Clinton, with absolutely no evidence to support such a defamatory charge.

I would rather live in a polity that rationally analyzes policy postitions to the nth degree than one that is swayed by emotional appeals, even if the emotion today is hope. The emotion yesterday was fear and the emotion tomorrow could be hatred.

The media has trained the public to see politics as an exercise in self-realization and imaginary relationships. It is the same method used to sell products and movie stars. That being said, if Obama is the Democratic nominee I will support him wholeheartedly, not because he is cool and makes me feel good or promises hope but because his policy positions are shockingly close to that dreaded enemy of all who cherish hope in social transformation, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[cheforacle]

I certainly don't think Kurashige, in any fashion, has called Krugman a racist. That would be scurrilous to either call Krugman racist or to suggest that the Kurashige did that in this piece. Like yourself I often have looked forward to Krugman's articles over the last few years and agreed with many of his positions. But just because someone like Krugman, with whom I agreed about the war in Iraq, has done an admirable job attacking the Bush administration, does not mean he is always right. To suggest that he is would be tantamount to "cult worship" itself

The problem with Krugman's approach on Obama - and it is no secret that he has not missed an opportunity to criticize Obama, usually, but not exclusively, on the issue of universal health care - is that, as Kurashige pointed out, Obama has the chance to build a large majority of Americans to support him and the Democratic candidates running for House and Senate in the fall. If he succeeds - and I, for one, believes he will - then he and Congress will have a mandate to do things like implement universal health care, address global warming, end the tax cuts for the top 1% and establish a better energy policy. With a big majority or mandate, the GOP opposition will be feeble. Bill Clinton won only about 40% of the vote in 1992 and had a slim majority from 1992-4. That and the fact he blew capital early prevented him and Hillary from passing health care reform. His second term involved a series of tepid reforms although welfare reform, a GOP fave, was not tepid. Obama has the chance to produce a big majority. Hillary, IMHO, does not.

[liberalnfree]

I should have been clearer in my post above when I said "people here go so far as to wonder if racism is involved in Krugman's preference for Clintons". I did not at all mean that Kurashige made such an accusation. I had just read the comment by mox below who said:
"I have seen Krugman speak and read his column often.I think he's quite brilliant. But I find this almost passive aggressive tone toward Obama and his supporters to be a little surprising­.I'm starting to wonder if this is a subconscious effort to veil his own racism. Not saying it's so - just wondering.­"

I should have said "a commenter here."

Your argument about Obama possibly ushering in a larger Democratic majority has merit. It does seem to be more of a possibility now, but on the other hand it is still early and we have not seen 1/100th of the negative campaigning that will be thrown against him in the general election. If history is any indication, the Republicans will launch a barrage of attack ads to smear him. They would do the same against Clinton. My judgment has been that she, being a known quality, would withstand it better. Of course I may be wrong but at this point we still don't know.

[SShaw490]

The thing that's so offensive about Krugman - in fact, about the vast majority of Hillary's talking heads - is the assertion that Obama is an empty suit.

Let's reveiew the hard facts: In every area of American life, the war in Iraq was the blunder of our time. In terms of economics, national security, foreign relations, future entanglements, and humanitarian concerns, that was The Issue. Obama opposed the war, speaking of "an occupation of undetermined lenght, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" before the Senate voted on it. After they voted but before the war, he spoke out against that vote - in a Charlie Rose interview, he said, "I think we should have stood our ground and took our licks, if that's what it came to, rather than to do what Democrats often do, which is to cave in, and whine about it afterward. Which makes us look not only weak, but also petty." Hillary, on the other hand, not only voted for it but supported it in speech after speech after speech, for two solid years, and then when it became politically risky to keep supporting it, she caved in and then whined about it. Which makes her not only weak, but also petty.

The fact is, Obama was right. Hillary was wrong. Game, set, match.

So what else would we like to discuss? Kyl/Lieberman? Flag burning? Ties to lobbyists? Political calculation run amok? Contrast that to Obama. Opposed Kyl/Lieberman. Doesn't take money from registered federal lobbyists or PACs (and still raises more than she does, from roughly twice as many donors), he's a Harvard-scholar constitutional lawyer who knows a hell of a lot more than Hillary does about freedom of speech. He also voted against the FISA bill that Hillary couldn't make it back to the Senate for.

The idea that Obama is empty rhetoric is not only cheap rhetoric itself, it's also false. Obama is right on the issues, he's got the history that indicates he'll be an outstanding president, and his approach to politics is energizing a country. Good enough for me.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

What a great post!

[cheforacle]

Here! Here! Excellent!

[Rossetti]

Obama was for Lieberman in 2006 (his senate mentor) before he experienced a late October conversion and came out for Lamont on October 26, 2006. In this case Obama sounds like a Washingon politician with feet of clay if I have ever seen one. So he is good, yes! But a secular saint who is going to anoint the old Washington politics with a new dispensation. Forget about it. Obama would be a hell of a lot more attractive if he would get over himself. Leave the inpirational humbug to Huckabee. Really grow up!

[mox]

I have seen Krugman speak and read his column often.
I think he's quite brilliant.
But I find this almost passive aggressive tone toward Obama and his supporters to be a little surprising.
I'm starting to wonder if this is a subconscious effort to veil his own racism. Not saying it's so - just wondering.

The sentiment of his writing mimics the one he has displayed toward George W. Bush. Almost as if Obama and his supporters aren't smart enough to know better.

Did he not read Frank Rich's piece in the NY Times last week?

Add Krugman to the long list of naysayers who will be eating crow on a very jubilant night in November.

[hyjanks]

I think what' really strange about this whole Obamal-is-­dangerous-­because-of­-his-inexp­erience-an­d lack-of-specifics tirade by Krugman, et al is that they are all operating under the assumption that minor policy differences can lead to the end of the world as we know it--unless, of course, MY plan is adopted.
I think a little comparison between what might be in an Obama presidency and what actually has taken place over the last seven years is in order.
What could anyone possibly do--with the possible exception of McCain--to make matters worse in all aspects of our lives as we've experience under an illiterate, messianic president? Will Obama automatically become a total failure as president because he's green behind the ears?
Come on, folks! In Obama we have intelligent, articulate individual whose actions throughout his life speak of respect for the individual and his attempt to make life better for the less fortunate.
Has he said or done anything since running for president that leads you to believe that he's not sincere in his beliefs?
Pose the same question of Billary and see what answer you come up with--if your honest.

[SShaw490]

You know, that is what annoyed me so much about Hillary's crying spell in New Hampshire. She was crying not because of some positive emotion - she was crying because she was absolutely convinced that, if she didn't become president, America would be "sliding backward". What kind of crazy notion is that? Hillary is the only person holding America from "sliding backward"? I know all about the fatigue and the pressure and all that - but that's also ego run amok.

[greejambri]

I believe it's called "narcissis­m."

[petrifiedamber]

Hear, hear. Thanks for bringing this lack-of-ex­perience-b­y-Obama red herring to the forefront. I am not going to excoriate Hillary for her dubious claims of experience because I think the issue itself is false. Let us ask ourselves this question. Would Bush have been a better prez simply through having had more executive experience? The answer of course is no. Lack of character not lack of experience makes Bush a bad prez. The lack of experience argument is a false one, time to let it go people.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

"Obama proposes to start political debate by identifying the common values we share in order to develop policies that will be meaningful to a large majority."

That sentence gets to the heart of the matter.

Because, for someone so optimistic, feel-good, and hopeful, Obama has a pretty startling message: they aren't *their* children, they are *our* children. His promise isn't to make a heaven on earth for Americans-- it's that government will be on our side, but we will still have to do the hard work ("change will be hard").

Obama's message is a refutation of Bertrand Russell's funny line: "Democracy is the process by which people choose the man [sic] who'll get the blame."

From Obama there is a call which is anything but cult-like for us to overcome our differences, rather than the powerful bureaucrat at the top waving a magic wand and everyone being unified. The undertone of this message even appeals to conservatives, though the main melody is that of populism. Power to the people.

This is why Hillary's latest campaign tactic is so depressing. "He's all talk, and talk is cheap. He's about promises, I'm about action, solutions.­" Yet we expect candidates to talk, and when they talk eloquently and speak to our hearts, we are ready to act. Or we are ready for the politicians to act on our behalf.

By belittling the power of words to communicate great things, Hillary is putting herself on the wrong side of the national mood of 2008, and also on the wrong side of a tradition that goes back to Cicero, Demosthenes, Pericles, the speeches of The Iliad. Lofty stuff, far removed from "Yes We Can," I know, but if words have changed the world before, then they can now, and the power of language ought to be affirmed and celebrated-- not kicked around.

[presto]

You said: "Obama has a pretty startling message: they aren't *their* children, they are *our* children." Exactly. It takes a village. Someone should write a book about that.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

If someone did write such a book, the sequel to it should be titled "Raise a Child to Bomb a Village."

(Hyperbole, I know, but the kernel of truth in it is-- if you provide great healthcare and education for children in order for them to grow up and be sent off to be killed in a dumb war which you authorized, all your liberalism is for naught).

[Yerga]

Let's see, a white woman wrote a book on an African proverb - it takes a village to raise a child - and when a son of an African talks about 'our' rather than 'their' children, our reference is the white woman's book and insinuate.­.. hmmm

[SShaw490]

What's what's kind of funny is, that's a pretty controversial message. The "I'm my brother's keeper" deal is a message that might reasonably cause some heartburn among some folks. But Obama's position on issues is dead-on. And yet, his detractors attack his position on issues and gloss over those kinds of concepts.

It's enough to make you wonder if his detractors just don't quite know what to make of him, isn't it?

[presto]

No, not really. It is not difficult to know what to make of him. There is nothing wrong with his basic concepts - he is just not quite ready for prime time. "I'm my brother's keeper" has always been the foundation of the progressive movement and the Democratic party.

[Lemeritus]

Anyone care to discuss why the Huffington Post resurrents Krugman's column every two days? Do we really have any more to say about this? Or is there really more blood to squeeze from the turnip?

[Ides]

People feel as if Krugman is better served having his words vetted and explored. "Don't worry, he's not really a jerk," I suppose they are saying. Meh. Krugman's a narrow, combative ideologue whose Progressivism is faceless and theoretical.


For someone so wedded to failed ideas and failed political stances and failed candidates, he gets a lot of credit for being impractically practical.

[Lemeritus]

I'm not really sure what it was you just said -- the word "vetted" always makes me uneasy.

My point, however, is this is the third piece on Paul Krugman's column, all critical. The pieces have been released at two day intervals. The ensuing brawls have been bitter and divisive. I'm wondering why we keep revisiting the column if not to whip up ill-feelings?

Btw, part of Mr. Krugman's column read: "Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptab­le."

[D2D2]

Excellent article, Mr. Kurashige. Right on point.