Paul Krugman, perhaps the most influential Op Ed opinion writer in the world today, has now become a complete flack for Clinton in her drive for the nomination. Although I have enjoyed Krugman's columns, for all that he is unable to pronounce the words "Karl Marx" [the Lord Voldemort of the Liberal blogosphere -- He Who Shall Not Be Named], the cheapness of his criticisms of Sanders and the extent of his apologiae for Clinton begin to grate. Here is his latest.
Now, I happen to agree that the flap about the e-mails is overblown, although it was sheer stupidity on Clinton's part to have used a private server and a private e-mail account, when she well knew that she would be making another run for the presidency. But Klugman now sounds quite like the redoubtable Debbie Wasserman-Schulz.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Did you read the Greenwald piece exposing Krugman's aloof hypocrisy about who is and is not deemed a serious candidate?
I did. It is what prompted this post.
It's odd because I remember when I would watch Krugman on programs like Bill Maher, roughly after the 08 and 12 Obama elections, he always sound like a progressive Bernie Sanders type, not a center left Clintonian.
Oh well.
I love Krugman's concept of "serious." Ideology in the making.
American Establishment intellectuals can't stand Sanders just like British ones can't stand Corbyn. They are invested in a credentialing and prebend distribution system and don't want the boat to be rocked, progressive change be damned. These remarks by former UK Labour Party leadership hopeful Tristram Hunt are a surprisingly candid example of the attitude I have in mind:
'According to the Cambridge University student newspaper Varsity, Hunt told students: “You are the top 1%. The Labour party is in the shit. It is your job and your responsibility to take leadership going forward.”' (The Guardian, Nov. 2, 2015)
See? Progressive politics is all very well and good so long as it's managed by privileged Cambridge graduates. (And yes, Sanders has a posh degree, and things don't translate neatly from the UK to the US, but you get the gist, I hope.)
Robert Reich's responses to a Bernie skeptic are good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfIhonVoFSg
I just watched the Reich YouTube. It is great!
It's cowardice on Krugman's part. From reading his columns, I sense that he's closer to Sanders than to Clinton in philosophical terms, but apparently, he does not dare to draw the practical political conclusion of the message of his columns: support for Sanders. Krugman also probably has a lot of friends in important places and maybe he doesn't want to freak them out by supporting Sanders. The elites accept that you play with radical ideas (in columns from time to time), but not that you put them into practice. To take a slightly cynical point of view, I would not be surprised to see that our pal Paul gets himself a very well-paid and high-status job advising President Hillary. That is, Paul is getting on the victory train early
Sine I try very hard to think well of people, I have been assuming that Krugman is simply ideologically mystified and confused rather than self-consciously a careerist, but who knows, maybe you are right. It is certainly striking how totally the tone of his columns has changed as the election campaign has heated up.
He seems to me to be, in a narrow way, very very smart, but with a rather small soul. He doesn't appear ever to have gotten over being a star graduate student.
There's a cultural thing too. From your talks, I can see that you're a lifelong member of the culture of the left, as I am too. Sanders also is, while Hillary isn't nor is Krugman. It's hard to change culture (or your tribe) at Krugman's age: you lose friends, you lose your sense of identity, etc. Still, Krugman has written some great columns against neoliberalism, against austerity politics in Europe, against income and wealth inequality, in favor of Piketty, but from an intellectual criticism of neoliberalism to actually supporting an outsider and lifelong leftie like Sanders is a big step, too big for Krugman.
Post a Comment