Too bad the intellectual left hides all these "actual ideas" behind their one-trick pony of calling conservatives racists and Nazis. Maybe they'll take time off from their character assassination to share them some day...
5
The political Right includes many level-headed thinkers who tell the truth, even when it bothers them or violates their world view. Liberalism DID include many such people once, perhaps decades ago.
Then, when this ridiculous and insulting Total War was declared in a fairly-elected American President who was proud to be a political outsider, over 95% of the media gave up ethics and truth to join the big-money guys.
Paul here is a perfect example. He was once seen as an economist, but election day certainly blew that rep away.
The only remaining question is whether the people of the U.S. A. get their media back and their Dept. of Justice back after this Wonderful President has moved on.
Or, after Pence. And, after Cruz....
1
"The political Right includes many level-headed thinkers who tell the truth"
List them.
2
When the top rate was 90% or 70%, it was good to cut it, because there were these outrageous legal structures, foundations, trusts, and the like. And I think those cuts probably did increase revenues for the government. When it’s 40%, it’s not the same. When I was young, I thought conservatives were for balancing the budget. I got disillusioned.
1
For all these claims...evidence, please.
Our dear Paul is going down the sad path of Medeline Albright, from confusion to rage to counting mysteries among the clouds. I'm waiting for his UFO book.
3
Folks who believe that you can make government successful by strangling it to death on a revenue level have not one single example in history to illustrate such a theory. All through history we have plenty of examples of austerity begetting fiscal crisis, however, and the mores the pity, as the tax hits just keep on coming. One wishes that at least once we'd just let the crows land, cut literally all taxes for the wealthy and rich and corporations to zero, and watch what happens. Let's give it three years at that and why not? Revenue should boom, right? Let's face it, conservative voters, by far and large, simply believe what they are told and do as they are commanded. It should be no mystery why the feudal states lasted as long as they did, because one look at the serfs says it all.
4
You can't solve a problem unless it is fully understood.
But how do we know that the problem is fully understood?
This is the challenge that Oliver Wendell Holmes (snr) addressed, ‘I don't give a fig for simplicity on this side of complexity but I would give my life for simplicity on the other side of complexity.’
Having studied and worked in the area of changing minds for over forty years and having emerged from the jungle of complexity this, for what it is worth is my ‘simplicity’.
The key to problem is the Closed Mindset. It affects most of the thinking of most of us. Some to a great degree and others to a small degree. (Even George Bernard Shaw went to his deathbed holding steadfast to the belief that Joseph Stalin was a great leader)
The closed mindset has other names of which Daniel Kahneman’s What You See Is All There Is or (WYSIATI) best describes the experience of the mindset.
And the opposite is the Open Mindset of which Seek Openness and Learning or (SOAL) is the best description IMHO.
I like to use the metaphor of the fist to represent the closed mind WYSIATI and the open hand to represent the open mind SOAL.
The point being that an owner will only unfurl their fist if they feel safe in the company of someone with an open hand.
This is the challenge for us all. How to develop SOAL and keep an open hand when confronting the raised fist.
But it can be done. Just don’t start with Trump. It’s up to us.
Journey with courage and kindness.
7
Conservative intellectual. Compassionate conservative. Conservative moralist. Oxymorons all.
2
Just read this article that made me think of last night's Don Lemon show where he finally had enough of the Trumpies like Steve Cortez and that other intellectually insulting Trump defender both of whom deflect from being honest about anything concerning the Republican Party and Trump by claiming that nothing concerning both should be of concern to us Americans who can still think because we're makin money. Mr. Lemon stated that they have an obligation to presenting the truth because it's a "privilege" not a "Republican Right" to speak to the American People.
What is extraordinary here is the poor reasoning. Whatever may or may not be said, Williamson was not fired as an intellectual, nor was the outcry intellectual. His firing was due to outrage not argument. His premise was not and has not been refuted (to wit, killing a child in the womb is no different than infanticide, since a fetus differs only from an infant as an infant differs from as toddler). Nor was his reasoning proven fallacious. Instead, the response was the substitution of outrage for rational discussion.
7
A fetus is wildly different than an infant in ways that an infant is not wildly different than a toddler. External viability is a start.
5
Right wing arguments of most stripes are unrelated to reality and evidence, and are unanswerable, because they are not inferences drawn from valid reasons and reasoning, but rather they are tools for particular goals, most importantly the theft of public riches into the pockets of the few. These tools are produced by right wing think tanks and PR firms, and if one tool ceases to work, they put it down and try another. It is all a charade; a complex get rich quick scheme. There is not the slightest sliver of honesty in it.
It's sad to see those who have sold their souls in order to cash in on this scheme, and either don't realize it or don't care -- people like my own Utah senator Orrin Hatch who believes in his religious heart of hearts that he is right with God, all evidence to the contrary.
3
We have clearly seen with this new Tax bill how unreliable the GOP is when following their rhetoric versus their actions. Example: Obama was hounded for being a spendthrift by Republican interests while the GOP touted their anti-big government mantra. Now they are crushing our Nation’s finances with their monstrous addition to our National debt by passing the GOP’s definition of tax fairness. Trump’s reputation as a liar is probably exceeded by the GOP’s record for prevarication.
3
Like everything else in Republican politics, their economic theory is a faith, all the more believed the more facts pile up against it.
Abstinence-only sex “education,” home-schooling, white supremacy. To differ from these tenants, to question them, is to be turned out to the wolves of the forest.
2
So, "conservative economist" = oxymoron. Yep.
2
Good one. Calling out the asymmetry, and using facts to do it, is about all we can do. I've grown tired of hearing my fellow liberals go on about their interest in hearing from the other side. "Conservative thought" is an oxymoron, and, as for Republicanism, most people that I respect would have bailed long ago. Heck, even some people who I *don't* respect have jumped ship over there. It's a horrible, destructive joke. No "principled conservative" (if such things really exist) would go anywhere near that clogged toilet of an ideology. And the reason there's no traction for a "reasonable" alternative way forward is that conservatism has ever been a lie at its core, and their numbers are comprised of simpletons. Stupids who, as it turns out, are also not very nice after all, which is really the main thing we learned from trumpism. I mean, we already knew they weren't terribly bright...
7
Mr. Krugman has convinced himself that "serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence" no longer exist. This is egregiously false. George Will, Richard Brookhiser, Jonah Goldberg, Victor Hanson Davis, George Weigel, Peter Berkowitz, Niall Ferguson, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and his own Times colleague, Ross Douthat -- to name only a few -- are not unicorns.
2
What influence do any of those people have on GOP policymakers? They either whine about Trump or keep churning out stale supply-side rhetoric and cultural war pablum.
4
Is it a coincidence that I saw a Fox host holding a stuffed unicorn on his show today? I was at the gym so I have no real detail except that he looked foolish.
2
The image the NYT photo editors chose to use for your article is an example of...dare I day it?... Trumpian "news". The mythical unicorn is NOT a white female horse with a strapped-on narwhal horn! The mythical unicorn is always male, is the size of a goat, has a lion's tail, cloven hooves, and so on. See the lovely (& accurate) Unicorn tapestries at the Metropolitan Museum's Cloisters: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/467642
Conservative intellectuals are the unicorns of politics: players in myths and fables but never seen or heard in real life.
The godfather and sainted founder of today’s conservatism, William F. Buckley, Jr. famously stated, unequivocally, in the first issue of “National Review” (1955) that his conservative mandate was to stand “athwart history, yelling Stop.” So much for conservative intellectualism.
Today’s Republican Party and conservative outliers are simply obeying the godfather...
3
Dr. Krugman wrote "... the real problem here is that media organizations are looking for unicorns: serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence."
He neglected to write that all they could come up with was Roseanne Barr. Sadly she and her ilk may have real influence.
7
When a non-intellectual, non-curious man like Trump is president, it is unlikely that he will appoint curious intellectuals to important posts. Instead, we have people like Scott Pruitt, who is not only harming the EPA but milking it dry for all the luxuries and special services he can get.
At this point, I doubt that any serious intellectuals would be willing to work for Trump. Why take a chance on being insulted, harassed and belittled for a job that will lead essentially nowhere?
We can comment and complain all we want, but this is an administration that is all about opinion and whim, not serious consideration of policy.
4
Would share any examples of Liberals / Progressives hired by Conservative Talk Shop? Let us see who is that coming along.
This lack of credibility that plagues Conservative economists, what causes it? I would assume it is the fault of conservative politicians who are going to do what they want anyway, but is there some other problem that causes this?
1
A serious study by two political scientists (Rosenthal and Poole) traced the GOP's movement to the extreme right back to the 1970. No one has explained it. It antedates Clinton's impeachment and the racism that worked against Obama. It may have been triggered by the antics of the wildly antinomian 1960s but its present ruthless intensity is hard to analyze.
2
What an excellent piece. It's unfortunate for all of us that the Republican party went from white men who play golf (aka the Rockefeller Republicans) to the deplorables. It seems to me that Reagan marks this transition. The 2016 Republican primary was the culmination of this and evidence that this transition is 100% complete. The old Republican elites did not know what hit them and could marshall no forces to stop Trump.
2
If a competent economist actually penetrated the inner sanctum, a description of his/her likely role/fate would require a paraphrase of Greg Mankiw to: If they use actual economists, they use them the way a dog uses a lamppost: for trickle down, not illumination.
2
When you value faith and revelation more than the hard work and honest impartial testable results of science bad things happen.
Unfortunately we are a Nation (at least 42% of us) that does and we are/will pay dearly for our intellectual dishonesty, wishful thinking, self affirming analysis, and/or method sloppiness.
Charlatans, demagogues, oligarchs, and despots need such a support base to do their dirty work and they have a good lot here in this Nation.
We are a Nation that would rather carry the vapid, highly subjective, and authoritarian motto "In God We Trust" over the systematic philosophical justifiable and materially useful thought in several moral contexts "E Pluribus Unum".
To me nothing illustrates our propensity to be and act deluded and worse defend delusion over reality than our rejection of the Theory of Evolution.
The ToE is a HIGHLY TESTED AND RELIABLE scientific reality. Yet 1/3 of us reject that FACT out of hand. Worse only about 14% of us accept it as fact - saying about 53% just cannot fully handle a truth that impinges on our fantasies.
My point is this - in this 21st Century this Nation - that has all the reasons in the World to be free and rational insists on being bound by ideologies and fantasies. Sad and scary.
6
According to Richard Wolffe, the economist, there are no more universities teaching left-leaning economics; you know, the economics of socialism, that very bad word in US economic theory. Whatever you think about socialism, it is not communism. However, Americans treat it as though it were the devil incarnate. We need to teach these different economics so that our students will have a basis for comparison. Otherwise, we will end up being well, an oligarchy. Don't know what that means? Look it up. By the way, we are one already and our lack of knowledge has let it be that way.
5
The unicorns are still around Herr Professor - at least in spirit. Their names are von Hayek and von Mises and their ideas have been playing a dominant role in economic policy for decades (and not only in the US). Trump and his puppeteers are simply following these ideas to their logical and absurd end.
1
Why spend anymore time chasing the Rightist Right? If their tribe refuses to engage in intelligent, fact-based conversation, why not turn to the farther Left?
We already know what the moderates are thinking.
Why not explore the ideas and policies that galvanized Bernie voters? Many of whom are waiting impatiently for the next major election.
5
Any thinking, fair-minded person ought to agree with Paul Krugman and George H.W. Bush about “voodoo economics.” That designation, intended for the trickle-down supply-siders, unfortunately, colored the nation’s view of all economists.
Economists now seem to many lay persons like medieval practitioners of the dark arts. The economists form competing schools of thought, and within each school there is fierce competition to become chief witch in the coven.
The difference between economics and witchcraft is that it is easier and quicker to tell whether a particular witch possesses real skill. The spell she or he casts either works almost immediately or it never does.
An economist proposes a theory, and it may take decades for anyone to put it into practice and years more to see if it actually works. The results can be ambiguous, which is good because it improves the overall employment picture – for the economist.
Fortunately, the liberal economist doesn’t fear that he or she will lose all standing among others in the profession, if an earlier position is amended as more data is acquired. The conservative is publicly confident, but he or she is privately terrified of being cast aside for breaking ranks.
2
In economics it is very difficult post facto to prove right or wrong because experiments cannot be controlled.
Krugman for instance will tell you Obama did an amazing job despite historically low post recession growth, doubling the debt, and presiding over historically low labor force participation. Was job growth strong? Sure. But when you start with 10 percent unemployment job growth will happen.
The left continues to show its smugness. They are past actually debating topics. The right can now simply be ignored. Good luck with that. Illinois California and every major urban center would tell you factually that sole left economics aren't working.
3
Economics is part of "human sciences". Contrary to "hard sciences", you indeed cannot decide, as researcher, to do experiments, first of all because you can't control people's decisions, and secondly because those decisions are taken in a unique context, which never returns in exactly the same way.
So yes, in human sciences it is not possible to create lab conditions.
But that doesn't mean that human sciences are not SCIENCES, as you seem to believe.
That's because a lot of things can be proven without needing any repetition or lab conditions.
It can be easily proven, for instance, that the Taliban destroyed this and that particular ancient statue, even though you can destroy it only once.
The same goes for economics.
So contrary to what you believe, it has already been show that when a developed economy has a -9% GDP and for months and months GDP was in a downward spiral, it will continue to go even lower UNLESS something is done.
That's because many other developing economies already had similar problems, so we can study which ones managed to turn around the economy and which ones didn't.
That's how we know that Obama's stimulus ended the downward spiral and turned it around.
It's also how we know that he cut Bush's structural $1.4 trillion deficit by 2/3, so no, Obama did not double the debt at all, it's the STRUCTURAL deficit that did.
Just analyze the debt in an objective, verifiable was, and you'll see that you're wrong. THAT's science too, you see?
3
You're simplifying things that aren't simple. What is the best comparison point for the Obama recovery? Developing nation experience? These are countries with less mature markets and weaker rules of law and capital markets. I could easily suggest our own historical recessions are a better reference point. By the latter, Obama's recovery was very poor. That said I'm not obtuse enough to call you wrong as you did. There is no easy answer much as you want there to be one to justify your politics.
Very strange: by every standard that I can see, California is *booming*. Where is it in California that their leftish economics aren't working?
1
The Right is not interested in what works, they are interested in what they can get away with. They long for another Gilded Age and gated communities.
7
Paul Krugman writes that conservative economists never admit they are wrong, although liberal economists sometimes do. That sounds about right.
Maybe the liberals should be less self-reflective.
Wow! And one would think the $1 .3 trillion omnibus would delight the Keynesians.
But no, it’s not enough as a limit switch doesn’t exist.
Keynesian orthodoxy says lower deficits when unemployment is low - e.g. Clinton in the 90s - spend when the economy is in trouble - Obama post 2008. So no, Keynesians would not be riding your omnibus right now.
9
Keynesians don't support trillion dollar omnibuses no matter what they contain and when they are passed, you know.
So of course, everything depends on WHAT that omnibus actually DOES.
Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at a moment when the economy has been growing for 7 consecutive years and unemployment is at a historic low, don't make any sense, from a Keynesian point of view.
You need more money in people's pockets ONLY when consumer demand is low and businesses will only hire more people if they can sell more products/services.
And even then you need it in the pockets of those people who'll immediately spend it (= ordinary citizens), not wealthiest citizens of course, as for them a couple of millions more or less don't make any real difference.
That's why Obama signed a $800 billion (not $1.3T...) stimulus into law.
When the economy is solid and unemployment low, however, you have to use the government's budget to start paying the debt, so that if there's another disaster coming, you have the money to pay for it and and it, you see?
If you don't, and you even start DOUBLING the deficit, as Trump is doing, than WHEN are you actually going to pay the debt ... ?
1
I would very much like to hear from serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with opinions about how to manage economic forces. I assume they have the time as they're not allowed into the policy clubhouse and they probably don't get invited out much for drinks with the Dark Agers. Who are they? Can I listen to or read regularly-held conversations involving them, you, Joseph Stiglitz, etc.?
1
Analysts like this guy don’t understand the non-linearity and unpredictability of human nature individually or collectively. They assume that statistical metrics like average or median are somewhat valid but in reality NOT at all. Mirrors in our brains make chaotic and highly non-linear collective operations which can be considered totally random with significant confidence. So, things like will power and instincts of influence leaders are real driving forces of human societies. You can find lots of evidence both historically and concurrently. Simply saying, there is no economist who is also a billionaire and there is no successful president who is also a constitutional law professor.
Yes, you understand economics better than a Nobel Laureate in Economics. LOL.
1
When you speak of the "left", you mean the moderate left. There is little to choose between Trump in the US and Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.
2
"selling snake oil is his business model, and he can’t change without losing everything."
So well explained. For Larry Kudlow, tax-cuts are the prescription for any and all economic problems, and that the only way to grow the economy is by cutting taxes.
He would unabashedly say, "Republicans are put in this world to cut taxes!"
4
Great analysis! This moral and intellectual decay of conservative "thinking" also explains why the right thinks colleges universities are too liberal. Alas, people with an inability to observe reality and digest facts learned from it will not thrive in an academic environment. Hence: they think the facts have a liberal bias.
12
I like to think that I am a conservative. However, my definition of a "conservative" is someone who pays their own bills, fights their own wars, and respects other people's civil liberties as much as they cherish their own.
How tragic that a word that should describe a person of noble character has instead become a synonym for mean-spiritedness, willful ignorance, and outright bigotry.
35
Liberal:
Stands for increasing personal freedom, helping the less fortunate from their own purse, pay your own bills including your full tax bill, physically joining the fight against oppression and war criminals, champions of civil rights for all. Treats everyone with respect and unites not divides.
This is what my grandfather believed were the requirements to be a true liberal.
3
Perhaps you brought that on yourselves.
Careful there, Joe. Some of us liberal types might consider you one of our own. I think your party has left you and I think that is a very, very sad development.
2
I am a biologist and I have never come across either a conservative or a liberal biologist. We are just biologists. The same could be said of practitioners of other natural sciences.
Political science and Economics are different. If you specialize in one of these social sciences, you have a choice. You can be a liberal or a conservative. The evidence is irrelevant. As long as this dichotomy continues, it will be difficult for humanity to solve social problems. We will continue to lurch forward and backward depending upon whether liberals or conservatives are in power.
For social scientists truth is not one but two.
8
"... I have never come across either a conservative or a liberal biologist."
"Conservative" and "liberal" are political categories at the ends of a hypothetical political spectrum, so it is ridiculous to apply them to scientific positions.
However, there are, presumably, biologists who are politically "conservative" and politically "liberal".
Unfortunately, Krugman and journalists have an enthusiasm for vague categorizations. If you search Krugman's column for the word "economist", you will see that he blithely refers to a hodgepodge of categories of economists: "conservative", "actual", "academically prestigious", "famous", and "liberal".
Would you be willing to accept that there are "famous" biologists?
It's hard to believe a biologist would be a conservative in today's political world of climate change denial. Every one who I have come across would consider themselves a progressive liberal because that's the only political position that is calling for action to protect wildlife by acting on the forces that are causing plants and animals so much negative change.
18
Wouldn't a real conservative be ..."conservative", e.g. considering climate change he or she would recognize that although we do not know exactly how events will play out, knowledgeable people have pointed out severe risks that can be ameliorated at modest cost. The "conservative" approach seems to be obvious. It is not clear to me why so called conservatives have aligned themselves as "risk takers". Perhaps it is a libertarian aversion to "working together". It might also be because a guy whose dad was "black" wanted to take the conservative approach.
1
Conservatism and Intellectual ability do not go together. Moreover what the "Right" interprets as intellectual ability is simply is an ability to debate and that debate does not have to be rooted in factual data. Flying dragons and witches on brooms are allowed in that conversation. This problem of fake intellectualism is hardly confined only to the US Right wing. It is a worldwide problem and much worse in places like India, Australia and countries in Western Europe.
11
Mr Krugman is too generous. Although quite accurate in saying that the day of intellectual conservatives ended in the 70's at the latest. Now Intellectual and Conservative are oxymorons when placed together. BUT they have control of the media-- and the American attention span is that of a gnat in heat.
10
"...the day of intellectual conservatives ended in the 70's" When we discovered that their policies don't work.
Stephen Moore, a constant presence on CNN, only has a Master in economics, according to Wikipedia, and spent a lot of his time at Cato and Heritage, which are "think tanks" with an agenda.
12
Two problems with 'conservative' economists:
1. The country has moved so far to the right that economists that would formerly be considered conservative are now liberal. The term liberal has grown to include anyone that bases his/her analysis on empirical evidence.
2. They have influence only to the extent that they can be used as tools to further justify enrichment of the Davos class.
11
Yes to the empirical evidence criteria. Conservative economists are more like theologists than scientists.
6
Evidence is the enemy of the right, unless they can create, whole cloth, the evidence they need out of thin air. Look at climate change. Look at the Iraq war. Look at Benghazi.
1
Or the explanation could be that the fundamentally left wing "mainstream" media intentionally pick right wing idiots as bad representatives of alternative policies to their own. There are plenty of neo Marxist left wingers too - who say that the USA will be a Utopia when white people are in the minority, that ALL manufacturing should be sent overseas, that the US should be flooded with 2 billion more immigrants until everyone in the world makes only $2/day so we will all be equally worse off - but the mainstream media does not hire them. Its called 'scripting', set up to fail and its done all the time in film and on TV which by the way the major media is very much involved in and is trained in similar techniques. There's no reason for a major media outlet to NOT seek out a sensible "conservative" (whatever that means) genius economics academic and make him into a media pundit, and Krugman, and the mainstream media know this and intentionally avoid doing it.
1
You're making Krugman's point here -- unless you can post us for examples of leftwing commentators suggesting that all manufacturing should be sent overseas, that the country be "flooded" with 2 billion immigrants, or embracing the idea of all Americans making $2 a day, you are exaggerating for effect -- a polite way of saying you're lying, and not very well.
2
That you consider the “left wing” media to be “mainstream” media is further evidence of how far to the right this country has shifted.
1
"There are plenty of neo Marxist left wingers too - who say that the USA will be a Utopia when white people are in the minority, that ALL manufacturing should be sent overseas, that the US should be flooded with 2 billion more immigrants until everyone in the world makes only $2/day so we will all be equally worse off".
Really? Quote me one of these so called Neo-Marxists.
And even if that was the case, I don't see any of them crying because they were booted out of the National Review or The Wall Street Journal. So, thank you for the strawman, but now I need to go burn it in the pile of other ridiculous arguments I have read from people with obvious authoritarian tendencies.
There's no such thing as a "conservative intellectual" anymore, that was the whole point of Krugman's column. I don't think that you brought about any evidence to the contrary, except "the left also does that".
"...while there are many conservative economists with appointments at top universities, publications in top journals, and so on, they have no influence on conservative policymaking."
When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.
2
Conservatives don't exist.
However, cons exist who, under political cover, serve themselves or their funding sources.
I never use the word - 'fraud' is the only printable version.
9
This may be the most arrogant piece I've read to date by Mr. Krugman. It not only completely overstates the issue, but is even more blatantly biased toward liberal economic policy than usual, which unfortunately in its purest form, has consistently led to higher taxes, higher unemployment and weaker job creation. There are plenty of charlatans and cranks in economics (and politics for sure), but also plenty of liberal ones as well as conservative.
Issues, be they economic or political, are neither liberal or conservative. They are problems which need to be addressed, and trying to solve them with either a completely liberal or conservative approach is foolish and unproductive. Our economic problems may appear to be similar (at different times in history), but context must also be factored into potential solutions, i.e., world economy, globalization, technology, etc., meaning that what worked or didn't work before is not the sole predictor of success or failure the next time. Also, execution of policy, as well as unintended consequences, impact results than more the policy employed.
9
Central to Mr Krugman's argument is the claim that influential conservative economists do not admit mistakes (failed predictions). Can you provide counter examples?
17
Indeed, could @Mark In Denver find one right-wing economist who will admit his/her predictions of out-of-control inflation every year for the past decade have been wrong? We may eventually get higher inflation but a stopped clock is right twice a day and it doesn’t take a decade to notice.
13
ADN: Or one place where so-called conservative economic policies have worked. I offer the coasts vs the interior states as examples.
Why, oh why do reasonable people persist in calling the GOP conservative? They have no interest in conserving anything which makes this country great. The health and welfare of the citizenry, our natural resources, public lands, economic opportunity, public education are all worthless to them. The only thing they want to conserve is the wealth of the wealthy and privleged.
24
They call themselves "conservative," they wear it as a badge of honor, and they use "liberal" as a swear word.
Simply put, those on the right want to be told what they want to believe. Those unwilling to supply that need not apply.
Williamson is being cast as a martyr by anti-abortion extremists, including NYT's own Ross Douthat. The Atlantic should have been more careful.
8
I think you could count honest people in the modern right with one hand. They just don't care about reality, honesty, facts or proof. Can anyone cite one example of an economically, socially, and culturally successful nation that is solidly right wing? Authoritarian (i.e. conservative - let's be honest here and admit the two walk hand-in-hand) societies can't live in the truth - they can only survive based on lies. There is no honesty on the right because that would require admitting that sometimes left-leaning policies actually work and lead to prosperity and social equity. The modern right would rather destroy everything than admit that anything but their own dishonest dogma has validity.
16
You don't get tenure unless you pull in grants. Since Nixon's decision to kill off public funding for scientific grants the only source is industry. Administrations, who's main mission, it seems, is to pull in donations and over-charge students for tuition has no trouble forcing professors down the dark path. Hence your problem in economics is the same as chemistry, physics, and my profession, engineering: a failure of the academic feedback loop.
5
Political conservatism is a resistance movement against facts and science. It can only fail.
12
The problem is the extent of the damage done before it’s failure arrives and is accepted as a failure by enough people to get a strong course correction.
2
My only question is why? What's in it for the current "conservatives" in affiliating themselves with the most rebarbative phonies and vicious, unabashed scammers on the planet? Do they really, honestly believe that abasing themselves to hard-hearted plutocrats misleading the gullible masses is good for America? Are Republicans so psychopathic that they don't care what happens to the country and its millions as long as they can prevail and put their collective foot on the neck of a Democrat?
From what I see on Breitbart, the masses are as gulled as they could possibly be. They soothe themselves by hurling abusive language and declaring the most respected media to be pure liars. They must know, at some level, that the scapegoating, unapologetic Koch brothers et al are the real liars, but they don't want to face that truth or admit they were manipulated into voting against their own interests. How frightening all this is!
1
True or False:
Giving tax breaks to the rich provides more jobs and economic growth for the middle and working classes than if taxes are raised on the rich.
Raising taxes on the rich almost always destroys the economy for everyone else.
Climate-change is a hoax, due largely to the 98% of scientists who want to advance their careers by claiming research shows there is climate change that will cause long-term damage to the earth and living things.
We should also strive to be like Kansas, where cutting taxes and education expenditures greatly improved the state's economy and made vast improvements in students' educational performance.
Immigrants do not contribute to the US economy, do not pay hardly any taxes, and they commit far more crimes than US citizens.
De-regulating banking and business greatly boosts the US economy, especially for the middle- and working classes.
Anything the public sector does can be better and more cheaply done by the private sector, especially in the areas of health care and education.
Historians and political scientists agree that in the 20th and 21st centuries, those presidents whose background was in business made the best presidents for our country.
All these statements are absolutely true! Don't believe a word any liberal says ever. They lie all the time and cannot be trusted. Trust us!
Brought to you by The Unicorn Club:
Donald Trump, the GOP, Fox News, and right-wing TV stars and talking-point pundits
20
Krugman is making quite an extreme statement here: he is saying that serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with "real influence" don't exist. I strongly beg to differ.
I am not sure how Krugman is defining "real influence." It seems that he is looking at the world of professional/academic economists and applying what he sees there to the world at large.
Is Krugman saying that all the folks at American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution, Pacific Legal Foundation, etc. are all dishonest cranks? Is he saying that writers like David French, Jonah Goldberg and Rod Dreher are not serious, honest, conservative intellectuals?
Why is it that Ta-Nehisi Coates can make an intellectual case for violence on the issue of responding to police brutality? I admire his writing and I don't think he should be fired by The Atlantic. He has some strong perspectives that I suspect most US police officers would feel concerned about. He has also lived with racism and has some lived experience that compels me to try and understand his views.
Why is Williamson's perspective any different? He was given up for adoption a year before Roe v. Wade. He might not exist if his mom had the option of abortion. He had a hard life. I can understand why he has the perspective that he does on abortion. I don't agree with him and I oppose capital punishment in general.
What if organizations like Media Matters were going after writers with pro-choice views?
8
I don't accept AIE et al as serious academic institutes. Their history and their funding suggest an agenda different from genuine academic inquiry. While they are gifted rhetoricians, their work is not academically or scientifically rigorous. Their conclusions are foregone and their only endeavor is to find ways to buttress those conclusions. Funding source aside, it is conceivable that their "research" could support their foregone conclusions in a rigorous way. IE that the conclusions are actually right. But they, by and large, haven't managed to achieve that. Real academics have shown their conclusions to be wrong far more convincingly.
Dishonest cranks? Hard to say. There are other possible descriptors, and these are people. People are complex in their beliefs and motives. Genuine belief can also be willful ignorance and blindness to contradiction. I expect many of them are gracious in person in spite of their postions.
As for Williamson, you note both that he might not exist had his mother had options, and that he had a hard life. That would seem to suggest another position from the one he seems to have. Also, he would not object to his not existing had he never existed.
I've only read a few articles by him, including his only Atlantic post. Great rhetoric, some great observations, but underneath, some profoundly flawed presumptions. I'm not directly familiar with his most egregious views, but he represents no intellectual challenge to progressive thought.
The GOP wants voodoo priests, not serious economists. Faith-based economics.
6
Saying it like it is! Congratulations Mr. Krugman for holding on to your principles, regardless of the weaknee'd rhetorical responses that you will no matter receive as a result of this truthspeaking.
3
I like the irony of when this column was published, just a few days after Vanity Fair runs a piece on what a circus the New York Times currently is - with younger staff in an uproar, because only Op Ed writers like Krugman get to push an agenda, and upset that the Times is too racist, sexist, and whatever-ist for their tastes. They're so fragile at the Times, that editors are doing open office hours, like in college. What's next, safe spaces?
Meanwhile over at the Atlantic, they've just "de-platformed" a would-be writer because in the past he offended some snowflakes.
And now along comes Paul, here to tell us that it's the right, not the left, that has a problem in the intellectual heft department. All the while, the professional left is acting like a bunch of braying and self-absorbed undergrads.
But what really makes this column such an absurd piece is Paul's contention that ideas on the right are a fantasy. Sure, sure they are. And that's why we have unemployment at 4%, an historically low minority unemployment rate, record breaking market growth, growth in wages, and the same across the world wherever a right leaning program has been implemented.
Meanwhile, what does the left have to show? A bunch of unread copies of Piketty, Venezuela, and a handful of states with junk rated bonds, crippling pension obligations, and more people moving out than moving in because things are that bad.
I think I'll stick with the right's fantasies. They at least line my pocket.
5
So how much pocket lining is needed to buy your vote?
8
I was going to correct the misstatement of facts in your post, but your closing sentence shows it to be unnecessary. Why argue with someone who admits they choose to believe whatever profits him? That person has no credibility and no value in any discussion, except for the fun part where we find out that you aren't rich and, like most Americans, are having your pocket picked by the right wing.
14
You're making the point about intellectual dishonest: everyone knows Trump inherited a strong economy, unlike Obama who was handed an economy in free fall.
10
Right wing politics has become a religious cult with policies that are articles of faith and a support base heavily dependent on religious minds for votes.
The trouble with religious minds is that they have typically spent a lifetime rationalising the world based on fairy tale ideas that simply are not true.
Why treat economics any differently ?
14
About two years ago there was the following article NYTimes: "How Donald Trump Bankrupted His Atlantic City Casinos, but Still Earned Millions." Just replace "His Atlantic City Casinos" with "the United States" and you have the likely end result of this presidency.
11
Rules of the game:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/us/politics/federal-deficit-tax-cuts-...
April 9, 2018
Federal Deficit Projected to Top
$1 Trillion by 2020
By THOMAS KAPLAN
The new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office takes into account the cost of the sweeping tax cuts that Republicans in Congress passed last year.
4
One solution to the quest for diversity, one which Mr. Krugman seems to feel, is not worthy to even be considered, would be to hire a columnist from the Direction That Dare Not Be Named--that is, Leftward.
In the 2016 Democratic primaries, a self identified Socialist, Senator Sanders, gets millions of votes for President. Public opinion polls show youth these days in particular are supportive of Socialism.
Why is it so completely impossible for the mainstream media to give the non capitalist view even one voice?
5
NYT should Stop trying to negotiate with the Tribal Right. That protected clan could care less what moderates think/want/need. Let's head farther leftward and amplify/explore the message that galvanized Bernie voters.
Reality has a liberal bias whether conservatives want to admit it or not. By that I mean it helps to keep an open mind. And too many on the far right prefer dogma to an attempt to understand things. Their facts are everyone's facts even if those facts are wrong.
9
While I no economics professor of my acquaintance would deem the likes of Larry Kudlow a peer, there nonetheless are conservatives of some academic distinction to be found. Did Dr. Krugman really intend to suggest that at institutions such as the University of Chicago there are no sound economists of the Chicago school left?
3
No; he in fact acknowledges as much in the article. He does, however, point out that these legitimate conservative economists have had a decreasing role in conservative economic policy, to the point that it is now almost nonexistent.
21
Also, nitpick:
"As others have pointed out, the real problem here is that media organizations are looking for unicorns: serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence. Forty or fifty years ago, such people did exist."
Did they really, though? As you note, the initial "useful challenge to Keynesianism" went off the rails pretty quickly, and I'd argue the same was true in politics as in economics. I think when we miss the good old days when there were people across the aisle who could be reasoned with, what we're missing isn't a time when conservatives were more serious and honest. It's simply a time when Republicans were less conservative.
Conservatives - Taft, McCarthy, Goldwater, not to mention "intellectuals" like Robert Welch and William F. Buckley - were always exactly what they are now: authoritarian worshipers of money and power hellbent on burning everything democratic about this country to the ground.
8
I’m not sure how much influence liberal economists had in the Obama Administration, even as they remained loyal to the Democratic Party.
2
People often talk about things that have nothing to do with what they are really talking about.
1
Thank you. I keep telling people that if William F. Buckley was alive today he would either be a Democratic or go into hiding.
4
No, William Buckley would be the wild radical of old.
1
I don’t agree with Kevin Williamson’s position on abortion, but it’s hard to believe that he was seriously advocating for the hanging of women who get them. When was the last execution in this country that even used that method? It seems far more likely he was flippantly using hyperbole to provoke liberals on the other side of the debate, a stupid move that certainly backfired big time. I’d never even read a column of his before his hiring by the Atlantic stirred up such a controversy. And, given the pile up of criticism, I was surprised to find , for the most part, an observant, witty, and reasonable commentator, even if you don’t agree with him; it became understandable why Jeffrey Goldberg had decided to hire him. Nor do I think that the Right has a monopoly of cranks and dishonest argument. I lean left myself, and subscribe to the Times, but some of the Op Eds I read in the opinion pages here seem as guilty of it. I respect Mr. Krugman, but I think he overstates the case here.
4
let’s go with your hypothesis, that threatening to hang women was hyperbole. As opposed to what? I suppose “kill them by lethal injection” just doesn’t have the rhetorical punch.
And substitute another group — threaten to hang African-Americans, say, for exercising their constitutional rights....
Yeah. Not a good look.
3
This is the gnome who believes that obama's lackluster barely 2% growth over 8 years was solid, and a reason to follow his economic prescriptions. There are plenty of scholarly conservative economists, Krugman just does not know who they are because he lives in his own liberal economic bubble. Thomas Sowell is just one who comes to mind.
3
So I suppose you're Trump supporter, and now consider this same 2% economic growth an absolutely wonderful result of the Trump presidency ... ?
As to Thomas Sowell: if you want to refute Krugman's point, could you please show which conservative media regularly consult him and how he's being taken seriously by the Trump administration and invited regularly by the GOP in order to shape their economic policies?
Finally, I hope you didn't forget that he's a Libertarian, whereas the GOP today doesn't have anything to do with Libertarianism anymore (as Rand Paul may confirm)?
6
Nice try, but you blew it with the insult in the first sentence. And no, Sowell is no better than the rest of them--as his blind defense of tax cuts shows. But it's nice that you could name one. That's a start.
I love how conservatives cite Obama 'over 8 years' ignoring that Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression and, of course, he wasn't able to fix it immediately.
Here's Obama's second term GDP:
2012 4.1
2013 3.3
2014 4.4
2015 4.0
I would wager that Trump's 4 years will be worse (trade wars, wars, deficits, etc.).
6
Conservative talk radio - Limbaugh and his ilk - figured out in the late 80s that dishonest and demonizing the left earned them good ratings - and they didn't have to deal with the real-world and political consequences of their divisive and hard-line nonsense. After 35 years, their rhetoric has become the perceived "reality" of the right, and any honesty that counters the rhetoric is unacceptable - especially in right-wing media figures. The more visible, the more they have to toe the line, and the greater the backlash for crossing it.
14
How correct you are, Paul. The Adel Stevensons of the world are no longer. "Honest Politics" is an oxymoron as is "Conservative Intellectual".
The sycophant talking heads of Fox are a disgrace to journalism and a waste of air time and electric power. They are the worst of the pandering propagandists, and they know, and they get well-paid for it!
Their vicious, brainless attacks are reminiscent of a schoolyard bully (read "Trump") trying to force his warped desires upon weaker kids.
Michael Bloomberg, Walter Cronkite, Winston Churchill, and yes, Barack Obama, are examples that today's irresponsible "Trumplicans" abhor because they are afraid of the truth.
7
I suppose that the only thing the conservatives would like is for the the entire country to emulate Kansas and then wait for the greatness of our country to recur. Note that we have started but the outlook isn't good (see Kansas).
1
The basic problem is that conservatives love tax cuts and hate anything remotely resembling downward redistribution of wealth. So even if they do honest research with the earnest intention of maintaining academic integrity, they figure they must have missed something if it tells them the solution is raising taxes and spending.
9
The top 20% are currently paying 87% of this country's federal tax burden.
Pray tell, how much more of a portion do you think we should pay and redistribute downward? 90%? 95%? 99%?
Where does the taxing and spending end?
1
Taxing and spending ends when you don't have a government anymore and want to go back to the "you're all on your own" law of the jungle, remember?
As to the top 20% paying 87% of federal taxes: to know whether that's too much or not, you have to put these numbers into context, and answer the following questions:
- how much of this country's wealth do they possess?
- how does this hurt or benefit the other 80%?
- how much wealth do the 1% possess, compared to the other 19%, and what's their share in taxes?
- what is it that we want to do collectively and how much does that cost?
Without such a context, those numbers don't mean anything.
1
The top 20% also control over 90% of the wealth, so they actually shoulder LESS than their share of the tax burden. Statistics are easy to manipulate, especially if you don't pay attention to the underlying realities they abstract.
1
Thank you for making the point that this applies broadly to public life and governance as well as to economics. I have pointed out the economic and governance differences between California, where I live, and somewhere like Kansas. The response I get from conservatives is either silence, or quickly changing the subject to point out (usually in an exaggerated fashion) some of the problems California does have. Anything to avoid the reality of Kansas' failure or California's reasonable success and the policy differences that led to each.
There is no longer much interest in truth. People want something to be angry about and someone to blame for their problems, even if it's part of a lie that will harm them. And today's conservatives are happy to deliver just that.
17
If Liberalism is Progressive,
then Conservatism is Regressive.
There are no Conservative Intellectuals anymore.
Hayek was wrong:
ALL roads lead to serfdom,
if you don't pay attention
to where you are going.
And where you have been.
The media Conservatives
have become 'opinion pimps'.
They'll sell you any opinion you want.
And you can do whatever you want with it.
But you'll pay the price.....
.
2
Republicans who grew up with Eisenhower, Ford, or George H. W. Bush must recognize that the party they once admired is now dead, or in a deep coma.
6
Larry Kudlow is a likeable but one act pony. Trickle down economics has been a failed policy no matter how nice the presenter.
15
Might as well put a subheading on this: "The End is Nigh."
Since we have essentially half the people in the country listening and the representatives developing policy based on charlatans and cranks, there can be no long term fix. Economic damage is much more difficult to repair--and at greater cost--than keeping policy changes moderate and reasonable.
And there is not a wisp of caring from the GOP on how the supply-side nonsense has continually failed--ever. The CBO has recently stated the increased deficits...and they are likely to be higher than expected.
9
How about news organizations hire 3 commentators to balance opinions instead of unicorns. 1 liberal, 1 old school conservative, and 1 idiot. They should then announce them as such. "...and now let's get the idiot's take on Trump's latest move..." Sad that of the three, it is the idiot view that is influential.
19
The "Movement" conservatives have won the struggle for GOP control.
Movement conservatism started in the 1950s, and was never taken all that seriously by what was mostly a fiscally conservative, and socially liberal (more than Democrats at the time, overall) Republican party. It included quacks and charlatans like Phyllis Schlafly and the John Birch Society. These folks were for the most part considered nutters in their day. They had little broader partisan support.
The 1970s brought the alliance with the religious right and began to legitimize the movement within the GOP.
The 1980s brought Reagan's "happy face" conservatism to the masses. It was a milder form of the populism we are now experiencing. 1987 gave us the elimination of the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting and the Movement conservatives took to the airwaves.
In 1994, "Movement" conservatives took over the GOP in one fell swoop under Newt.
The GOP lost its collective mind in 2010 with the Tea Party takeover. Movement conservatism = GOP. Everyone else is a RINO.
Trump and his unscientific brood of a cabinet, as well as an inept and dangerously fact disregarding congress now defines the GOP.
20
don't forget to mention:
as a result of Johnson's voting and civil rights suppport, and Nixon's shrewd politicking, all the reactionary Southern bigots fled the Democrats and joined forces with the Republicans, bringing a distinctly Southern drawl to Republicanism ever since.
I can't get past the opening bias in Krugman's article. Continue to show your ignorance by saying the only smart/rational people are democrats, and keep denigrating those who disagree with you. See where that gets you in 2020.
1
Opening remarks are merely formulating the thesis an author will defend through arguments during the rest of his op-ed, remember?
So if you disagree, it's not enough to reject that thesis itself as "bias", you'll still have to give arguments refuting Krugman's arguments, you see?
Without arguments, you're merely proving Krugman's point: today right-wing supporters reject everything that they disagree with in a totally irrational way, i.e. without giving any arguments proving that they'd be right...
12
When is the truth "bias"?
Now saying such things may not be "politically wise," but many Democrats need to hear the truth to keep the faith in their ideals and not wander into over compromising. Then they don’t appear to be any different than the Republicans and can be dismissed under the rubric of electing a "real Republican," rather than someone who can effect needed and DESIRED change.
1
Given that Krugman's article begins by criticizing "Atlantic," and then goes on to point out that there used to be a number of intelligent, thoughtful, honest conservatives, I'd say that if he HAD said all y'all are dumb as posts (which he did not), he would have a point.
1
When you don't have a good argument, go after the source. That has been the Republican leadership plan for decades. The mainstream media has been beaten down by these focused attack policies.
Every criticism of this far right messaging is always modified with "Democrats (or liberals) do it, too." Bringing on the charlatan conservative voices is just another way of saying the same thing - we were shutting out these people and now we are admitting to our bias.
The reality is that the mainstream media, labelled by their enemies as liberal, actually do a pretty good job of presenting both sides within bringing in extreme views. After all liberal does mean open-minded which translates to everyone has their own ideas and discussions get messy.
The problem is that the listener or reader on both sides of the divide is so focused on one point of view, that they miss the nuances in the fair and balanced discussions that present facts and knowledge. A conservative thinking person would probably miss the good sense in Krugman's column being too busy hating the message. A liberal leaning reader might miss Krugman's critique of those times when media introduce opposing views just for the kudos but are too scared by the liberal labelling to call out misinformation and extreme hate infused opinions as responsible journalism should.
Liberals are allowing the far right to set the agenda.
4
What you describe seems similar to the challenge of finding an accomplished and serious scientist who does not accept evolution. In other words, it's not that there's no room for a diversity of views amongst scholars, but rather at some point the data either render a particular claim or argument obsolete (for instance creationism or supply-side economics) or a and/or some other claim clearly becomes fact (evolution or the value of investing in social programs). Many people have been saying that U.S. colleges and universities suffer from a liberal bias. But another possibility is that becoming skilled at reasoning, and acquiring a great deal of information, brings you, inevitably, to embrace core progressive ideas. It's not that you have to be liberal to survive as a scholar, it's that knowledge makes you liberal.
29
Except that conservative philosophy has always been one of the most important and respectable political philosophies out there, and never ever before defined itself as an ideology that would reject all science that doesn't correspond to that ideology.
It's only once conservative philosophy was replaced by neoconservatism as "ideology" (= a fixed number of ideas which are supposed to be eternally true), that it became anti-science, and as a consequence, science itself became something only non conservatives were still interested in.
That's why it's correct to say that there no longer are any right-wing intellectuals.
An intellectual takes proven facts as the very basis for his philosophical statements and ideas, contrary to an ideologue, who considers his doctrine to be some kind of religion which you either adhere to or not, and if you don't you're an "evil" person ...
14
se: "... another possibility is that becoming skilled at reasoning, and acquiring a great deal of information, brings you, inevitably, to embrace core progressive ideas."
You need to give some specific examples of "progressive ideas".
Anyway, no amount of facts and reasoning will overcome the laws of economics and thermodynamics.
Well, if by "liberal" you mean "aware of complexity and ambiguity" and "willing to consider different points of view", then yes. But of course no matter much you try and practice this type of thinking, there will always be a conservative around to accuse you of being close-minded.
3
Dr. K' I wish you would describe this Navarro who is apparently running Trump's trade war. Is there enough out there about his views to characterize them?
4
"Dr. K' I wish you would describe this Navarro ..."
Krugman did that here:
Springtime for Sycophants
By Paul Krugman
March 12, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/opinion/trump-trade-peter-navarro.html
7
I'm still waiting for the honest broker to come along to provide cogent illumination of "Trumpism."
Right now it seems there are only two people with enough stature to even attempt an explanation of it: the president himself and Roseanne Barr.
2
Depending on the definition of "stature," maybe.
But do they know how to do it without exposing their clay feet?
What had this to do will Williamson. He simply holds a position on abortion and follows it through to its obvious conclusion.
As Krugman explained: his "obvious conclusion" is morally reprehensible, that's why he was fired, and yet conservative media claim that he was fired simply for being a conservative, which is a lie, you see?
14
His position fails to take in myriad negative consequences of banning legal abortions, so his conclusion is biased and therefore false.
Far right news makes a bundle by pitching liars promoting what far right zealots want to hear as the experts peers in their fields of expertise are trying to censor due to supposed liberal bias. The fact that the vast majority of experts and most if not all peer reviewed journals reject those right-wing theories and projections doesn't register at all. Instead the response is to attack higher education as having an unfair liberal bias. In reality critical thinking simply exposes these right-wing media pundits as the charlatans they are.
8
I recall one of my economics profs telling we undergrads that an economist can keep on beating the data until it tells him or her whatever their pre-conceived predilection was. The problem is that the supply side theory only works in theory - it has never worked in the real world. The Donald and his chosen unicorns just don't care - they just want policies that further enrich themselves - let the people eat cake!
13
I think the actual problem with supply-side is that it HAS worked in the short, and then sputtered out and created deficits. So, its defenders can always argue a kernel of truth about it....
1
Dr Krugman and Socrates here in the comment section have detailed how good old Larry who got in on the ground floor in the early days of CNBC still remains the same wide pinstripes and lapel huckster and snake oil salesman he has been for decades. That Trump, the first pajama wearing, TV watching, illiterate nit wit child president could be drawn in by Kudlow's marketing scam just as he has suckered people in on his fake Trump University scam shows how hucksters have a special affinity for becoming victims of their fellow scam artists. These people are not in the scientific tradition of the pursuit of the truth. They should not be given an audience in educated society. Increasingly these frauds need to be sniffed out and denounced and their public megaphone promptly taken away
15
You had me until "in educated society". Its conservative TV, remember?
But maybe they just recognize the grifter aspect of each other and have decided to team up?
2
The word politics comes from the Greek word, polis, which means community.
Politics, or government, is how communities function. By claiming to be anti-government and pro-community conservatism shows just how empty and self-serving the conservatives’ intellectual argument really is.
What ideas from Conservatism have helped move America forward? When has the modern Republican Party ever represented or promoted the interests of poor and middle class Americans?
Nostalgia about the past, wishful thinking about the future and failure to connect the two with attention to substance, do not make or define intellectual or political arguments.
14
"As others have pointed out, the real problem here is that media organizations are looking for unicorns: serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence. Forty or fifty years ago, such people did exist. But now they don’t. To understand why, let me talk about what I know: the field of economics."
The field that I know is that of philosophy.
2,500 years ago, Plato invented a totally new way of thinking, which he called "philosophizing", in contrast to what he called "doxophily", the love of "opinions". The difference?
A philosophical "idea" (and at the time, so before the invention in the 16th century of experimental science, philosophy and science were synonyms) is an idea that has been proven to be true, whereas an opinion feels as if it's true and may actually be true, but hasn't been proven to be true.
Knowing that politics is a human activity where we decide things about the future knowing that certain consequences can be scientifically predicted and others not, we need a political philosophy, in other words, a conception of what we want to achieve and why, based on proven truths but going beyond them.
In the 1970s, however, neoconservatism was founded, based on the idea that conservatism as political philosophy cannot possibly be proven to be true, and as a consequence conservative politicians ... need to suscite conservative "sentiments" in order to get elected.
THAT's when the right started to reject science as basis for its philosophy.
7
The way to understand the right wing in America today is to realize that it is no longer a political movement -- it is a cult. And as in any cult, there is a "correct" answer for any given political, economic, or social question, which is not necessarily based on evidence or even considered opinion. Since the correct answer is settled doctrine, it cannot be seriously questioned if you wish to remain in the cult. At that point, it becomes impossible to even consider that what you believe might be wrong, even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary.
23
You're describing religion.
5
IMHO there are few differences between a devout political and devout religious person. Both adhere to their beliefs regardless of facts.
I was waiting in vain for this columnist's admission list.
Was he the one who predicted that the Stock Market would collapse and stay collapse upon
Trump's election ?
1
Yup. Same guy who also ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG when FACTS proved him so. Get the difference? Or do you want to keep hammering on the error when Krugman’s reaction to making an error proves his point.
9
He actually predicted something more specific: that IF Trump would start to enact his economic campaign agenda, less than a year later the US economy would go into a recession.
So what happened?
For more than a year, Trump didn't even think about economics, let alone sign bills into law that reflected his campaign proposals.
It's only now that he starts to TALK about them again, and he only recently installed a first (and relatively limited) tariff increase.
Many people didn't read Krugman carefully on election night though (including Trump, obviously), and thought that he was saying that it would happen overnight and no matter WHAT Trump would do as president.
That's why he IMMEDIATELY afterwards clarified his words, and apologized for not having been clear enough. And "immediately" means: already the next day, and more than a year before all of a sudden Trump proposed to consider his op-ed "fake news".
Not only wasn't it "news" (= reporting an already happened fact) but an opinion piece, it was also an opinion piece about a future that still had to happen, AND was based on certain conditions - one of them being that Trump would immediately do what he told us he'd do. But then he didn't ...
So that's why you're waiting in vain, NOT because somehow Krugman would do himself what he blames right-wing economists for, you see?
In case you'd maintain that he actually does the same thing: any concrete arguments?
7
He admitted that he'd been mistaken about that. And that is his point: "Liberal economists have made plenty of bad predictions – if you never get it wrong, you’re not taking enough risks – but have generally been willing to admit to and learn from mistakes, and have rarely been sycophants to people in power."
Right-wing pundits rarely admit they were mistaken.
9
I think this is your best column ever since you began calling out the Republican economists for their inflation scaring.
4
When it comes to the GOP, garbage in means garbage out.
With Reagan, the GOP discovered that their base loved the "Big Lie". They simply can't get enough of it. What the GOP didn't realize until Trump was the extent of their voters capacity for listening to, digesting, and then regurgitating massive lies as if they were the truth.
When you can get people to say things that they themselves know are lies, as if they're the truth, you've got 'em.
Trump is a non-stop pathological lying machine. And his base adores that about him.
They would probably even go so far as to say that his constant lying, "just proves he's telling the truth!"
"Lower taxes and small government will solve everything!". And no amount of facts, history, logic, intelligence, analysis, or reason will convince them otherwise. For the right wing ideologue, reality itself has become a "hoax" foisted on them by the "fake media".
It's not just ignorance, it's willful ignorance on steroids.
12
"Willful ignorance on steroids.." so sad, and so true. Another reason we must continue to fight for public education. Demand our state government fully fund it, volunteer, and vote for school bonds in your community. We often hear only the worst stories, but I see amazing learning happening for my kids and their peers (middle and high school). By teaching kids to think independently, question and become lifelong learners we empower future generations to shape America into the ideal that many of us strive for it to be. First, we have to equip them with a strong education in civics, history, science, humanities and beyond. More shepherds, fewer sheep.
2
Mr. Krugman - you might want to get in touch with my brother (literally) Jeffrey Alan Miron at Harvard/Cato to get the thoughtful opinions of a independent-minded, intellectually honest, economic conservative.
2
DOCTOR Krugman's point was that such folks have no influence on today's Republicans.
6
Once you allow your partisan nature to take over your ability to make reasoned policy decisions, you may as well be lacking in intellectual ability. No one demonstrates this better to me than Paul Krugman, though not for the reasons he thinks...
It would be nice if you could cite a specific example to support your argument
2
So ... you claim to support "reasoned" policy decisions but then blame Krugman for not doing so, all while ... giving no reasons/arguments at all ... ?
That seems to perfectly prove Krugman's point here, no?
4
'Conservative intellectual' is an oxymoron in this country.
14
You can add Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982) to the list of cranks and charlatan favorites of the laissez faire conservative economic club. Rand, who wrote such virulent works as "The Virtues of Selfishness", "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal" and "Philosophy: Who Needs It"; but also wrote "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" is required reading for any new employee in Paul Ryan's office. Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve under George W. Bush up to the days of the Great Recession (2008), also worshipped the economic theories of Ayn Rand.
Alan Greenspan said about his laissez faire policies that led to the Great Recession, "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
Ayn Rand constructed her entire career as a writer and philosopher as an opponent of unions, Roosevelt's New Deal, social security, and unemployment insurance, that she called an immoral redistribution of wealth. Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan and laisses faire conservative economists believe that as long as capital is growing, and wages are not, the economy will be just fine.
13
Which goes on to show that there's a horrible crisis of philosophy in the US today.
Being a philosopher, for 2,500 years, meant developing a new way of thinking in such a way that you integrate the latest scientific advancements into the development of concepts that answer questions that go beyond what can be scientifically proven.
Plato already showed us how to distinguish a philosopher from an opinion maker or "doxophile": the latter doesn't care about proven truths at all, and is only passionate about trying to make as many people take for granted what you yourself believe to be true, whereas the former has a "terrible love of the truth" - scientifically PROVEN truth, that is.
So once you remember the very definition of philosophy, as invented by its founder, Ayn Rand obviously isn't a philosopher AT ALL ...
1
The Republican party is no longer a party of conservatives or conservative thinking. It is a party of radical right-wing fabulists with no conception or respect for economic theory or constitutional tradition.
If anything other than this were true, then the GOP would by now have paid attention to the practical consequences of ITS trickle-down theorizing. Apparently, most Americans don't care.
With support from professionally-vetted economists, Republicans would be tweaking their failed ideas in order to come up with policy formulations backed by at least a faint shred of scholarly conservative integrity.
7
Thomas Sowell never served in government to my knowledge. And perhaps Mr. Krugman thinks of him as more of a sociologist, but there is no question that he has had a great deal of influence on Republican thinkers. George Schulz back in the day was also someone, who was considered maybe not an important academic, but he did hold prestigious positions and he certainly had a great deal of influence. Way more than Mr. Krugman, whose main contribution I would think has been to convince those on the Left that free trade should be a default policy, hardly some great insight. I am not aware that his ideas on urban economics have affected anyone other than other academics. Elinor Ostrom, by the way, on the center right, obviously affected the way a lot of people thought about managing semi-public goods, and specifically the limits of government.
2
I do not understand what is so tricky about KRugman's saying that in the past, such intellectuals influenced Republicans, but they no longer do.
5
The problem isn't with conservative economists longing for the gold stand. It is with conservatism itself trying to return us to an ideal world that never existed, the core ideal of their fraudulent faith. Of course there would remain the political pundits getting rents for malarkey and the dopes that listen to them.
9
There are no unicorns, there is no pie in the sky, an apocalypse will be man made and there will be no four horsemen.
The America that came to be at the end of the enlightenment did not believe in miracles and wonders it believed in science, the Creator's universe followed only one law the law of science. Jefferson, Franklin , Monroe and Paine were Deists. Their universe was billions of years old and change took place over time. Their universe did not countenance miracles.
There was no voo-doo that made America great it was the 92% income tax paid by America's most fortunate. It was the colleges and universities that educated our best and brightest regardless of their station in life. It was the infrastructure built to connect a vast rich country that built the greatest economy the world had ever known and a military that has the capacity to blow up the planet.
A conservative intellectual would know it was taxes and a plan for the future that built the greatest economic and military power the world has ever known. A conservative would know that voodoo economics and low taxes are not conservative and not intellectual. They are wishing and hoping that a strategy of watching the world go by will somehow make a deity who does not exist will intervene to save us from ourselves.
The bible tells us God did not build an ark Noah did! The bible is allegory not history. The Book of Revelations is not prophecy it is someone's wish that our Deity was a magician not a scientist..
17
Upton Sinclair neatly summed up the driving force behind the conservative Unicornism:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The funding ecosystem of "conservative" economics is wholly dependent upon the largess of the Koch brothers and their ideological brethren on the right.
Conservative economists who preach the anti-tax gospel of David, Charles and Sheldon are rewarded with cushy contracts, endowments and positions at places like the AEI, the Hudson Institute and the fittingly named "Hoover" Institute.
Their concern and opposition to taxation begins and ends with the taxes that are most likely to hit America's plutocrats--income taxes and (at a state and local level) property taxes.
This isn't about intellectual rigor, honesty or integrity.
It's about keeping their seats on the conservative gravy train.
Where the wheels are made out of biscuits and bromides.
13
Given how the definition of conservative has changed so radically in the last 50 years, maybe we should stop using the term conservative economist and not use conservative as an adjective (or liberal).
3
"Hang 'em High" Kev at least brings into focus the Libertarian POV that they proclaimed in their "Platform".
On the matter of abortion they slyly smirk and shrug that matters of abortion will be left up to "local standards".
Now we know what those "local standards" are: Hang any woman who wants/has an abortion.
That's pretty simple. Clear-cut. Direct.
No more being cutesy or evasive: The Libertarian Party is no place for a lady. "Her" body belongs to the local neighborhood men. She will be Platonic and "Do as she is told" and if not, she will be hung.
As far as I can discern, Paul, the ideology of the Republicans has been out-sourced to the Libertarians and the Libertarians have mutually out-sourced their concept of legal process to the evangelical right (which is 99% of the Republican Party, and, yes, I include all of the female Republicans in this division of labor. Why in this world any woman would be either a Republican or a Libertarian is a mystery to me. Perhaps, like trump, they are functionally illiterate...?)
So, there we are. "Hang 'Em" Kev has intellectually retreated, not to the "Dark Ages" but all the way back to the "Odyssey" where, in typical 'housecleaning' all of the maids in Odysseus' home are hung, a neat little line of them, hanging like a row of blackbirds, awaiting the returning warrior, their dead toes barely brushing the dirt.
I haven't a doubt that every Republican and Libertarian read that line years ago and thought, "Wow, COOL, let's do it!"
8
The problem is that the nominally centrist media has embraced conservative economists like Larry Summers whole hog. If you want to define yourself as more conservative than the already-conservative "center" you don't have much choice but to go full-on crazy.
4
Please call free-market trickledown fundamentalism what it is: a religion. Rigid cognitive certainty and the social destruction that results from it are found in all types of religious fundamentalist groups-- Islamic, Jewish, Christian, etc. Economic fundamentalism may pose an even greater risk to the survival of our species than the other kinds.
8
So with Kudlow and Bolton on Trump's team we'll either have a trade war or a real war or both.
9
To paraphrase: "They can't handle the truth."
9
One needs to go down a level to understand why Conservatives keep pushing failed policies. In their minds, they don't want their "hard earned dollars" given to people looking for handouts. They focus on the very small percentage of disadvantaged people who do cheat the system instead of focusing on what's moral and ethical to do in a free, wealthy economy. So it's "give me my money back because I don't want to share with abusive welfare moms."
14
Yes but they have no problem with abusive billionaires who are gaming the system as long as they are white and male. They are racists bigots and misogynists.
5
Perhaps, if news organizations went ahead and hired conservative thinkers who have, in fact, retained their principles — even if those thinkers are not seen as having any sway over the GOP — intelligent conservative thought could eventually gain some traction, once again. Yes, this would be a risk for news outlets, but maybe it would be a risk worth taking, for the Common Good.
6
News organizations should stop calling reactionaries "conservatives".
8
Conservatism has collapsed. Now the would-be spokespeople like Williamson, and moreover, several members of the Times's shamefully weak Op Eds roster, are there simply to play Costello to the Left's Abbott. It's inexcusable and irresponsible. All their nonsensical teleologies circle back on themselves. The writers are curiosities whose only remaining value is to provoke the Reader Comments, which unfailingly call it out when the Emperor is naked.
Williamson isn't a victim at all. Neither is Ingraham. Neither are Brooks and Douthat. Neither are Hewitt and Rogers and every other shill whose pose of rationale and rigor was ripped apart by Trumpism, the only true Conservatism left; and "true" doesn't mean factual or provable or even conservative. True Conservatism now is just a foul mood. True Conservatives have nothing else to show, and column inches to fill. No wonder they're a waste of time.
21
This is just another front on which Republicans act in bad faith. Their voting base will destroy democracy and cheer while they do it. Democrats can't win, people are just too stupid.
9
Depressingly brilliant distillation.
5
It makes no difference what party name or political label you use,Mr Krugman,to define the 1% financier exploitation of the debt capitalist American economy.
Obama your "liberal" turned the economy over to Rubin and his Wall Street buddies.Don the Con ,"populist conservative" gave the economy and Treasury to Cohn and Mnuchin of Goldman Sachs et al.
Both Republicans and Democrats are captives of an "elitist economics" which sucks money out of the economy,without providing any REAL contribution to gdp or economic growth.........The profits ALWAYS float to the top ,like cream on milk,designed for,continuos skimming by the 1% !
Real wages and income for the "working" 95% have been on a downslide for decades........but growth has been spectacular for the 1% and their "associate 1% wannabe" layer......another 3 or 4%.
Both so called neo-liberal and conservative politicians have now been "convinced" by lobbyists that Wall Street ,banks,and corporate financiers have the best solutions for economic policy....than the Federal government,which is NOW considered ,an obstacle and BRAKE for corporate profits.......instead of being the protector and representative of the 95% in America .....against the "aristocrats and monarchists".....as designed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights !
Economics which looks for "unicorns" as solutions.........is as valid as the Oracle at Delphi !
3
When some of your largest funders are the likes of the ultra-libertarian Kochs and their network of donors, all your economists had better sing the praises of low taxes and small government, historical accuracy be damned.
7
Dispassionate discussion of paying off of Republican big contributors was not an option. A huge corporate tax cut no matter the consequences for the US finances had to be passed. Fairness be damned. Corporate tax cheats had to be able to come in from the cold. The clever Rs even came up with a way to punish taxpayers in Blue states. The spending averse Republicans whether it be for disaster relief or infrastructure repair would turn it down if Obama and the Democrats proposed it. Now its borrow and spend.
9
No one is perfect. We simply need to do the "homework" before we make a choice. Even then, there is no 100% right.
1
i became aware of the intellectual bankruptcy of conservative "economic" thinkers back in the 1970's, while engaged in appellate litigation for the department of justice. we wrote appellate briefs that had to be reviewed (and signed) by the solicitor general's office, then run by robert bork. too often, that office insisted that we change the "facts" section of briefs to match the legal theories being espoused by bork. the problem was, consistently, that the "facts" we were instructed to include were contradicted by the actual trial records. bork's solution: prohibit senior trial counsel (who were familiar with trial records) from attending these meetings, where briefs were discussed.
the same approach followed right wing economists into the reagan 1980's, especially in antitrust law, but unfortunately by that time the court was being filled with reagan justices, who chose to adopt right wing theories, regardless of contradictory evidence.
we suffer from some of those results even today, and the same pattern persists: right wing economists deductively reason downward from political theory to proposed factual pronouncements, even when those facts have been repeatedly disproven.
19
What Krugman and many of the posters below miss is that there is value in good acerbic writing. H.L. Mencken who died in the 1950's is one of my all time favorite literary intellectuals. By today's standards of social thought was he a misogynistic racist? Oh, yes. But his written perceptions of political actors of the teen's and 20's was usually on the mark and very funny to read; even today.
I'm not at all familiar with Williamson's output and I would be surprised if the quality of it rose to the level of a Mencken. However, I believe Americans who appreciate good writing should be able to see in a publication like The Atlantic whether his ability to inform and entertain redeems his unpopular and grimy views.
1
It's kind of hard to have public intellectuals on the right when the underlying goals or principles of the party are either furthering a reactionary, xenophopic, racist, anti-feminist agendy (the rank and file followers of the right) or acquisition of money and power (the people at the top of the right). There are no intellectual frameworks in any discipline which can justify the ignorance and evil perpetrated by the masses or that can align with maximizing power and wealth for those at the top. Reason may not be inherently liberal, but if the right has abandoned all principles, it will always oppose true intellectual discourse.
14
Perhaps more importantly, the Republican Party is anti-intellectual and anti-science.
As as consequence, I know of very, very few fellow "hard scientists" - in Krugman's phrase to are Republicans anymore.
7
Dr. Krugman, with all due respect, the danger from the right is not legitimizing charlatans and cranks. The danger is their legitimization of homicidal sociopaths and psychopaths.
Kevin Williamson has identified women who undergo abortions, as well as those performing abortions, as murderers who should be prosecuted, as well as an appropriate punishment: "hanging". According to the Guttmacher Institute, one in 4 women under age 45 has or will have an abortion in their lifetimes.
So should we imprison and execute 1 in 4 women under 45? Under the influence of such grotesquely false statements widely disseminated on right-wing traditional and social media, how many might choose to pursue such "enforcement" on their own? Remember the upstanding citizen who walked in shooting at a Washington pizzeria in response to the tweets from General Flynn's son that Hilary Clinton and the Democrats were running a child sex slavery ring from said pizzeria?
Are mainstream conservatives willing to risk being painted by the same brush and destroying what legitimate and constructive positions that they have by not speaking out against such ignorant and malicious pronouncements from the far right?
13
Any society that values belief and faith over reason, logic, critical thought and scientific inquiry is ripe for the taking by the cranks and charlatans. To go one step further, any society that sees belief and faith as virtues instead of hazardous shortcomings is going to have issues like trickle down economics and climate change denial, just two examples of belief/faith based societies.
13
I'm surprised people can't see the long-game Trump is playing.
As one who has always been service oriented - only wanting the best for his family, friends, workers, and so on - it is obvious that, as a life-long Democrat, he felt, as Bernie would say, "Enough is enough."!
He saw correctly how "W" lied us into Iraq, and started calculating what it would take to destroy the Republican party, and even more important, to make the whole world see how dangerous modern conservatism is.
He realized that, with no political experience, he could not possibly fool the Democrats. So he came up with the birther idea to attract the craziest of the conservatives.
Next, he would run on Left-wing ideas (fair trade, come down hard on illegal immigrants, etc) which are very popular and so would easily beat all his opponents in the primaries.
Finally, given his mastery of the media, he knew he would squeak through in the 2016 general election.
Next, he had to scale back his left wing ideas and spend the first year making mainstream Republicans think he was really one of them. So of course, he had to go through with the utterly insane tax cut program.
Now that the base is behind him, he is once again going back to fair trade and other positions which are anathema to the Republican congress.
They're now in a double bind - they can't escape their past and can't go against Trump
And now Frank Luntz says the Republicans will lose the house and senate.
Genius! Republican party destroyed!
1
No - it's a cute concept, but really T* is not that smart. I do think Republicans have totally lost their way - combine most of the comments here & you have the big picture.
2
I must disagree. While there may be an attempt by someone to destroy the Republican Party, Trump's long-term game seems to go as far as when his next feeding will be.
Having assisted in pre-diluvial times editing a prestigious social science journal for almost five years, I am a little wary of ascribing lack of intellectual rigor and honesty to conservatives only. Being human, not only scientists with deep (left or right) political convictions, even in a priori a-political research many scientists are so married to their pet theses that they resort to all sorts of intellectual acrobatics before ceding a point.
Obviously, there are differences of degree but lately I do have the impression that on the right ideologues have taken over. Rewards and sanctions for scientists have never been free of of fads and ideological outlook (you got to work the disease into the title if you ask for grants in basic organic chemistry) but lately, the corrosion of the economic science by rightist ideology and its financial backers is breath-taking.
9
Because when there's no model that makes sense and is also consistent with heart felt views the only thing left is Magic. The GOP is not the Party of Math.
8
The Republican party is essentially a party for the donor class which isn't enough people to get them elected so they throw in culture wars - LGBT rights, immigration, guns and abortion to rope in the many Americans distracted by culture wars who don't connect the dots that Republican economic policies benefit the donor class. It requires intellectual dishonesty, aided and abetted by the likes of Fox News, to keep all this going.
Sixty-three million people voted for a man obviously unfit to be our president; proving how well culture wars work for the Republican party. They aren't going to trot out conservative economists who might say that tax cuts for the rich may not be good for the average American even though I doubt Republican constituents would listen anyway. Its all about the wall.
6
My goodness. You have been proved wrong on your predictions of the stock market, economic growth and the efficacy of the tax plan. Now you start attacking the people who were correct? Please do some serious economics work, heaven knows it’s needed, not just pablum to justify Democratic socialist positions.
1
Is it possible that Liberal Journals continue to hire Conservatives because they like to fire them ?
I appreciate Krugman’s struggle to make sense of economic policy and the cacophony of voices. He needs to be mindful that none of this matters to my family in Kansas. For them, the economy is a moral issue, period. Good people need to be rewarded, weak and lazy ones need to be punished. They loved Brownbeck because he got that. Tax cuts reward the good people. Cuts in services (like government schools) hurt the lazy. It’s about moral consequences. “Economic performance” doesn’t mean anything.
9
This sort of plays into the axiom that facts have a well-established liberal bias.
2
While I think the main thesis is on target, I do not think it's the real problem. Sure, we might keep getting some 'Williamsom' like situations cropping up. But the real problem is that the GOP, and specifically Trump, will decide policy based on these vacuous ideas and put our whole economy at risk. Sure our economy is humming now (the stock market gyrations not withstanding) but throw some chowder headed acolyte behind the wheel and we're in for a major train wreck.
6
Are there any self-described "Conservative" leaders who can provide a plausible, coherent explanation of what it is they want to conserve?
I did appreciate the clarity with which John Boehner and Bob Corker expressed their criticisms of the GOP and the Trump White House. But rather than leading to needed corrective action, their comments were confirmed by their withdrawal from the fray for want of a rational, responsive audience in a Congress owned by private paymasters.
4
The GOP and Trump know all what you say is true. For example, why does Pruitt seek to dismantle the EPA? It is because of the special interests and their policies that influence. As the saying goes, follow the money. As for why this political predicament exists, again follow the money.
15
It runs both ways actually. Yesterday, I watched Chris Hayes fawn over Tim Cook in a town hall meeting, and let Cook get away with murderous falsehoods about the tax cut, and even pre-apologize for him.
Hayes described US corporate tax rates as onerous without noting that though nominal rates are high, effective rates are among the lowest in developed countries.
Cook tried to disguise the impact of massive Apple tax break on jobs, first saying that it would create 22,000 (new) jobs and then trying to drink that number up by saying that IOS platform apps have created millions of new jobs, without noting that app developers are not Apple employees being paid with the repatriated tax break money.
22,000 jobs. The rest goes to stockholders.
In a post below, a former employer of 40 notes he only "invested" to meet real demand. If Apple/Cook had real business on the table they would have brought that money home long ago.
The deeper issue is that many truths are very complex truths that are difficult to prove clearly, and so long as someone can say something plausible, then they can appear to be telling the truth. "Truth emulation" is good enough, and probably always will be until some form of empiricism makes it impossible.
7
Another key difference between liberal and conservative thinkers is conservatives are ready to to declare victory no matter the outcome. They are the broken clock crowd; even though it doesn’t work, the clock will be right twice every day. From conservatives’ point of view, Trump has been the greatest president ever in the world so far, raising all boats and vanquishing all enemies. Unicorns for all.
11
Pretty much true but there was that latter attacking Sanders policy initiatives as too expensive and impractical since we were already, supposedly doing the best we could. And then all the stuff about how we had reached the limits of the recovery about a year or so ago. Liberals can be hacks too.
3
Someone saying something you disagree with doesn’t make them a hack. Someone saying something provably untrue, or getting predictions wrong over and over and not owning up to it, does.
They might have been right, they might have been wrong, and I for one am sad to see that we will probably never get a chance to find out, but equating this with the pushing of utterly discredited claims on the right is unfair.
7
Sanders' promises of 6% growth and single payer without serious tax increases were every bit as hallucinatory as anything Trump promised, actually.
Can there be a conservative intellectual who still has influence on today's policy makers?
It is the combination that is the unicorn: a conservative intellectual willing to learn from history and remain influential among policy makers who are unwilling to learn from history by accepting facts that contradict their policy goals.
6
Well done. Thank you.
8
I have been haunted by Williamson's words for days. I listened to the recording of two men calmly and coldly discussing capital punishment for women who believe in control of their own bodies. It sent chills. And I then read the comments of conservative men whom I normally respect—men like Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens—react with such words as "but 'witty'!" "an excellent writer!" and the like. Unbelievable. Every now and then, it comes through loud and clear exactly how little we women are valued. And it is sickening.
28
"If they use actual economists, they use them the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination."
I like this quote so much. It pretty tells the whole truth in less than twenty words.
12
Why I no longer read what you write, is that you are a left wing so-called intellectual snob. You completely ignore the conservative voices for lacking real ideas. You represent the problem that exists today between the left and right. For every so-called progressive intellectual that you can name that has concepts that work without a nanny government, I can name two conservatives who present ideas that do and have worked. You have to look no further than the Hoover Institute.
2
On the contrary, Krugman cites repeated evidence of his premises. Also he does not claim perfection Who are the conservatives that you state you can name? What ideas do these conservatives present and what evidence can you provide that their ideas have worked?
8
It's now so evident that conservatives have nearly always been on the wrong side of history. In just the USA, they opposed abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, equal rights in general, gay rights, climate change, successful economics, and reality, in general. Looking back, they have been wrong about almost everything.
The Trump era has seen conservatives come out of the back room and their circus is fully on display, embraced by many religious and disenfranchised racists, and the very rich who don't wish to pay taxes.
How can anyone who aligns themselves with the conservative movement be taken seriously? How could t hey ever?
2
Krugman's point was that if reputable conservatve economists exist, they have no current influence on Republicans.
So name your guys, and show that they do. Should be easy.
9
Krugman is generally honest and willing to admit his mistakes- except when it comes to his undying praise of Hillary Clinton, and, to a lesser extent, Barak Obama. The former was, as reality showed, the only Dem who could have lost to the idiot Trump , while the latter, whatever his successes or lack of them, presided over the near total demise of the Democratic Party at the state level.
4
And what about Gary Cohn--not mentioned here? Cohn, a supposedly "Democratic" and presumably "liberal" ex-Goldman Sachs economist, designed and sold the horrendous tax cut abomination that favors the wealthy and corporations, and which stands as Trump's major accomplishment to date. What do you have to say about Gary Cohn, Mr. Krugman? When almost all eonomists, left or right, owe their allegiance to Wall Street, which party can voters trust?
3
Yes, he's a martyr. The usual Liberal intolerance, for an intolerant hateful
Bigot. " All Viewpoints " is sometimes ridiculous. Anyone that would publicly state his wish that Women should be hanged for having an abortion is a lunatic. A misogynist torture fantasy, period.
7
As usual, Krugman's insight bears repeating, even if his analogy, using economists, since that is his field, is different than the case in point. The overall point is the same. You dont' get a diversity of thoughtful opinion (does the Atlantic--or the NYT--want any other kind of opinion?) by adding people who are actually voicing lunatic rantings. Even if the rantings are not their main stock in trade at the moment, once somebody makes public statements to the effect that women getting abortions should be hanged, they can't whine if their opinions are always thereafter suspect. You don't get to be an idiot any time you feel like it, and then be surprised, and shocked! shocked!, when people consider you an idiot and refuse to give you premium real estate (e.g. the Atlantic) in which you can air your oh-so-considered and erudite opinions.
High schoolers applying to college can't get away with it, why should right-wingers? And nor can they turn around and blame "political correctness" for having their "diverse" opinions shut down. They are shut down because they've said idiotic things in public forums where grown ups with self control expect to be held responsible for their statements. End of statement.
9
People with intellectual substance just keep leaving the party and all they have left are noisey yahoos. They are in the process of making a mess. I worry that Democrats my not be able to bring America back fromthe abyss tbis time.
6
Economics (right or left) is nothing more than “cargo cult” science. It should never be regarded as having the intellectual rigor of the true sciences such as physics, chemistry, geology, or biology. That is why it is so political. You have never heard of right or left wing physics, not since Nazi Germany anyway.
3
That the social sciences have to face special challenges since they tend to interact with their object of study, can't be denied. Singing praise of the "intellectual rigor" of the natural sciences as if they were its sole possessor is however a little over the top, particular when it comes to their vanguard, as quantum physics. E.g. string theory does NOT lack intellectual rigor, it just so happens that the subject matter is equally challenging as it is, for example, in economics. That does not preclude their scientific study.
"Cargo cult science" is only trying to paper over the fact that in physics, chemistry, geology, or biology, all "truth" is only provisional ─ until proven wrong. It certainly would be an insult to Newtonian physics to denigrate it just because its premises have proven incomplete. And let us not forget that science's universal language, mathematics, has been proven incomplete, too.
A little less worship of the hard sciences and a little more respect for the fallibility of the whole scientific endeavor is warranted.
5
You mean hard science like climatology, whose facts are regularly dismissed by the right in an inverse of the emperor with no clothes? Or the science of evolution, which they slough off as a "theory" they can simply dismiss? If it served the right's purpose to deny that combining two atoms of hydrogen with one of oxygen resulted in a molecule of water, I have no doubt they would turn it into a moral issue for which Hillary and Barack bear responsibility.
It is the focus of its investigations rather than the rigor of its models that explains with why econ gets involved in politics. There is no Council of Biology Advisors for a reason, after all. You do know econ used to be called "political econ", right? So, you're point is sort of odd.
The Log in Your Own Eye
Krugman should look inside his own house. The Times shouldn't get a pass for Ross Douthat, who competingly writes for the National Review (Williamson's old turf), where Williamson's offending sentiment was expressed in the first paragraph. (You didn't miss Douthat's condemnation because he didn't issue one.) Nor for Murdoch-WSJ-trained, rape-of-college-women-is-overstated Bret Stephens, or the thankfully-unproductive Bari Weiss.
More insidious on the Times op-ed pages are the right-wing propaganda think tankers who don't have staff status, but might as well have, given the frequency of their published opinions. These include members of the Heritage Foundation (e.g., Stephen Moore), the American Enterprise Institute (the prolific Arthur Brooks), and others. While one-offs by the Wayne LaPierres and Mike Pences of this world are critical, the omnipresence of intellectual dog-whistle dis-suasion (surely, you say, David Brooks is honest) on the Times op-ed pages diminishes the Times's credibility.
Readers who perceive that we don't get non-capitalistic, for example, perspectives from the Times are correct. The Times Editorial Board has some 'splainin' to do.
4
Even the libertarian "think tank" the Cato Institute is sometimes given column inches. Randall O'Toole rants with disdain about smart growth and anti-pollution measures and urban planning in general. He never mentions that Cato is funded by the Kochs and big oil. Libertarians!
In the past paragraph of the attached article by Kudlow he calls for the invasion of Iraq to reinflate stock values. --https://www.nationalreview.com/2002/06/taking-back-market-force-larry-ku...
4
Well, then let Dr. Oz head the CDC.
It is a clown car anyway. No insult meant to clowns.
1
Indeed, we may never have as good an NEC director as Obama's Gene Sperling.
1
Americans have closets of snake oil, Paul...and they are building an addition to add more closets.
Never underestimate the depth of ignorance. Because if modern politics (pretty much dictatorships) haven't shown you that people are too stupid for Democracy, what will?
1
It sounds like John Galt wants affirmative action.
3
The NY Times continues to struggle with much the same problem, though its "conservative" staff columnists do not affirmatively lie about facts so much as omit material information and maliciously slander progressives.
3
Paul Krugman begins by comparing conservatives in the social sciences, specifically economics, with the experimentally-driven sciences. I am not sure this comparison is valid. Even theoretical physics is totally grounded on experimental verification. Einstein proposed observational tests to verify General Relativity and the first of these test was performed with precise observations of the planet Mercury in 1919. Further verifications came with measurements of gravitational redshift in 1925. Even more sensitive experimental verifications have taken place recently in 2017. Fields like biology even more critically depend upon regular and repeated carefully controlled verifications.
I have neither read of, nor heard of such precise, controlled, and regular verifications of "theory" in Economics. Indeed, the economic "experiments" and observations are more like fairy tales than experiments. So, it is not surprising that "snake-oil salesmen" abound in business and economic circles.
4
Given the nature of macroeconomics involving a myriad of different influences in a dynamic environment it is impossible to have a truly controlled experiment as is possible in the natural sciences. Oversimplification of the relationships between variables in the economy is the best that can be expected.
It does not mean, however, that economics can not give us incite as to how the world works in this area.
3
Actually, I should admit that there have been highly-informative studies of economics outside of general pronouncements. S.D. Levitt & S.J. Dubner developed an applicable economic theory, based on careful analysis, in their popular book "Freakonomics". And Robert Axelrod's analysis of decision making, applied to business decisions, are subject to experimental verification. I would consider their efforts outliers to general macroeconomics. What I actually disagree with is that experimental observations are impossible. The observations of Mercury did not constitute a "controlled experiment" in the sense of repeating an experiment in the laboratory. Economics is only beginning to transition out of a stage very like "natural philosophy" in the pre-scientific period before Galileo.
Clearly argued and well stated—you are truly the heir of Martin Gardner. Your task is even harder than his: the cranks and mountebanks he wrote about so amusingly were usually on the peripheries of political power. Now they occupy its citadels. And yes, a deserved jab at your crybaby colleagues at the NYT so appalled over the firing of that smug race baiting right wing auto-propagandist. I’m sure he can easily land a desk at Infowars; their lunatic rants could use some editorial classing up.
1
Conservatives do not value facts. Those who voted for Donald, bought everything he said, even when they knew he was lying to them! They still believe that lower taxes will create jobs, even thought the fact IS that the wealthy end up squirreling away their extra tax savings.
Thank you, Dr. Krugman for an insightful article.
4
And, Americans keep voting for crazy. We need to stop this self-imposed assault on the country.
Rescue the nation.
Give control of Congress to the Democrats in November.
3
Few I understand, but NO "serious, honest, conservative, intellectual"? How about Jennifer Rubin?
2
I don't think that was the point of Krugman's column. He didn't say there weren't "any serious, honest conservative intellectuals". He said that these conservative intellectuals had no influence on today's Republican party. So, does she have any influence on the Republican party? In the current reality she's the prophet screaming in the wilderness.
7
These days one has to be an actor to represent conservative viewpoints. Folks like William F. Buckley jr. have since been proven wrong and are now irrelevant.
What is needed today is a cure for partisanship. It seems that for too many party loyalty takes precedence so it becomes virtually impossible to have any kind of intelligent conversation. Facts don't matter since loyalty rises above all else.
Back in the day, it may have been intellectually correct to have a discussion about the world being round or flat. Two sides to the story, right? But today that is an argument best left for law school as academic training for looking at both sides of an argument. It's actor's world and conservative viewpoints are increasingly becoming fodder as such. Most of us know the earth is round(ish) so why carry on a phony two-sided debate about it?
1
This opinion piece inspired me to search for some of Mr. Williamson's writing. I found a Politico piece arguing that, while the author found the substance often objectionable, Mr. Williamson's should not have been fired and the Atlantic is worse off for it.
After reading some of the selected pieces within that article. ... *gulp* ... I tend to agree.
HEAR ME OUT!!!
We live in a world where Mr. Trump just received a 50% approval rating in a poll. I need to know why. The writing of Mr. Williamson is articulate and opinionated, yet remains extreme enough, that I came away understanding the conservative argument better.
And by extension, my own counter-argument is better for it.
To conclude: we are never going to convince Mr. Williamson of anything. What we need to do is convince our family, friends, coworkers of the folly of Mr. Williamson's point of view (and actually, I even agree with some of his points while critiquing the white working class' refusal to move). I am willing to risk the advancement of those views in order for us all to be better equipped to counter them.
Regardless of the Atlantic's decision and this opinion's point of view, I will be following Mr. Williamson now. Recon is never a bad thing.
1
Spot on Mr. Krugman. But what bothers me more than Williamson's Salem-witch thinking about women is the Atlantic's urge to hire him in the first place. I'm a Democrat who cannot fathom why people on our side of the isle are such wusses, forever needing to ingratiate ourselves to the other side to prove that we're not narrow-minded. The Right is narrow-minded with the jaws of life and they never feel any compulsion to let in opposing views. It may be hard to believe but every Republican (every Trump voter) sleeps WELL at night, regardless that the country is practically on fire. The Charlottesvilles- the Eric Garners, the Muslim Bans- they do not care. So just cut it out Altantic, NY Times- stop looking for Republican unicorns and just be proud to be lefty.
3
"As others have pointed out, the real problem here is that media organizations are looking for unicorns: serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence. Forty or fifty years ago, such people did exist. But now they don’t."
Is Professor Krugman attacking his colleagues in the "Opinion" Section? NYT Editors - wake up!
If the emotionally laden rationalizations emanating from the left, including the justification of outright lies, transparent biases and misrepresentations, is the new norm for "liberals" then the growing number of people who have no use for either perspective are on the correct path.
1
The true definition of conservatism means never having to say "I was wrong."
2
"By the time the Great Recession struck, the right-leaning side of the profession had entered a Dark Age..." just as sure that Mike Pence is also attempting to march the legions into another theocratic Dark Age buttressed by an ample supply of dictatorship come monarchy building.
2
It's impossible to take Krugman seriously anymore. He's in love with the sound of his own oracular pronouncements, delivered with nary a shred of evidence. His arguments begin and end with a clear animus against anyone to his right, no matter how moderate or intelligently they might present their views. Kevin Williamson has written cogently and forcefully in opposition to Trump's tariffs, from a sound free-market perspective. You'd never know this from reading Krugman. Larry Kudlow has no real standing as an economic thinker and does not appear in respected journals. And yet he is somehow emblematic of the presumed bankruptcy of current conservative economic thought. Krugman no longer writes as a serious economist. He is a polemicist frequently relying on casuistry to advance arguments that only his true believers would accept.
2
Kevin Williamson met his fate for expressing the opinion that women who have an abortion should be hanged. This view is certainly gross and insensitive, but is it deviant?
The Catholic Church teaches that abortion constitutes the murder of an unborn human. It also teaches that in order to be a Catholic in good standing, one must accept all of its central teachings.
Therefore, according to the Church, anyone, including politicians and commentators, who do not believe that abortion is murder are not real Catholics. Hanging is a traditional penalty for murder.
Thus all good Catholics should ineligible to work as opinion writers for liberal publications unless they oppose capital punishment or restrict their preferences to gentler and less crude methods of execution.
That rules out an entire class of candidates on the basis of religious belief, when liberalism claims to advocate inclusiveness.
ERP
Your specious argument glosses over the fact that hanging is not only illegal but cruel and therefore deviant.
Perhaps you should read the Pope's recent comment that social justice and compassion are on the same level as the abortion issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/04/09/world/europe/09reuters-pope-d...
Krugman accusing conservatives of “intellectual decadence”? Now I really have seen it all.
Professor Smugman’s picture is in the dictionary under the definition of “Arrogant Liberals Who Are Better And Smarter Than Everyone Else”, that all-too common animal that inhabits academia, the media and various other climes.
Once again, Dr. K, you have jumped the shark.
Well done.
1
am sure you have someone in mind from the right to prove him as wrong as you think he is?
we are waiting.
1
Is there any message in this childish name-calling comment? Any critique of a specific point that could be discussed by rational people?
The great myth that permeates all of American politics is that pure free market economics will solve every problem known to man. It's like the Force in Star Wars. Free Market economics was handed down by God, along with a pure immutable Constitution, and the Bible. Property Rights Sunday is the most important date in the Free Marketers liturgical calendar.
Liberal economics and politics have caused a disturbance in The Force. Republicans exist to return us to the True Faith. One can enumerate the liberal sins that have caused us to fall from the grace of Saint Ayn of Rand.
There once existed an America of the True Faith of Free Market economics. We must return to that Elysian era or we are doomed.
1
Let's see; On the political talking head side you have Micheal Steele, but I am hard pressed to find somebody else with a shred of cred.
Bill Krystol tries hard, but the mere sight and sound of him, it's nearly too laughable.
There's George Will who is real good at outlining the GOP's problem in a long, windy, drawn out bit, but by the last paragraph he almost always circles around to an absurd attack on the Dems.
Folks, the GOP clown bench is deep and wide.
They're gonna need a bigger car.
1
The impulse to acquire "intellectual diversity" originates in the election of Donald Trump. The Obama presidency proved to liberals that the end of history was here. From now on the liberal leaders in Silicon Valley, entertainment, academia and politics would impose values on all of society. Multiculturalism, a fact of cultural life, was elevated to value status. Politicians draped in the vision of a post-national global culture provided by the digital communication revolution got used to ruling through international bodies and agreements, far from the heckles of the grubby neanderthal masses.
Liberals met Trump's election with shock, disbelief, and loss of confidence. It became vogue to talk about the "need" to "listen" to the "information- challenged" neanderthals who live in flyover land.
Europe has had its own version of the Trump election: the Brexit vote and the Italian and Hungarian elections. While these phenomena are seen by liberals as heralding a descent into a dark age, what they really represent is a rejection of technocratic liberal rule. Welcome back to democracy, Mr. Krugman, where you have to convince voters, not simply sneer at them, to get your way.
"The Intellectual Right" exists only to buttress as best they can the moneyed interests with their quack dogma. They have no interest in subverting their paymasters with honest analysis. Dr. Krugman is correct: if they can't sell the snake oil, there's nothing else to sell.
There are responsible conservative intellectuals -- George Will immediately comes to mind -- but they are no longer invited to air their views on Fox or other pro-Trump media outlets because they are clear-eyed critics of the president rather than sycophants. Their GOP is not the GOP that elected Trump, which will consign the party to the dustbin of history come November.
1
Too much analysis in the comments. The RW wants to starve the government of funding, shrink the social services safety net and drown it in the bathtub. Just before the demographics of the country can overtake the Christian white male power structure built on legalized bribery and a good ol' boy network of crony capitalism. This is not much more complicated than it looks. You don;t need and economist when you are looking for more con men.
4
I always viewed Kudlow’s appearances on CNBC as comic relief. His appointment only serves to confirm that in this administration only sycophants serving up simplistic solutions will be picked to 'serve’.
Can Paul Krugman really speak credibly about dishonesty and "intellectual decadence"? Most of his material looks more like partisan malice than rational, well-supported discourse in macroeconomics.
1
The writer sometimes places ”wonkish” at the end of his titles, regardless or in spite of which, the screen showing the piece does not vibrate itself.
The animal pretending to be a unicorn in the photo as well, is simply static. Everyone, surely, must have one’s own visual preference. So, in my case, in order to adjust myself to the Times’ digital front page, I sometimes utilize small pieces of paper (in different sizes) to handily cover a moving photo or photos, for the instant creation of a classically immovable page-design to be effective.
Ben Carson is not an economist. Nevertheless, the Times once quoted his very economically made comments or thoughts or analysis on the human brain and the universe in terms of their structural comparability. In a word, according to him, the brains and the universe are structurally the same, or, almost the same, or, at least can or would be said as the same, or unremotely analogues.
The very digitally oriented web page-layout may have specific registrations into the human brain, which might affect the comprehensive process in one’s way of reading articles. Would it be on levels of speed, depth, perception, or classification?
For me today heading steadily to 4/18, AGI is not Artificial General Intelligence, but Adjusted Gross Income. Yes, my comment as usual is doing its “ebranler-self”. Even the unicorn is not reading this.
The “Right” created the term "political correctness" when liberal-thinking was in the majority. PC, to them meant a strong adherence to the “party line” and the total absence of criticism of the majority.
Now the politics have changed, and the Right is in the majority and “political correctness” still means the same thing—the absence of criticism of the majority.
Some former liberals (now “centrists’ or claimants to be “right-of-center”) can tell conservatives how difficult it is to present a different opinion when everyone is creaming the same slogans.
Krugman’s stablemate, David Brooks is one of those “unicorns” (most of the time), but even Brooks can be drawn into the Trump vortex and find something good to say about policies that most other opinion-makers find dysfunctional or not well-thought out.
It may be time to use the phrase “political correctness” to apply to the lemming-like following of Chairman Trump.
2
Wait. It appears that the question of intellectual dishonesty can be applied to conservatives or those holding some conservative viewpoints.
How can this be?
Bubble much?
Most conservative pundits today remind me of Monty Python's "Argument Clinic" sketch, where Michael Palin says to John Cleese that "This isn't an argument. You're just contradicting me. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."
And of course, Cleese replies, "No, it isn't."
Where is Bill Buckley when we need him?
2
I think using the word "conservative" is a cloak to fool mainstream voters who are not actively reviewing policy from government. The word conservative exudes fiscal probity, moral responsibility, and traditional values. The Republicans are not conservative, and claiming that word is part of their marketing to trick voters. The GOP is instead the crony capitalist party, willing to sell the government to the highest bidder, and enabled by crony capitalists who control the media. Everything the GOP has done was simply to enrich the oligarchs in our country; democracy is failing because plutocracy is ascending and we don't know about it. What happened to genuine conservatives? - they moved to the Democratic party. With the Democrats now entertaining liberal, social democratic, conservative, centrists, and corporatists views, it's hard to find a concensus, let alone a uniform voice to counter the Republicans. We have a plutocratic party, tearing down Democracy.
2
I think the author doth protest too much in their faux confusion as to why appointments are made as they are. They know full well that the policy of Trumps administration is America First. To a lesser extent it's also a two track system mainstreet/wall street. The Chicago school of economists or indeed any of the authors list of approved economic charlatons do not approve and do not understand the approach Trump is taking. Therefore, yes you will see 'outsiders'.
Such is the revolutionary nature of the economics it may take 10 years for this MAGA economics to be studied and academically accepted. Let's face it Chicago economics failed dismally.
1
However, what Krugman seems to say is that it is a disease and it seems that it is not. If the economist is not a charlatan then he is not sufficiently ill.
"The revolutionary nature of the economics," is older than John Maynard Keynes: it's dimwit laissez-faire capitalism that says cut taxes on the wealthy and cut regulations, and you "liberate the creative forces of the market."
It doesn't work, for reasons Adam Smith explained going on for two hundred years ago.
But in fact, there is no "Trump approach." Giy's just flailing around.
The problem is that ideology is no longer a descriptive of thought: it is a predictor. A conservative commentator will sing the party line on whatever issue is put in front of him or her, and it will not be merely a result of thought that can be characterized as conservative; rather, the result is received knowledge being regurgitated.
In economics, tax cuts are good. We know this because they are good. What is good about them? Everything! Whatever your issue is, tax cuts are good for it.
Have you identified something imperfect in government? Good news! We can solve it with privatization. Privatization has solved every problem ever known to man. If something's going wrong, it's because it hasn't been free marketed enough, but we can just turn up the privatization on it and it'll be right as rain in no time.
Foreign policy woes? No worries. We'll get tough. How will we get tough? Don't worry about it. It's what we'll get and we'll get it more and better than anyone has ever gotten it before. Also it might be code for torturing people, but as the long-running documentary 24 demonstrated, that's a great way to Get Results, which we'll be getting a lot of by how tough we're being.
There's no thought to any of it. It's like a bunch of Star Trek fans sitting around trying to figure out how the fantasy show they watch written by (mostly) liberal arts majors is explained by science. It might sounds like they're thinking, but they're not. They're fitting the world to their fantasy
9
The Williamson issue, and abortion in general, is a medical issue. But it is in the end about language and the meaning of life. The Supreme Court defined life as the possibility of independent existence. That's consistent with the Biblical definition–when the baby breathes. Calling a potential life a real life is a mistake. There is more than enough emotion in both sides of the argument. It is one best left to the mother and her doctor and we need another way to fund our healthcare to get the state and its emotional critics out of that ball park.
5
When Paul Ryan opined that Lamb won his special election because, 'he ran as a Republican', I thought about what differentiates R's and D's.
I really think its this: Democrats think facts and competency matter, Republicans don't.
From there you can pretty much see how each party got to where it is.
10
Ryan doesn't hesitate to throw the argument out of the realm of logic when he's actually out of logic. We're lucky he didn't insist that the election was a message from God. He goes there a lot lately.
1
I'm not all that smart, but I do read a little history. True conservative economics (ultra-low taxes coupled with rampant deregulation) have been tried, by my count, three times on a national scale since 1900. They begat the Great Depression, the Reagan recession, and the Bush Jr. Great Recession.
Meanwhile the times with higher taxes and tighter regulation have been the boom years (I'll grant the post WW2 economy had other advantages too).
I don't know why it has been that way, and I kinda don't care. I just know through observable history what has worked and what hasn't. I wish the smart people could see it too.
27
Unicorns exist in the socioeconomic political partisan minds of their beholders.
Since none of the social sciences including economics are science using a unicorn as a symbol of the absence of intellectual rigor is apt. There are too many variables and unknowns to fashion the double-blind controls that provide predictable repeatable results.
But the social sciences like economics are academic disciplines that deserve and need to be evaluated within their own internal logic and rules. Correlation that is consistent is more credible than it's opposite. But it is not comparable to causation.
4
I'm surprised that in your brief history of conservative economic thought you didn't mention Milton Friedman. His analysis was both respected and influential, he advised Reagan and Thatcher, won a Nobel Prize, and his consequences, in terms of deregulation at least, seem significant.
In general, I agree with you, but isn't this a serious omission?
7
where was Friedman right for all Americans?
not just the American'ts on the right?
While not mentioned by name, Friedman was a leading anti-Keynesian writing a "usefully challenging critique" of Keynes in the 60s and 70s. Don't forget that Friedman also advised Nixon, during which time he conceded "we're all Keynesians now."
Keynes talked about politicians being slaves to a "defunct economist". Given he's been deceased for nearly a dozen years, I would say Friedman is disqualified from being hired by a mainstream media organization or government agency. His ideology may continue to have influence, but what has he written lately?
Milton Friedman is 12 years in the grave, and Dr. Krugman is clearly writing about the living. Surely you can find better conservative thinkers if you're going to rob the lichyards, anyway.
How many right and God-forbid intellectuals are hired as editorial writers and op-eds writers at the NYT? Only one, Douhat, who conveniently happens to hate the President. Not because they are unicorns, but because they aren't actually desired. Same for the New Yorker, the Atlantic, etc.
4
David Brooks?
1
Uh, Douthat, David Brooks, Stephens, and an endless procession of guest columnists, actually.
I don't expect you lot to do numbers, but names don't seem to much to ask.
2
The reality is that the data is unfriendly to GOP viewpoints, and has been for almost 40 years now. More recently, you have the Kudlows of the world proclaiming the Goldilocks economy during the GWBush era, while the ship was not only sinking, but sinking in almost Titanic fashion. And of course, how many have been wrong about Fed policy during the last 10 years.
Then of course you have deficits that don't matter until they do, and then they don't (depending on the party in power). And of course you have the insanity of providing fiscal stimulus during a time of full employment, while ostensibly being inflation hawks.
What we've found is that numbers don't matter, macroeconomics don't matter. What matters to the GOP are the needs of its donor class, which is to a) be in power, and b) use that power to lower taxes and then crying like the orphan who murdered his parents, ask for fiscal mercy by cutting entitlement programs that are used by people other than the donor class.
That's all this has been about. It's all it will ever be about. Maybe if GOP voters could stop rattling on about guns or gays or prayers in school they could understand that they've been the subject of a four-decade grift.
21
the last century was not one of economist purity for the right. Wilson tried to keep us out of WWI. three GOP Presidents lead the World into a market bubble of no substance, bid up by home equity loans "cause you can't lose in the markets..." The "New Deal" and FDR could not be denied due to the shape of the post Hoover economy. WWII saved the whole world, figuratively and financially in the booms it spawned in rebuilding and expanding some economies.
we have been at war, nearly continuously since. wars that have had little gain for most Americans that have paid the price in blood, disability and loss of opportunity for all but the American'ts on the right.
our greatest loss: not raising the floor in education and placing as many Americans in the jobs of this and the next century and technilogically based economy!
investing in 19th century energy and jobs is not the answer, nor is paying 1980 wages today!
when the next party takes over there will be plenty of whining from the wealthy and their synchophants about rising taxes and promises of "free" college opportunities.how else do we keep up with those thar have decided to lead?
2
Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto. He has the best selling book on Amazon, but The Times refuses to place it on it's bestseller list because of a technicality - it was published in Canada.
Don't tell me there aren't any conservative intellectuals.
Eric, did you read the column? Krugman clearly says that there is no shortage of conservative intellectuals in many fields. He makes that point more than once. His claim is that conservative intellectuals are unable to influence GOP policies. Do you have evidence to offer that that claim is inaccurate?
15
In my small mind I didn't think Krugman was stating that there weren't any conservative thinkers but that thy have been marginalized . The big mouths are in charge and nonsense is there script. What has happened in Kansas and the red states is real. Professional teachers are protesting because the gutting of human services budgets is not working. Why dont the thinking conservatives work on how to address that issues and stop trying to make shouting a way of public policy. WE are all working three jobs to make ends meet, is this normal? We cant have discussions anymore because the right refuses to work with real facts. I am old enough to remember the William Buckley and David Susskind show, you may not agree with them but it was weekly intellectual conversations where you could learn something and make informed decisions that is gone now maybe when we get out of this cycle of stupidity it can return.
Mr. Krugman made perfectly clear he wasn’t saying there were no conservative intellectuals, but clearly said conservative intellectual thought went entirely unheeded by conservative policy makers.
1
I don't know what's going on with the comments in this thread.
I get a wary feeling that everyone is talking about how many Fairies can fit on the head of a pin.
First off, there is no such thing as a Unicorn, ergo the idea of Fairies on pin heads came to mind.
Second, trying to discover, or decide what is truth is getting harder nanosecond by nanosecond!
I direct your attention to an Adobe program in beta called "VOCO," where by speaking truth to power one day, or one year ago, or even a decade ago, can be 'magically' (technically) reversed completely, and be in the original 'speaker's' authentic voice (authentic as far as the public can tell). It's really scary!
The other question one has to ask oneself when it comes to intellectual discussions like this is the following:
If you find yourself stranded on a deserted island, would you want someone there who can make a good fire (if you can't) or a good intellectual argument (if you too can make just as good an intellectual argument)?
Einstein, when asked about what weapons would be used in WWIII, replied that he did not know, but he was of a high level of certitude that the weapons used in WWIV would be limited to sticks & stones.
3
Do you mean to tell me that the right has "intellectuals?" Doesn't one need to have a well rounded education, and experience, in order to be regarded as an intellectual?
10
Lot of negativity towards Prof. K. When your elite education gives permission to Grift, what do you expect?
Laws are for the little people.
4
What Krugs? No graph included that you printed from your home computer to somehow justify and solidify your "get off my lawn" opinion? That's like no toy with my happy-meal.
1
If you make a prediction and it doesn't come true, you should think about what you believe and why. If you keep making predictions and none of them come true, you need some new ideas.
9
An excellent piece, Dr. Krugman, for which you will no doubt be excoriated.
14
GOP motto: I deny the facts.
12
"[T]he real problem here is that media organizations are looking for unicorns: serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence. Forty or fifty years ago, such people did exist. But now they don’t."
True.
But, how many more decades of Republican fraudulence, and now burgeoning fascism, have to go by before media organizations get it?
The problem is partly stupidity. But also it's part of big media organizations script: they are disinclined to see things clearly when their business model calls for balance, i.e., unicorns. This will be very difficult to rectify.
9
There are some:
Andrew Sullivan, Jordan Peterson, Peter Thiel, Scott Adams, David Brooks.
All intellectually honest and highly insightful.
Economists?
Thomas Sowell
Thiel?! Are you kidding?
So, in the liberal world a few minutes of Googling is what one needs to do to know to hire or fire somebody? Extremely shallow.
1
No, some things are so blatant and obvious a few minutes of Googling will discover them.
1
This is absurd. A few minutes of Googling will discover almost anything. If you so certain that whatever Google returns in a few minutes will be blatant and obvious, you are Googling for whatever you find obvious already. It's a waste of your time.
Google 'Krugman's false predictions'. It will give you a list. Then, according to your logic, he is a blatant liar or a bad fortune teller.
What I was dismayed at today was the fact that he basically revealed himself to be a person happy to talk to those who would already believe him. What a sad moment for myself.
Not disagreeing with your examples, but I think Brooks and Brooks do a fine job and broaden the conversation at the NYT.
2
The problem with the Right is that fantasy has become their reality. When that type of illogical thinking sets it then no amount of evidence will sway them. For example if they believe the sky is purple and you show them real time images of the sky being blue they will think its 'fake news.' Add on top of that you have folks from the top on down from Trump to rank and file GOP, who believe admitting that you are wrong is a cardinal sin. Because if you can't admit to your mistakes professional or otherwise then how can you learn from them. Finally, when one hires or elects charlatans, cranks, and clowns then how can you solve any economic problem? One can't because one just gets a big circus instead.
6
Even Jim Cramer is right half the time, kind of like a stopped clock. Kudlow, not so much.
3
wonderful column. thank you.
6
Well said. They r.i.g.h.t. : (really idiotic gang having tantrums) have no logic structure to stand on. They are really trotting out Says Law, which has no qualitative proof. I really think Dr. K was being kind. There really isn't a "conservative" economist worth 2 bits, and that includes John Taylor.
3
Stephen Saylor's Roma sub Rosa books are an excellent series of mysteries set in ancient Rome. There was rampant political corruption. Political candidates campaigned as being honorable, honest, capable and modest when obviously they acted otherwise. Then one election, a candidate decided to actually act in an honorable, honest, capable and modest fashion, at least for the election and maybe longer. He being the only such candidate, voters flocked to elect him.
This should be a valuable lesson to Republican intellectuals today! Act as if you are honest, honorable, capable and modest. If you do have such qualities, so much the better. But even if you don't, you will get lucrative offers from media such as The Atlantic.
Sadly, this will not work for all Republican intellectuals. For most, a few minutes googling will show them to be some combination of charlatan and crook, or perhaps that they have repeatedly called for hanging women who get abortions. Those without such defects may be the unicorns. But hey, if you are a unicorn, there's a lot of money on the table. Don't just leave it all there.
1
Would that Roman candidate -- the one who actually behaved reasonably, honestly, and uncorruptly for one election, be the one who was promptly murdered by thugs in the Forum?
No, actually. If you are referring to Julius Caesar, he did not exemplify those qualities. Saylor does not imply that the fellow who for one election acted good was good during his time in office. And Saylor does leave the impression that other quite unprincipled politicians would in future try to emulate the successful tactic.
For those unfamiliar with Julius Caesar's most famous electoral tactic, I will mention it. In the Roman Republic, generals were forbidden to bring their armies into Italy, lest they establish military dictatorship. Julius Caesar did. When he crossed the Rubicon River, he is said to have proclaimed that the die was cast. The election was being held, so the choices were flee, submit, or die.
Incidentally, the thugs who murdered Caesar in the Forum were mainly Senators - folks like Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz.
"Intellectual right" is an oxymoron.
8
actually, no: many brilliant conservative writers, thinkers and philosophers historically
Reality doesn't matter because it has a liberal bias.
1
Another "problem", actually the main problem, from which the present conservatives' dissonance, disarray, and contradictions flow: Their Unicorn-in-Chief is a visionless, unthinking, incoherent, semi-literate nag whom they, in vain, desperately attempt to prop up and ascribe some actual, deliberative, policy making credentials to, while refusing to admit that its only value is in making some coarse soap.
3
One of the better opinion pieces in the NYT for the past couple of years.
3
Thank you!!!!! Finally, someone who is telling the simple truth!
1
Column translation: conservatives with power are liars. Coarse but true.
3
The intellectual right used to be busy trying to make greed and selfishness seem righteous, while at the same time tying liberalism to socialism or communism. Now, they graduated to preaching fascism lite and tying the Democratic Party to treason. Moderate conservatives don't exist as far as the RNC is concerned.
3
An excellent article once again demonstrating the fallacy of False Equivalence. If only the editors of the newspaper you write for would take this to heart.
2
The right is always calling on minorities and then left to call out the bad actors, grifters and charlatans in their group. And we do!
Just ask Al Frankan & Alan Grayson. But the right like the economist you mention never call out theirs and if they do they are exiled.
See Mitt Romney crawling back
2
I don't know what's going on with the comments in this thread.
I get a wary feeling that everyone is talking about how many Fairies can fit on the head of a pin.
First off, there is no such thing as a Unicorn, ergo the idea of Fairies on pin heads came to mind.
Second, trying to discover, or decide what is truth is getting harder nanosecond by nanosecond!
I direct your attention to an Adobe program in beta called "VOCO," where by speaking truth to power one day, or one year ago, or even a decade ago, can be 'magically' (technically) reversed completely, and be in the original 'speaker's' authentic voice (authentic as far as the public can tell). It's really scary!
The other question one has to ask oneself when it comes to intellectual discussions like this is the following:
If you find yourself stranded on a deserted island, would you want someone there who can make a good fire (if you can't) or a good intellectual argument (if you too can make just as good an intellectual argument)?
Einstein, when asked about what weapons would be used in WWIII, replied that he did not know, but he was of a high level of certitude that the weapons used in WWIV would be limited to sticks & stones.
2
is it really possible to use such a broad brush to eliminate such a large portion of the country? Therefore, any one who doesn't agree with Paul must be a deplorable.
1
Seems legit.
The vacuity of conservative intellect is reminiscent of southern Christian ministers in the 19th century who proclaimed slavery was condoned by God.
How can any thinking person possibly remain a republican?
5
Are Krugman critics DENYING Trump advisers' "willingness to put political loyalty over professional standards" OR just grinding their obscure, ancient econ-axes?
This chaotic prelude to Trade War IS REAL. This administration's conduct only gets more REACTIONARY. "Not good", as Trump is fond of saying, and I blame HIS ENABLERS:
(1) "Soup Can" - bought LTV Corp., Weirton, and Bethlehem Steel; renamed International Steel Group; and SOLD IT to an Indian steel magnate. A decade's passage of time does not excuse!
(2) "Buh-Bye" - was wise, had he FOUGHT a Trump presidency! (3) Secretary "Now you see our objective, now you don't" was JUST awarded WaPo's "Greatest Sycophant in Cabinet History" for other 'very fine' work.
(4) From the White House lawn, who can forget "One Hit Wonder" - Relax, DO ‘do it’, If ya wanna won. (5) Also from lawn, Fox Friend "Get Out Panic" who knows that the Mooch lasted at least 10 and a half days.
And (6) "Mighty MIGHT Mitigate" has already "suggested the Trump administration might consider economic “mitigation efforts” to aid U.S. farmers.." (That's when bizarro moves to crazy.)
https://politics.myajc.com/blog/politics/sonny-perdue-farmers-won-bear-b...
It is truly ironic that Krugman writes such an intellectually dishonest article on intellectual dishonesty. Unable to substantiate the claim that there are no intellectually honest conservatives writ large (hello? What about the fellows at AEI and Hoover?), he turns to his own fiend of economics to prove the intellectual conservative intellectual dishonesty. And who does he pick to personify this? Larry Kudlow—who no one is saying represents conservative academic economic thought. Kudlow is an “economist” in name only. Of course it is easy to show that conservatives are intellectually dishonest if you change constituent group (Kevin Willians is not an economist) and point to a member who most would consider an outlier. Even Paul Krugman can win straw man arguments.
4
Didn't the fellows at the Hoover institute just come out with the single argument (again) for cutting entitlements as the only way to deal with the debt issue, even as they propagated the recent tax cuts, adding another trillion to this debt? Is this really honest? And who funds Hoover?
3
Why the small font for the replies. This old man can barely read them.
3
Bill Buckley was also viewed as the ultimate conservative intellectual. Yet his writings were still sophomoric at best and virulently racist at worst, especially on MLK, the Civil Rights Movement and apartheid. His National Review magazine read like a white supremacist rag.
There’s a reason why the National Review doesn’t make their archives available online.
3
The whole premise of this column begs the question: "what about your colleagues, Messrs. Brooks, Stephens and Douthat?" Is the New York Times not a "news organization"? Are they not conservative enough to qualify? What gives?
2
The right has been bought, and has now only the moral capabilities of its corporate and billionaire masters, which is to say, none at all. Trump is equally corrupt. The right has crossed the Rubicon morally in the past year; all that money, provided by citizens United, corrupted them and made them useless, empty and weak. Ripe for someone like Trump to walk in, take over and drive them right into the ground. Dems need to be sure their leaders are not equally corrupted by the vast oceans of money the billionaire class uses to attempt to buy tax cuts and regulatory dereliction of duty by government.
2
Krugman is a kind of scientist, even though Economics has dubious credentials as a real science. But the point made in this column is not really applicable to opinion writers in general, who usually have no qualifications on anything and just give their, well, opinions. In that sense, firing someone like Williamson is censorship, because you cannot argue that he violated professional standards - he does not have a profession. As every other columnist, he exists to entertain people with his opinion, either by making them warm and fuzzy from agreement or by making them mad because his opinions are oh so horrible.
I was looking forward to read the guy on The Atlantic and even put a bookmark for that site in my browser bar for that reason. Guess that will now be deleted.
We have a president who sends the national guard to the border with no defined mission because he say a story about an immigrant caravan on Fox and Friends. That's where we are.
4
Morally and intellectually bankrupt but bankrolled by the Murdochs and the Koch brothers. Go figure.
We are on shaky ground when republican loyalty to party disregards reality, and the truth, based on empiric evidence. Trickle- down economics was a joke during Reagan years and has become an ugly joke with an arrogant know-nothing Trump who, judging by his stupid, capricious and impulsive decisions, is thrashing U.S.'s economy to smithereens. I suspect that even if we could find an honest, and capable, conservative economist, our ugly American in-chief would overrule or disregard any counsel. Trump thinks, by virtue of the arrogance his ignorance confers, that he 'knows' all that can be known. This a classic stance of the G.O.P., having a closed mind, afraid of risks and change, always ready to allow authority the upper hand. Complicating issues is the lack of honesty in admitting error or mistake, a sad state of affairs indeed. Incidentally, this is nothing new for republicans, that's the way it works for them...but only in theory; it fails as soon they try to apply it in real life. And that is the rub.
“... they use them the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.”
Brilliant.
5
As always Mr. Krugman hits it right on the nose. Hopefully he talks to his colleague Mr. Douthat who seems to feel we Liberals are so hard on Conservatives. Even so called decent Conservatives spend their time crying about Liberals like the bunch of snowflakes they are, instead of criticizing their own Party for its drift into crazy. Crazy it seems is just too hard to fix.
This analysis seem to be equally applicable to many other countries with rise of right wing, racist, religious fundamentalist government, parties and many media organizations supporting them. This includes India, right wing BJP and many of its crony media houses there.
1
In short, Putin's remade the GOP in the image of United Russia: it's the party of thieves and cheats.
1
There is no GOP policy-making, and there is no GOP thinking. There is only GOP doctrine to improve the welfare of the very rich. Everything the GOP does derives from that doctrine. The unicorns are marched out to persuade some 50% of the non-rich to vote GOP against their own interests by disguising GOP doctrine with a few litmus test issues such as abortion, gun control, welfare, immigration, Obamacare, and race. GOP leaders are worse than charlatans and cranks. They are tortfeasors engaging in misrepresentation and deceit.
Yes! What a convenient way not to have to talk to people you disagree with! Just delare that they don't exist and stop looking.
1
There's hope for Dr. Krugman yet. I actually read his column today with some inspiration. Dr. Krugman offers up some honest objective observations this time....as opposed to the usual partisan baiting and statistics shovelling in defense of shop-worn New Deal Era Theology........
The main conclusion I draw from all this ..... Dont Let Economists Run the Economy!! You'll wind up with rationing lines for butter, a completely throttled industrial base, ecological disasters, etc, etc. It does not matter if the economist is "right" or "left"......Just nod in agreement with the economist and then dont let the guy anywhere near the actual controls.
Great column today, Dr. Krugman. Democrats and mainstream media and everyone need to grow up and stop being fooled by GOP con artists. We all need to face who these people are and stop believing they are who they pretend to be.
Who’s Your Daddy? Time for Democrats and Mainstream Media to Grow Up
https://medium.com/@upine/whos-your-daddy-time-for-democrats-and-mainstr...
Paul Krugman is living proof that you can have a PhD and nobel prize yet still not know much about your chosen field. The Clinton "boom" was thanks to the end of the cold war and the rise of the Internet. As for 2013, what job growth? We had the most anemic recovery in history under Obama. Why people continue to take this charlatan seriously is beyond me.
3
Conservatism, in general, has been dumbed down to the point where it is the home of charlatans and cranks. Republicans are what passes for conservatives these days. They are corrupt, hypocritical and they need to go. ALL of them.
Fact check: It's annoying to see Larry Kudlow characterized as merely a television personality. In truth, he worked as chief economist for Wall Street firm Bear Stearns from 1987 until cocaine addiction got him fired in the mid-1990s. Previously he had abandoned post-college studies in economics, but made up for the lack of school learning with job experience in the Federal Reserve's open market operations and at OMB. It was good enough for a managing director position at Bear Stearns, so he must have been capable of getting a majority of forecasts right in those days.
Only after time out for addiction treatment and conversion to Catholicism did the one-time Jewish liberal emerge in our new millenium as the loudly vocal tv Conservative who forecast halcyon days from 2007. Sobriety, it seems, may not guarantee sober reckoning.
2
Interesting point. I wonder how Brooks is taking this. Does he see himself as a crank, or a loser that nobody listens too?
It is said that those that the Gods would destroy, first they drive insane. Beware
Krugman has gone off into the deep end of the pool. Yup, he won a Nobel prize as a supposed economist, but I don't think you want the guy balancing your household's check book--you know what I mean? He thinks work as an academic in economics gives him a political bully pulpit on everything.
3
It's glory days for Trump and his yahoos but for all people of intelligence and conscience, including the endangered species of true conservatives, this is the Great Depression redux.
This is why George Will is now neither a Republican nor a trumped-up conservative toady dwelling in an echo chamber.
As a Republican and right, he's been hoisted on Trump's tiny petard.
Will has PTSD -- Post Trump Stress Disorder-- and has retreated from whacking Obama with his ersatz erudition and escaped to his Boys Life obsession with baseball.
Sports writers and conservative pundits live in the same gated intellectual community: they love competition, score-keeping, home run hitters, and mighty Casey hitting fly balls to left field.
But when the home team is worse than hopeless and after 50 columns excoriating the league, team owners, managers, coaches and stars who no longer twinkle in the night, sports writers and pundits are soon as exhausted as their subject matter is.
There's just so much lament, hand-wringing and despondency a writer can express before the well runs dry.
Whether it's the Knicks or Trump, bloviating about either is an existential exercise in futility, for writer, reader and any other sentient being.
The Atlantic's dilemma was a stable of depleted leftish and centrist writers not a lack of take a right at the stop sign opinions. Only an anomaly like Trump can make The Atlantic appear leftward. And hide the reptilian hate of Kevin Williamson.
1
You are assuming more good faith on the part of the publications in question then is warranted. Remember, Jeffrey Goldberg is one of the professional liars who helped lie the U.S. into invading Iraq. Before that, he was a guard in an Israeli prison who has been described as a torturer.
It's glory days for Trump and his yahoos but for all people of intelligence and conscience, including the endangered species of true conservatives, this is the Great Depression redux.
This is why George Will is now neither a Republican nor a trumped-up conservative toady dwelling in an echo chamber.
As a Republican and right, he's been hoisted on Trump's tiny petard.
Will has PTSD -- Post Trump Stress Disorder-- and has retreated from whacking Obama with his ersatz erudition and escaped to his Boys Life obsession with baseball.
Sports writers and conservative pundits live in the same gated intellectual community: they love competition, score-keeping, home run hitters, and mighty Casey hitting fly balls to left field.
But when the home team is worse than hopeless and after 50 columns excoriating the league, team owners, managers, coaches and stars who no longer twinkle in the night, sports writers and pundits are soon as exhausted as their subject matter is.
There's just so much lament, hand-wringing and despondency a writer can express before the well runs dry.
Whether it's the Knicks or Trump, bloviating about either is an existential exercise in futility, for writer, reader and any other sentient being.
The Atlantic's dilemma was a stable of depleted leftish and centrist writers not a lack of take a right at the stop sign opinions. Only an anomaly like Trump can make The Atlantic appear leftward. And hide the reptilian hate of Kevin Williamson.
2
For reasons unknown, there is this congenital
desire to pander to right wing extremists in
the name of "balance.' Remember the Ed Norton
Rule, if you swim in the sewer you will end up stinko
1
Moore and Kudlow are on TV, defending this idiotic trade war, which is a disaster already! Trump has backed himself into a corner on this one, and China is already making him the fool.
This is not like the "Wall" deal, where we were opposing MX, and Trump backed down. China can start to slowly sell off their US t-bonds
"[T]he real problem here is that media organizations are looking for unicorns: serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence. Forty or fifty years ago, such people did exist. But now they don’t."
True.
But, how many more decades of Republican fraudulence, and now burgeoning fascism, have to go by before media organizations get it?
The problem is partly stupidity/cluelessness -- in the very industry whose duty it is to see and present things clearly ad corretly. But also it's part of big media organizations script, including that of the NYT which occasionally publishes a dim-witted piece by a Conservative: they are disinclined to see things clearly when their business model calls for so-called balance, i.e., unicorns. This will be very difficult to rectify.
Yes, it remains one of our most vexing and destructive problems -that the news media “hasn’t figured out” how to represent the side of the political spectrum that repeatedly lies and distorts to support its legislative agenda. How do conservatives benefit from policies doomed to failure? My thought is that since Citizens United they neither represent their voters nor an ideology. They are simply doing the bidding of the Kochs, the Mercers and a few others who pay them richly. professionals or “intellectuals” who give them cover are also on the payroll. One thing the media needs to do is make this link more clear and direct. Of course, look at any media and you see the problem - the ads from Koch Industries, Cambridge Analytica, etc. The song from Cabaret about pre-war Germany and thr rise of the Nazi’s keeps popping into my head, “money, money, money, money....”
Fox News leads the way in the anti-intellectual movement for the US conservative party. Many commenters here agree with Prof Krugman, as I do, and some ask the question: How do we get a universal truth out there that can be consumed and understood by all?
Bipartisan work takes a lot of heart and there are not many who have that kind of strength. US Rep Stephanie Murphy right here in River City makes a real effort and I admire her for it. I am a lessor being in that sense as I rant liberal, consistently.
Our beloved HHS now is contracting out a project to identify, in my opinion, intellectuals and influencers who don't agree with Trump and his government. Mein Kampf all over again, with Murdoch is the current Goebbels.
Lying is God's gift to the demagogues. Unicorns don't exist though, not any more. That won't stop some MSM though.
1
Never was this more true that it is with Krugman:
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
2
I doubt anyone will see this. As a conservative reader of NYT, I have submitted dozens of comments over the years, and not one have ever shown up.
After reading the comments here, and finding a population consisting of 100% liberal viewpoints, I now understand why. They don't publish conservative view points.
As to the article. Krugaman's all knowing arrogance has never shone as brightly as it does here. He is an economist who speaks in absolutes, and even when he is proven wrong, he is never in doubt. The "Animal Farm" mentality is echoed loud and clear by his followers in this chamber.
To Krugman if he reads this. Providing one example and immediately extrapolating that to the entirety of a population is laughable. But carry on sir, everyone has to make a living somehow. .
2
It was printed, so no more complaints. Krugman gets more right than wrong, so no more complaints.
On another topic, the Chinese are trying to corner the computer manufacturing market, by making S. Korea and Taiwan their partners. This is a big threat to the USA. Is Trump/Kudlow/Leitizher/Navarro even aware of this?
2
Do you lot have ANYTHING on offer that isn't name-calling and claims that you're being picked on?
If you want to make Paul Krugman look bad, it's pretty simple: just give an example of a reputable conservative economist, with a decent track record, that Bush or Trump took advice from.
2
I keep searching for these magical unicorns because the alternative to believing that they exist is simply untenable.
1
Reality is untenable?
The moral collapse is across the whole spectrum of the right wing. Examine every previous policy and value. Once environmentalism mattered to Republicans as did civil rights and women's rights.
Before the enormous tax cuts for the rich adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit, they claimed they were for Main Street not Wall Street. Once they cared about free trade but now almost unprecedented trade wars are beginning. Once Republicans strongly opposed Russia and dictatorships, all of whom Trump celebrates.
Once they condemned a president who spent too much time on a golf course and nepotism and conflicts of interest. They prided themselves on family values before supporting a sexual assaulter, serial adulterer, a child molester for senator, and breaking up immigrant families.
This has no semblance of intellectual values. Republicans now also disapprove of higher education. The Know Nothing Party has risen again.
4
My pain threshold is exceeded every day with the fake President and his menagerie of enablers and genuflectors. I want the real America back; you know--the country that pulls together because we believe in community and working for a better world. Sigh.
1
I'm seeing a pattern here: Conservative--i.e. Republican--administration wrecks the economy, starts ill-advised, unwinnable and possibly illegal war then Democratic administration is elected to clean up the Republican mess. Since all of the aftereffects of the Republican debacle manifest during the Democratic administration the Right goes ballistic, blaming Democrats for the mess Republicans created. And their mouth-breathing 'base' laps it up.
10
Don't forget the part where the GOP blames the Democrats for the resulting tax increases to fix the mess caused by Republicans.
3
....and don't forget the part where they ignore they caused the Great Depression, the Great Recession, today's Kansas and Louisiana states failing economies with their same, never changing [failed], policies.
2
Yep. And the dumbification of the public feeds back:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/04/corporate-plan-groom-u-s-kids-se...
"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts"Roy S. Durstine in the periodical Advertising & Selling. 1945
In 1974 a Congressional Representative named Earl Landgrebe who adamantly opposed the impeachment of Richard Nixon employed a version of the saying,
It was in that final Nixon week, however, that Mr. Landgrebe tossed off some of his most memorable lines. “Don’t confuse me with facts: I’ve got a closed mind,” he declared.
The attitude has been around for a long time and can be traced back in part to Plato.
2
I wish Krugman had at least made a mention of Bret Stephens as an example of a thoughtful conservative being published in a ‘liberal’ publication. I have no idea whether Stephens has any sway within the conservative body politic, but it was a great move on the part of the Times to carry him regularly and give us liberals a chance to read the thoughts of a rational conservative thinker.
2
There are a few (very few) others (e.g. George Will for one). But I think Krugman here means primarily professional economists .
The rich have turned schools of economics and business schools into schools of theology, spreading articles of faith rather than science. Expect theories, shamelessly promulgated, whereby our economic betters rule by divine right. Their starting point is that the rich should be praised and the poor deserve what they've got. All their economics are based on flattering their patrons.
1
We are in the days of the Inquisition when it comes to economics. Those who don't tow the conservative line are being executed or expelled. Just look at the turnover in Congress and the White House. There number of bodies are the same but the names on them keep changing whenever someone grows a conscience.
Well as to conservatives in the "hard sciences," I can speak to that.
I was trained in aeronautical engineering at the very end of the 60s and into the 70s -- back then that field was as Republican as it comes. These were the last of the old-school guys -- the ones who wore white shirts with pocket protectors and skinny black ties; used a slide-rule naturally, though by then calculators were taking over. And they were staunch anti-communist hard-money Republicans.
I left aviation in the mid 70s, went back to graduate school to do atmospheric physics .. but through a career have kept connected to aerospace.
And today I don't know a scientist or an engineer who is a full Republican. I know a few who straddle or feel lost, a few can't-stand-Hillary; not a one who endorses what the GOP has become, Trump particularly.
In the early 60s is was the Republican party that stood for education, was seen as "elitist," and did not have the Southern Democrats ... "Rockefeller Republicans" particularly. You did not need to be right-wing to feel the GOP not only had a place for you, you were the core of the party.
Today there's no home left for any of those old-school Republicans. Worse yet Trumpismo has made it clear that they are really no more than perhaps 10% of the electorate now.
The party no longer opposes Bolshevik authoritarianism; instead it is now the model, overlaid with bling, groping, and incessant making bleep up.
The educated can't take it.
3
Well said, and well-argued (as usual), Dr. K!
But as for your (rhetorical?)question: "What accounts for this moral decline?"
1) Absolute addiction to power and the fear of losing it by admitting that a central tenet of your 'program' was fundamentally flawed?
2) Being bought and paid for by big-monied interests? Who routinely endow academic chairs and "think tanks" (but only for propagation of their views) and who blatantly pay for "research" that's inherently bogus? (cf. Inside Job, where the likes of Glenn Hubbard and Frederic S. Mishkin were clearly outed as being for sale!).
1
Kudlow speaks, and the markets calm. He’s the voice of reason for this administration? Good lord, the cannons are rolling across the decks.
Without a doubt we live in an Orwellian world where down is up and up is down. The NYT had it right when it talks about head spinning developments in our GOP Trumpist order. For those who want to be inside sycophants one must follow the snake oil of constantly shifting lies and counter lies. But a lie is no longer a lie to the insider. It is only what someone like Trump wants to believe. Thus Democrats cause budget deficits and Republicans are the source of thrift and prudence completely denying hard budgetary statistics among so many falsehoods that overwhelm our ability to follow them. To cloud the facts is the first tactic of the GOP and as I say this I realize that the GOP will throw more lies into the mix further confusing the issue. We need solid discussions of issues, but when fog and destruction of our social order is the goal, Orwellian double speak practiced like the gospel truth allows no basis for conversation or compromise.
"And no, you don’t see the same thing on the other side. Liberal economists . . . have rarely been sycophants to people in power.” Now I don’t know about these liberal economists of which you speak, but neoliberal economists, such as Professor Krugman, and the newspapers that employ them, are always sycophants to people in power. The people in power the neoliberal economists serve are, of course, the Centrist Democrats, people like Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Schumer and Ms. Pelosi, whose Republican Lite leadership of the Democratic Party brought us Trump in 2016 and will insure the continued Republican control of the House in 2018 and Trump's re-election in 2020. Look in the mirror, folks; the fault lies not in your stars. No matter how convenient it might be for you to believe, all those Obama voters who switched over to Trump in 2016 after eight years of Republican Lite policies from the Obama Administration didn’t suddenly turn racist overnight, nor did the Rooskies make them do it. Example: If any of the aforementioned Centrist Democrats were to come up with an austerity inspired, New Deal destroying “Grand Bargain,” I’m sure if I looked hard enough that I could find a neoliberal economist to give it his blessing.
3
Trumpism of the Republicans is chaos and misinformation, outright lies and distortion of reality which the Fox, Sinclair, hate radio and MAGA voters embrace. Economics is just one aspect of the nightmare. We are truly in uncharted waters with Trumpism and suspect, as with the EPA, it is only going to get worse. What I truly fear is when James Mattis is forced to leave or resigns.
1
Brilliant because speaking truth.
More, please!
The problem, in a nutshell, is that 'conservative' now refers to someone who frequently appears on Fox and bellows a lot. It also refers to fruitcakes with talk radio shows and web sites that spout nonsense like "Pizzagate" and seriously claim that the children who died in a hail of gunfire at Sandy Hook were just Hollywood extras doused in fake blood, planted there by lib'ruls in cahoots with our former President, who was a Kenyan Muslim terrorist operative.
The problem is that the word 'conservative' is now pretty much synonymous with delusional, if not downright sociopathic. When 'conservatives' are able to say, without a hint of humor or irony, that the solution to gun violence is a lot more guns; the solution to our health care mess is to suffocate the Affordable Care Act with no alternative in sight; and the way to build infrastructure and become fiscally responsible is to drastically cut taxes and blow up the federal deficit -- well then, pardner, we have entered The Twilight Zone.
4
Bruce Bartlett is a conservative economist that admits he had a hand in creating the mythology around tax cuts during the Reagan Administration...like Krugman says, he's been banished from Republican Conservatism.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/28/i-helpe...
1
The left has genuine public intellectuals with actual ideas and at least some real influence; the right does not.
Paul, this feels almost right. Except. Under Obama the national debt rose from $7.5 Trillion to $20 Trillion.
I know, there was a catastrophe to fix. But, I remember those shovel ready projects that got funded and produced nothing.
I guess I think if the left was truly underpinned by intellectual capability, then, history would also be part of the analysis of economic decisions. But, nobody is looking at where we are headed with this not sustainable debt, not Dem, not Repub. And, where we are headed is very ugly and both parties are sponsoring our debt party.
So, to me it feels like both the left and the right are unhinged, and, both feel like the are right.
2
Not true, on almost all points. When Obama took office the debt stood at $10+ trillion, the next year's additions were mostly on Bush's budget and policies, the actual debt when Obama's policies started was closer to $12 billion. Kind of a big miss on your part, no? Obama's stimulus ($800 billion or so) was divided three ways, 1/3 tax cuts, largely for the working class, 1/3 support for states and localities who could not run deficits, and 1/3 infrastructure, the results I see whenever I drive the freeways. Responsible economists assign about $1.3 trillion of the debt accumulated during the Obama terms to Obama policies, much of the rest was spent on the fixed costs of 8 million or so jobs lost to the Great Recession, the loss of Trillions in citizen wealth, the economic slowdown as consumers paid down record levels of debt incurred before 2009, and of course the serial and often successful efforts of the GOP to sabotage the economy with multiple needless mini-recessions caused by their shutdowns, threatened shutdowns, debt ceiling emergencies, fiscal cliff emergencies and general forced and poorly timed austerity.
2
It's wild that somebody like Williamson is considered an "intellectual" by the right wing. Talk about low standards.
What value is there to making ad hominem arguments, of accusing conservative economists being morally decadent?
Mr. Krugman makes a very powerful argument about the right wanting only "cranks". If correct, that is very dangerous for the economic health of our country, and I'd like to hear his suggested solutions.
Specific examples about specific people (such as Kudlow) being inflexible is fine. As a professional, accusing other professionals of incompetently sticking to false models is fine. Make your argument, show your work, and convince us to not elect those who rely on incompetent professionals.
But to then just rant that "THEY are IMMORAL!"? What am I supposed to do with that, burn them at the stake?
You're either on the Trumpublican bus, or you're not.
Better sell the Trumpublican brand, or else.
Better do it with a smile, the way a real estate investor/reality TV star does it, or get out.
It is a strange world when left is right and right is wrong.
Dr. Krugman:
There was "an age of the enlightenment"; the Renaissance, from the 14th to the 17th century; now we have started "The Age of Darkness 2.0", the "Middle Ages of humanity", again. This time is not because "foreign barbarians are at the gate"; it is "domestic barbarians are already inside", in the kitchen, cooking their stinking brews.
It seems that us humans have a propinquity to darkness; just look at the intelligent, cult Germany falling into total darkness, imprisoning the truth and becoming the most destructive nation in the world.
"But when the bad hire is let go, the right treats him as a martyr, proof of liberal refusal to let alternative viewpoints be heard."
Euclid couldn't have a better "proof". Only thing wrong here is not "liberal"--Neo-Marxist, and that's the problem.
Liberalism is a theory of government where government serves the people and what is good for the majority of ordinary people is good for the country in a society where everyone plays by the same rules and where facts and results matter and where your try things to make improvements and if they fail you admit the failure and try something else. The New Deal now being dismantled is the best example in my lifetime.
On the other hand conservatism is a religion based on faith in certain principles which never change and cannot be challenged: what is good for the rich is good for the country; conservatives have special rules of conduct; private ownership of government is the end goal with a one party system; and of course oligarchy is superior to democracy but sham elections are okay and of course America is a white, Christian nation. You play by their rules and leave morals and love of country behind on march in lock step you will be rewarded. There is no room in conservatism or its other name, fascism, for individual rights, true democracy, science, a free press the rule of law. As for all scientists, economists, etc., just tell they what they want to hear and swear to it and you will all be employed.
Another very informative article by Prof Paul Krugman. It is sad to see the moral decay of conservative academic research.
It an effort to cheer up Paul, I point out the situation is much worse elsewhere in academia and elsewhere in government.
Where you say?
Its in nutritional research, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetic, which is a major cause of sugary tooth decay and much , much worse. A supporter of the standard american diet for economic reasons, despite massive proof of its great damages to Americans' health, the moral morass there takes the prize.
The root of this evil, as most evils, is money, funders' money.
According to Wiki: "A 1995 report noted the Academy received funding from companies like McDonald's, PepsiCo, The Coca-Cola Company, Sara Lee, Abbott Nutrition, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, McNeil Nutritionals, SOYJOY, Truvia, Unilever, and The Sugar Association as corporate sponsorship.[22][54] The Academy also partners with ConAgra Foods, which produces Orville Redenbacker, Slim Jims, Hunt's Ketchup, SnackPacks, and Hebrew National hot dogs, to maintain the American Dietetic Association."
The health care diseases and deaths caused for these profitable partnerships is likely in the millions.
'
1
May I take issue with Dr. Krugman? There are some intelligent conservative intellectuals who deserve respect. May I propose David Brooks, Michael Gerson and David Gergen? Bruce Bartlett is an intelligent conservative economic thinker.
None of these people support Trump.
By all means put people such as Kevin Williamson on tv for all of us to see. It's far better to have the current right-wing vileness right out there in the open. It's far better to know than to not know.
1
"In this, as in so much else, we’re looking at asymmetric polarization."
As usual, Dr. Krugman is 100% accurate. The Right spouts lies and hypocrisy, then bases false equivalences upon their lies hypocrisy. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Unfortunately, until some major scandal breaks the spine of the Rightwing Cabal, until some major scandal crushes the Koch-Fox Axis of Evil, facts, truth, and logic will continue to not matter....
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Upton Sinclair
2
If the Atlantic Magazine had hired a Socialist to write a column that would be real diversity. America suffers from a lopped off Left Wing, a narrow intellectual spectrum that has sealed off philosophical discourse that would expose Capitalism as a choice, one among others. Instead of dealing with essentials the "diversity" is supposed to be corrected by far right nihilists. How about letting a Communist write a column. We are all brainwashed to be afraid of these types, even in tiny doses, because we live in a Capitalist Society and its function is to monetize every institution so a few can thrive. Does it make any SENSE to live like this? Not anymore: Donald Trump, Fox News, the Mercers. I think enough people see where we are headed to question our own blind spots, and, perhaps, ameliorate our fall.
1
The futile search for this model unicorn is a media issue because of the insistence by conservative groups for "balance" of "liberal" opinions - not ideas- just opinions, that are claimed to dominate MSM products.
The notion that our unicorn should be an intellectual whose purpose is to engage with ideas, not just throw out opinions, is an odd criterion for this society since there is so little interest in substantive, intellectual discussion anywhere, not just in electronic media, but especially there.
For the vast majority, the only models they know
of such are pathetic travesties, populated by polemicists with a 10 min limit, maximum.
The discussion of ideas requires time, no commercial breaks, a decent level of sobriety and mutual respect, and little moderation. It doesn't mean polemicizing absent an effort to support such with good evidence (not cherry picked), soundly presented and open to
interrogation. Take Sevareid or Murrow.
The society by and large hasn't exhibited the slightest interest in watching such give and take for several decades, especially after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, allowing cable to promote vapid infotainment with dishonest uses of cherry picked "facts" to claim a point that is rarely open to deeper investigation of the nature of such facts. Ratings wars then claimed serious discussion as victim long ago.
American popular culture has never wanted such nor ever will. It is for a distinct minority only.
This is a great article and highlights the real challenge we face on the left in today's political climate on almost every issue: it's not about the issues it's about the lies. For dems, it isn't that we don't connect with middle America - it's that we're constantly in a gun fight with a knife.
We need political advisors and psychologists that can answer the question, "How do you debate when your opponent lies?".
The upside for the left and the center is that el Diablodon’s hasty hiring and firing could effectively retire many of the right Boomers without trace of grace.
Paul Krugman on the political right: " If they use actual economists, they use them the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination."
Awesome takedown! I am definitely stealing this line!
1
This is depressing to realize that conservative economists lack intellectual integrity and are unwilling to change their opinions and theories if facts prove them wrong. This doesn't augur well for economic policy that requires pragmatism and rigorous analysis in order to work well for the American people!
1
This is not a conservative or liberal problem, Mr. Krugman. Nowadays, everybody has to be their own marketer and "brand". It is not enough anymore to be a thoughtful student of data, history and analytics; you need to advance your career by being a "thought leader" with constant streams of content to remind people of your relevance. Make yourself ubiquitous and people will think you are an expert and competent. It doesn't matter if you are wrong much of the time, since there are apparently no ramifications either for the news organization that promotes you or your career generally.
For example, how many mediocre and even non-credentialed economists, foreign policy and military gurus and legal experts have appeared on Fox over the past several years? Too many to count. Remember Wayne Simmons, the former frequent Fox News commentator who said he had been a CIA operative and passed himself off as an expert on covert and military operations? He was a fake and sentenced to prison. Any ramifications for Fox News? Zero.
Bit by bit, we have been dumbed into confusing argument for education, fiction for fact and clownery for competence. It is partially our own fault, of course, for not demanding better of our media and, in some cases, for simply wanting a news media that caters to our own biases rather than doing fact-based reporting.
1
An entire cluster of nations were founded on the idea of being led by the social science acumen of left wing intellectuals. From the Soviet Union to Cambodia there were human catastrophes and mostly collapsed.
Well, I admit to being a bit of a neophyte when it comes to economics. I tend to rely on folks like Dr. Krugman, who's always seemed knowledgeable. I further confess to not knowing much about Mr. Williamson whom I only learned of when reading the brief note in The Atlantic that he was going (I guess I don't read TA as thoroughly as I thought).
But I do attempt to read folks on the right I consider intelligent, including one or two who publish in the NYT. Thus, nearly every day I have a look at the likes of The Wall Street Journal (which, as far as I can tell does not seek op-ed columnists on the left), Commentary, and a couple more, at least one of which I actually pay for. My point is that, though Krugman's observations about conservative economics seems to have merit (see the beginning of this letter), I disagree with his opening statement in which, writ large, he denies the intellectual honesty of conservative writers.
I would like to offer another view as to why the quality of "thought leaders" has fallen so far in the last 30 years: it pays $$$$ for media, educational institutions and politicians to pander to the laziest intellectual denominator and feed the appetite for spectacle.
Long reads? Those are for nerds. Policy papers? That's above my pay grade. Original sources? It's much easier to let a radio or TV host, or even better, late-night comedy shows, tell me what to think about domestic and foreign policy. Read a whole newspaper? Wait, what?
Truth is dead, critical thinking is a test-prep skill, and serious scholarship is for nerds. So we have pundits, celebrities and geniuses of media manipulation capturing the public interest and offering punchlines and soundbites to justify any point of view.
The next iteration is that we don't just parrot their rhetoric, but we elect them to govern us and equate their commercial success with the ability to run a ship of state. Bored by the merely intellectual,competent public servant we demand spectacle, and we get spectacle. Sober-minded, mature, seasoned, scholarly moderating statesmen are unicorns, right and left. I see no difference - the radicals own the conversation on both sides and the majority of the citizenry cringes in unreported agony because that doesn't pay for ads or drive late night ratings.
In the post mortem of the great Recession of 2008, I thought we Heard Greenspan admit to congress that he had to rethink his Monetary Policy beliefs from the past 30 years. What magic has occurred since then to change the economic reality? But the political ditto heads will follow fallacies like sheep walking off a cliff.
"...the real problem here is that media organizations are looking for unicorns: serioius, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence. Forty or fifty years ago, such people did exist. But now they don't."
"So in economics, a news organization trying to represent conservative thought either has to publish people with no constituency or go with the charlatans."
David Brooks is a unicorn, has a constituency and is certainly no charlatan.
1
The Republican Party is no longer concerned with true conservatism, economic or social. The GOP lost its way as a cohesive credible political force when they pursued their racist Southern Strategy developed under Nixon to convince Southerners that the GOP would oppose civil rights. Fiscal conservatism has fallen by the wayside as the primary political force behind the GOP. It has been replaced with racism and bigotry as we witnessed during the Obama era. To maintain their political position Republicans have grabbed power at the local and state level through the flow of massive amounts of dark money supporting the expansion of the Tea Party extreme right. They are also dependent on the huge growth of right wing religious fundamentalism.
Republicans are so caught up in their frenzied effort to roll back every step of social progress made in the last century that they are willing to stand behind the ignorant, immoral Donald Trump, a man who knows absolutely nothing about economics or trade policy.
We face a new Dark Age, one of overt corporate fascism that seeks to undermine our democracy with voter suppression and right wing propaganda machines. Economic philosophy does not play a role in today's Republican Party.
2
Asymmetric polarization. This describes our entire situation in two words and it's been going on for decades. All this time we've been told that if we would just meet the right in the center ground everything would be okay, we'd get along.
But it's always been a lie.
The fact that Obamacare is basically the same system proposed by Bob Dole in the Clinton years is pretty hard evidence of that. The right proposed it as a reasonable alternative to single payer. Twenty years later the same ideas proposed by a black president became the most evil idea on earth.
It's not about facts or reason because you can't get people to vote against their own interests that way. People that think for a living (like economists) are often surrounded by other thinkers and if they put forth obviously foolish ideas they get ridiculed. And rightly so. But there's always a small segment willing to sell their souls in order to be able make a good living, allowing wing nuts and people with an agenda to point to them as "experts" and voila, a lucrative career is born. These people have always been there and always will be.
The solution? We need to revitalize our educational system and base it on facts and critical thinking. Not all ideas have equal merit and they need to be examined and discarded.
We no longer have a loyal opposition, we have a threat to our democracy and it's high time something is done about it. See you in November.
1
Being a conservative in this era means never ever admitting you were wrong about anything. There is no more deserving a person as Trump to lead these Republicans.
May be this is because unicorns are what the other half of the country want. May be lampposts are what they want.
They have a preconceived endgame -- benefit thy self. And thy self here is the 1%, who very cleverly made the 99% believe they are included in this endgame when they are not.
More over, this endgame is always played at the short term, micro level; never long term, never big picture. So they fail to see how their rhetorically constructed world is self destructive.
I once heard a Republican said he did not care about pollution at a river hundreds of miles away since his own town was okay. He did not care about destruction of our ecosystem a hundred years in the future because his ecosystem now is okay.
For a time, I kept thinking the Republicans could not be so foolish. As with Krugman, I am compelled by reality to recognize they are. "Conservatism" has become for me a word that denotes badness, or foolishness, or "devoid of reality". Sigh.
First of all, today's conservatives are not conservatives - they are radicals. Second, Trump, McConnell, Ryan, Pruitt, et al., and their Fox fellow travelers in the "news" business, are so obviously a bunch of corrupt fascist liars - and in certain cases, traitors as well - that it provides a very nice, simple litmus test for which conservatives are honest. Peter Wehner and Jennifer Rubin have passed the test. 99% of the rest have failed miserably. Actually, even when I was a young person, when William F. Buckley was himself barely middle-aged, I thought his arguments had a certainly vaguely sophistic quality to them, and a lot of special pleading. So even honest conservatism has always seemed to me to be pretty intellectually weak - but an honest if weak argument is still an argument. Otherwise, as Krugman himself has said, "every word out of their mouths is a lie, including 'a', 'and' and 'the'.
And why, may we ask, is the GOP so determined to follow falsehood instead of rational conservatism? One guess is that they have discovered that with deep pockets behind them they can easily brainwash enough voters using Fox News, evangelicals, and nut cases like Limbaugh to be re-elected. Using this scheme of kow-towing to a few billionaires running the propaganda machine is a simpler and more certain career than pursuing your oath of office to do what’s good for the country, not what’s appealing to wealthy wackos.
1
The superstitious mob has always had just one enemy: the individual who thinks for himself. It can only consume thinking that is packaged and readily digestible - junk food for the mind. Only the most vulgar slogans can penetrate its limited attention span. It gobbles answers at a furious and repetitive rate and whenever half a question presents itself, it is promptly followed by the first conspiracy theory. It elects a president who takes his cues from Fox News and staffs the White House with intellectual midgets, save for a few token "adults". Both kinds don't last, some because they can't take it anymore, and some because their corruption is so blatant that even Fox News gives them a hard time. So where could a left-right debate even begin to take shape?
Liberals are right on the economy and wrong on genes and race. They keep claiming that Charles Murray has been "decisively refuted," when he hasn't been.
The failure of Head Start and No Child Left Behind substantiate the arguments of Charles Murray and others of his persuasion.
Despite the failure of the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty to enable most blacks to behave and perform as well as most whites, liberals keep claiming that social reform and social welfare spending can solve social problems that are caused by innate deficiencies.
Liberals claim to desire "a dialogue on race." They suppress an honest debate on racial problems they know they will lose.
You are a racist. I doubt that skin tone has anything to do with intelligence and integrity and character.
However, poverty, racism, and discrimination are likely
to determine much in our country. I wish your skin would darken overnight so that you could experience first hand discrimination.
Put 35 economists in a room and you will have 35 different opinions to the same problem.
@boohoo: Often they really don't have the same problem in mind, as they have politically driven answers they wish to provide. Indeed, they invent problems to justify ready answers, e.g., Q: how do we lower unemployment; A: inflation is the real problem. Although economics teaches that there is no free lunch (because the Invisible Hand picks up the tab - Lol), economists often emphasize the cost of every benefit, which is why they are "two-handed."
Imagine if you had 35 MDs in a room and asked them which drug was most effective as a cure and each mentioned a different side effect to be avoided.
Hopefully, the centre will become reconstituted as people become increasingly disgusted with the nonsense proposed by the extremes.
Dr. Krugman said ”But when the bad hire is let go, the right treats him as a martyr, proof of liberal refusal to let alternative viewpoints be heard. Why does this keep happening?”
The simple answer is that, yes, there is in fact a liberal refusal to let alternative viewpoints be heard. Conor Friedersdorf of the very same Atlantic that fired Williamson concurs: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/a-dissent-concernin... Here's a rather illuminating bit from Friedertsdorf’s piece: . The best illustration of why that (gross misrepresentation of Williamsons position) is so requires reading a 2015 post by Williamson where he reflects on his “unplanned” conception by parents who chose to give him up for adoption. “It is not as though I do not sympathize with women who feel that they are not ready for a child,” he wrote. And later, he added, “It is impossible for me to know whether the woman who gave birth to me would have chosen abortion if that had been a more readily available alternative in 1972. I would not bet my life, neither the good nor the bad parts of it, on her not choosing it.”
Capt. my Capt.--Most of us believe we are so important, that the world could never get along without us. I suspect this is your opinion. I have news...every human is pretty much insignificant.
1
This editorial is completely accurate. One thing though, and I say this as someone who worked in New York media for 35 years. When someone who says women should be hanged for having an abortion gets ajob at the Atlintic (Williamson) it's because he wasn't vetted AT ALL. This is common. Powerful people lace their relatives, paramours and business connections in jobs they're not qualified for. A free press is important, but ours is not a meritocracy. The corporate media structure is authoritarian and worse still, the authority is irrationally placed in those close to the rich and powerful, simply because they are rich and powerful. Media corporations are following the same evolution as our politics — a few rich families call all the shots. That's why grifters and hacks gain prominence in media as well. Serious anti-trust legislation can't come fast enough.
49
I'm confident The Atlantic vetted Williamson. What they did anticipate was the reaction of its readers.
1
You'd think that with the high esteem in which Reagan is held .. including, by extension, their embrace of Martin Feldstein, Conservatives would realize that as early as 1989, Reagan’s economics guy did not find any evidence that the Reagan recovery had come from the Reagan administration’s personal income tax cuts.
In Feldstein's 1989 NBER paper “Budget Deficits, Tax Incentives and Inflation: A Surprising Lesson From the 1983-1984 Recovery” .. he and co-auther Elmendorf found that the recovery which began in 1983 had been caused mainly by an expansionary monetary policy. And, to a much lesser extent, it had come from tax incentives for business fixed investment.
If Conservatives spent more time actually studying the economic record, especially the record they seem to so fervently worship .. there would be a lot less ignorance standing in the way of economic progress and prosperity for all.
11
Donald Tump's hiring of Larry Kudlow as the Director of the National Economic Council is just one more appointment of a right-wing media personality in an administration already saturated by them.
But then, experience isn't something really called for when the only job requirement is rubber-stamping anything coming off of Mr. Trump's desk, and successfuly repealing any kind of effective legislation put into place by his predecessor.
In that sense, there's no reason to doubt that Mr. Kudlow will be a perfect fit.
6
It's not that difficult to understand. Conservatism no longer exists as a political force. It has been replaced by Trumpism. An ideology has been replaced by an authoritarian personality cult, loyal only to The Leader.
Trumpism has no coherent intellectual tenets that can be expounded on and debated. It is simply an ad hoc, visceral, emotional response to events that seeks to identify winners and losers and is heavy on anger and resentment.
Traditional conservatives, such as the NYT's David Brooks and Ross Douthat, are men and women without a country. They no longer have any political power or influence within the GOP. Trumpism has conquered the GOP and left them behind to wallow in the dust.
Thus, as Prof. Krugman points out, in this Age of Trump, what's the point of searching for a responsible conservative intellectual with influence on Trump if there are none?
9
The whole point of conservative economics is to cut taxes so minorities and poor people won't get any welfare or food stamps. It's been this way for at least thirty years.
11
My thoughts, exactly, Dr. Krugman. Well said.
I really wish pundits would stop agonizing over Williamson as some kind of example of our philosophical failures, whether it be free speech or economics or religious influence or what have you.
This man is not a fit example for anything. This man openly argued for hanging women for exercising reproductive control over their bodies. Hanging them. By the hundreds of thousands, even millions, he wants to see women hanging by the neck until they are dead, and he wants other people to want it too.
And yet this dumbfounding argument, this assertion that the mass murder of women is what our society should strive toward, is set aside (perhaps with a slightly furrowed brow) to get to some other "bigger" issue Mr. Williamson purportedly represents that the universally male pundits would prefer to discuss.
Mr. Williamson wants to hang women for exercising self-determination. This terrifying, focused desire for violence against women is what this is about. How his name is even mentioned in respectable journalism or commentary absolutely escapes me.
4
Well, in fact there's nothing preventing a news organization from hiring a conservative economist who doesn't yet have a following... if she's good, she'll get one.
2
If we don’t fix income inequality we will find ourselves back in 1848. That is what Trump and the authoritarians are selling, a fix to the decline of the middle class, but sadly the people who are buying the snake oil don’t realize they are being conned.
Someday they will, money is power, the more it accumulates the harder will be the correction. It’s looking like a doozy, as we are not even close to starting it.
2
The phenomenon of intellectual rot is a microcosm of the intellectual rot of the entire conservative side of the political spectrum.
The acceptance of easily disproved falsehoods, or outright lies, is concentrated on the right. There is no liberal analog to the widespread conservative beliefs that global warming is a hoax, that President Obama was not born in the US, or that he is a Muslim, or that millions of undocumented immigrants voted in the last election. To use another example, Fox News peddles conspiracy theories that would never be aired on MSNBC, or any other major media outlet.
Facts do indeed have a liberal bias.
5
This column needs no additional commentary from this writer. It speaks clearly for itself, as do most of Dr. K's observations.
Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore sitting in positions of influence and power advising an economically illiterate president should be particularly alarming to all, whether of a conservative or progressive bent. They have been consistently wrong historically in their economic analyses, as well as their forecasts and remedies.
Indeed, the Kansas City Star stopped publication of Moore's work in 2014 due to inaccurate statements. In 2015, Jonathan Chait, in response to a Moore column concerning Obamacare in the Washington Times, noted in New York magazine that "Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Moore's column is the fact that...the chief economist of the most influential conservative think tank in the United states lacks even a passing familiarity with its fiscal objectives".
Kudlow and Moore are economic ideologues unable to admit mistakes or cite past success, much like the GOP politicians they purport to serve. They will only take us farther down the economic rabbit hole created by economic snake oil peddlers.
4
The I more I observe how economists and kibitzers impart wisdom or else opine freely, the more I am convinced that the here and now dictates the narrative, with various degrees of ignorance and grandstanding that come with such pronouncements.
Opposite stands the true philosophical process of economics. Stay with me please. When Adam Smith is quoted, it is invariably about his miraculous/nebulous "invisible hand". The Wealth of Nations was a minor work of his, and his famous expression was thrown twice, only twice, as a way of speech, nothing else! And Yet as if touched by a magic wand, it became the very measure of how capitalism works, that is to say it might or it might not, for such is how miracles work. Wrong!
Adam Smith's major work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments is a colossal tour de force; not facile compared to the aforesaid miracle of the "invisible hand"...
Adam Smith's is adamant that a society's primordial role is to invest in each and every individual in order for natural talents and propensities to be discovered and developed. That is when an individual becomes useful and productive to the society, and is happy!
In absence of a thorough process that follows Smith's philosophy, anybody can be an economist, or a prestidigitator of fleeting fancies, or a charlatan peddling snake oils, of which are many.
To make it short, a good economist must first be a humanist, who observes, develops and preaches the capitalism with a human face, like Adam Smith taught us!
3
Bravo Mr Krugman, but what you say is true because the GOP has moved so far right beyond political and intellectual respectability. Let's imagine though that wasn't the case, or if "the left" was all there was, wouldn't there be disagreements among them such that some might be regarded as "less progressive" and others as "more progressive" or even as - cough, cough - "conservative" and "progressive"?
Not one side bad and the other good but both bad and good in a way, depending on circumstances and who you listen too? Doesn't democracy require disagreement? Though serious, credible, respectable disagreement to be sure? I so hate black and white thinking and misrepresentations of groups of people as all the same. But kudos to you again.
"And no, you don’t see the same thing on the other side. Liberal economists have made plenty of bad predictions – if you never get it wrong, you’re not taking enough risks – but have generally been willing to admit to and learn from mistakes, and have rarely been sycophants to people in power."
*Cough* Robert Rubin.
2008 demonstrated that the whole field of mainstream macroeconomics is bankrupt.
For far too long economics has been basically a branch of mathematics based on assumptions that have nothing to do with reality.
It’s a religion with a little math stuck in to make it look scientific.
And then there’s tenure. Why change your views when you can’t get fired?
Of course all these conservative economists want guaranteed employment.
They argue against guaranteed employment as the greatest economic evil. But are passionately protective about it for themselves.
The field is rotten to the core.
3
There are serious economist, like Professor Krugman, who "teaches" us how economics works.
There are TV entertainer economist, like Kudlow, who "entertains" us with wacko, voodoo economics.
To Mr. Trump and his followers. Education verses entertainment? Entertainment wins every time.
4
The fact that this "field" even supports distinctions such as "conservative economist" and "liberal economist" is sufficient testament that the problem of charlatanism is one of degree.
---Mr. Physics (oh, and independently a liberal)
4
sly stuff: "So in economics, a news organization trying to represent conservative thought either has to publish people with no constituency or go with the charlatans who actually matter."
that our national 24/7 media cannot enlighten its public to the worth of "no constituency" conservatives who have "maintained their principles," just as it has promoted a confederacy of "charlatans" (which is why they "matter" in the first place) is just wrong, the media can make a sage out of a charlatan overnight (just read or tune in to the political advocacy pravdas on both sides posing as "news organizations."
as for defining "moral collapse" (if "moral" is even remotely applicable here), as "a willingness to put political loyalty over professional standards," dr k is past disingenuous in picking either side in this fight, as if the truth (remember "truth" from j-school?) was a partisan perk.
P-Krug is at it again. After 8 years of recession, then anemic growth, he's still slamming the low tax and regulatory policies of conservatives. For Krugman, growth is always the result of tax hikes, spending and a bigger government boot, while recessions are always the fault of the right. It doesn't matter that anyone who isn't living in an intellectual fantasy world can see that the Clinton "boom" happened due to the tech economy/bubble, and in spite of his tax hikes. It doesn't matter that Billy Bob, aside from tax rates, was actually very pro-business. The Reagan boom is completely ignored, as is the Bush boom from 2002-2007. Somehow, the Great Recession was all Dubya's fault, and Obama rescued us. It's just that he couldn't spend as much as he needed to! And now? The stock market going up 40% after Trump was elected, record low unemployment, GDP growth up 50% since Obama...that has nothing to do with optimism and confidence, nor tax cuts.
This, ladies and gentlemen (terms I use deliberately to poke the eyes of the "more than two genders" crowd) is how progressive loons think. They're not unicorns. They are as common as house cats.
1
The "Bush Boom" of 2002-2007? Oh, yes, that was the sound of the housing market exploding.
A prime example of the magical thinking of right wing economics right here. Yup, Scott the economy just magically improved 200% after Yrump took office. Yup, we had a magic boom in the Bush years, just don’t mention the big bust that ended it.
8 years of recession? That’s moronic. And consider Kansas.
1
This is the ultimate danger of the great American experiment called Capitalism . Trickle down economics is based on the assumption that capitalists have an altruistic, high-minded conscience.
2
The right-wing media, whether Fox or Sinclair or so many others, promotes their own message. We don't care.
What I mean is we don't care about message or policy; America is not a good and healthy democracy. We are so, so far away from real democracy that the local oligarchs and plutocrats and billionaires run the place. We've been had and have gotten rather used to it.
The left has some fault, for not really standing for equality. Many Democrats have gotten very rich, and like that. Money is the great seduction. Actually, that is our greatest sin and downfall: simple, unholy greed/avarice.
So, yes, there is no honor or truth in the right-wing today; they've been replaced by the spokespeople of the rich. Their man Trump and his Republican henchmen just passed a great tax cut for the rich. Mission Accomplished.
Time will look at this generation and time in horror. The idea of some kind of 'morality' in being a Republican is now shown to be the great facade it's really always been. Fake. The right is 'fake' (and because of that, the rich continue to centralize wealth, income, property and power - nothing 'populist' about that).
1
Let’s give up the fiction of left and right. Today it’s more like left center-right and wingnuts. Society needs to reclaim the center and we might not get there if we keep thinking the current left-right alignment is okay. What needs to happen is for the center-right to reassert itself. It has been making itself irrelevant by not competing and leaving the field to the wingnuts. That strategy didn’t work. Time for the center-right to cowboy up because the nation needs them. This means the Democrats need a viable conservative (not wingnuts) wing.
1
Religions tend not to welcome critical thinking or deviations from dogma. Supply-side economics is no exception.
2
"And it’s not just that [Larry Kudlow is] incurious and inflexible: selling snake oil is his business model, and he can’t change without losing everything. "
Indeed, and neither can this country's right-wing. They dwell entirely within a belief system, and, by definition, belief systems are supported by feelings and fairy tales, not facts and evidence. This is why you can not have a rational argument with anyone who clings to
One argument used by the intellectual right to justify the TTW (Trump Trade War) is theft of intellectual property by China.
Intellectual property is exploited by the owner to profit in the territories where the rights are held. So a US company which owns a Chinese patent will benefit financially from goods manufactured under patent in China and then sold in the US. The theft of intellectual property by China threatens the profits of these US companies.
Critics argue that the TTW will increase prices paid by US consumers and will threaten US jobs.
If the critics are correct, then the TTW is about enriching US companies by ensuring they profit from goods made under patent in China at the expense of US consumers and US workers. This means that the TTW is not about making US workers great again - no surprise there.
I guess the corporate tax cuts were not enough.
2
I generally agree with Dr. Krugman's opinion pieces but this one goes too far. Has Dr. Krugman overlooked the fact that the NYT recently added another conservative columnist, Brett Stevens? Much to my surprise, I agree with many of Mr. Stevens' opinion pieces. That may be because we're in an era of a historically bad president, even by Republican standards (Nixon, Bush). Trump's assault on the norms of decency and democracy demands our attention. Once that passes -- and it will pass -- I will probably disagree with Mr. Stevens more often. Nevertheless, his columns will undoubtedly be thoughtful, well-researched and deserving of a second take by progressives. It remains to be seen, however, whether the Republican party and their core ideas (are there any?) can recover from the evil they are currently embracing -- an immoral, authoritarian, pre-fascist style of governing.
On Kudlow’s radio program, in the summer of 2008, Kudlow and his guest laughed about Krugman making a strong prediction of an economic collapse. Literally, laughed.
2
I’ve got a good friend who’s father and mother are long time conservatives, and they both understand the economy well. His father is a statistician and his mother Liz taught economics. They are both seriously worried about the tax cuts. His father said, “To take on that much debt with nothing to gain would be like refinancing your house and blowing two hundred thousand to play slots in Las Vegas, in hopes you’ll win the million dollar jackpot.” Like I said, they’re life long conservatives, the kind who followed Barry Goldwater. A rare breed these days.
2
What's that saying? "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Conservatism has become faith-based; belief is more important than facts, because only fantasies can yield what conservatives want to believe. But only Blind Faith will do, because...
...it goes hand-in-hand with the other side of the coin: denial of everything that contradicts what they want to believe.
Which leads to the third leg of the tripod: scapegoating and projection. Conservatism can't survive without enemies, etc. to blame when everything goes wrong. They project their faults on others.
Reason, facts, responsibility? They're like sunlight to a vampire as far as conservatives are concerned.
1
Maybe NYT could expose us lay people to some of these real, unheard economists, well, maybe in conversation with Dr. K or something. It'd also be nice to hear challenges from all sides to those who play economists on TV.
1
All I can say is thank god for Paul Krugman. He is one of the very few public intellectuals I trust and who is an oasis of rationality and integrity in a world run by charlatans. I despair over the fact that he and his intellectual allies have been, for the most part, marginalized politically for decades, and how much better life would be for most Americans had they embraced his worldview over the wacky, consistently wrong and destructive ideas of snake oil salesmen like Kudlow, Laffer and Moore. Nietzsche said that “madness is rare in individuals, but in groups, parties, nations and ages, it is the rule.” Let’s hope he’s proven wrong at least once this November.
1
a conservative woman at work is angry with me for not engaging in discussions of politics. i decline for two reasons: 1. not interested in discussing politics at work. 2. conservatives have no ideas, only hate.
1
If we had good conservative economists, we'd be hearing more about real job creation, and less about tariffs. We'd be hearing about how tariffs can both protect a few jobs, and eliminate others. We'd hear about the reality of global trade - it will not go away, nor will global manufacturing. We'd hear about the really poor policy decisions which have increased income bifurcation and reduced the functional middle class.
These are all conservative fiscal issues.
But right now? Conservative economics is about total free market capitalism, total deregulation and total elimination of government services in favor of privatization. And none of them are talking downsides.
When the liberals have a better handle on fiscal conservatism, we have truly gone down the rabbit hole.
No, what you list about trade, tariffs and jobs are all liberal/progressive issues as well. I am a progressive and for fiscal responsibility and governing efficiency. Never found anything of that sort in conservative quiver, exept for rhetoric.
American conservatism last 40 years has been purely about abortion, gun rights and tax cuts. Those who call themselves "conservative" and have some brain, should finally understand thay are not conservatives.
The issue that should be discussed here is the media. What is happening in your monologue is how the media sets up facts to meet an ideology; ie, what you are doing in this article.
2
Strange to write this entire column without a mention of the anti-intellectualism that has permeated the speech of the Republican leadership -- and Fox News. That deserves its own column, for there is scarcely anything more dangerous than the denigration of experience, expertise, science, and evidence-based policy.
2
Maybe what is missing is a Moderate economist. If what you say is that Conservative and Liberal economists are the only ones who have clout or should be listened to I would propose that the field of economics is myopic.
While conservative economists in university have the highest salaries in the social sciences, after a while they realize they can go work for a "thunk" tank or become and economic advisor to a bank or investment firm and quadruple their salary if they toe the party line. They become consultants. They even do this in universities and use the free office space while teaching a class or two. They do not declare their outside incomes to the university even though their affiliations are posted as merit badges to their "intellect". Anyone else who ran a business while holding another job would be fired.
Fortunately those who do not toe the party line and not shot for their beliefs like Stalin and Mao did.
The intellectual influence of economists on the real world is about the same as social scientists. The issue is that the economists throw a few formulas in their "research" that look like the formula for an atomic bomb. People go "wow" that must be true. Then the economists destroy the economy as they did in the great depression and 2008 and there is no accountability or consequence for their miserable and destructive "advice".
At worse they become a regular on Fox News or work for the Heritage Foundation or CATO or AEI.
Two words: Fox News
Reagan’s waiver of media ownership rules, the ending of the Fairness Doctrine, and the expedited citizenship granted to Rupert Murdoch got us in to this mess. With all of the talk about Facebook and Twitter it’s a wonder that no one looks at the anti-democratic rhetoric that spews from that station like a fire hose. The economic philosophies of the right aren’t a product of academic thought, they are a product of the normalization of the zero sum game based on faulty logic and weak excuses. Kudlow doesn’t want to build consensus, he wants to enable the Republican short sighted obsession with tax cuts and depressing wages.
1
The Republican Party needs to be written off as an intellectual endeavor. If mainstream media want to offer a diversity of viewpoints, they should find people with a diversity of rational viewpoints, regardless of their affiliation. Let the Republicans write (crank) letters to the editor unless and until they can discourse like responsible adults. In the meantime, a healthy variety of responsible perspectives might engender a new political movement or two that might do the politics of the country some good.
1
Are GOP intellectuals lacking an openness to facts and ideas? Do they appear to have a kinship with 15th papacy? Yes, and yes.
Diversity in media is not a real problem. Giving too much honest coverage to dishonest conservative intellectuals is the problem. Conservative think tanks (and billionaire funding) can't seem to let go of the doctrines that keep them in power.
I agree with pretty much all of this piece except that I think it's unfair to cast Kevin Williamson as one of the charlatans. Yes I think what he wrote and tweeted about imprisonment or hanging for having an abortion is abhorrent. But he's not one of the conservative pundits who limits his writing to safe opinions that will win him favor on the right., Instead, he can be very clear in expressing views that run directly counter to conservative orthodoxy and earn him nothing but criticism from the right. He's a much more independent thinker than the run of the mill right wing welfare bandits.
There is a term for that: Moral Bankruptcy.
In this case it means that in order to avoid bankruptcy, (and what sane person would not?) They do and say things that the least educated tribal American would do. Sadly, it works. For them.
Why doesn't the media cover what the "non-influential" conservative thinkers are saying? The fact that Republicans are not listening to the serious people on the right is a much more interesting story than simply reporting on what they are doing (and the flunked who agree with their policies). This could be a highly effective way to reveal that the major Republican influence today is $$, not ideas.
Mike
Greg Mankiw’s famous phrase. If they use actual economists, they use them the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.
Sorry Paul, this quote originates from Mark Twain.
Dr. Krugman: This is the most insightful articles that I've ever read on the lack of public intellectuals on the right. You really hit the hammer on the head this time, I gotta say!
When the Republicans threw professionals and experts under the bus they installed the ancient practice of filling their court with pliable dime store oracles and prophets. These new drivers understood that demonstrations of faith and loyalty counted more than his driving ability.
Is a "conservative economist" some kind of immutable being? If conservative economists want to gain or maintain influence, all they have to do, is do their research and accept the fact-based conclusions that their research produces. If they do that, they are not a different person, they are the same person they always were, but contributing to the knowledge base and gaining influence.
The most important words an economist/advisor can tell people in office is something we all know: "There's no free lunch." A conservative economist might legitimately advocate hard money/low taxes/low spending/inflation-suppressing interest rates, if he/she admits the downsides. Similarly, a liberal economist might argue for public works/redistribution of wealth/soft money, and then admit that there's a price for that. The charlatans on either side will say that you can have it both ways: low taxes, low debt, high stock market values, global military empire. Unfortunately, charlatan/economists often get elevated to advisor or iconic level because their views happen to be useful to politicians or promoters, who want to tell people that they can have it both ways. They like to find and parade those economists willing to suppress the essential words, "There's no free lunch."
The fact that free market economists have little purchase with our bipartisan progressive political establishment is unsurprising.
Democrat and Republican governments both support an absolute bureaucracy directing the economy by fiat, a progressively punitive tax code and a means tested welfare state. The 2018 GOP government is functionally indistinguishable from the 2010 Democrat government.
Why would this ruling class want a free market economist offering them cold reality (the progressive political economy is failing across the world and is unsustainable) and then telling them the only remedy is reducing or eliminating the progressive policies they use to obtain power and wealth?
No. Our ruling class is far more comfortable with progressive charlatans providing them with scientific sounding lies to justify their corruption, while the economy slowly descends into stagnation.
1
This is a valuable discussion of the evolution of our politics. However, I've seen a countervailing effect.
For example, when one political party becomes totally dominant, factions within that party then arise to re-create diversity of opinion.
In the same way, "conservatives" have driven themselves off into the weeds of extremism. However, the rest of us have also moved, some to the right to fill the space emptied by the departure into the weeds of the extremists.
Now there is still discussion among a range of opinion. However, that just does not include those who have removed themselves from fair minded honest discussion. The rest of us still have the discussion.
It is important to note this effect, because we must still identify those who have moved to the moderate right, and see what they have done, and appreciate its meaning. They are not all "liberals" just because they are not off in Never-Never Land.
2
As an example of Professor Krugman's argument that mainstream publications (and journalists) struggle with the paucity of integrity in Conservative 'thinkers', a column the other day by a prominent journalist stated that, at least, Kevin Williamson was honest when he said the logical conclusion for those who believe that abortion is murder should be the execution of women who have abortions (and execution by hanging, so, lynching basically). So, in other words, no matter how odious the concocted reasoning, so far as it is honestly held, it is laudable. This is a good example of false equivalency. The media needs to wake up to the fact that many so called conservative intellectuals have gone so far into the regressive dark that they are not worthy of print outside Breitbart and Fox and Friends.
1
Very well stated.
The Atlantic is trying desperately to figure out what it is, and it's becoming as useless as Vanity Fair (which arrived, unasked, unwanted, with my New Yorker subscription).
The Atlantic, now, is about as helpful to public dialogue as Saturday Review, Life, Time, The New Republic and other dented or abandoned vehicles of our cultural past.
1
Part of the problem with the notion of "conservative" as label is that it is unchanging. People drawn to this notion are the ones that would rather look back to the 1950s for inspiration than imagine what a broad, multicultural world could become. While there are benefits in conservatives slowing down the more exuberant tendencies of "liberal" or more correctly "progressive" thinking, it has little importance in the longer term (of course in the long term we are all dead).
Unfortunately, people like Trump who never resided in the real world are especially prone to fall for these conservative notions. Others who are equally cloistered like many in small town America have a similar problem. They live in a very small world with a radius of 25 miles around them, have rarely travelled, and only see people just like themselves. Is it any wonder they can't comprehend the massive social changes seeping into their communities from the outside or that they resent the changes that have led to their impoverishment?
3
Yes, I think this is very true. For many people who are fairly cloistered, they are very subject to the fear mongering pushed by news sources like Fox. Fox has basically conflated Mexicans with MS-13 gangs, has lumped all muslims with terrorists, blacks with rioters, etc. If this is all you see, it would make you afraid.
Not too long ago, another NYT columnist Nick Kristoff suggested that we liberal academics should hire conservatives in our departments - to be fair. I found that a bit naive. I'm a geologist and archaeologist and taught at Berkeley for 23 years. The foundation of geological and archaeological thought is based on evolution, Darwinian sometimes, and more complex at others. Imagine hiring a creationist conservative geologist (yes, there are a few) in a field that is based on the concept of evolutionary change. Not only confusing for students, but I could imagine classes definitely not filling. Religion departments, sure, but in disciplines based on empirical science, not really. The very real difference between liberal academics, and conservative "academics" as those in religious colleges, is that we liberals do think that diversity is important to society, they do not. Sometimes we do pay for that.
17
It depends on your definition of "conservatives." Kristoff is right, if he means honest people with clearly though out defensible alternative positions.
Thomas Dorman
Just now ·
https://www.nytimes.com/…/unicorns-of-the-intellectual-righ…
The political environment today is similar to the political environment in the 1920s - reaction is ascendant. What happened in the 1920s as today, is a massive transfer of wealth and property to the very wealthy from the poor and Middle Classes. The problem with this (aside from the fact that it is morally wrong) is that the poor and Middle Classes spend all their income and wealth on goods and services while the very wealthy do not. They invest much of their income and wealth. So, the massive transfer of wealth and income to the very wealthy leads to a massive decline in aggregate demand which led to the Great Depression and is likely to do so again. Note that is the 1920s and early 1930s, you had a massive transfer of wealth to the very wealthy, followed by a stock market crash, followed by new tariffs and a wave of protectionism Is history repeating itself here? Note that we have already seen the massive transfer of wealth and income to the very wealthy, followed by a stock market crash, followed by rising protectionism.
11
Sadly, it may be that the only group less likely than GOP economists to learn from their errors may be the managers of news organizations
9
For sure, there are ideologues on the right and left. But somehow, those on the right--particularly individuals with some "higher education"-- seem to stand out more than those on the left, and to be much more dogmatic.
1
It seems to me that too many conservative pundits, including the Times's David Brooks, Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat, are gun-shy when it comes to tackling economic subjects, fearing that they lack sufficient expertise and preferring the more approachable field of politics. But economic issues are too important (and fundamental to politics) to be left to the experts. Get in there, guys!
11
Get educated first. Consult those who are worth listening to.
According to Krugman, the 2013 Obama tax increases produced strong economic growth. Since when does confiscating income and private capital, and handing it over for government to waste, produce economic growth?
Day by day, the insanity on Planet Krugman continues to escalate.
3
I think you are confusing the issue. Krugman does not state that the tax increases produced strong economic growth; instead, he points out that the taxes clearly did not tank the economy as the conservative economists predicted.
34
Remember the 1950's - the days that conservatives like to harken back to with nostalgia (probably because women and people of color "knew their place")? The marginal tax rate was far above what it is now and yet the economy thrived - and economic gains were broadly based. Since then, every time taxes have risen, Republicans have predicted Armageddon, and every time, they have been wrong (see, e.g., Clinton tax hikes). Indeed, economic growth has been consistently higher when a Democrat is president than during Republican tenures. (Feel free to google.) So, indeed, Republicans are living on Planet Fantasy where they continue to assert positions that have been proven to be wrong, over and over and over again.
21
Taxes never produce growth. What is done with tax revenue can produce growth. It depends.
Republicans have tended to waste the revenues on wars and tax cuts to themselves, which does not produce much growth (a tiny bit, maybe 10-20% of what wiser expenditure would have produced). In that, they proves themselves right, but only about themselves.
3
I agree with Dr. Krugman on the type of advisors that the Trump administration is relying on for economic policy. Kudlow and Navarro are not real conservative economists, just shills for the Trump message.
However, I am not sure that liberal economist have much more influence on governmental policy than real conservative economists. Seems to me politicians on both sides of the aisle only tout particular economic thought when it happens to match their predetermined actions solely aimed at getting themselves reelected.
2
I have to agree that serious conservative economists were marginalized when conservative politicians wanted just support for policy dogma.
BUT Trump is not just a continuation of this trend---he has made it many times worse.
While the Republicans have become the far crazier party, there certainly is a danger of politicizing research on the left as well. Look at what is happening on the topic of the minimum wage. While there IS some well done recent work suggesting minimum wage increases may not be as damaging as thought, many nuances are often put aside for consistency with political goals.
5
Paul,
To take your Kudlow brand snake oil analogy a step further, once you take the tax-cut snake oil, you feel a bit better but one of the side effects is terrible - you gain a lot of weight in the form of huge budget deficits. To lose the weight you have to take a different type of snake oil in the form of massive entitlement cuts. But this one doesn't make you feel better. In fact, it hurts - a lot.
12
The cuts to the social safety net (I refuse to call Social Security an entitlement) do NOT hurt the shadow government, the plutocrats, the oligarchs. That's the way they get to have serfs.
13
The problem is the last intellectual conservative was Bill Buckley and the "intellectual" conservatives of today, as Gemli so aptly stated in her comment, are no deeper than a puddle in my garage.
8
Another myth.
Buckley was the charlatan of his day.
The veracity of your assertion depends upon what you mean by "conservative."
Since Buckley, there have been more than enough "Neoconservative" intellectuals such as Norman Podhoretz and William Kristol (amply funded by plutocrats such as the DuPonts, Olins, and Kochs). Though far from as deceitful and ignorant as the typical Republican pundit, these Neoconservatives have been anything but candidly honest.
The fundamental problems with modern American "conservatism" is that it is neither conservative, nor intellectual, nor moral.
Modern Republicans are not loyal to America or devoted to any political principle except selfish greed and white supremacy.
At least he was erudite and civil, a long way from the discourse of today's conservatives.
For those of us in the trenches of real life, I look at the lack of effective results from our political leaders on both sides of the aisle. On the left, we have silly theories that assume people are not self-interested when they work for the government in the face of observation that government organizations also have a self-interest that is not the same as the interest of the citizens.
3
I'd be interested in seeing a response from one or more of the principled conservative economists whom Mr. Krugman regards as sidelined.
12
Not a one out there to respond, Brent! (If there were, he, (for sure not a woman,) would be watching Fox for economic trends not reading Krugman columns.)
I think you're talking about the charlatans he mentions, while the principled ones at least want to hear the opposition, if not agree.
couldn't media organizations give conservative Economists with intellectual Integrity more influence by promoting them in the media? why does the media have to wait for someone else to make these people more well-known and more influential???
7
The media are bought and paid for by the shadow government of the plutocrats/oligarchs.
This is a great column. Although I expect nothing less from Dr. Krugman. To add, news organizations continue to meet the challenge of the lack of valid scholarship on the political right with false equivalencies in their reporting and interviews, which further confuses the general public into the thinking that the "charlatans and cranks" actually have legitimate ideas like the left. Then, to the general public, the difference is all "political." It is not all "political." There is a reason that most college professors in the social sciences politically lean moderate to left: that is where the evidence lies.
19
"Reality has a well known liberal bias."
Krugman wrote, "...if you never get it wrong, you’re not taking enough risks..."
I was an oil tanker captain for 26 years and jsut never got around to using that principle to guide my professional conduct. I'm guessing that mistakes by oil tanker captains have more serious negative externalities than mistakes by economists. I'm also betting that Krugman would prefer that the pilot of the airliner he's flying in, or the surgeon that performs his next surgery, adhere to a different standard.
Yup sure, I'm being a grinch about this. But the point is that when we become intoxicated by the sound of our own contrarian voice, it leads to bad thinking and careless mistakes. Thoughtless flamboyance is rampant at both of the political extremes.
12
Much as I agree with Mr Krugman's opinion much of the time, you are so correct in your comment. Not every endeavor benefits from risk-taking.
7
Mr. Becker, your comment is a perfect example of the false equivalency that has plagued us for the last 3-4 decades. Economists on the left are not perfect, but when they make mistakes, they admit them, fix what doesn't work, and try again. The same can be said about the politicans on the right. When economists on the right make mistakes, they ask us who we believe—them or our lying eyes. H.W. Bush called Trickle Down economics VooDoo economics, and he was right. Economics on the right brushed away Bush and his concerns, which is what conservatives cranks and charlatans like Kudlow have consistently done even as the evidence shows the devastation of the continuing transfer of wealth from bottom to the top.
You never made a mistake in your entire professional career as a tanker captain? I find that very hard to believe. While you may never have made catastrophic mistakes, there are a multitude of small
mistakes that we all make. That most of them have no consequence at all is beside the point.
So basically the politics of the right have left the intellectuals behind?
The political right in the US doesn't want intellectuals to help frame and influence a decision, just someone willing to justify a decision they already have made.
It seems to be based on the idea that the world is a simple place, that simple minds can understand whilst thinking themselves terribly clever and capable.
In this simple "I know everything" world, any complexity policy makers might come across is somehow fraudulent and can be ignored without cost.
5
Please, Dr. Krugman, don't use the word "unicorns" in another column. Last time we saw it you were accusing Bernie Sanders of believing in "rainbows and unicorns." Your political bias is still a bit too painful for some of us.
7
I, too, remember the days some 40-50 years ago when "serious, honest, conservative intellectuals" could be put together in the sentence. Today, putting those words in the same sentence gives us an oxymoron.
6
It gives us a center-right "liberal," once known as a Rockefeller Republican.
We’re all a lot better off with Larry Kudlow as head of the NEC if the alternative was Larry Summers, who might indeed have been appointed by Hillary. Let’s not forget who brought us the 2008 crisis to begin with, and who the winners and losers were in its aftermath.
The illustrious Mr. Summers spent his years in gov't enriching Wall Street banks and brokerages. In doing so, he caused more harm to the rest of the American economy than any single individual in our history: deregulating financial derivatives and swaps, repealing Glass-Steagall, facilitating the move of American manufacturing overseas, all with the help of Bob Rubin & Phil Gramm, and then, by himself, neutering the 2009 stimulus package, undermining the Volcker Rule, and foiling any attempt to break up the biggest banks. His skills as a bureaucratic infighter banished Brooksley Borne, Paul Volcker, Christina Romer, Joe Stiglitz, and Sheila Bair from influence. Among his last victories was preventing any caps from being placed on executive compensation at the bailed out banks, the same ones that paid him millions for his speeches.
Mr. Summers' fabulous career could be a business school case study or a Michael Moore film, and perhaps one day it will be. But pretending that his policy recommendations when he was in power were anything less than catastrophic is an obscenity and a disgrace to responsible journalism. I’ll take the cranks and charlatans any day.
10
Democrats (usually) are willing to engage in fact based (verifiable facts and data) discussions. These days Republicans/conservatives seem much more interested in belief based discussions and when the facts run counter to the belief the facts are assailed as wrong without critical evaluation. It is much easier to "know what I know" as one conservative friend said to me than to consider alternative data driven perspectives.
7
The Republicans love the support of people like Kudlow and Williamson. I have been trying to gains some insight into the Republican point of view by reading the National Review and other publications. Too often the writing is a rant, no supportive facts required. When "facts" are offered, they are usually cherry picked facts inconsistent with the body of relevant facts, selective quotes that are inconsistent with the full statement, or fake facts.
My hunch is that Republicans just aren't interested in the welfare of the people who have elected them to public office.
20
There are studies of faculty partisanship by academic discipline such as a 2005 one of 11 California universities by Cardiff and Klein. These show that economics faculty are the second most likely to be Republican (second to PE faculty), but still tend to be Democrats. There's some evidence that Business School economists in finance the furthest Right of Krugman's brethren.
3
This is what is so worrisome about this administration--the total disconnect between theory and evidence. Trump and his band of ideological joy riders promote all kinds of theories---privatization of schools, deregulation of business, supply side economics, preemptive wars, etc.---without connecting the theory to evidence of what the consequences of these theories. It is not like we don't have a great deal of evidence that says these theories are just wrong, in fact, quite the opposite. We have mountains of data calling into question all of the policies that are now being put in place. Of course when they go wrong, which they will, Trump will turn to his base and blame Obama or Hillary.
12
Economics is not truly a science. I have recently been reading a number of economic books. Instead of using the scientific method and hard data and economic history to formulate their economic principles, a number of these economic books rely on simplistic "Thought Experiments" to prove their point.
In one book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter" that is used to teach economics at Harvard, the author, an economics professor, stated that the public mistakenly believes that gas price increases are due to collusion among oil producers rather than the laws of supply and demand. However, the author fails to mention the OPEC oil crisis which was essentially collusion among oil producers.
In the same book, the author asserts that voters do not vote their own self-interests. To support this position, the author states that both young and old voters support Social Security. Apparently, the author never thought, what with corporations ending pension programs, that perhaps young voters might like to receive Social Security themselves.
Many economists remind me of Freud, in that they develop their theories with little, if any, analysis or experimentation. Freud is no longer highly regarded in the field of psychology!!!
4
"Many economists remind me of Freud, in that they develop their theories with little, if any, analysis or experimentation."
Experimentation is difficult in economics, as it is in other sciences such as epidemiology, geology, and molecular genetics. That does not mean that the best practitioners of these disciplines do not practice very sophisticated analysis. You need to inform yourself better by reading "economic books" for comprehension.
2
"Economics is not truly a science."
It is when it is practiced correctly. Assuming your examples are correct (and I'm agnostic on this point), you are simply saying that certain economic professors ignored relevant data. That's not the same as saying that economics is not a science in the same way that astrology is not a science.
2
Mr. O'Connell, economics is most certainly a science. The area of economics practiced by Professor Krugman, econometics, uses mathematical models of the economy to predict how certain activities, like raising interest rates, will affect the economy. Most popular books do not discuss this type of economics, I'm assuming because of the math.
The area of economics you refer to is behavioral economics, which examines how the public's beliefs and behaviors influence the economy. It relies more on psychology and is more like a soft science. Most popular books cover this area of economics.
In the scenario on oil prices, if there are a couple of instances when oil cartels controlled the price of oil, that does not mean that oil prices are generally controlled by cartels. Recent price fluctuations are due to the supply of oil.
I have a degree in economics.
3
Agreed, and when you move to social issues vs economics, the paucity of thought becomes more apparent.
I have been asking conservatives to declare what they are FOR, and there is nothing. They are firmly AGAINST the last 150 years of human progress, even as they personally benefit from that progress that was won by liberals. Their 'positions' are non-sensical tribal incantations.
18
Thank God for Paul standing up for what’s right and true all these years. The quiescence of the Democratic leadership has hurt the party. I’m sorry however that Paul and other Democrats have not adequately addressed the issue of America international economic competitiveness and thereby gave the opining to Trump.
1
There is some cognitive dissonance in your comments. Democrats did not adequately address American economic competitiveness because Obama, Clinton, and the crowd are globalists/internationalists. They would not want to see America competitive and leading the pack. Remember? Obama wanted to "lead from behind." They were not interested in America being the top dog and calling the shots.
It's dishonest to hold Kevin Williamson is a good example of perfectly reasonable conservative voices being silenced, over and over again; Krugman should consult the ever-growing list of speakers de-platformed on college campuses.
And Krugman never lets his politics dictate his economics? (A better question: When has he ever not?)
There are others who have compiled long lists of Krugman's bad predictions (Niall Ferguson has published deeply on this literature).
But suffice it to say: When is more govt borrowing ever not in order? When is it ever time for entitlement reform? When does Keynesianism become a confidence game? When does debt start bothering Krugman? What happens when the world's lenders (e.g. Germany) stop following Krugman's big-lender advice to nations like Greece?
3
Ah , but in light of the recent tax bill, you must ask “When do Republicans start worrying about piling up debt?” The answer, of course, is when there is a Democratic president.
1
I guess you have never seen the accounts of Niall Ferguson's poor predictions and historical interpretations based solely on counterfactual history, interpretations that do not hold up in the light of facts.
When I was young (60 or so years ago) my Sunday chore was to bicycle to the cigar & paper store and bring home the New York Times and the New York Herald Tribune.
When I complained about the burden I was told that if I read both papers somewhere in between the real story would emerge.
Serious, quality, conservative reporting is hard to come by these day in print. I still read George Will but do the run-of-the-mill GOPers pay him any attention?
My guess is he's far too civil and learned.
11
"My guess is he's far too civil and learned."
Learned, yes, but civil? Truth is, Will can be just as nasty as Limbaugh, Hannity or Ingraham but with more skill and a better vocabulary than all of them combined.
Very learned indeed. Will is on record as a critic of anthropogenic global warming. (And, for all his mastery of baseball trivia and story telling, was slow in assimilating the insights of the sabreometric revolution -- show no sign of such knowledge in his early 1990s baseball writing that came a decade after the seminal writings of Bill James and Thomas Boswell and company.)
George Will is no William F. Buckley.
The dust bin of history is littered with regimes that were saddled with leaders who'd only accept advice that mirrored their own thinking.
The Republican party has spent the last decade or two purging its moderates. The base has been conditioned to believe that compromise the equivalent of selling your soul to the devil.
Liberal democracy, as Jack Kemp described it during the 1996 Republican convention, is under attack and in my view could collapse within the next decade.
12
In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again.
They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
- Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996)
18
Conservatives reject intellectualism, even among their own. They've been ranting against the elite for so long, that anyone who presents a reasoned opinion is now mistrusted. I have a child in college, and Ann Coulter recently spoke there. Her extreme, inflammatory statements created some press, but it did nothing to change people's opinions. I thought it was a missed opportunity for conservatives. Many of us welcome rational conversations with people who have conservative views, unfortunately this is not reflected in the public where rational discourse has been replaced by verbal World Wrestling theatrics.
8
The right uses "economists" as integral to its overall propaganda campaigns. They emanate a sort of wise, academic presence that helps dress up their vacuous theories that, taken all together, amount to endless tax breaks for the wealthy.
No one should be surprised. The right, as embodied in the Republican Party, has one goal, and one goal only: to eliminate government regulation and oversight and allow the truly enlightened (i.e., the Party's rich benefactors) call the shots on tax policy, government programs and social issues.
Barking dogs would be no less effective (but far cheaper) for the GOP than the conservative economists and pundits who are trotted out on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox to spread their empty but persistent fables.
8
The even funnier thing, when conservative economists do come up with good/decent ideas, they end up being far more supported by liberals (Cap and Trade and Obamacare come to mind). Again showing how much more liberals are willing to actually learn what works well.
23
Paul uses standards to point to conflicting narratives within the political economy. One looks to the present and future, focuses on risks and rewards, and builds knowledge to improve plans and paths while recognizing change. The other views the appropriation of power as its goal; identifying risks and rewards, economic forecasting and planning is second to serving special interests. It leaves the four pillars of development (infrastructure, business clustering, knowledge, regulation and finance) out of discussions. Instead, it helps consolidate and redistribute wealth and power to special interests; banks, corporations among the benefactors.
The narratives' roots predate Paul's citation; they begin in debates that marked the Founding Fathers vision—never a single, monolithic view as conservatives and Republicans claim. The debate created a false divide between opportunity and freedom, separating the two, over economics.
Opportunity meant building a social order of merit without bias, built inclusively on shared liberties. Freedom became a means to privilege and the protection of privilege, by defining freedom as the freedom from interference; it justified bad actions for singular good.
Narratives are part of economics' supply and demand, as Paul knows. They impact policy and public thinking. Opportunity is inclusive, merit built. Freedom, flag-wrapped, is stripped with bias, denial, and justifications. Truth follow different paths, but is mired by false claims.
8
The oligarch's definition of freedom that emerged (shared by reactionaries of various ilks) underlined the obvious: that opportunity--liberty--was a necessary condition of freedom, something Brad Delong, one of Paul's favorite points out. Delong goes on to show how this denial is turned into blame, when it comes to 2008: "Complaints about the failure to properly manage a process that is, globally, overwhelmingly positive-sum should be mailed to the address of the Reagan and Trump Democrats of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, not to poorer brown and yellow people in Mexico and in China." In other words, merit, opportunity, inclusiveness were not to blame for crashes, chaos, collapse, or low wages--and nor were the people on the receiving end of these ideas. But in defense of the conservative idea of freedom, its infallibility had to find the usual scapegoats. Bad, treacherous policy and policy makers, instead of a mea culpa, blamed poor people receiving poor wages for its faults.
5
In a political fight defined by only two sides, it's somewhat understandable that the referee seeks to stay neutral. The problem is it's an uneven match. One fighter is better trained, but the other ignores all the rules and punches consistently below the belt.
The media have gotten much wiser over the last 18 months, calling out the daily series of disgraces and lies pretty accurately. What remains to be solved is the deeper set of issues: how to address the moral and intellectual vacuum behind the bad policy. Opinion sections were never really about facts, but when publications give platforms to deceitful positions, they don't necessarily shed light on those lies—on the contrary, they give them validity.
12
Minor point: I worked as a research chemist in industry for 35 years and would not have characterized the chemists, physicists, and engineers I met in industry and academia as mostly conservative. I would characterize them as hypersensitive to flim flam and likely to follow their own investigations to an opinion based on facts, a position equally as likely to be liberal as conservative.
15
Hard science needs facts, so it tends not to be political in nature like left or right. The political tends to be more in promoting oneself's than any party.
A chemist, a physicist and a conservative economist are adrift at sea in a life raft, with one can of beans to eat, if they could only open it.
The chemist suggests that they hold the can in the salt water until the top corrodes, at which time they can eat the beans and survive a bit longer.
The physicist disagreed, suggesting that they hold the can up to the sun, which would heat the can, causing the contents to expand until the pressure built up sufficiently to blow the top off.
The conservative economist, looking down his nose at the other two, smugly disagreed, stating with strident certainty, "First, assume we have a can opener."
20
The conservative economist would find a rationale for apportioning the wealth (the single can of beans) such that each party gets something “useful.” Namely, one party gets the aluminum top, one party gets the aluminum can, and one party (guess who) gets the beans.
Instead of searching for "serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence", why don't these media operations search for serious, honest conservative intellectuals who aren't already darlings of the right, and who don't carry the baggage of the ones who are, so that they have the opportunity to *develop*, through exposure, a new-found measure of influence in today's political environment. If the only vehicles through which conservatives are given exposure today are the sorts of breeding grounds for ignorance- and fear-based politics that give us people like Williamson and Steve Bannon and Milo Yiannopoulos, then those are the only sorts of conservatives we get in the public eye.
12
The next question is why this is happening. I suspect this is the result of a handful of billionaire donors who demand ideological purity as a condition of writing checks. Billionaires tend to live in bubbles, surrounded by sycophants. Wealth enables them to live in an alternate reality and, in their minds, their wealth proves they must be right.
49
Professor Krugman is always worth a read and I generally align with his thinking. However there is one point he makes about Democratic economists - they "... have rarely been sycophants to people in power." that I take issue with specifically and on a broader basis. Having spent too many years watching other men in the presence of their 'bosses'. It seems to me that kowtowing is one of the great problems our society faces, most particularly in DC, in big business and on Wall Street. Few truly speak truth to power. The recent movie 'The Post' reminded me vividly how few and how slowly elected or appointed Federal Government officials came on board during the height of the anti-war movement. The anniversary of MLK's killing reminds me of the same behavior during the height of the civil rights movement. No one in our Federal Government has even 'thought about thinking about' what was/is at the base of the Black Lives Matter or Occupy movements. I deliberately use the gender specific men in my observation. As a grandfather I hope for two things: i) that the wave of women running for local, state and Federal office this year marks the beginning of real change to a truly progressive and humane society, ii) that the boys and girls on the street now advocating for sane gun control grow up to be better citizens and leaders than my generation has proven to be - we sold out too easily and cheaply. Turns out it was all about the money. But we are very good at sycophancy !
28
I believe the point here is: do they use scientific method to evaluate questions, come up with a testable hypothesis, and then modify their underlying model if demonstrated faulty?
I accept that people (scientists included) suffer from confirmation bias as well as other non-rational influences: by definition since we are people! However there is a difference between one who tries to lessen these influences and one who allows these to completely color their avenues of inquiry.
6
Paul Krugman's column is the best and the commentary is most enjoyable. Thank you all for bringing sunshine and happiness to the Trump era.
18
The irony is that many of today's conservatives attack the media as biased -- even as that very same media searches for false equivalencies between left and right.
The first casualty of war is truth. Clearly, present day conservatives believe they are at war with liberals.
30
These days, "conservatism", in all areas is driven not so much by truths but identity politics in the desire to stay in power.
17
I’ll take this opportunity to express astonishment that the matter of Kevin Williamson’s hiring then axing by The Atlantic has occasioned such interest. Fascination with Trump’s escapades must be palling if this little Peyton Place drama compels such focus by pundits.
Paul seeks to establish a premise for further argument by stating (not suggesting) that serious conservatives who might be available for balanced discussion on online and televised panels and in the pages of newspapers that wish to present such balanced debate are as imaginary as unicorns. Nonsense – it’s a patently invalid premise. He simply eliminates all the serious conservatives who don’t share his worldview, which is a self-defeating one-sided stance to take. Readers (and Paul) may regard Williamson’s views on abortion to be beyond the pale (I simply disagree strongly with them), but to ignore a highly intelligent and articulate exponent of those views is to deny the very large number of people who share them and whom he represents, which is tantamount to denying real debate.
Apparently, real debate can only legitimately occur where opponents share Paul’s basic convictions.
Huh?
Then there’s the major argument he seeks to support with his invalid premise: that conservative economists either are charlatans or cranks, or have no influence on public policymaking. As a general matter, bad premises, bad conclusions. But forget about the technical analysis of the argument, his doesn’t pass the “smell” test.
6
Clearly central to both Republican policy generally and Trump’s policies specifically is the conviction that we must create an American prosperity that empowers the individual and that is far less dependent on machinations of the state, which when tolerated demands an indenturing of the individual to the convictions of elites (almost all of them liberal and statist) and the interests of the “deep state”. Any given reader may agree or disagree with that analysis, but nobody can deny that it’s what drives Republican policy.
You do that largely through removing barriers – such as excessive regulation -- to the effective workings of markets, and by keeping taxes as low as can be managed so as not to damage incentives to innovate and to risk capital, and by not employing the state to guarantee a basic sufficiency to individuals that destroys the desire in the marginal to work hard in their own interests and those of their families.
The ideological convictions of conservative economists permeate that policy, whether or not one of them currently heads up President Trump’s National Economic Council; so, to suggest that conservative economists – famous or working in relative obscurity – aren’t manifestly there, square and effective … doesn’t align with reality. They’re not unicorns but plainly available for discussion in debate forums where their views aren’t regarded by adamantly and ideologically one-sided convictions as SO outré that they’re not worthy of consideration.
2
That's exactly Dr. Krugman's point: the conservative economists you can actually see (in debate forums or anywhere else) are only able to argue from ideology rather than actual facts. Where's the empirical evidence for example, that minimizing taxes leads to general, rather than selective, prosperity? Or that regulating behavior is unnecessary because the tragedy of the commons is a myth?
2
You must have missed the part where he indicated that these serious conservative economists do exist, but they have zero political cachet, and therefore are not solicited by current political ideologues.
I think that is what he is talking about here.
5
I have observed, for many years, that Republicans legislators will march in lock step, which gives them a significant advantage when making policy and voting on it, while Democrats have different viewpoints and will express and act upon them, thus significantly diluting their collective power.
The conservative seems to believe that the ends justify and means, and that winning at all costs is what matters; the "team" matters more than the principle.
I have a friend who is quite conservative, and she saw nothing wrong when McConnell stole the Supreme Court nomination, and could not understand why I was angry. There appears to be a deeply dishonest ethos at work in the modern conservative culture.
I would say to Democrats, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin
32
You say the nomination was "stolen" and then claim others have a deeply dishonest ethos. The utter hypocrisy of the liberal mind keeps getting more and more brazen.
Kudlow is the perfect example. Once in a while I try to listen to him and find not the least bit of curiosity about elements of the economy that are not going as he said they would.
12
I watched a news program about the Enron collapse and Kudlow was one of the most nervous and discombobulated pundits I had ever seen. Wrongdoing by a corporation's top executives? The horror of it all. Kudlow's demeanor seemed to be one of a person learning his dog died suddenly.
As somebody who has spent years trying to understand how mechanical things like a gyroscope works, without employing teleological arguments, for a long time I regarded ecaonomics as a pseudo science.
I've since retreated from such a hard line stance. Nonetheless, economics is not science in the way that physics and chemistry are, and we should treat all economics modelling and the pronouncements of economists with much more scepticism than we do.
Take the national employment rate, much loved by economists of all political stripes. It's a deceptive measurement because it only considers those who are out of work but still looking for work:
'The most recent US jobs numbers masked a dark story. Unemployment held steady at 5.1%, but only 59.2% of Americans have a job. The difference is the unemployment rate only counts people who don’t have a job and are actively looking for one. The labor-force participation rate is perhaps a more accurate gauge of the economy. It includes people who’ve given up, don’t want to, or can’t work, and it fell to 62.4% last quarter.'
https://qz.com/516023/if-nearly-40-of-americans-arent-working-what-are-t...
6
Economists cannot prove their theories with controlled, repeatable experiments the way chemists and physicists can.
We cannot go back in time, choose a different policy, and measure different results.
3
Since money is inherently a social phenomenon, economics is a social/behavioral science. The phenomena it studies are complex and are best represented with multiple variables. The unemployment rate is a useful indicator but ALSO needs to be interpreted in light of other factors, including workforce participation. The latter is also useful, but can't stand alone since it includes people too young and too old to work, for example.
5
A strong force on the right-wing of thinking is that people deserve to have what they can get. ("Might is right"). If this is a particularly important moral value to someone, they have full moral justification for saying whatever makes them stronger.
This is why it is relatively uncommon for right-wing truths to be widely disseminated, because it usually reduces the gain of the people who already know them.
If a right-wing thinker is disseminating truth, then by all means publish it. It may have no effect on GOP policy at a particular time, but publishing it may well have a positive effect on a party that cares for the masses.
9
Great insight. I always appreciate hearing knowledgable people talk about the climate of the particular fields they work in. This problem exists, of course, in fields outside of economics. It's a very useful explanation for what we're seeing in my field of history as well.
17
The right is forced into its position of fantasy economics by Reaganism, which is the belief that our problems will go away with simple solutions that do not require sacrifice. The debt can be solved by cutting taxes. Our problems will be solved not with better government but only with less government. It is much easier if you believe such things, because the alternative takes too much thought and hard work. That's consistent with Reagan, G.W. Bush and Trump being considered as lazy. And Trump has all the simple solutions, too. Our immigration problems are solved with a wall. Our economic problems are solved with $10 trillion in debt from top rate tax cuts. Tariffs will solve the trade imbalance. Etc.
39
So where does this put Martin Feldstein and Kenneth Rogoff? The former was a prominent Reagan administration economist and downplayer of the threat of Trump's economic policy. The latter promoted a fraudulent analysis of the pernicious effects of government debt on growth (the 90% cliff), thus justifying austerity in a recession.
5
Feldstein has faded from the scene, and although Rogoff is still very prominent he has zero influence on the Trump administration. There's lots of decent conservative economists, but the current generation of political leaders (in both Congress and the executive) ignore them.
9
The priority of the right is to reshape our culture away from the model where at least we make a good pretense of caring about the well being of others. This shift in the idea of what is honorable has implications in all government, such as our policies on criminal justice, education, the environment, economy and international relations.
No longer caring about well informed, good, ideas, is the logical extension. The implication of trying to govern by using good ideas, is that we care about a common good for everyone. That's been outmoded by an ideology based upon supporting what will further enrich the privileged and the rich.
A radical contemporary departure in implementing this ideology is that there's no pretense that it is supported by American voters, as a philosophy, or in the particulars. Voters didn't want Obamacare wrecked, or tax cuts for the rich. Issue by issue, the public is overruled.
The American ideal of governing by excellence of knowledge has been replaced by forceful gambling. This administration is willing to risk our historic institutions, norms, and carefully curated international relationships, not for the sake of everyone, but based upon their hunch of what will be good for the wealthiest.
No, it doesn't make sense.
50
Yet Republicans have managed to control the federal government as well as most states. Pretty much proves voters care more about “cultural “ issues than their financial best interests.
2
Professor Krugman, the story that challenges most living beings today is the The Man Who Knew - Allan Greenspan. The FED's former chairman was byond conservative, he also followed the fiction writer Ayn Rand, credited as a leader of the Libertarian Movement. Greenspan is best remebered as a (failed) miracle man, He spoke about "productivity" mainly and coined the phrase "irrational Exurberance" to charcaterize the peaking stock markets circa. 2000. Arguably, the most renown economist of the 20th century, after J.M. Keynes, his distain for regulation of the financial casino set the stage for the Wall Street sub-prime and fictional derivatives melt-down that Obama had to deal with when he entered his first term in the oval office. The Man Who Knew, a learned and highly celebrated book written about Greenspan, by Sebastian Mallaby (2016), illustrates the flaws of dogmatic conservatives who see the truth and fail to act rationally to mitigate risk. In Greenspan's case, he seen ENRON flame-out due to accounting tricks (lack of regulation). He even suggested that the "accounting authorities" should regulate GAAP better to avoid future ENRON fictional accounting. But he didn't seem to feel the bubble in securities fueled by a deregulated Wall Street casino ethic and lack of self-regulation as a problem - until it was too late. The only distinguished difference between Greenspan and his conservative kin is that mr. Greenspan admitted he was wrong about deregulation. Better late ..
37
Liberals keep being told they need to hear the other side.
But I don't need to waste my time listening to someone say the earth is flat.
As far as "tax cuts for the job creators" I owned a small factory with 40 employees.
The only reason I had to hire more people was more demand.
Tax cuts went for a new BMW and vacations to Europe.
Unfortunately, tax cuts by Reagan, W Bush and now Trump increase the deficit while deficits came down under Clinton and Obama. As for job creation:
Reagan, 16 million jobs.
Clinton, 23 million jobs almost 50% more than Reagan.
W Bush, 3 million jobs.
Obama, 11.5 million jobs almost 400% more than W Bush.
254
Was it never the case that you chose to pursue certain lower-yield demand because money became cheaper? (Through lower interest rates, greater revenue, lower tax or another cause).
The job created during the Clinton years had nothing to do with his policies. It had to do with a) the Reagan boom was still contributing for the first two years in office, and b) Internet companies were hiring like crazy.
And this is why the Repubs have become anti-science and anti-fact. It proves them wrong. So now they elevate opinion to the level of research and facts so that they can never be proved wrong again.
10
Fascists never tire of threatening violence.
And I won't defend to the death their right to do so. Their's is the legacy of slavery, segregation, colonialism/empire-building, religious extremism, etc.
Let John Bolton defend it to his death.
29
I have been an subscriber to The Atlantic since the mid 70's. It has gone through numerous iterations since then, none of which I particularly liked, but it still gave value and provided me with thought provoking articles.
I was prepared to cancel my subscription when I received the edition with the 'new look'. I was willing to give it a try, but... I couldn't stomach what I read about Mr. Williamson. I had never heard of him before, was reluctantly willing to see what The Atlantic made of him, but dreading the experience.
Subscribers do have loyalty to publications. We are willing to take the dross, up to a certain point.
Dr. Krugman, you are right. There are no unicorns. There doesn't seem to be anything there to 'the other side' anymore. At some point in the distant past I do remember that there was a balance of thought about how the capitalist system that did provide a better living standard for many could be used to provide the best standard for the many.
That is long in the past. It has been discouraging. Any governance has to recognize that unexpected consequences can come from decisions that are made. That is where alternative views are useful.
There are no useful alternative views now. It is a loss.
I am so discouraged, not by the loss of that unicorn thought, but by the problems that I will be leaving to my grandchildren, chief among them our non-existent response to climate change.
48
We have seen the past year plus in how the GOP is making "policy." I don't WANT to read anybody who has a hand in these debacles; they may well belong in jail.
I would like to read anything remotely coherent that can influence VOTERS to think deeper about the issues and pick better policymakers. We could use writing that is not exclusively ideological.
19
On the one hand, Dr. Krugman probably has a point regarding Kudlow's lack of seriousness--we live an age of media-driven shallowness. However, as soon as I read the words "Clinton boom," I am reminded of Krugman's lack of seriousness. Sure he does a better job of dressing up his ideological predeterminations in scholarly language, but it is still just hand-wave analysis with an intellectual veneer. If you credit Clinton with the boom of the 90s you must also credit Trump with the current economic growth. We were already six quarters into expansion when Clinton took office. It was Reagan who set the economic conditions of the 80s and 90s more than anyone else. Neither Bush the Elder nor Clinton made any major changes to fiscal policy after Reagan made the most fundamental changes in living memory. Both Bush and Clinton raised taxes about $300 billion, which was negligible in terms of GDP. Reagan completely restructured the tax code. Under Reagan, the labor participation rate increased the most since records have been kept. Under Obama, the labor participation rate decreased the most since records have been kept.
9
Dr. Krugman, a Nobel laureate, is obviously a serious economist.
You're comparing apples and oranges. When Bush Sr.'s term ended, the economy was still in recession; the economy was booming when Obama left office and the trajectory continued during 2017. You might credit Bush Sr. with helping reverse the recession, but the economy didn't really take off until Clinton passed the 1993 Budget Bill.
I do credit Trump with the current market nosedive, a direct result of his starting a trade war with China.
Why do recessions and depressions always seem to happen during Republican administrations? Market deregulation doesn't work for most of us in the stock market.
58
16 Million jobs under Reagan and a huge increase in the deficit and debt.
It is the reason they put the debt clock in Manhattan.
23 million jobs under Clinton, almost 50% more than Reagan.
And Clinton balanced the budget, zero deficit.
Look it up for yourself and then you'll know.
56
Labor participation rate doesn't mean what you think it means.
The Labor Force Participation Rate is how many people are available to work as a percent of the total population. In March 2018, it was 62.9 percent.
So as we have more people retired and living longer, there are less of the population in the work force.
https://www.thebalance.com/labor-force-participation-rate-formula-and-ex...
8
The reason is because it not about economics, or even truth. It’s about power.
39
Too many otherwise reasonable people have fallen for the false notion that conservative views are not represented in the mainstream media environment. Conservative writers and commentators allege this constantly, just as they insist conservative scholars can't get hired at universities. Neither is true; with conservative authors appearing so frequently on the best-seller list, it's hard to see how they nonetheless succeed in making people believe their views are suppressed. If I want to read the writings of conservatives it is easy for me to find them; I don't need the Times or Atlantic to lower their editorial standards in order to include the extreme reasoning of someone like Williamson.
39
Sadly, both already have lowered their standards. Bret Stephens? Just as bad as that Williamson fellow.
The past record, when examined, leads to conclusions that can't support current conservative economic policies. "Tax reform", aside from the relatively current Kansas experiment, and the ongoing failures of the surrounding states that tried to trigger their own 'economic miracles' through tax cuts, is revealed as a scam by looking at the historical economic record of Reagan's tax cuts, Bush's tax cuts, and the countering 'experiments' of the economic history after tax increases. Science experiments dictate that conditions are set, the experiment is performed, the results analyzed, and a conclusion reached. Conservative economics starts with the conclusion (e.g. "tax cuts are always good") and then searches for the anectodal results to 'analyze', yielding (of course) the conclusion already arrived at. Witness the scrambling to 'prove' that Trump's "tax reform" is responsible for the last 7+ years of employment increases and job growth, and the steady rise of the stock markets (until they didn't rise, which Trump of course has *nothing* to do with...). Trump's "tax reform", combined with his deficit-ballooning spending, is sowing the seeds of a future collapse, but when that happens there will be plenty of conservative economic pundits 'proving' that it wasn't the predictable result of Trump's policies. Just as recession and huge increases in the debt weren't Reagan's fault, or Bush's fault.
33
"...serious, honest, conservative intellectuals..."
it helps to define what this means.
economic conservatives tend to mean fiscally responsible (with low debt and conserving resources for profit) with minimal government oversight, which is more libertarian than conservative. cutting taxes without cutting spending should be considered more keynesian (debt and spend; buy now and pay later) than economically conservative.
social conservatives champion the authority of religion and parents and the cohesion social groups like self-defined religions and races. This is usually not consistent with economic conservative values of the libertarian, money-loving, low government (authority) type.
military conservatives champion the authority of (and obedience to) generals and the (national) commander in chief, and the goals of military defense or expansion of a military umbrella. this is usually not consistent with economic conservative goals of low debt and business activity, because militias are expensive and divert resources from profitable civilian enterprises. also important in this worldview of allies and enemies is that international trade is frequently viewed as not a positive sum exchange, but zero sum because more economic power means more military power.
part of being honest and serious is to recognize what one is talking about and to realize that, like imaginary unicorns, it is impossible to please all groups at the same time.
6
When was the last time an economic conservative was fiscally responsible? Hint: it was before Reagan. Cutting taxes without cutting spending--and ballooning the deficit--is what today's GOP does. It defines trickle-down economics.
Sorry, low debt hasn't been a principle for those who call themselves conservative (or libertarian like Paul Ryan) for forty years. Democratic presidents like Clinton and Obama lower deficits, while GOP presidents increase them. Trump is on course for trillion dollar annual deficits.
17
Debt is a problem for them if the existing administration is not theirs.
For some reason, it must be different if their party is the administration.
2
For a nation that is unparalleled in scientific research, it is sad that most of the population and leaders of the republican party fail at the first requirement - facts must guide conclusions, not the other way around. And that makes me feel pessimistic of our country's prospects, we simply have lost the capacity to learn.
52
"... we simply have lost the capacity to learn."
Does that include you, or are you among the elite few who still have "the capacity to learn"?
The great benefit of Republican economists is that they are always wrong. This gives the rest of us a helpful beacon of what to do.
When they say tax cuts pay for themselves, you know we're in for big deficit increases.
When they say we have a spending problem not a revenue problem, you know we've got a revenue problem.
When they blame government forcing banks to make bad loans as a primary cause of the financial crisis, you know it was a private sector phenomenon.
When they argue for austerity in a downturn, you know it's time for stimulus.
See, they're actually quite helpful. Since they are one-handed economists (tax cuts and spending cuts are always the right course of action to them) Truman would have appreciated (and ignored) them.
60
There is a lot of support for the notion that Republicans in general have become reactionary in the past decade or so, especially after Obama became President. With the rise of the Tea Party faction, a substantial number of policies that had bipartisan support suddenly became toxic as soon as the Obama administration publicly supported them. Two clear cases outside of the direct domain of economics come to mind: healthcare and immigration. There was at the same time a strong purge in the GOP of RINOs, people who supported these bipartisan ideas.
While this doesn't prove that the GOP has become reactionary, including in matters of economics, there is certainly evidence that the modern GOP could be driven by reactionary thought. If so, then David Doney's helpful beacon becomes circular reasoning.
5
"... Republican economists ..."
Krugman never mentions a category of "Republican economists".
Krugman's categories are "conservative", "actual", "academically prestigious", "famous", and "liberal" economists. That's a hodgepodge, so you could probably criticize Krugman for incoherence and elitism.
Krugman guesses that the moral decline of conservative economists is "about a desperate attempt to retain some influence". This is a well-known phenomenon in authoritarian regimes. Czesław Miłosz's classic book "The Captive Mind" brilliantly describes how 20th-century intellectuals in eastern Europe were captivated by the appeal of authoritarianism. Miłosz's core indictment of the craven intellectual is that "his chief characteristic is his fear of thinking for himself", and this describes Kudlow and his ilk to a T.
83
Thee is ae book written in the early 50ies, by Eric Hoffer, "the True Believer". It'e very interesting about the craven intellectual.
Suggesting that Kudlow an intellectual is incorrect. There is far too much lacking in his ability to reason.
2
I might concur with your Milosz allusion, but on what basis would anyone categorize Kudlow as an intellectual? The evidence is that he is a paid tout who sells nonsense to the gullible.
2
America is becoming (or has already become) a kleptocracy. Kleptocrats are interested in looting the country, not managing the economy. I agree with Krugman that the Republican Party has no use for honest economics.
Where I disagree with Krugman is when he calls the kleptocrats "conservative." What would Barry Goldwater or William F Buckley or Reagan think of a a "pro-lifer" who would enforce a ban on abortion by hanging women? It is nauseating for me to know that people like this exist in our country -- even worse to consider that they have power and backing of so-called 'conservatives.'
51
The problem with lumping economic (or any) thought into two camps is that it deprives of us of the many hues that comprise it. There are economists and political thinkers who are neither Keynesian nor whatever you think right wing economists can be generalized as. Globalization and growth may have reached their limits. We might need to look to altogether different ways of doing things that will save our planet and take care of our people..
15
Over 60 years ago one of the fathers of modern experimental social psychology, Leon Festinger, demonstrated how so-called experts reduce their "cognitive dissonance" in a study called "When Prophecy Fails." While many abandoned their beliefs in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary, many others redoubled their efforts to recruit people to their beliefs. In the alternative TV Reality of Donald Trump and Larry Kudlow empirical evidence is always ignored or discounted to maintain their beliefs. We've had three major federal trials of tax cuts--all dismal, some catastrophic, failures. The first was the Andrew Mellon tax cuts during the Coolidge presidency that contributed to the Great Depression. The second the Reagan tax cuts that has to be addressed through increased taxes. The third was the two George W, Bush tax cuts that led to the Great Recession. And still as Prof. Krugman notes, Republicans and many of their economists supported the Trump tax cuts. Then, of course, there was the failure of the Brownback tax cuts in Kansas. This is beyond a "moral decline;" it is a bankrupt and bankrupting policy that borders on criminality if not being kleptocratic.
179
And now there are four. Any bets about where the Trump tax cuts turn out, and how soon any how far we crash?
I generally agree with Paul Krugman’s columns, and his criticism that competent conservative economists are not used by the Republican Party is powerful, but the Williamson-Atlantic kerfuffle has nothing to do with the actual point of his column. There is no coherent analogy between Williamson and any conservative economist (competent or incompetent). Williamson writes extremely well on a wide range of topics and expresses many extreme ideas. The Atlantic knew that from the outset. If Williamson actually lied to the Atlantic, then the termination is obviously justified. Otherwise, it’s hard to defend the Atlantic’s position.
19
Does an employer need to defend who they hire or fire?
Williamson doesn’t write well. This keeps getting repeated. Read stuff that he has written. It’s sophomoric
Prof. Krugman,
Have you considered the role of plurality voting in creating the current state of affairs? It might seem tangential, but it actually does have an effect, if you're willing to look.
Consider the case of the economists, or if the word "economist" should be put in scare-quotes for one of them, Larry Kudlow and Greg Mankiw. If you were to be asked which of the two should have influence on economic policy, who would you choose? In actuality, your choice is moot because given an option for Larry Summers, you would pick Summers over both of them.
However, your choice between Kudlow and Mankiw is only moot because under plurality voting, once you choose Summers, you forfeit your right to express any preference between any of the remaining choices.
Now consider an alternate system in which you rate all candidates. Under such a system, you could give your top rating to Summers, a middle rating to Mankiw and your lowest rating to Kudlow. By counting your preference for Mankiw over Kudlow, even though you prefer Summers over both, along with the handful of rank-and-file honest conservatives who do likewise, we can reliably shunt the likes of Kudlow out from any influence.
All that's needed for this to happen is to get rid of plurality voting.
3
The New York Times had its own imbroglio with a conservative hire for its editorial pages in February. Quinn Norton, a technology journalist, signed a contract and saw it rescinded in a matter of hours. [Quinn Norton’s 7-Hour New York Times Career, Explained http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/02/why-quinn-norton-and-the-new-york-tim...]
The larger point is the search for the outlier's voice--big institutions are searching in dark corners for enlightenment. The stretch is too great: writing is a multi-level enterprise, spread over a wide continuum. At its best, it can attack, but be bias free. It can be partisan, but tell the truth. It can tackle emotional issues and myths with logic and process. But words and a finger on a trigger both begin with mindsets, a inner voice that turns thoughts into words and actions. Word choice and gun safety are related issues. When hit, blind mules bray.
9
Paul points to two conflicting narratives within the political economy. One, looking to the present and future, focuses on risks and rewards, and builds a body of knowledge to improve its plans and paths while recognizing change. The other views the appropriation of power as its goal; identifying risks and rewards, economic forecasting and planning is second to serving special interests. This narrative leaves the four pillars of development (infrastructure, business clustering, knowledge, regulation and finance) out of every discussion. Instead, its narrative helps consolidate and redistribute wealth and power to special interests; banks, corporations among the benefactors.
The roots of the two narratives predates Paul's citation; it begins in debates that marked the Founding Fathers vision—never a single, monolithic view as conservatives and Republicans claim. The debate created a false divide between opportunity against freedom. It separated the two, the separation based on economics.
Opportunity meant building a social order of merit without bias, built inclusively on shared liberties. Freedom became a means to privilege and the protection of privilege, by defining freedom as the freedom from interference; it justified bad actions for singular good.
Narratives are part of economics supply and demand, as Paul knows. They impact policy and public thinking. Opportunity is inclusive, merit built. Freedom, flag-wrapped, is stripped with bias, denial, and justifications.
1
What it is to be frightening:
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/13/opinion/stocks-and-bombs.html
September 13, 2002
Stocks and Bombs
By PAUL KRUGMAN
''This stock-market situation -- what are the military options?'' That was the caption of a New Yorker cartoon last month. But these days reality has a way of outrunning satire; way back in June the CNBC pundit Larry Kudlow published a column in The Washington Times with the headline ''Taking Back the Market -- by Force.'' In it he argued for an invasion of Iraq to boost the Dow....
52
Asymmetrical polarization? A decade ago many left economists praised the Venezuelan model. Those same economists now blame that debacle on other factors not the model.
3
Which is why Professor Kruman wrote:
"what began in the 60s and 70s as a usefully challenging critique of Keynesian views went all wrong in the 80s, because the anti-Keynesians refused to reconsider their views when their own models failed the reality test while Keynesian models, with some modification, performed pretty well. "
This is what is missing from conservative thought, admitting an error, and improving the model.
Just saying....
31
Nonsense. Joseph Stiglitz praised Venezuela for using the oil boom to benefit its citizens through social programs like education and health care. There is no "Venezuelan model" in the sense of an economic belief system equivalent to trickle-down. Rightwing sources have misled their constituencies into believing that Stiglitz was praising authoritarianism. He wasn't.
1
Paul, a little overboard, don't you think. And as a practical matter we don't know how the great liberal QE experiment will turn out. In 10 years it will either look brilliant or as a monumental policy error. Time will tell.
3
Do you consider Milton Friedman a liberal economist? He argued persuasively that the Federal Reserve was largely responsible for turning a severe recession into the Great Depression by restricting the supply of money. In any event, we already know the effects of QE--it ended the Great Recession. However, we can't claim it as a "liberal experiment" since Friedman deserves primary credit.
7
QE was very successful at doing what it was designed to do - fix another Republican disaster. And 10 years has nothing to do with anything.
2
As Professor Krugman pointed out repeatedly in this op ed, that model has been tested and has failed since Coolidge.
Why keep bashing your head against the wall, it doesn't work!!
2
In the debate about why Republicans, including so-called intellectuals", embrace and promote policies that take away so much from most Americans (healthcare, et alia) it's useful to realize that there are many studies that clearly demonstrate that conservatives tend to have lower IQ's than liberals.
Take the British Cohort study, which found that "there is a strong correlation between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics."
'In psychological terms, the relation between intelligence and prejudice may stem from the propensity of individuals with lower cognitive ability to endorse more right wing conservative ideologies because such ideologies offer a psychological sense of stability and order."
From another study of the relationship between IQ and political relationships, is this statement: "Up to 16% of conservative syndrome is due to low cognitive ability."
While there must be exceptions to that finding, I doubt that most of Trump's appointees are exceptions. Having lower cognitive ability explains both why Trump has appointed these people, and why their actions are often not in the best interests of the American people.
46
Dr Krugman,
America was founded by Deists, men like Jefferson, Monroe, Franklin, and Paine. The union was preserved by a Deist Abraham Lincoln. Deists don't believe in magic, they are men of tremendous faith and believe in science and attempt to understand the Creators universe.
The America Buckley and Reagan believed in was filled with miracles and magic but that is not America.
Intellectuals do not believe in magic. That is why there are no intellectual conservatives because in 2018 to be an intellectual conservative is to be a man or woman without a country.
God will not bless America until it returns to its roots of design, hard work and sacrificing for the future. America is about the most fortunate paying 92% income tax to create the infrastructure, colleges and universities, housing , health and the citizens who can give us a better future.
Call it VooDoo, trickle down, pie in the sky or whatever it is 100% unAmerican.
36
The GOP hires some real "heavyweight" thinkers. For example, Donald Trump. Paul Krugman - I feel your pain, but my patients who were children really felt the pain. I was called "old school" when I keep children overnight, at least one night, after tonsillectomies, as they were in pain, couldn't swallow or eat well, and couldn't maintain adequate fluid intake. The "business" doctors were always listened to as being correct as they sent their patients home the same day. They were always thought of as being smarter and better doctors by the administrators (doctors who used to be doctors) - when in fact their decisions in my and every pediatric nurse that I ever worked with were wrong. Seems like in medical science as in economics, theories which make the most money for the higher ups in society seem to hold more weight in decision making, regardless of their validity. Cranks and charlatans abound in every field. The reason Trump's money trumps reason is just that, money.
355
I'm not sure I follow how keeping children in the hospital an extra night (or more) would be bad for the hospital's bottom line. Overnight hospital stays are not free or even cheap for patients.
The first reason is that hospitals make the most profit from surgeries and a bed not available for a surgical patient cost them money. A second reason is that some patients may have insurance that reimburses at a lower rate than others or have no insurance at all and are therefore harder to collect from.
The hospitals, doctors, and health insurance companies are all linked in a business deal together, so overnight stays, even when recommended by me, are heavily scrutinized by the system, as they are costing the insurance portion of the conglomerate more money, and the insurance arm is the tail that wags the dog as far as money and profit.
You are correct that the forces of darkness who see advantage in increasing polarization of the American electorate is seizing every opportunity, even though most serious policymakers know that it would be in the interests of society and the World if we could increase the strength of the political center.
I know many serious, honest, and conservative intellectuals but agree with your finding that their numbers are in decline and they certainly are not giving voice their opposition to the Orwellian policymaking and the distracting and media attention grabbing antics of the WH. As a result the most challenging problem in human history is being ignored.
The major economic disruption that cannot be avoided or denied is the economic progress made by our species is based on the discovery and use of technologies that are based on combustion of fossil fuels and it must end if civilization is to survive.
It is clear to me and many others who study this challenge that this serious challenge should cause a redirection of public investment in developing and demonstrating non-fossil sources of energy and infrastructure in order to continue to improve the World's standard of living.
This is not an easy problem to solve.
I support the work of serious scientists like Drs. James Powell and son Jesse Powell and brother John Powell and many of their colleagues to write about this problem and seek wider recognition of the problem from policymakers, scientists, and capitalists.
22
In the 1980 Republican presidential race, George H. W. Bush described Ronald Reagan's declarations to be "voodoo economics". After eight long years, Mr. Bush finally got his shot at the top job and he acknowledged that his campaign pledge of "no new taxes" did not comport with the reality the country was facing. That surrender to reality was what was best for the country and arguably prevented Mr. Bush from a second term in office.
I still consider myself an independent, but George H.W. Bush was the last presidential candidate willing to attach a capital R to his name that I could vote for. Anyone still willing to do so, especially in light of the current Republican in the White House, is beneath serious consideration.
370
In other words, he lied in order to get elected.
2
"Am I saying that there are no conservative economists who have maintained their principles? "
To see who are the economists who stick to principles, Econ Watch Journal investigated a simple question:
When the White House Changes Party, Do Economists Change Their Tune on Budget Deficits?
From the summary
"Six economists are found to change their tune—Paul Krugman in a significant way, Alan Blinder in a moderate way, and Martin Feldstein, Murray Weidenbaum, Paul Samuelson, and Robert Solow in a minor way—while eleven are found to be fairly consistent.”
The 11 economists that stuck to their principles :
Christina Romer
Lawrence Summers
Joseph Stiglitz
Laura Tyson
Glenn Hubbard
Alicia Munnell
Michael Boskin
Yanet Yellen
William Niskanen
Paul McCracken
Robert Lawrence
The full 38 page paper is available at
https://econjwatch.org/file_download/430/BarkleyMay2010.pdf
12
Krugman is consistent in endorsing stimulus spending during a recession.
59
This has been brought up before, and the way it is being presented is deceptive. Certainly Krugman changed his recommendations in regard to budget deficits. It was because of changes to the economy: when the economy changes, the best tactics to improve it change. The economic model remained the same. Furthermore, and this is useful to evaluating woof's honesty, Krugman's change came with changes to the economy, rather than at the time of the change of Presidents.
96
It is worth noting that this electronic journal is funded by the Atlas Network, named after Atlas Shrugged. Its source of funding is almost entirely the tobacco industry, the Koch Brothers, and Exxon Mobil. The journal claims to be peer reviewed but has been found not to be. Its Impact Factor (this is a measure of how much it is cited in its field) is less than one. For those of you who are not wonks, that means that for in a given year in the thousands of peer reviewed economic journals in the world, some of which are conservative, on average there will be less than one citation per article from this journal. And some citations will be not in support but in opposition and disproof. Even conservative non-unicorn economists do NOT find this journal worth citing.
So true, Mr. Krugman.
It would also be helpful to start writing more positive pieces on:
--union successes
--flourishing employee-owned businesses,
--business leaders who are brave enough to be public about acknowledging the value of reasonable taxes and
regulations and explaining to the public that vibrant communities also lead to better business
--business leaders who value a healthy (mentally and physically) workforce
--businesses that have loyal employees, because they know their employer has their backs
etc.
There must be some! -- and the public needs some positive examples to show that these things are possible and do exist!
61
re: "flourishing employee-owned businesses"
Michael Moore's film "Capitalism - A Love Story" has added material on the DVD about Union Taxi in Madison, WI. Stable and happy work force, broad input on decisions, profitable. No reason we all need to be wage slaves under loot&pillage CEOs.
1
Back in the day of 3 - 4 broadcast TV networks, the FCC's Fairness Doctrine at least tried to expose viewers to alternate viewpoints. In today's world of information bubbles, I used to think that something like the FD might be helpful to try to pierce the bubble, but probably would not be practical in a world of hundreds of TV channels.
Dr. Krugman's description of the moral and intellectual rot of the Right has changed my mind. Something like the old FD definitely would not be helpful now. It would be counterproductive if all it does is further spread disproven and discredited economic theories.
8
Back at the end of the last century, conservative academics castigated "postmodernism" as a philosophical position that was relativistic and post-truth. Being lucky to study with some of the original postmodern theorists and scholars, I always shook my head, because this was such a bowdlerized and almost silly caricature of postmodern thought.
Today's conservatives seem to be still suffering the karma of having been so rude to an intriguing chapter in intellectual history, one much more sophisticated that they were willing to give credit for. They reduced postmodernism to a simplistic cartoon.
And now the check is come due. Conservatives demanded truths, they demanded absolutes. But they did so in a simplistic, reactionary, and almost angry way -- not a state of mind conducive to complex thinking.
And so they formed their truths, they formed their absolutes, in that kind of simplistic atmosphere. And here the right is today, both politically and intellectually.
If you demand absolute truths in a simplistic way, you eventually do get absolutes. But those absolutes, being so rudely pursued, lose the truth, for the truth is not simple.
The history of the conservative movement is a tragedy, a comedy, or a crime, depending on your perspective. But the lesson is the same: the truth cannot be simplified and will not suffer being bandied about as if a cartoon.
52
Respectfully, I think you have some things backwards vis a vis conservatives and postmodernism. What we are seeing now is not an absolutist rejection of postmodernism, but a reductive appropriation of postmodernist ideas to validate a particular kind of "truth"--"a conservative truth". Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that the politics of postmodernism were far more ambivalent than the French left let on (ask Julia Kristeva).
Today, FOX and Friends is not so much the antithesis of Baudrillard's simulacra, but a logical outgrowth of the persistent critique of the positivist models of knowledge that shaped Western epistemology since the enlightenment. Look around, the assault on truth is everywhere, elevated by the Left on campuses but castigated by the same when on on Fox. Yet it's all of a piece, though. Drip, drip, drip. Sure, we can sneer at the callow intellectualism of contemporary conservatives, but if you look closer, you'll see they are using a postmodernists' toolkit to take apart civil society.
9
I firmly agree with Norman here. The postmodern mantra is best described as “if I didn’t believe it, I never would have seen it.”
Dr. Krugman is absolutely correct, and the same false equivalencies are aimed by Trumpians demanding "conservative" professors, legal scholars, and news analysts to "provide balance". Bolton to balance Kelly. Climate change-deniers to balance climate-scientists. Holocaust-deniers to balance progressive historians, and a new "balance" between "facts" from research and media-bruited "alternative" ones: Walter Lippman and Kellanne Conway is a false equivalence.
And GOP wants professors who agree with rightwing politicians who deride "critical thinking" as "globalist" thought-control by Franken and Frankenstein. The Right says we must have historians who fantasize about "the war on Christmas" and the "rapist immigrants" to balance serious social scientists. Finally, they urge law professors who think racial injustice no longer exists and will declare Saint Scalia was a model Justice. My point is that the rightwing wants education to be indoctrination in anti-reason, anti-research, anti-science, anti-logic. Why? Because they are anti-democratic. They care more for majority market controls and white rights than minority access to equal opportunity, more for the 1% than for the 99%. Gerrymandering faculties will be as destructive as cutting voting opportunities. What rightist scholars and Nobelists do Bannon et al offer? None. But that won't quiet the whiners seeking an Alt. American educational structure. Call it the "Old Deal". Resist it.
226
This is also true for the argument that universities have a liberal bias. It is the duty of educators to seek truth and use reason, conditions that exclude doctrinaire conservatives.
7
Both Henry Farrell and Simon Wren-Lewis have been writing about this recently. It seems many people (although not all, reading a few of the more convoluted comments herein) have finally noticed that the conservative writers of 20 - 30 years ago have disappeared and been replaced by crackpots who are data-adverse, but love them some ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies. As long as you can hate and destroy lives, it's OK.
53
With these unicorns' horn being nipped away by dutiful media piranhas, you'd think the horn would disappear entirely .. from overgrazing.
Nope, it's a symbiotic relationship. Under the powerful aphrodisiac, each intoxicated school promulgates the legend of that unicorn. In return, more people adore that unicorn and its horn grows large.
The intended consequence? I think that tribal elders want their people to be presented with magical / mythical .. and then believe it's reality. The lore of their tribe can told and retold, if it is 'tangible'.
2
Name names, Krugman. Who are these conservative economists of intellectual heft who know their stuff but have no following and are not getting heard today? I, for, one want to read what they have to offer.
And maybe The Atlantic needs concrete tips on non-charlatan opposing voices to hire, too.
23
He mentioned one: Mankiw.
7
Conservative views are to Krugman as water to a fish: invisible.
1
"Liberal economists...have rarely been sycophants to people in power."
"Liberal" as in "liberal education" refers to free thinking--free from (a) dogmatic orthodoxy (religious or political) and (b) free-from ideological marketing--Plato's definition of "sophistry" and "sophist".
The absence of these constraints enables the never ending search and research for better ideas--provided the searchers accept the constraints of logic.
Unfettered "free speech" includes the right to sell snake oil to the ill informed and logically careless--the suckers born every minute. It includes the right to slander, defame and defraud--to peddle mythology as reality, and insult those objecting by claiming it's they who do so. Crazies think normals are crazy.
It's not just economics and social sciences, it's all the natural sciences too and indeed all critical thinking and all academia--which is supposed to be evidence and logic based, as well as "disinterested"--i.e. without financial conflicts of interest.
Krugman refers to those "economists" who are talking heads for the rich--seeking to establish even more firmly neo-feudalism--and seeking to be rewarded for their Mephistopholean bargains.
It's propagating the faith--diametrically opposed to disinterested, logic and evidence based free thinking.
18
I forget who it was that said there is always a ready market for people to make tons of money by telling the rich and powerful what they want to hear.
28
You've summed it up very well, Paul.
22
Are we dealing with noble statesmen who want the best for the whole country or a clique of greedy plutocrats? Something, it seems, is rotten in Washington, and it's hiding in plain sight.
Trump kakistocrats are playing a deadly serious game of us vs. them; the 1% vs. the 99%. And, apparently, in this game all is fair; winner takes all.
Many Democrats are now woke to the Trump World Order. And not a minute too soon.
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead."
-- King Henry ("Henry V," Act III)
20
The rw GOP & their think tank propagandists are politically strong. DEMS can’t truly protect the citizen majority---the function of the opposing party in a democracy.
Obama’s ACA came from the GOP/Heritage plan, used by Gov Romney. It forces our taxes to subsidize insurance profits, not to pay for our care, and this is then equated with ‘freedom’.
ACA is the world’s most profitable h/c system, and leaves out millions. Yet the GOP still wants to destroy it. So the Democrats look like saints by contrast. Truly distorted politics.
Democrat Bill Clinton & GOP deregulated Wall Street in the 90's---a green light for bank recklessness and exploitation, that culminated in the 08 Crash.
Clinton/GOP deregulated media monopolies, leading to great media concentration, and Fox News dominance.
The D Party ---once financed by unions, working for average citizens--- now competes for money from the super rich, while asking for the votes of the majority. We the people can’t compete to get representation.
Krugman & media avoid concrete remedies. They just bash GOP and a president made for bashing. Easy.
Instead the media could explain what once made our middle class strong--- fair tax rates, unions, jobs here, apprenticeships, low state college tuition, infrastructure spending, and strong bank regulations from the '30s thru the '90s. Now all “too left wing liberal”?
This crucial information voters don't get from the media would help pressure lawmakers to work for us again.
26
Krugman has advocated every one of the things in your list.
1
I was pretty surprised to see that my insurance company was invoiced thirty one grand for a colonoscopy. There's people that don't want that to change, and they are buying republicans to keep it so.
1
You'll find many democrats on the side of the public good; try joining and helping make it what it can be. The people who argue false equivalence get maniacs like Trump elected. Help where you can and where it counts. Complaining alone and feeling superior in withdrawal does no good.
1
The "unicorn" phenomenon happens because the right-wing has a completely different concept about what an intellectual is and what it should be than the left-wing.
The left-wing has a strictly Illuminist view of an intellectual: an intellectual is a person who engages in the public sphere for a cause using the truth/facts. He/she is a scientist who has a political cause.
The right-wing has the stratified concept of an intellectual: for the right-wing, the intellectual is a specialist who engages in propaganda warfare, disguising lies with the language of science. The intellectual is, as Friedrich von Hayek once stated, a "second-hand" propagator: a lackey of the elite (who's in the shadows). That's what we define today as an "expert".
15
"The intellectual is, as Friedrich von Hayek once stated, a "second-hand" propagator: a lackey of the elite (who's in the shadows)."
Marx and Lenin are nodding their heads in agreement with Hayek.
1
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." — Bertrand Russell
1
Demagocracy: that's what I call living in a system where the most skilled manipulator wins.
1
I'm grateful for Paul Krugman's regular columns in the Times. He's our rock; the reason I subscribe. With unrelenting obfuscatory blather delivered daily from the right, Dr. Krugman's reasoned, fact-based analyses of the important issues facing America are crucially important. Democracy can't survive without truth being the foundation of public discourse. This is especially so today, given the assault on truth by Fox News and extreme right-wing hate talk radio, which have been designed expressly to appeal to that gullible element of society who are no doubt hurting, but who habitually look in the wrong place for answers. Dr. Krugman's voice is a welcome and effective antidote to the dishonesty, venality and muddle-headedness of the Ayn Rand acolytes, zealots that they are, who have insinuated themselves into leadership positions in the public sphere and in the media. Without truth, we have nothing. Truth is what Dr. Krugman gives us.
40
If it is intellectual rigor you are looking for, start at the top. Trump is a self-proclaimed genius alright. He does not have to read. He has no policy agenda other than a irrational hatred of everything his predecessor accomplished. He filled his cabinet with yes men and women who actually sat around a conference table to say how much they were blessed by his appointment -- in front of a TV camera no less. Intellectual rigor was not their forte. As for conservative economists I bow to your judgement, Dr. Krugman, but there seems to be a lack of interest in science and facts among so many conservative writers. At least a few in the National Review used to be literate even if wrong.
30
I will mention one thing about Kudlow that Professor Krugman left out, possibly in fear of being labeled a snob. He is the only individual since before WWII who has such a high government position regarding economic prognostication who lacks any advanced degree in the the field.
27
As the possessor of two advanced degrees, I can confirm that they bear no magical qualities. And I might suggest that there have been several high government officials since WWII who have not had advanced degrees - and that economic prognostication is called the dismal science for very valid reasons.
8
I am eager to be corrected on this. For the record - who were the individuals who had only a BA in Economics who in the past had Kudlow's job exactly?
Since you mentioned it (and Krugman didn't), don't you think the lack of a degree in economics is a problem for this position? I'd rather have someone who knows something about the field, just as I'd rather have a doctor with a medical degree.
5
Clearly what is needed is for the MSM to provide the truth about the deceptive and intellectually dishonest practices of the GOP and the disingenuous right. Truth is more important than the efforts of the media to honor some deceptively dishonest notion of "balance," as has been the media's practice for far too long, and has served only to enable the disingenuous politics of the GOP.
12
Here is the sad reality of the impact of conservative economics:
Recently a videotape of the decrepit state of schools throughout the state of Oklahoma has circulated the internet. Moldy walls. Peeling paint. Broken furniture. Disgusting broken bathrooms. Caving-in ceilings. Broken doors. Absurdly out-of-date ragged textbooks. Empty supply closets. Together with a massive teacher strike (no salary increases for a decade) these images paint a picture of a third world school system, but sadly and shamefully this is the reality for Oklahomans who have 35-40 kids in many classes and 4 day school weeks in many districts.
In 1992 State Question 640 was voted in which requires a 75 percent supermajority vote in both chambers of the state legislature to pass any bill to raise revenue, ending any realistic possibility of raising taxes to fund public education. Then the legislature cut corporate taxes to lure businesses to the state (promising trickle down effects from all the new economic activity), lowered the GPT tax rate of oil and gas wells from 7% to 1%, lowered personal income tax rates, and Oklahoma has one of the lowest real estate tax rates in the country.
This quarter-century conservative tax-slashing spree has never produced an iota of trickle-down benefit. In the last five years Oklahoma has lead the nation in cuts to public education (28%) and conservative economics has produced a billion dollar hole annually.
25 years of never seeing the promised results. Shame!
142
OK spent $810 million to support higher ed in 2017 = < $8,000 per undergraduate. That's the lowest in the USA.
In contrast, the Harvard endowment earned more than $2,000,000 income upon its $19,000,000+ endowment per undergraduate last year.
7
Don't overlook the same conditions that exist in Michigan schools after several years of Republican government. These are the legislators who allowed Betsy DeVos, who is nothing but an ill-informed lobbyist for for-profit charter school operators, to parlay her influence onto the national stage. When will it end?
9
Arizona is nipping at your heels.
1
Kevin Williamson proposed hanging for women who have had abortions. For many thinking people this is murder, it is against one of the ten commandments, just as much the taking of life as abortion might be. It is a reprehensible view and one you can’t walk back from. This is why he was fired, not because liberals didn’t like him. Mr. Krugman give us some serious conservative economic thinkers, we need them. We need all points of view and I don’t care about labels, government murder - that’s something I care about.
7
The law of Moses prescribes killing as a punishment for many crimes, including murder. It appears Jesus thought differently though.
Just finished reading The Age of Eisenhower - by William Hitchcock - he was the last real republican - it has been downhill ever since. It has been all about greed and nothing else.
14
At the peak of the 08 crisis when they ended campaigning for a few days to discuss the economy McCain had nothing to bring and they even acknowledged that Obama was the most informed and had the most ideas in the room. All that is forgotten now in that short term memory of the republicans.
19
There were plenty of people out there with alternative ideas that would have left the bad actors punished instead of richer and the nation stronger and more solvent going forward rather than served in debt. The elites of both parties have no intentions of letting those that do not serve the interests of the elites over all else rise to the top.
7
Whenever someone resorts to Orwellian terms, I know the discussion is going off the rails. Obama did leave the country stronger and more solvent, and he was hardly one of the "elites". It isn't enough to have alternative ideas--you have to win elections, and you have to win massive majorities in both houses to pass things like single-payer healthcare. Although I wish it were different, that's just our system of government.
I hope every voter is able to distinguish between the parties in November.
Well, I certainly do not want to defend conservative economists but I hardly think Keynesian economics has covered itself with glory either.
Krugman has many times quoted Keynes , “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.” This is usually taken to mean that we should run federal deficits and thus increase the debt when times are bad, but when times are good we should run pay the debt down. For years I believed this was correct.
I was surprised to learn in a speech by Hillary Clinton, that during the Great Prosperity of 1946 to 1973, not only did we not pay down the debt, but we increased 75%. I thought this has something to do with the effects of the war on Europe. I was surprised to learn that these effects have been greatly exaggerated. (Recently in Piletty's book, I found a chart that showed clearly shows this. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/pdf/F1.1.pdf ).
I had never really thought about economics, but I thought I just didn't understand what was going on. I continued to believe Krugman's word was gospel.
Then I saw a comment to an article made by someone called Stephanie Kelton who pointed out the history I since posted many times. Every time we followed Keynes' and Krugman's advice and paid down the debt significantly, we fell into a depression. This happened 6 times and accounted for all of our depression. At this point I thought this is too much. Now I no longer believe in everything Krugman writes.
2
I think you may be confusing the absolute level of debt with debt as a percentage of GDP. The later is the important economic variable. After the second world war this percentage was at an all time high and fell over the next couple of decades. Also be careful not to confuse correlations with cause.
11
Len,
I think you're being too absolutist.
The steps one takes when the economy is at different levels depend upon a number of factors, not just "do A when B and C when D."
For example, the time to pay down the debt is when there is no need for deficit spending to rescue the economy. But it is not a rule that the debt must be paid down at that time.
Similarly, deficit spending is not an end in itself, but is a means to stimulate the economy by increasing demand, thus encouraging hiring. But whether such spending will successfully do so depends upon, among other things, the specific state of the means of production and the abilities of the labor force.
If Keynesian economics were as simplistic as you imply, Keynes himself would not have written so exhaustively about economic policies and trends. There are too many variables to reduce Keynesianism to a one-line formula.
4
Jerry, you write, "deficit spending is not an end in itself". Let me ask you where does money, (dollars) come from and how does it get to us to spend? Surely, a growing economy needs more and more money to conduct commerce.
Some money is created by banks and gets to us via loans. But we have seen in 2008 (& 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929) that banks can create only a limited amount and when that is exceeded, disaster awaits.
Another way is thru federal spending. Since it does no good to get money to Joe if you tax it right back, only deficit spending can add new money, Since the government (today, thru the FED) can create as much money as it needs out of thin air, it will never run out.
Thus deficit spending is necessary (but not sufficient) not only for prosperity, but actually to avoid disaster. I would say that is an end in itself.
Now the amount of deficit spending we need does depend on conditions. In fact, there is an exception to the rule I stated above. A third way money can get to us is a favorable flow of money from outside the country via say, trade. If it is large enough, we do not need deficits. But we have not had any kind of inflow from abroad since 1974, and there are reasons to believe we won't have one again--look up the Triffin Dilemma.
But let me reiterate, history has glaringly shown that whenever we have eliminated deficits and paid the debt down a significant amount (10% or greater), the economy fell off a cliff.
Unfortunately for straight arrows like the professor when a tweeter in chief regularly moves the markets by calling out a certain sector or even a particular company as happened last week with Amazon, the most brilliant economists, however honest and rigorous their method, might as well be counting angels on the head of a pin.
10
I agree, mostly. But the failure of conservative economists to confess that reality is real might also be traced back to the purges of the McCarthy era. In "No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities," Ellen W. Schrecker argues that we are still haunted by the purge of leftist academics, especially Marxist economists. The reason for why conservative economists are the way they are is because McCarthyism worked, all that fake rage, false accusation, phony theory. The McCarthy purge of academia raised up the depraved and cast down the decent. Who on the right could have failed to see how well it worked? You don't need to have evidence and you don't have to be right. What you need to be is loud, cruel, and pandering. That is how you win. Conservative economists did learn something from that era, and that is why they are the way they are now.
16
Wonderful insight. My subjectively but intensely held position is that neither politicians nor media
Have found a way to address arguments based on stereotypes and gross mischaracterization.
Somebody explain to me how that last tax bill that benefits the wealthy got through the House.
It would not surprise if Sam Brownback, that “bankrupt us but make the fat cats fatter” former Governor became Secretary of the Treasury.
I am repeating you Mr. Krugman but the identification of assumptions and expenditures based on evidence is everything. I hate these guys—Steve Mnuchin and Mick Mulvaney are lying, deceitful men who steal and steal from the public. More importantly they never open themselves to evidence based dialogue with experts. Paul Ryan is up for a newly created cabinet post, “Secretary of Deceit.” He will fit in well in this administration.
Thanks for a really good column.
19
I suspect you can extrapolate Krugman's findings about economics to many other fields of scholarship and policy. Since the rise of the Tea Party, the conservative Right hasn't been particularly interested in ideas (this should be no secret to anyone who has read Hofstadter), but what passes for "intellectualism" in the GOP is particularly baleful these days.
As much as Krugman's commentary sheds light on the GOP, it can also help understand where the Dems went awry. The DNC embraced an identity politics over a class politics, which essentially abandoned the working classes it formerly took for granted.
6
The Democratic Party abandoned class politics long ago, when it failed to fight to protect the unions that faithfully supported it as those unions were worn down by right-to-work laws and unceasing anti-union pressure from the Right.
Did the Party raise one voice against Reagan's firing of the Air Traffic Controllers? Did it call for a general strike in support of those fellow workers?
For decades the Democrats took money and endorsements from union members and gave back nothing in return. And today, who but Bernie Sanders is standing up for enlarging union representation?
2
If Dr. Krugman referred to "conservative" or "liberal" mathematicians, physicists or surgeons, without any apparent irony or implied criticism, folks would rightly laugh in his face.
What does that say about the profession of economics, other than the obvious -- that it's an occult practice, with secret handshakes, imponderable diagrams and opaque vocabulary, used to promote private interests, with no essential relationship to observable reality?
15
I believe Ben Carson might qualify as a conservative surgeon.
. If "competent protectionists" such as Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, or senators Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) were in charge of implementing a protectionist agenda, the outlook would be very bleak. Any of those protectionists could outdo Smoot and Hawley in terms of reducing the living standards of the American people and collapsing the markets. However, "luckily", Trump is clearly in charge and calling the shots.
Even though Trump ominously asserted that trade wars can be easily won, the Trump version of protectionism and trade wars could be called the "professional wrestling" version. Protectionism and trade wars, as directed by Trump, are similar to the combat that takes place in professional wrestling. Professional wrestling is a show for entertainment where usually no real injuries occur. An example of the difference between really dangerous protectionism and the "professional wrestling" version can be seen with regard to the tariffs on steel and aluminum. When those tariffs were first announced, Ross explained why there could absolutely not be any exceptions made for any countries.
The Trump version of the tariffs on steel and aluminum will exempt Mexico, Canada, Australia, the EU and the list is still growing. The net result is that the tariffs on steel and aluminum will have very little net effect, but might impress those who believe that professional wrestling is real..."
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4160161
10
The problems with economics go deeper. It is a best a proto-science. It is not a reliable guide to the future, since it cannot make useful predictions. It has a worse track record than weather forecasting.
Even empirical economics can explain very little. There are two contradictory explanations of the Great Depression. The Keynesian one, which attributes it to lack of spending and investment and the Friedman/Schwartz one, which attributes to a bad decision by the Federal Reserve in inadvertently tightening the money supply after the market crash of 1929.
The only branch of economics that creates new knowledge is economic history, which Paul Krugman's former colleague, Charles Kindleberger, created a body of knowledge about the economy that is still widely accepted.
6
A longstanding tactic of the far right is to accuse the mainstream media of bias. This leads news organizations to hire commentators who are favored by those critics in an attempt to placate them. This is understandable since the media are for the most part businesses wishing to please their readers. But making such concessions never makes the critics happy or stop the accusations. On the contrary, appeasement of the far right by major new media only leads to more and more strident accusations.
Consider that Trump regularly accuses the mainstream media in tweets of peddling fake news which is, of course, much worse than mere bias. The only reason Trump feels be can get traction with such nonsense is that his base have long been indoctrinated with the idea that the news media are biased against them.
And now we see the same tactic being used in GOP attacks on the Russian investigation. The FBI is being accused of bias as if this makes any crucial difference to the outcome. Criminal investigators are often biased against a subject which motivates them to find actual proof of wrongdoing. But investigators who are not even suspicious or who are political allies of a subject could very well be motivated to not look for evidence or only look only for exculpatory evidence. That's what's happened with the House intelligence committee's investigation, which is being run by Republicans and why Trump would like to replace FBI investigators with his political allies.
61
This is one of the most lucid and succinct statements of "the problem" I've ever read. I'm stealing it.
7
There have been multiple occurrences of fbi bias uncovered.
1
Mr Krugman, it would be great if you could direct your readers to some intellectually honest economists to read/follow....
[ Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, Branko Milanovic, Heather Boushey, Eileen Appelbaum immediately come to my mind. ]
4
How about those who have been right in the past like Steve Keen, James K. Galbreadth, Stephanie Kelton, Nouriel Roubini? Besides explaining why significantly reducing the federal debt has always caused a depression, they predicted the crisis of 2008 which the Keynesian seemed to have missed.
8
Here is the argument of those economist who got 2008 right. The first thing to realize is that the federal deficit measures the flow of money FROM the federal government TO the private sector.
The first chart at http://www.slideshare. net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you- cannot-consider-the- deficit-in-isolation shows what happened.
In the 1990's spending and the deficit were reduced. The flow of money out of the federal sector was reduced.
Simultaneously the flow of money into the private sector was reduced. Then in about 1996 money began to flow out of the private sector, out of the country in fact. In about 1998, Money started flowing into the federal sector. This is the Clinton surplus. Money was rapidly flowing out of the private sector.
In 2001, the Bush administration started, and we had deficits again, but our trade deficit was really large. Except for a brief period in 2003, the Bush deficits were not large enough to compensate for the money going out of the country. Money still flowed out of the private sector.
People then turned to banks to get money. Private debt exploded. But the banks could create only so much money.
Finally in 2008, the economy crashes. Now there certainly were other factors which contributed to the 2008 crash. e.g. high inequality meant the Rich had excess money to speculate with, but the cumulative effect of money leaving the private sector from about 1996 to 2008 and the resultant huge increase in private debt was the main cause.
4
@Len: You are forgetting that trade deficits don't matter. That's Krugman orthodoxy.
You are also leaving out the loss in value of all those tulip bulb...I mean houses in the mid to late 2000 time frame. They had an impact.
Around that that my company realized it was our progressive globalist duty to open an engineering and manufacturing center in Shanghai.
I guess once burger flippers are unionized we'll get that middle class prosperity machine cruising again. You betcha.
1
There are twin causes of our predicament: wealth so grandiose that it becomes an inner sickness, and efforts to expand it in the vain hope that happiness will finally be the result. There are plenty of historical precedents here: the Bourbons, 18th century China, our own Robber Barons of the late 19th century.
They are soon overthrown, and their progeny, judging from the portraits, look like the Trump boys.
Today’s Mercer and Koch heirs have similar futures. It’s up to us to limit the physical damage of their fathers, in the form of devastated ecosystems, anoxic oceans, and failing crops.
Clearly whorish economist frauds won’t save them. The battle is now there for the people, and common sense, to win. Thanks for being a warrior, Paul, but we need many more of you.
216
What can be done to rid us of billionaires? They have become a destructive force to our democracy and economy.
2
If we can have a Minimum Wage, why not a Maximum Wage? Hoarders is hoarders.
Mr Krugman, it would be great if you could direct your readers to some intellectually honest economists to read/follow. Although I may not always agree with some of these individuals, but it is nice to challenge my own beliefs with intelligent arguments.
It would be even better if your employer could provide a voice to some of these individuals to help raise the public discourse.
14
Try Tyler Cowen, the libertarian economist at James Madison University, and the author of the excellent blog, "Marginal Revolution." Extremely smart, and he "drifts left," from time, but also now and then into "intelligent idiot" territory.
I had fortunately never heard of Kevin Williamson before noticing a New York Times article about the firing. The article immediately made clear that this is a person of violence who I will be sure to never ever read.
The problem is in an editor assuming or pretending that a person of violence should be read simply because that person is a self-described "conservative."
49
"... this [Williamson] is a person of violence ..."
Apparently, Williamson supports capital punishment for certain crimes. Is that your problem with him?
This is only the tip of the iceberg, as lack of intellectually honest conservatives who have influence is rife across all areas of regulatory science (especially EPA). It began with the rise of phony “scientific think-tanks” founded by wealthy industrialists (e.g. Koch brothers) and/or libertarians aiming to generate written claims opposing progressive regulation, starting with tobacco restrictions for public health in 1960s and 1970s, acid rain from power plants (1970s and 80s), SDI (“star wars”, spaced-based anti-missile defense proposed by Reagan), loss of ozone layer (1990s), second-hand smoke effects in children (1990s, which expanded indoor air restrictions), climate change. Starting with smoking, industry worked with their lawyers to support “scientists” who could cherry-pick the data, take findings out of context, etc. to argue why the consensus by primary researchers was “uncertain” and “warranted more study”, even when those opposing policies had very little expertise in the field; simply their general reputation as “scientists” was sufficient for industry to claim there was legitimate uncertainty about the issue, warranting further study not stringent regulation against industry.
114
Democrats do not sufficiently comprehend science to understand that the policies being implemented by Pruitt are reintroducing scientific discipline into the EPA.
Democrats take their scientific leadership from Al Gore, ignoring his pecuniary interest in his religion.
For decades, the EPA has used "peer reviewed" research to justify their actions. The peers have been denied access to the secret data, which has been massaged by the researchers to make their case. All the peers are permitted to do is evaluate that if the analysis is correct, the conclusions are correct. It is a primary reason why research is so rarely repeatable. "Publish or perish" academics push out fraudulent research and their peers bless it.
The EPA uses a linear, no threshold model that assumes, absent any scientific evidence, that if a material is harmful, that the material is harmful even in very small doses. That is the way they justified regulations costing $8 billion to reduce mercury on the justification that 10 million children would have IQs that were 0.015 higher, stimulating economic growth. SCOTUS threw the regulations out as being laughable.
The NYT has been reporting on how many of Pruitt's regulatory rollbacks that have been blocked or are under challenge in the courts. It would represent honest reporting if they ran a companion article that listed how many of Obama regulations were slapped down by the courts. Which have a higher ratio than Pruitt's.
1
Ebmem,
It is entertaining to see the "conservative" bring up "science" based on made up "data" that is used by other conservatives. Talking points and made up scandals are only good on conservative side.
Can't you just publish something "scientific" that would refute "liberal" science? Where is your data, where are your models, where is your research? None, zip, nada....
There are three kinds of noble values expressed here: professional integrity, evidence-based thinking, and authentically inquiring mind.
The "conservative" economists that do exist surely share such values with "liberal” economists. A truly rational spirit of intellectual diversity can come together with leading media to address Madeline Albright’s Friday Op-Ed question: "Will We Stop Trump Before It’s Too Late?"
Today, I read that Republicans up for election in 2018 are using phony calls for impeachment of Trump to gain favor with voters. What an irony that demands to drain the swamp have become a deeper swamp than we’ve seen in decades.
Genuine leadership enables and celebrates intellectual and moral flourishing, ensuring that principles and standards steer our sense of public good. Without that we surely do need to make America great again.
57
Agree with Krugman but what is evidence based thinking? It is an oxymoron and certainly not science and not creative.
You took the high road. I am past frustration with the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of Donald and his guys. Equally, perhaps even more, I loathe Paul Ryan for
violating that ethic in our heritage that says the successful and rich have an obligation to share—and that violation occurred in “The People’s House.” I would admonish Paul that we have to protect the environment and yes, “give” our children the the academic and scientific skills to insure that our culture will go forward.
13
The Democrat Steyer is spending $25 million this year buying advertisements advocating for the impeachment of Trump, despite the fact that the Democrat leadership doesn't think it's a good idea, because it is more likely to energize Republicans than Democrats.
It is laughable for Krugman to assert intellectual honesty as a value for economists, because his economic analysis and reporting is exclusively partisan. He changes his opinions based on politics.
3
As an example of the phenomenon described in the first paragraph, I remember an odd turnaround in the 1980s. First, liberals and progressives talked approvingly of "multiculturalism". Then they discovered that one of the largest subcultures in the country, evangelicals, were opposed to abortion on demand. After that they stopped talking about "multiculturalism" and started criticizing ideas "out of the mainstream". So apparently we were back to one culture.
6
You'll need to provide more evidence of that.
Progressives have never championed the "mainstream" — whatever that is — and have always stood by disadvantaged subcultures.
That does not mean support for every facet of every subculture, or lack of criticism of Right wing subcultures.
25
In 1993, Kudlow predicted that Bill Clinton's tax increases would dampen economic growth.
When the economy boomed in the late-1990s, Kudlow credited it to tax cuts enacted during the Reagan administration (1981-1989).
Kudlow was a strong advocate of George W. Bush's substantial tax cuts, and argued that the tax cuts would lead to an economic boom of equal magnitude.
After the implementation of the Bush tax cuts, Kudlow insisted year after year that the economy was in the middle of a "Bush boom", and chastised other commentators for failing to realize it.
Kudlow firmly denied that the United States would enter a recession in 2007, or that it was in the midst of a recession in early to mid-2008. In December 2007, he wrote: "The recession debate is over. It's not gonna happen. Time to move on. At a bare minimum, we are looking at Goldilocks 2.0. The Bush boom is alive and well. It's finishing up its sixth splendid year with many more years to come".
In a May 2008 column entitled "'R' is for 'Right'", Kudlow wrote: "President George W. Bush may turn out to be the top economic forecaster in the country".
By July 2008, Kudlow continued to deny that the economy was looking poor, saying "We are in a mental recession, not an actual recession."
The most important Republican political talent is a sociopathic combination of pathological liars, congenital greedsters, and award-winning incompetents.
Republicans adore manmade catastrophe.
Grand Old Psychopaths are in the cockpit.
1240
"Republicans adore manmade catastrophe."
Indeed - their favored economic model, "crisis capitalism", relies on it. When things are doing badly and people are grasping at straws, they tout privatization and tax cuts as the solution to all ills. This allows the favored few to pick up public property at a bargain price and rewards them for helping to crash the economy by cutting public spending just when it's needed the most.
61
Thanks for posting this eye-opening comment. You sure know how to smoke out the spalpeens.
Keep up the good work. Your readers are learning important, relevant facts.
39
GOP Commandment #3: Being loyal is more important than being correct.
48
We see variations of this in the never-ending claims that university departments have somehow imposed intellectual censorship on conservatives and refuse to hire them for political reasons. Yet increasingly it appears that the central tools of the liberal arts and sciences--evidence, debate, argument, testing hypotheses, openness to revision, and heck, even reading--are anathema to today's conservatives and certainly today's Republicans.
795
Kevin Williamson writes well about one big topic: the culture war. The reason he writes well is that he showers Mencken-like contempt on people he disagrees with, to the point even of wishing them a violent death. This can, in the eyes of some, make him a free-speech martyr because most serious purveyors of opinion want something deeper than provocation for its own sake. The answer might be to allow him a perch in the appropriate venue. Say, a wrestling ring or National Review Online. For polite society, it's enough to know he exists and let Twiiter record the outrage.
35
Even Ta-Nehisi Coates said he reads KW's articles and surely supported his hire at The Atlantic.
1
"But under Obama the director was always someone who was interested in real policy research, listened to what experts had to say, and was willing to change views in the face of evidence." but, Folks, this sounds dull and conservative, let's spring for the TV personality with a magic for voo-doo economics.
Keep us entertained, let's sit in the audience with blindfolds and be surprised. Not true, because we have long reached the stage of no longer being surprised by anything this lost Administration unravels from its dangerous sleeve.
And yet, in milder political weather, one can not help but wonder why and when The Republican Party left America and took off to another planet populated with cranks and crackpots.
49
1964 Civil Rights Act, which passed with Republican support and fierce opposition from the Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats).
Nixon & his bunch saw the numbers & began pushing out Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans and putting out the welcome mat for the pro-segregationist Dixiecrats: Nixon's "Southern Strategy."
Given that segregation had been kept in place by terrorism, fraud, and demagoguery, it's not surprising where we are now .
17
Obama was a Republican. Sanders is the only Democrat I see still standing, and he ain’t a Democrat.
I agree with almost everything Dr. Krugman says here, but I can't quite see what it has to do with Kevin Harrison. If I understand correctly, Harrison was let go not because of intellectual dishonestry or lack of expertise, but because his views were not acceptable to liberals.
Liberals want conservatives to accept their view of abortion as a human right. And they don't want to be reminded that there are still people who view it as a crime, plain & simple.
15
We want conservatives to accept women's rights to health care, self-determination and bodily integrity as well as medical privacy. THOSE are human rights.
181
Your right to not have an abortion is like someone else's right to have one. If you* view that as a crime, you have no right to punish the someone who does not. You do not make public policy. If your motivation stems from "God's Word" then your religous freedom ends where my freedom from religion begins.
53
Dunno who Kevin Harrison is, but Kevin Williamson was let go because he advocated the mass execution of every woman who had an abortion, preferably by hanging. Arguing for the slaughter of millions of women isn't a mere policy difference.
64
The striking thing up here in the wilds of New Hampshire is when you go door to door, talking to voters they have not only never heard of Paul Krugman, but they recoil in horror when you enunciate his point of view and they respond with stuff which has clear origins in Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
Taxes? Always bad, job killing. Government spending on infrastructure? Worthless--goes into the pockets of politicians. A President who dodged taxes--smart guy. Medicare for all? Socialized medicine, death panels, and look at all those Canadians flooding across the border to get their hips replaced and their chemotherapy here!
Somehow while Professor Krugman commands the Truth, he does not command the attention of the masses, at least not the masses in the shires of the Granite State.
Perhaps the professor should get out of the subways--admirable as that choice is--and wander the backwaters and speak the truth, not to power, but to the fearful, huddled yokels who live in zip codes which matter on election day.
470
Worst case scenario in how long a Canadian waits for a hip replacement is 2 years. I personally am contemplating a visit to the U.S. for a specialized hematology (blood) test, its already been two weeks and my doctor doesn't even have a date for my test.
I most likely have a rare blood disease (my white blood cell count is low and getting lower each day), and this test is vital for my well-being. Kinda feels like a death panel to me.
Don't look at Canada for healthcare, look at Australia or France.
10
At his own risk, of course. I find out here that people can be violently opposed to differing points of view.
32
@Pat: In the US, the worst case scenario for a wait for a hip replacement is forever. If you don't have insurance you will never get a hip replacement.
A two-week wait for a specialized test? Happens all the time here in the free-market paradise when your access to affordable care is constrained to your insurer's in-network providers.
And yet, tens of millions of people consistently believe these empty suits. I still cannot get my head around why. It's like that old joke: "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" Only it's not funny.
119
By definition, Conservatives are people who do not like change. They do not like their views to be challenged so they beleive only those who agree with their "World View" which is ... conservative.
14
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” -- H.L.Mencken.
Now as then, and sadly, probably until the beacon that was America blinks out.
16
Your question is THE most important question and if you cannot get your head around "why" then you are clearly in the same boat as me and as every pundit on TV and in the press. We still haven't figured out what hit us.
5
What we’ve seen from the GOP is insistence on austerity when unemployment was over 8%, and massive stimulus with unemployment at 4%.
What we’ve heard from conservative economists on this is: Nothing.
That says it all.
976
But Krugman persists in his religious belief in the Phillips curve which asserts a supposed inverse relationship between the level of unemployment and the rate of inflation. This is spite of the glaring fact that unemployment has varied wildly in, say 1992 - 2017 while inflation has only moved a narrow range.
9
Obama cut military spending despite the fact that we were at war under his administration. Conservatives wanted spending increased to restore a fighting force, because that is the most cost effective way to avoid war.
Democrats demanded increases in domestic spending in exchange for funding the military.
3
@Len Charlap, you are getting lost in the weeds when Dr. Krugman is talking about what type of economists should be at the top of Economic Policy in Government.
In any case from my 2 second investigation: "The Phillips curve was hailed in the 1960s as providing an account of the inflation process hitherto missing from the conventional macroeconomic model. After four decades, the Phillips curve, as transformed by the natural-rate hypothesis into its expectations-augmented version, remains the key to relating unemployment (of capital as well as labor) to inflation in mainstream macroeconomic analysis." from the reliable Econlib, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PhillipsCurve.html
Excellent point, Paul. Trump games his supporters who distrust thought. Times have changed since the ‘80’s, as you write, Paul; Before the ‘80’s, my father was conservative and backed the thinking conservative, Goldwater. I had a great, conservative teacher in high school who taught us to reason. There was a dialog.
But Trump people have found that the best way to gain power with their ineptitude is through Trump’s insults. Trump has insulted conservative thinkers. This is how a poorly educated brute gains power... with the help of Fox News, evangelicals and Right Wing media that seeks a lucrative audience. As you poignantly state of Kudlow, Paul:
“...selling snake oil is his business model, and he can’t change without losing everything.”
There is good discourse to be had on economics, and also all other spheres of social science. But the Trump people want in on a conversation that requires intellect. They have discovered that they can insult their way into a fractured Republican Party, in the way that Trump has.
I haven’t mentioned Keynesian economics because it’s not relevant to Trump supporters’ churlish behavior; the same for other thought. I don’t know what the solution is.
The G.O.P. is terribly broken. Someone has to restore it to a rational sense of dignity. Fox News needs to adopt a policy to educate its viewers. Republican politicians need to take their followers to a better place.
Our position in the world depends on our education.
83
Fox News needs to be off the air. It has turned into Worse Than Pravda, it's vicious, anti-fact, anti-democracy and we can't live like this. There cannot be two realities. At some point perhaps the advertisers will reach a moral as well as a pragmatic decision to save America from this insanity and yank their dollars, even if they take a short term hit. I don't even think it would be that bad or that lasting - people still need hardware, health remedies, cars, and insurance regardless of whether their ads are on FOX or not.
But if we lose America we lose it all.
71
It seems that threatening to organize boycotts has worked. Really getting them up and going can be expected to be more effective. We need to stop complaining and to start taking concrete steps.
The GOP needs to burn to the ground before it will change. Let's hope they don't torch the country as they go down.
2
40 years ago serious, honest conservatives did exist. Please give us specific examples how their opinions differed from today's extremists. Give a table of contrasts.
Describe the vanishing species ‘moderate Republican’, before the party purged them (Soviet Russian style). Let US voters know this more positive role model so they can realistically judge today’s extremists.
Contrast times past --- how did it work that our middle class was strong? Wages going up, jobs staying here, tax rates on the rich much higher---a 91% marginal tax rate on the very highest incomes when GOP Ike was president. Stronger govt regulations on big business and Wall St banks.
This was all more centrist. Our elections weren’t turned over to wealthy mega donors---vs now, both parties must compete for big money.
The ultra rw GOP, now dominates our 3 branches and most states, and is more extreme than European conservative parties.
The GOP's most effective and poisonous effect is to label what should be centrist liberalism as left wing extremism.
So we see most of our politicians and media are careful to stay within the limits our election donors set up.
Best example: true universal health care is off the table. Profits 1st priority. Thus liberal Krugman bashed Sanders constantly.
GOP Ike defended soc sec, unions and the New Deal. He said the rw extremists were dangerous but ‘negligible’ then. He didn't foresee their takeover.
Let's spotlight the redefinition of left and right.
26
Dear Meredith,
Nice job, with one really ugly exception. Progressive Krugman did not bash Sanders to take universal health care off the table. Krugman has always been in favor of universal health care. But the Sanders plan was simplistic and impossible to implement, and therefore incapable of achieving the objective that Krugman and Sanders shared, and Sanders maintained that his was the only way. Krugman could have kowtowed, but did not, which is an example of his own intellectual integrity.
152
beaujames... If PK was so in favor of true h/c for all then he would have pushed it, and specified how funding would work, using Sanders' ideas as a starting point. Never did.
PK obviously avoided explaining the examples pro/con of dozens of other countries--either single payer, or using non profit insurance with crucial govt regulations. This is what we should be debating, but PK and our media keeps dark the obvious role models used abroad for generations.
To buttress our centrist semi liberal Dems vs rw GOP, he'll say, sure he favors h/c for all--- SOMEDAY--when our politics change, but now it's impossible. Off the table , with profit as 1st priority, and PK isn't going to buck that trend.
Our media gets big profits from campaign ad fees paid by our rich campaign donors---the same donors who profit from our h/c system. Different system from nations with h/c for all.
This sets norms for coverage. Columnists don't want to stick their neck out from this norm and lose prestige. So easy to seem like a liberal in our distorted political culture.
Sanders is all hat and no cattle. His own campaign website admitted that Saunders, in all his years as an elected official, had no significant achievements to boast about. He ilsed one piece of Congressional legislation that he was listed as a "Co-sponsor" His strongest comment on his suitability to be President was that he won most of his elections by a very small majority. When I read those things on his campaign web page, I know that he was not qualified to be President of the USA.
15
Well... Trump did appoint Peter Navarro. Navarro came to Trump from UC Irvine. While not exactly Harvard or MIT, UC Irvine is not small school. So, there's that to consider.
The other thing we need to consider, and it goes beyond Trump, is the malevolent influence we will begin to see in terms of graduates from schools whose economic departments the Kochs have been controlling. Hovering a few more thousands of feet up, how will the influence of the Kochs on public education be felt in the years to come. They've been very active in the education field for a long time now, ensuring that their point of view is instilled from as early an age as they can influence.
Trump doesn't listen to advisers. That's, in part, why Gary Cohn left. The other part of the reason he left is that he really only had one job and it was done with the passage of the tax bill.
The intellectual right has been a sham, going back to Nixon. I can think of no others than the two people Nixon gave their start to, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, who've done more to corrupt our politics. It's taken nearly 50 years to finally bring them down. Once Mueller is done indicting both of them, who will take on the job of rebuilding our political parties?
Trump is a symbol of what happens when a society rots to the core. Intellectual right? Ain't no such thing.
---
https://www.rimaregas.com/2018/01/07/politicos-running-list-of-what-trum...
312
The trend to hire "advisors" who agree with your views is rampant in the pharmaceutical, food, and many other industries....buy a scientist for hire to say that such and such drug works wonders and is, of course, safe, that Twinkies are healthy. The list goes on and on.
As for Peter Navarro, whose views are not in the mainstream of trade policy economists, the proof will be in the pudding.
20
Navarro is squarely in the "charlatans and cranks" category. He has a Ph.D. from Harvard and some decent journal publications from early in his career, but he went off the rails at some point. His research hasn't appeared in reputable journals in years, and his economic views aren't shared by any other mainstream academics in his field.
Apparently, he ended up on the Trump team because Jared Kushner found his book on Amazon which echoed Trumpist trade policy.
33
David,
Another like Harvard graduate is Ted Cruz.
"As others have pointed out, the real problem here is that media organizations are looking for unicorns: serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence. "
Andrew Bacevich is a fine conservative, just not an orthodox Republican and maybe not what Prof. Krugman would recognise as influential.
9
The mirror to this in the hard(ish) sciences is the evolution argument. For whatever reason, conservatives (a huge generalization here) tend to argue that the science is incorrect and they can always find a few people with advanced degrees who will agree with them. They seize on any debate within the Darwinian community (punctuated equilibrium [SJ Gould et al] or phyletic gradualism [R Dawkins et al] anyone?) as evidence that Darwinism itself is up for grabs. Intellectual dishonesty from the conservative side is not confined to economics.
156
I think he covers that in the phrase:
"... as in so much else, "
9
Leftists believe that GMO foods and gluten are bad, and the government should ban them or force supply chain costs to be increased so that the people who deny science will have their costs socialized to the majority.
Same with CAFE standards. California and several of the other coastal states have air pollution problems. They believe that citizens on states that have clean air should be forced to comply with regulations that should only apply to states with air pollution in order to subsidize the purchase price of autos in California. No science, pure economic redistribution.
Around 2% of "conservatives" are of the opinion that the Bible is literally true. Evangelicals used to vote Democrat, but were ejected when Democrats determined that anyone who did not embrace abortion as a right up until the moment of birth were evil.
Democrats claim to be proponents of women's rights. Well except for Democrats in the entertainment or sports industry, Ted Kennedy, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore.
Democrat politicians are hardly honest, intellectually or otherwise.
6
ebmem
I hope that you take the time to read this.
Of course there are people who identify themselves as "liberals" who are shallow and cling to ideas without actually having done much investigation into whether they are supported by empirical evidence. The same holds true for those who identify themselves as "conservative". But the overwhelming number of "conservatives" who refuse to admit that they are wrong when the empirical evidence shows that they are can only be because they hold their political identity to the same standard as their religious identity, based not on empirical evidence but on belief. Lets look at your examples of liberal ideas that are wrong. GMO and Gluten: most people are against GMO not because of lower quality foods but because of secondary effects on the environment, reliance on a single gene pool and potential mutations of other life forms as adaptations to the new environment. I have never heard anyone call for banning gluten. CAFE standards: When forests all over the country started dying and fish in forest streams started disappearing it turned out to be from acid rain caused by sources nowhere near the damage. Pollution moves. The Bible is literally true: please produce the source of this study, I think that many more people believe this than you would like to imagine.
This all the result of a declining Republican Party. Yes, I know they have the power right now, but this is the result of pursuing power at any cost since they see their decline in the future. This situation and the thrashing it entails will cause damage, who knows how much. I hope the fall is gradual since an economic depression is a terrible way to change the system and we might not have an FDR to lead us out of it.
124
The rabid tax cut insured a disastrously negative outcome—-it is just a matter of time.
28
What really worries me about the Republican Party is that they they are so detached from reality that they may try to hang onto power no matter how the vote goes this fall.
33
Remember that FDR came *after* Hoover. There's a road ahead -- let's hope it's not too long.
20
When Mankiw wrote in the NYT, I did not always agree with his argument but I generally learned something. What has anyone ever learned from Kudlow?
58
I have learned that certain people are impervious to facts. This has been of tremendous help in both my personal and professional life.
485
Mankiw has a habit of omitting things that destroy his case. He's worthwhile for representation of one side, but not for representation fo a whole case.
22
As an example of Sven's comment Prof Mankiw once wrote.
"Because many Americans are happy with their current health care, moving immediately to a single-payer system is too radical a change to be politically tenable."
But whenever the public was asked to choose between a single payer system like Medicare for All (HR676) or a system based on profit making insurers obtained through their employers, they support a single payer system by 2 to 1, e.g. WashPost - ABC poll (10/2003) 62% single payer to 33% profit making insurers.
He also wrote
"A competitive system of private insurers, lightly regulated to ensure that the market works well, would offer Americans the best health care at the best prices."
He said this without the faintest attempt to present any supporting evidence. It is clear why since the vast amount of evidence supplied by looking abroad completely contradicts his statement.
53
We are in the world of the weird
Medusa-like Trump's head is reared,
A cortical jumble
And decisions tumble
Chaotically, for TV geared.
159
Another example, climate change: a responsible news organization can hire a 'liberal' who can argue a range of recommendations, from immediate Marshall-plan-style action to something more gradual. But if they want to hire a 'conservative', the argument will be whether its a chinese hoax or a scientific one, with a follow-on recommendation that the World may be flat after all.
826
Why is it that the ostensibly logical Democrats have never suggested that a rational federal policy would be to work to relocate people away from coastal flooding areas?
Miami routinely experiences flooding, primarily because the land is sinking. How about the federal government says we're not going to fund sea walls and road elevation, but we'll kick in some money to subsidize poor people who need to move away from flood prone areas?
What id, instead of demanding that the federal government pay for 60% of local infrastructure needs, NYC were to put together a plan to reduce the population of NYC? Coastal cities grew where they are because of access to ports. There is no longer any rational need for people to live on the coasts.
12
I personally wouldn't buy property in Miami, but I highly doubt that forced relocation is going to be an easy or an ethical sell. Jobs are in coastal cities, families are there, social networks, support, communities, property. Where is everyone going to move to? Where are you going to put millions of people? Are those places prepared? Do they have the jobs/infrastructure/housing they need? I agree that it's logical to take climate change into consideration when deciding where to live, if you have that option, but the truth that nowhere is immune to its effects. Shall we move someone from the flood to the drought? To me, this is an individual choice, there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to what exactly will happen, where, and when, and if things start becoming literary uninhabitable then hopefully a relocation effort will kick in.
It's almost as if you have no sense of how busy ports still are. How do you think most oil is transported transocean?
Prof Krugman is exactly right. And it's not just in economics - "conservatives" have no more connection with serious, accurate analysis and valid opinions than the pro-slavery faction right before the Civil War.
521
You do not have a clue as to what conservatives think or believe because you rely upon Paul Krugman to tell you.
So much for the objective opinions of Democrats. It is the very reason why you cannot believe that Hillary lost the election. It is why there are 30 states where Republicans are in charge and six where the Democrats are. It is why Massachusetts has the lowest minority turnout in the country and Democrats are outraged when a southern state reduced early voting from five weeks to four weeks. In the Democrat mind, that constitutes voter suppression.
Paul Krugman holds a minority opinion. But since he only associates with other leftists, he has to make up things about what the majority believe.
18
ebmem, the issue under discussion is not how many people believe something, or how many legislatures are controlled by which party, but whether beliefs are based on facts and evidence.
Just what minority opinion does Krugman have? I think if you actually looked for the facts (which you clearly haven't) you would find that his economic views represent a majority of economic scholars, and his public policy views represent a majority of the public's.