Why Is Paul Krugman So Hostile To Barack Obama?
Paul Krugman has written a number of pieces that are highly critical of Barack Obama. Krugman is a distinguished economist as well as an exceptional writer, and on issues of substance, he raises reasonable questions and offers plausible objections. But as many people have noticed, the tone and intensity of Krugman's pieces are puzzling. It seems almost personal--a kind of campaign.
What accounts for this?
I don't know the full answer, but here's a significant part of it: Krugman and Obama have different approaches to political disagreement. Krugman likes partisanship, and Obama does not. In a revealing column in January 2007, Krugman cited Obama's lament that "politics has become so bitter and partisan," and rejected the Senator's suggestion that we have to become less partisan in order to solve our problems. In Krugman's view, we need an FDR, not a consensus-seeking Eisenhower. Politicians have "to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition."
Rejecting Obama's claim that we should begin with a new period of bipartisanship, Krugman quoted, with evident admiration, FDR's famous statement, in 1936, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred."
Krugman insisted that politicians who seek "a new New Deal" should welcome the hatred of the right. Obama doesn't hate those who disagree with him, and he does not welcome people's hatred. Krugman seems to hate that.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Glad you posted this. I
Glad you posted this. I tried emailing this to you to get your reaction, but it didn't go through. It seems to me your interpretation of why Krugman has been hostile to Obama is quite different. Is it?
Don’t lie on Black folks
Don’t lie on Black folks
Don’t lie about Black folks
Don’t lie to Black folks
That's the whole story. I have a active admiration for Prof. Krugman's work in economics. We agree politically more often than not. But if I see incorrect or false statements that I think are going to materially affect Black folks, I'm going to say something. I never thought about why, just what. Even 'who' isn't a big consideration.
seems like a legit reason to be hostile
Isn’t Krugman right about the historical strength of partisanship?
My impression is that in lots of ways the era of bipartisan coalition building was holdover from civil war/civil rights movement where you had Democratic party that was made up of weird coalition of antigovernment southerners in same party with New Dealers and post Reagan Republican party weird coalition of anti-government Southerners in same party with your Nelson Rockefellers and John Chafees. You had to create bipartisan coalitions because neither party had a coherent agenda.
But that era is over and both parties actually have distinct coherent ideologies.
This is a primary pitting one candidate who is positioning herself as spiritual heir to LBJ against another who is positioning himself as spiritual heir to JFK. If I really believed that Hillary was capable of effective partisan politicking as LBJ, I would have voted for her. Instead I have to convince myself that Obama (like George W) is lying when he claims to want to bring bipartisanship to Washington.
If Obama isn’t lying than Krugman’s criticism of him seems real legit. As I can't imagine much getting accomplished by bipartisanship.
But that era is over and
So...are you worried about parties or people?