Paul Krugman gets it wrong

There are few people more worth reading than Paul Krugman in the New York Times. It is an unalloyed public good to have a Progressive economist writing on the nation's senior Op-Ed page.

Unfortunately, Krugman occasionally also writes about politics. Now, that's in itself nothing bad. However, his political instincts are less sure than his economic analysis. Consider this:

It is, in a way, almost appropriate that the final days of the struggle for the Democratic nomination have been marked by yet another fake Clinton scandal — the latest in a long line that goes all the way back to Whitewater.

You can essentially stop reading at that point to think about a larger issue. True enough, Whitewater was never a real scandal; there was no wrongdoing, other perhaps than by journalists against the interests of the American people. Journalists that signally include those working for Krugman's employer, The New York Times, which broke the story, such as it was.

If we posit that a public statement can become the substance of scandal - something that seems true if you consider that George Bush is still being raked over the coals for giving a speech under a banner titled 'Mission Accomplished', in short, for words that he didn't even say - then Senator Clinton's recent remarks about her enduring campaign, Senator Obama, Bobby Kennedy, and the role that assassinations play in American political life qualify.

This is not a fake scandal. It is a grievous lapse in judgment about what constitutes acceptable discourse, a lapse that calls into question Clinton's ability to serve in the office she is running for. You simply can't even appear to make the violent death of your opponent a part, however tangential or unintentional, of your campaign strategy. This is not something that's normally talked about, because it's assumed by common consent to be so far beyond the pale as to render any discussion unnecessary.

Nobody in their right mind thinks that Hillary Clinton wishes for Senator Obama's life to be cut short by violence. That does not make this episode any less disturbing, or any less deserving of censure.

But what this entire harrowing sequence of events makes abundantly clear is that any public good Senator Clinton's campaign served in the past is insignificant next to the damage she is causing to the party and herself. For better or for worse, she is now widely perceived as running because Obama may get shot. It's hard to discern how the public interest is served by that perception.

http://culturekitchen.com/michael_bouldin/blog/paul_krugman_gets_it_wrong
Mouse over the text to select it, then press Ctrl-C to copy it.
No votes yet
Michael Bouldin's picture



Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • You may post code using <code>...</code> (generic) or <?php ... ?> (highlighted PHP) tags.
  • Flash node macros can be added to this post.
  • Insert Flickr images: [flickr-photo:id=230452326,size=s] or [flickr-photoset:id=72157594262419167,size=m].
  • You may use [inline:xx] tags to display uploaded files or images inline.
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see <a href="/interwiki/1">interwiki</a>.
  • Links to specified hosts will have a rel="nofollow" added to them.

  • You may post PHP code. You should include <?php ?> tags.
  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • E-Mail addresses are hidden with reCAPTCHA Mailhide.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

User login

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

Upcoming events

  • No upcoming events available

QUOTES

Twitter and Facebook are for...

MySpace, Facebook, and many other businesses have realized that they can give away the tools of production but maintain ownership over the resulting products. One of the fundamental economic characteristics of Web 2.0 is the distribution of production into the hands of the many and the concentration of the economic rewards into the hands of the few. It's a sharecropping system, but the sharecroppers are generally happy because their interest lies in self-expression or socializing, not in making money, and, besides, the economic value of each of their individual contributions is trivial. It's only by aggregating those contributions on a massive scale - on a web scale - that the business becomes lucrative. To put it a different way, the sharecroppers operate happily in an attention economy while their overseers operate happily in a cash economy. In this view, the attention economy does not operate separately from the cash economy; it's simply a means of creating cheap inputs for the cash economy.

From Sharecropping the long tail

— Nick Carr

Poll