« Afghan TetChaos-istan »

Nobel Thoughts

Nobel Economics Laureate Paul Krugman at NYT is a little late to the Olympian commentary windsprints, but like most on his side of the ledger, is less interested in what the Battle of Copenhagen says about the president’s political instincts and use of his office, and more interested in sniffing disdainfully at the opposition. But he makes an even bigger point about the state of American politics than he intended: 

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple.

If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.

To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm.

Which is what distinguishes it from the pure spite displayed by the American left over much of the past eight years. But Krugman goes on to explain that disagreeing with the president and his party on more substantive matters also constitute puerile spite:

… the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.

(At this point PK indulges in some selective, sensational discussion of opposition to tax-and-fee-subsidized socialized health care. No discussion of sensational disparagement of opposition or sensational support for same. So, PK muses … ) 

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

That is a really good question. But Krugman isn’t talking about the Democrats under Bush, and how a party that has been so single-mindedly focused on childish destruction of its opposition for years now, a Party of No, can possibly accomplish anything worthwhile now that it controls both the legislative and executive branches. (The good news is that party has lacked much in the way of skill at tactics period, and puerile spitefulness has proven a poor substitute.) Krugman is instead talking about the opposition party that, joined by Democratic moderates, is seeking to put the brakes on a dangerous and highly disruptive agenda item that is being pushed chaotically at the worst posible time. And all Krugman wants to do is engage in a spiteful, puerile attack on the opposition. Nobel thoughts from an economics laureate who would do better to spend his time thinking of ways to improve our economy that don’t involve debt-burdening it into the Stone Age.  

Ha! via HotAir, Olympics loss was Bush’s fault. I don’t know about you, but I’m really disappointed in Krugman for not thinking of that one.

(Care to comment? Registration is shut down, due to persistent spammers. Use the “contact” link above to assure me you are a real human being interested in commenting on the topics at hand, include the screenname and temporary password of your choice, and I’ll create a logon for you. Lefty Kumbayah singers, moderate handwringers, mean-spirited rightwingers all welcome. No litmus test, this is a free speech zone as long as you keep it clean and make an effort to be accurate.)

Topics: media, pols

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:45 am on Monday, October 5, 2009

4 Responses to “Nobel Thoughts”

1. mojo Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

   You actually bother with Big K?

   Why?

2. Jules Crittenden Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

   Why do you think I do any of this? For fun. Seriously, though, it’s vitally important to note what mountebanks and jackanapes some of the greatest thinkers of our time are.

3. jodetoad Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

   I get kind of confused about famous economists espousing economic concepts that don’t work, scientific journals refusing to publish research contradicting their assumptions, industries such as Phrma supporting legislation that would not seem in its best interest, news media destroying their own reputation by cheerleading, educators indoctrinating rather than educating, on and on and on. All these things have a leftist slant.

   We are told there is no conspiracy, and I have no evidence to offer that a conspiracy exists. But it feels so contradictory to common sense, like the government going into massive debt to ’save the economy’… It feels like a conspiracy. Maybe I’m crazy.

   That must be it. I’m not stupid, so it must be I’m nuts. Or else, maybe there really is a conspiracy… ?

4. Robert Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 9:14 pm

   I have no problem with saying NO!.

   No Bailouts
   No Stimulus
   No Subsidies
   No Guarantees
   No Earmarks
   No Pork
   No Deficits
   No Bubbles
   No Tax Hikes
   No Blank Checks
   No Nationalizations
   No Socialism
   No Public Option
   No Cap and Trade
   No Single Payer
   No Protectionism
   No Public Funding
   No Government Motors
   No Government Cheese
   No Pirates
   No Bu11$#;+
   NØbama

Leave a Reply

Trackback URL

You must be logged in to post a comment.