I've always had two problems with Paul Krugman.
First, he is, by his own definition, a hack. That is, his issue positions are utterly predictable and virtually immutable--hallmarks of the ideological sell-out.
Krugman never says anything that surprises you; you never read him and think, "Gosh, I wouldn't have thought in a million years he'd defend that guy, or support this position, or criticize this person...and yet he just did."
Nope, that never happens. That's what hackery looks like.
Second, he's intellectually dishonest. Like Robert Reich, if he needs to disregard the facts or apply double-standards to make his case, he will.
Here's the latest example, from his column on Paul Ryan's Medicare plan:
"...the claim that the plan would keep Medicare as we know it intact for Americans currently 55 or older is highly dubious. True, that’s what the plan promises, but if you think about the political dynamics that would emerge once Americans born a year or two too late realize how much better a deal slightly older Americans are getting, you realize that this is a promise unlikely to be fulfilled."
That may or may not be a valid point. But if it's a valid point, it also applies to Obamacare. Krugman might very have written, "When you think about the dynamics that will ensue when the Obama administration starts making deep cuts to Medicare provider payments, and when unelected bureaucrats start deciding that the program will no longer pay for certain procedures that patients and providers both value, you realize that most of the purported Medicare savings under the president's reform are unlikely to materialize." (By the way, a couple of guys over at the WSJ make that very case right here.)
But Krugman doesn't say that. He doesn't say, "Neither party's health care reform proposal is serious." Instead, he gives President Obama abundant credit for the projected cost savings in his proposal: "Mr. Obama...has done more to rein in long-run deficits than any previous president. And if his opponents were serious about those deficits, they’d be backing his actions and calling for more; instead, they’ve been screaming about death panels."
In short, Krugman himself is not an honest, serious participant in the civic discourse (which is not to say that he isn't taken seriously). He is, as I said, a hack.
Footnote: Remember Jared Lee Loughner? A judge just found him too batshit crazy to stand trial for his Tucson shooting spree. All the available evidence indicates that it was this same batshit craziness that prompted him to engage in the shooting spree in the first place. If Krugman had any intellectual honor, if he were capable of learning and evolving, if he believed in intellectual honesty, he would now apologize for blaming the shooting on Sarah Palin, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh.
Well, he hasn't apologized...or even acknowledged that perhaps he spoke too hastily...so what does that tell you?
Comments