McArdle Versus Krugman

I have to say that I found McMegan's attacks on Paul Krugman to be pretty weak. Apart from pointing to some shortcoming of his New York Times columns that are intrinsic to the format, the gripe is, I guess, that he doesn't write "about economics" anymore. But Megan also derides his writing about health care and inequality. Or maybe she's lumping those into the "not economics" category because she doesn't agree with his conclusions. We also seem to be dealing with the view that it's incredibly gauche of Krugman to be going on and on about how George W. Bush is really bad at running the country.

This, though, is a pretty important topic!

And though Krugman's position on the "does Bush suck?" question is a fairly banal one in September 2007, he's been consistently -- and presciently -- adhering to this view even in times like September 2003 when it wasn't a popular one. And, yes, he writes about non-economics subjects sometimes, too. He wasn't, after all, hired to write the "economic scene" column, he was hired to be an op-ed columnist. Basically, I think Megan wishes Krugman were less liberal. Or would write less about the topics he has liberal views on. He still does, after all, do some long format writing like this New York Review of Books piece on health care, this one on Social Security, this piece for The Nation on class stratification, this Rolling Stone essay on inequality, etc.

Comments

"He wasn't, after all, hired to write the "economic scene" column"

Actually he was hired to write about overseas economics

In Krugman's own words:

""I was hired to write about economic problems overseas, not in our domestic area"

http://www.swans.com/library/art11/gberes06.html

Posted by Dave | September 5, 2007 4:26 PM

I posted this at Megan's place, but if you need another explanation as to Krugman's failings as a columnist, I'll post it here, too:

The constant Bush bashing would be much more tolerable if it were empirically grounded. Too often, however, Krugman's mania is little different than, say, R. Emmett Tyrell's worst days during the Clinton Administration.

I gave up on Krugman after he wrote a piece several years ago which took up the manner by which our intrepid President earned his fortune. Now, for someone like Krugman, this is the equivalent of a poor fastball right over the middle of the plate for Barry Bonds in his prime. The story is replete with taxpayer subsidies for the wealthy, abusive eminent domain, and the widespread nature of these practices in municipalities across the land, often sold to the public via transparently phony arguments about subsequent economic benefits. Krugman should have been able to write the definitive piece on the topic, with President Bush's participation as the hook.

Instead, Krugman writes a screed which barely addresses the most important part of the story, in terms of public policy, and instead spends paragraphs to insinuate without basis that there was some type of criminal behavior involved, clearly ignoring that the real scandal is how this type of wealth generation is perfectly legal, and extremely common. So common, in fact, that the people who sign Krugman's checks, the management of the NYT, engaged in the very practice themselves. Not that Krugman saw fit to mention that, of course. It was then I decided that Krugman had become a common hack, and I haven't read anything by him since.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 4:30 PM

McMegan clearly is the black sheep of the Atlantic blogging family. She just doesn't fit in. Note that her comment policy is far more restrictive than it is here even though she is ostensibly an employee of the same publication as Yglesias. One of these bloggers is not like the other . . .

Posted by Sprezzatura | September 5, 2007 4:34 PM

From McArdle's blog:

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

Return to the original entry

Posted by Sprezzatura | September 5, 2007 4:36 PM

Re: comments

At least she allows comments. Sullivan doesn't even do that.

Posted by Steve Balboni | September 5, 2007 4:43 PM

Sprezz, McMegan's comment policy, as written, didn't seem that restrictive (if there was something there that couldn't be summarized as "don't be an ass", I don't remember it).

Obviously, if she really is censoring for ideas rather than for tone (or that'd be inappropriate to the medium, but do you believe that is happening?

Posted by Warren Terra | September 5, 2007 4:45 PM

That's not me; that's the spam filter. I haven't deleted any comments in days; I'll only go there if the vitriol gets out of hand again. Normally, I make the junk comments live every few hours. But I can't find yours.

Posted by Megan McArdle | September 5, 2007 4:52 PM

I basically agree with Matt. In his economics columns, Krugman plays the vital role of challenging the often ridiculously audicious claims by the Administration, often related to the benefits, scope or justifications for more and more tax cuts. It is true that he cannot always explore the issues in as much depth as is required because of the format, but that is a pretty weak criticism.

In his non-economics columns, he is a bit more hit and miss, IMO. He gets some stuff wrong in his foreign policy writing and he tends to overly attribute problems to Bush's policies at times. However, the big picture is that he has consistently called out Bush for using misleading arguments and "data" in support of bad policies virtually across the board, including as Matt noted even when it was not popular to do so. I consider that pretty valuable stuff.

Posted by Greg | September 5, 2007 4:52 PM

At least she allows comments. Sullivan doesn't even do that.

McMegan deletes all comments that call her a fascist - even when she writes columns in defense of torture (which in my book, makes her a fascist).

Posted by fasteddie | September 5, 2007 5:00 PM

This is all about ego and face-saving. Nobody who wasn't saying it then wants to admit how obviously terrible Bush was in 2000-2003.

I think McArdle and her fellow travelers would be happy to admit that the Bush regime was proven to be horrible a posteriori. They get to wash their hands, condescend about the nature of government, and offer bullshit cynicism about the world, as if they expected nothing else but the worst.

That's why people like Krugman really irritate them. Since he's not a paranoid leftist (like myself), he has to be patronized away, as if he somehow disappointed the eager and open-minded with his quest against Bush.

It has very little to do with policy, and has everything to do with what you actually think like. Bush and his supporters were a black hole of logic, empathy and common sense then and now, and it was obvious to 99% percent of people who count that this was the case.

Posted by Thomas | September 5, 2007 5:03 PM

In 2003, before the War started, Krugman nailed the reason for not starting the war.

This was the reason that Matt failed to grasp. The reason that the Mustache of Understanding failed to understand. And I haven't checked, but I suspect it was the reason that Matts bff McArdle also failed to grasp.

Since then, Matt has tried, dodging his own Incompetence, to claim that Krugman was wrong about that reason and that Vizzini was correct.

Krugman however, knew and wrote before the war that examining Bush's history before the Presidency and during, that Bush was going to screw things up monumentally.

So I don't see screeds when I read Krugman. I see analysis taken to the next level and made real.

Posted by jerry | September 5, 2007 5:15 PM

the upside of all the links by Matt to the glibertarian (and objectively pro-torture) McMegan is there are a proportionate decrease in the links to the pro-torture bigots and racists over at Marty Putz Weekly.

small favors, etcetera

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | September 5, 2007 5:17 PM

I dunno, Thomas, I actually was writing in 2000 that I expected Bush to be a terrible President, a yet I still voted for him twice, and might do so again if the alternative was still Gore or Kerrey, although I'm less certain with regard to Gore; if he hadn't put forth a detailed 200 page economic manifesto, I may have followed my inclination to do nothing in support of George W. Bush, and in 2000 I voted in a state which was pretty close.

How awful has Bush been? Well, domestically, every bit as bad as I expected. Internationally? Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement. To those that say things could not be any worse than what George W. Bush is likely to produce, well, you simply have very limited imaginations. If that makes me a purveyer of cynical bullshit to you, again, you need to recharge your imagination, and you really need to re-evaluate the pros and cons of cynicism.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 5:18 PM

Megan McArdle...Rarely has one person done so much with so little.

If she allowed comments on her blog, I'd point out that it's "asymmetric information," not "asymmetrical information"...that's what you get when you hire an economics blogger with no economics training...

Posted by Mr. Noah | September 5, 2007 5:24 PM

"I have to say that I found McMegan's attacks on Paul Krugman to be pretty weak."

That's a phrase that's been said many times before and will be said many times again.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | September 5, 2007 5:26 PM

Basically, I think Megan wishes Krugman were less liberal.

Basically, I think Megan wishes Krugman had been proved less fucking right. Perhaps if she closes her eyes tightly and wishes very very hard, that may come to pass.

How awful has Bush been? Well, domestically, every bit as bad as I expected. Internationally? Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement.

That's awfully nice of you. If it's fucked up in 30 Friedmans, are we allowed to come over and kick you up the rear?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 5, 2007 5:42 PM

Yeah, Krugman needs to stick to his area of expertise. Just like Thomas Friedman does. He's a middle eastern expert who understands the necessary dynamic of killing Iraqis to send the message of "suck on this".

Posted by AnotherBruce | September 5, 2007 5:46 PM

I dunno, Thomas, I actually was writing in 2000 that I expected Bush to be a terrible President, a yet I still voted for him twice, and might do so again if the alternative was still Gore or Kerrey

This, in a nutshell, is why we are so fucked up right now. Thanks, Will Allen, for reminding me of why I hate people like you.

Posted by commie atheist | September 5, 2007 5:46 PM

Ms McArdle is to Paul Krugman as...

Boonesfarm is to Chateau Lafitte

Really.

Posted by kennyp | September 5, 2007 5:46 PM

"How awful has Bush been?

Internationally? Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement."

I think Congress needs to pass a law requiring every single person who says or writes something like that to have I AM A FUCKIN' IDIOT branded on their foreheads. 15 years from now the Persian Gulf might be a better place. 15 years from now we may be selling cigars to the folks from Alpha Centauri. 15 years from now I may be having sex with Hillary Duff. There is no way to know what's going to be 15 years from now and defending or excusing an action with the unknowable is magical thinking at its most infatile.

If you want to defend the President on Iraq, defend him on the damn merits.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 5, 2007 5:48 PM

Wait...are we talking about Jane "2x4" Galt here?

Posted by liberal | September 5, 2007 5:48 PM

Krugman = Coulter. The people on the right fawning over Coulter have direct equivalents on the left fawning all over Krugman. (And, yes, if you think Krugman is a great columnist, please be assured that there is a Freeper equivalent of you.)

Of course, given our media's left-wing bias, Krugman is on the op-ed page of the Ny Times and Coulter writes for WorldNetDaily, but that's another story.

BTW, not only is Krugman's political punditry dumb, but his economic punditry is incredibly weak also. A couple of years ago, he was predicting stagflation. A couple of years before that, he was talking about deflation and a liquidity trap. Perhaps he should just change his name to Chicken Little... who knows, the economy can't stay good forever, and one of these years Krugman might even have a column that accurately predicts economic activity.

Posted by Al | September 5, 2007 5:49 PM

Isn't this just a retread of "Krugman is shrill"? And hasn't that always been wrong? I mean, some guy attempted to make a career of Krugman-bashing a while back; I can't remember his name or anything he ever came up with. Krugman is just right, and not afraid to call it as he sees it.

Posted by Davi d in NY | September 5, 2007 5:50 PM

"adhering to this view even in times like September 2003 when it wasn't a popular one"

You don't really think Bush bashing wasn't popular with NYT readers in 2003, do you? It was in 2000-02 and 2004-07, and I don't remember 2003 being any different.

Posted by ostap | September 5, 2007 5:50 PM

Commie atheist, being hated by you is quite likely an honor. Thanks.

Gosh, I didn't know "pseudonymous" was synonymous with "fatuous".

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 5:53 PM

I dunno, Thomas, I actually was writing in 2000 that I expected Bush to be a terrible President, a yet I still voted for him twice, and might do so again if the alternative was still Gore or Kerrey
--------------

The sheer idiocy of this sentiment is awe inspiring.

Posted by rootless2 | September 5, 2007 5:58 PM

Gosh, I didn't know "pseudonymous" was synonymous with "fatuous".

Ah, that famed glibertarian wit. Can I take it, then, that you're one of those glibs who believes dumb actions should have no consequences?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 5, 2007 5:59 PM

Well, golly, mike, given you don't know what the Persian Gulf will look like in 15 years, you really can't comment with any degree of precision as to the wisdom of removing the Baathists by force from in Iraq, since the removal of the Baathists will have inevitably changed what the Persian Gulf looks like in 2020 or so. Bush has made plenty of errors, but they'll largely be forgotten if the Persian Gulf improves markedly in ther next 15 years, even though correlation doesn't prove causation.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 6:01 PM

I watched Megan on Bloggingheads and I was surprised that she wasn't this venomous right-wing attack dog. She smiled and laughed, decried Rudy Giuliani, and let the other Head do most of the talking. But I did come away with a feeling about how the right comes with people who put a smiley face on some of the worst human instincts. David Brooks comes to mind here, of course, and maybe Ross Douthat. Is there really a defense for torture that a culturally hip person might make? That conflation of amiability and vileness can be really disturbing.

Posted by walt | September 5, 2007 6:02 PM

Will Allen admits he voted for Bush twice and hasn't read Krugman since that one column.

Wow.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, little man. You're bathing in it.

Posted by pie | September 5, 2007 6:02 PM

Krugman has been prescient about many things and probably has the highest batting average of any columnist over the last eight years.

One of his greatest hits received far too little attention -- deducing that the California electricity crisis was caused by deliberate price and supply manipulation and not by a capacity shortage (which was the accepted conventional wisdom).

Posted by Ben Brackley | September 5, 2007 6:02 PM

Uh-huh. And when was the last time a magazine as prominent as the Atlantic took the right side of the press to task for repetition of conservative themes? (Silence.) Thought so.

Worse, for every Krugman there are two or three Mark Steins, three or four Charles Krauthammers, five or six David Frums and more than a few David Brooks. (There is only one Maureen Dowd, thank God.) It was like this during the Clinton administration at is has in many ways become worse under Bush.

Ms. McArdle stands as a stunning example of a prominent conservative position in America: only conservatives are allowed to speak, even regarding matters of which they know nothing or on which they have been consistently proved wrong. Anybody who writes something contrary is to be chided for even speaking. It's not enough that conservative viewpoints dominate almost all corners of the mainstream media, they must be the sole voice therein.

Posted by seeker6079 | September 5, 2007 6:03 PM

"Al" is full of false equivalence today.

(Is "Al" here the same as the paid right-wing troll over at Washington Monthly?)

Posted by theo | September 5, 2007 6:03 PM

No, "Will allen" is synonymous with "fatuous"--but thank you for playing. The thesaurus also offers "megan Mccardle" and "al" as commonly used variants.

I think the thing that really bothers right wingers about Krugman is that he *has a memory* and he writes like it matters. Look at Broder, or Hiatt, or any other op ed writer. They all can count, but they can't add. They *could* write a column every week that truthfully assessed the situation--any damn situation--and slowly, over time, they'd have to admit that this country is being run into the ground by George Bush and his policies. Just acknowledging the staggering fiscal costs of the war in Iraq alone would make any honest writer spill rivers of blood stained ink *if every column reflected growth and thoughtful education* as Krugman's do.

Look, Krugman started out pretty conservative. If he's moved into the permanently "shrill" column its because events and deeds have made him do so. Any honest writer with a memory would have to add up all the missteps, crimes, bizarre deeds, and failures of the bush administration and its flunkies and come to the conclusion that we are, as a country, well and truly f*ck*d. Not to do so requires a standard of unseriousness that only the megan mccardle's can admire. She will write the same pap, without learning anything, for as long as someone pays her to do so. To see her nipping at krugman's heels like a chihuahua at a great dane is truly comical.

aimai

Posted by aimai | September 5, 2007 6:04 PM

Can I take it you are the sort of moron who makes threats of kicking people's rears on the internet?

Sheesh, it really doesn't get any more stupid than that....congratulations, you are the winner!

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 6:05 PM

How awful has Bush been? Well, domestically, every bit as bad as I expected. Internationally? Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement. To those that say things could not be any worse than what George W. Bush is likely to produce, well, you simply have very limited imaginations. If that makes me a purveyer of cynical bullshit to you, again, you need to recharge your imagination, and you really need to re-evaluate the pros and cons of cynicism.

I don't usually delurk and comment but you are truly a dumbass. If the choices were really between expected disaster and imagined disaster, assuming you couldn't overcome your paranoid and partisan fears of imagined disaster and vote Democrat, wouldn't you have been better off not voting?

Posted by Duane | September 5, 2007 6:06 PM

"Well, golly, mike, given you don't know what the Persian Gulf will look like in 15 years,"

FUCKIN' IDIOT, let me see if I can put this in terms even someone as stupid as you can understand.

It's possible that killing you might result in some net positive benefit for mankind 15 years from now. Somehow, in some way, by design, accident or random chance, murdering you could directly or indirectly produce some action or inaction that produces a better world. I don't know what that better world would look like or even how your death would produce it, but it's still possible.

So, should someone put a bullet in your brain or not?

I apologize to everyone for the violent nature of this post, but good grief, I don't know what else could possibly penetrate such moronic thinking.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 5, 2007 6:09 PM

Will Allen: "Well, golly, mike, given you don't know what the Persian Gulf will look like in 15 years, you really can't comment with any degree of precision as to the wisdom of removing the Baathists by force from in Iraq, since the removal of the Baathists will have inevitably changed what the Persian Gulf looks like in 2020 or so. Bush has made plenty of errors, but they'll largely be forgotten if the Persian Gulf improves markedly in ther next 15 years, even though correlation doesn't prove causation."

This is Allen's idea of a DEFENSE of Bush? "He spent $500 billion and 4000 American lives, but there's a 50-50 chance that in the process he made things better rather than worse." Jesus Christ.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | September 5, 2007 6:12 PM

"a prety impressive beard."

I guess Matt's column isn't the only one never spellchecked.

You'd think The Atlantic could afford to get a spell checker integrated into the software...I mean, they are a PUBLISHING company, right?

Geez...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 5, 2007 6:12 PM

Look, Krugman started out pretty conservative. If he's moved into the permanently "shrill" column its because events and deeds have made him do so.

Krugman really hasn't moved that far. He was a bête noir of the anti-globalist left during the late years of the Clinton administration, and while you might be able to tease out distinctions between him and, say, Brad DeLong, he's still more or less neoliberal in economics.

His big point, in the introduction to The Great Unraveling, was the one he picked up from Kissinger's doctoral thesis: that the Bush administration exercised power in ways that disrupt existing structures. (Call it radical, call it revolutionary, it's the same principle.) In that regard, he anticipated Suskind's reporting on the concept of the 'reality-based community'.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 5, 2007 6:13 PM

Yeah. Wow. A prominent columnist plainly lies in an effort to insinuate criminal activity by those with whom he differs with politically, and somebody decides to stop reading him. Crazy, I know....

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 6:14 PM

I apologize to everyone for the violent nature of this post, but good grief, I don't know what else could possibly penetrate such moronic thinking.

The minds of fascist collaborators like Will Allen are indeed difficult to penetrate, by any conventional intellectual means.

Which leaves us with sharp pointy sticks.

Posted by Actual Patriot | September 5, 2007 6:15 PM

Will Allen:

, I actually was writing in 2000 that I expected Bush to be a terrible President, a yet I still voted for him twice

I have absolutely no patience with or sympathy for people like yourself. The notion that, "Bush sucks but Gore/Kerry would have been worse", given Bush's track record, is so incredibly pathetic, asinine, intelligence-insulting, etc. that I can barely contain myself when I encounter it. On the scale of stupidest-fucking-things-I've-ever-heard, it is on a level with creationist idiocy.

In short, you are a fucking idiot if you think Gore or Kerry would have been worse than Bush.

By the way, John Kerry spells his name K-e-r-r-y. This may seem like a pedantic point to you, but since the subject at hand is politics, and you're offering your opinion on politics, and I assume you want to be taken at least semi-seriously (difficult to believe given your fucking ridiculous Kerry/Gore-would-have-been-worse-than-Bush proposition), then one who finds themselves in such a position should know the difference between John Kerry and Bob Kerrey, another well-known Democratic US senator.

Posted by r€nato | September 5, 2007 6:16 PM

Good God. I could see one not voting for any of the above in the last two presidential elections but trying to claim one knew Bush would be a terrible president and voted for him anyway, now THAT's got to be the squirreliest position I've ever heard. And this is someone who gets paid to "think?"

Posted by digitusmedius | September 5, 2007 6:18 PM

"From McArdle's blog:

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner."

Yeah, and last night, I got the exact same thing from Matt's blog.

And whenever I get that, my post never shows up.

I'm beginning to suspect that it has to do with links in the post. If you make a post with multiple links, as my post did, it gets held until somebody figures out whether it's spam.

At least, I assume that's the case because my regular posts don't get held.

Except apparently nobody ever bothers to figure it out, so the post disappears into the bit bucket.

Which is just stupid.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 5, 2007 6:20 PM

Gore would have been worse than Bush? Jesus fuckin' Christ I still can't get over that.

If you can't tell the difference between Gore and Bush, I'd like you to sample my special shit-stuffed cannoli. Most people stuff their cannoli with ricotta but I swear you won't be able to taste the difference.

Posted by r€nato | September 5, 2007 6:20 PM

Hey Bruce,

You're forgetting the 2.3 million Iraqi refugees, the invaluable terrorist advances in IED technology, and the shredding of America's credibility (and thus ability to be a rational actor / positive force for change) to name just 3.

Posted by MaryCh | September 5, 2007 6:24 PM

You're forgetting the 2.3 million Iraqi refugees, the invaluable terrorist advances in IED technology, and the shredding of America's credibility (and thus ability to be a rational actor / positive force for change) to name just 3.

yeah but GORE WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE! he would have killed a bazillion Iraqis, made 10 million of them refugees, and shown insurgents how to build the most effective IEDs ever!

Posted by r€nato | September 5, 2007 6:26 PM

I'm sorry, but there simply is no way to "lie" and then to "insinuate criminal activity" by the maladminstration.

They are outright criminals. They would roast newborn babies (but never preborns!) on a spit if it would bring them more power.

Darth Cheney and his witless puppet have already gone out of their way to break laws in their paranoid delusions.

Posted by Actual Patriot | September 5, 2007 6:26 PM

Well, Mike, if shooting you had a 50-50 chance of heading off a terrific catastrophe, and you were as big an A-hole as the Baathists, or you appear to be in this thread, sorry, Mikey, but you gotta' go!

Bruce, I won't use the imagery employed by Mikey, since it doesn't appear to be your preferred tone of discourse, but whether a 50-50 chance made it worthwhile is entirely dependent on what odds one attributed to a far worse outcome than what has taken place. My view is that a despotically Islamic Persian Gulf, which the world demands oil extraction from for the next the next several decades, in an environment in which massively destructive technology becomes more ubiquitous with eash passing year, has a far greater chance than 50% to result in violence which makes the current level look almost quaint. In other words, my view of the manageability of the status quo ante, in pursuit of a slow evolution, is quite different than yours.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 6:27 PM

What would the reaction have been if Will Allen had posted that he thought Al Gore would be a horrible president and so he voted for Ralph Nader?

I suspect the same people now after him for voting for someone he believed would be a horrible president would have a different take on the above.

Then again there's some saying about foolish consistency and hobgoblins, but what do I know?

Posted by keatssycamore | September 5, 2007 6:28 PM

LOLOLOLOL

Krugman is so far out of Megan McCardle's league that the very idea of her criticizing him is a bit like PeeWee Herman threatening Mike Tyson, i.e. the outcome is predictable with nearly apodictic certainty. At best she can play it for a few laughs, but to the extentt she thinks she's going to lay a glove on him, she is deluded.

Non-liberals hate Krugman because he is brilliant and he makes them look like fools with arguments they have neither the capacity nor the facts to refute.

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 5, 2007 6:28 PM

Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement.

TRANSLATION: It sucks now but there's a 1 in a gazillion chance that a rabbit will come out of a hat.

Posted by Steve J. | September 5, 2007 6:30 PM

Will Allen, you are more stupid than slug but go on with your supid sluggery.

Posted by Jennifer | September 5, 2007 6:30 PM

What would the reaction have been if Will Allen had posted that he thought Al Gore would be a horrible president and so he voted for Ralph Nader?

I don't know what's the point of your question or how that can tell us anything meaningful regarding his original proposition.

Posted by r€nato | September 5, 2007 6:34 PM

Renato, you apparently have gotten the misimpression that I have concern pertaining to whom you direct your patience and sympathy. I don't. I apologize for the extra "e", and, heavens, it is an error that I have made a couple times out of the several hundred that I written his name. As I stated above, there is a chance I would vote for Gore if given the same choice again.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 6:35 PM

I never read Krugman's column. I get all my "business" news from Neil Cavuto. Gotta love them Hooter's chicks!

Posted by 25%ER® | September 5, 2007 6:37 PM

"McArdle Versus Krugman" - comic match of the decade. Hi, Torture Girl.

Posted by Jennifer | September 5, 2007 6:37 PM

You know, I can forgive someone for voting for Bush the first time. But after four years of Bush, you had to know what you were in for.

If you voted for Bush in 2004, you forfeited all right to (credibly) complain about him. Kerry had faults, but at least he wasn't intent on legalizing torture, acting like a dictator, and generally being a dangerous idiot (because anyone with Bush's low IQ having the power to declare war or launch nukes is by definition dangerous).

Posted by r€nato | September 5, 2007 6:38 PM

I dunno, Thomas, I actually was writing in 2000 that I expected Bush to be a terrible President, a yet I still voted for him twice, and might do so again if the alternative was still Gore or Kerrey,

I am floored. At this point a plate of cold beans running on the communist ticket should inspire more loyalty than Bush.

It's amusing to cackle that the public gets the government it deserves, but in your case you voted for a guy you thought would be terrible. TERRIBLE. And he is! Jesus.

I understand "anybody but X" voting, but when you think the person you cast your vote for is terrible maybe you want to write someone in or something.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 5, 2007 6:44 PM

Hey Will Allen,

Do you have more information or detail on the Krugman column you refer to on your post at 4:30? Your description's too vague to find it and I want to check it out myself. Just a few more details and I can TimesSelect it.

Thanks!

Posted by Jeopardude | September 5, 2007 6:46 PM

Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement.

You know, your threshold for success could be fulfilled by creating a huge mess in the Persian Gulf, then waiting 15 years, and when things are not as bad as they were at their worst, say, "See! Things got better!"

I'd claim, for example, that things in Jordan and Syria are better now than they were 15 years ago. Of course, Bush's foreign policy decisions had nothing to do with that.

Posted by Tyro | September 5, 2007 6:47 PM

Sorry, renato, but anyone who sided with the nuclear freeze movement in the early '80s, in the manner Kerry did, had already demonstrated his idiocy to a point that he makes the current idiot/occupant of the White House look like Abe Freakin' Lincoln. I still can't believe the Democrats nominated him. As to torture, you apparently are the sort of moral titan who sees contracting out the torture, in the manner of the Clinton Administration and others, as being somehow superior.

Righteous Bubba, I normally do, and I somewhat regret not doing so in 2000. If the Democrats had not nominated Kerry in 2004, I probably would have.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 6:53 PM

Hey, hey, settle down. The Will Allen bashing here is no fairer than Megan's Krugman bashing. The guy is just a doctrinaire libertarian.

As for Krugman, the most important thing about Krugman is that he plays by the conservative pundit rules instead of by the liberal pundit rules. Under the liberal pundit rules, all liberal pundits must write 1 out of 3 columns criticizing democrats to maintain their "credibility." Conservatives love to enforce this rule against liberal pundits, but it's also ingrained within the liberal punditry itself.

Conservative pundits, on the other hand, never focus on their side. There is no need for balance or independence written into their DNA. And they are never called shrill, no matter how partisan they are.

Krugman has recognized that Bush's gross inability to be the president is the biggest story going. Why shouldn't he be writing about the president who has set the world afire, wrecked the deficit, redistributed vast sums of wealth to the rich, and poisoned our environment with loose regulations? Is there something more important to write about?

Posted by pj | September 5, 2007 6:53 PM

The guy is just a doctrinaire libertarian

Doctrinaire libertarians are, by definition, dumbshits.

Posted by Crabbe and Goyle | September 5, 2007 6:56 PM

some guy attempted to make a career of Krugman-bashing a while back; I can't remember his name or anything he ever came up with.

Donald Luskin, use to run what he called "the Krugman truth squad". He was quite the moron, Atrios use to make fun of him a lot.

About the biggest thing he ever came up with was Krugman said something was 3.4%, and the correct amount was 3.1%

Posted by chris/tx | September 5, 2007 7:01 PM

Will Allen wrote: As to torture, you apparently are the sort of moral titan who sees contracting out the torture, in the manner of the Clinton Administration and others, as being somehow superior.

Ah, the old "Clinton did it too" protest. So popular yet so weak.

Posted by Jeopardude | September 5, 2007 7:01 PM

The Will Allen bashing here is no fairer than Megan's Krugman bashing. The guy is just a doctrinaire libertarian.

Ah, we know. Which is why his self-excusing explanation next year of why he voted for Giuliani -- we all know it's coming -- will be one for the ages.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 5, 2007 7:05 PM

You don't really think Bush bashing wasn't popular with NYT readers in 2003, do you?

In 2002-2003 the NYT was objectively pro-war, so any of their columnists who spoke against it deserve credit.

Also, what can you say about a person who thinks that advocating nuclear freeze is worse than advocating nuclear strikes against countries with whom we are not at war, and who are not committing aggressive acts against us?

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | September 5, 2007 7:05 PM

Tyro, I think you entirely underestimate how bad the situation was in the Gulf prior to the removal of the Baathist from Iraq.

Jeapardude, the column is from 2002 or 2003, and it pertains to Bush's involvement with the Texas Rangers, specifically how Bush received a % of the profits from the sale of the team in excess of his capital contribution, and how this is indicative of criminal activity. I cannot believe that Krugman is so ignorant that he doesn't realize that rainmaking in legislatures is an all too common and perfectly legal method of wealth acquisition, and that was Bush's contribution to the enterprise. The shame of it is that the practice is especially noxious BECAUSE it is perfectly legal, and Krugman has exactly the sort of expertise to demolish the ridiculous arguments put forth in support of these terrible subsidies and awful uses of eminent domain, but he was so set upon portraying Bush as Satan that he instead spends several paragraphs dishonestly insinuating criminal activity, and of course never mentions that the NYT engages in the same practices. He's really no better than Robert Novak.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:07 PM

So Will, going back to your first point - can you "empirically ground" your statement that the process by which Bush earned his fortune is "extremely common"? And how many times have you taken advantage of it?

Posted by ignoreland | September 5, 2007 7:08 PM

When the best thing you can say about a president is that, domestically he's as bad as you expected, but internationally you have to wait 15 years (i.e., almost four more presidential terms) to judge, what are you defending? A fantasy. Whose? His? Bush is an idiot, as was obvious to some of us in 2000.

And don't skim over "domestically" so glibly. He's a disaster, the people around him were and are disasters, the Republican Party is a disaster, and the right-wing commentariat who defend them are disasters.

"Bush has made some mistakes" doesn't begin to address it.

Posted by MrWonderful | September 5, 2007 7:09 PM

Ah, no, Jeapordude, it is not "weak" to note that farming out torture to foreign powers is not morally superior to practicing the torture onself. In fact, a case can be made that while both practices are unacceptable, the people who engage in the latter at least make themselves more accountable.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:12 PM

Shorter Will Allen: Paul Krugman criticized George Bush over something he deserved to be criticized for, but not in the exact, specific way I would have criticize him (I'm not saying I would have), so therefore Krugman is as bad as Robert Novak, who committed treason by helping to blow a CIA operative's cover.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | September 5, 2007 7:16 PM

Heya, Will. Is the world better off now than it was than in the early '70s when Kerry pushed withdrawing from Vietnam?

Hell yah! Those commies lost BIG TIME! Kerry was a firking GENIUS! (I assume you're in the "liberal backstab lost us the war" crowd.)

/end snark.

Do you begin to see how very, very foolish you sound with your "call me in fifteen years" stuff?

Posted by tydanosaurus | September 5, 2007 7:19 PM

it is not "weak" to note that farming out torture to foreign powers is not morally superior to practicing the torture onself. In fact, a case can be made that while both practices are unacceptable, the people who engage in the latter at least make themselves more accountable.

That is hilarious!!! How are Bush and Co. even remotely accountable for the torture they commit? If it were up to them, we wouldn't have even an inkling of an idea of what they do.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | September 5, 2007 7:20 PM

Bush administration farms out AND did torture themselves. So are they morally superior or morally inferior to themselves?

Posted by JEopardude | September 5, 2007 7:21 PM

Never done it myself, ignoreland, but I personally know at least a half dozen people who have made millions by successfully lobbying legislatures for subsidies on behalf of businesses which the lobbyist made no capital contribution to, and I'm just talking state legislatures. How the hell do you think the millionaires on K street in D.C. became millionaires? Powerball?

A guy who successfully marshals political support for subsidies worth hundreds of millions is himself easily worth tens of millions. It's a nasty practice, but all too common, and perfectly legal.

blobby

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:25 PM

Uh, no, PAT. Krugman dishonestly insinuated criminal activity where he very, very, likely knew no such criminal activity existed.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:29 PM

Just me pointing out the daily McArdle link. Has Andrew posted his yet?

Heh.

Posted by jim | September 5, 2007 7:30 PM

PAT and jeapordude, you, for some reason, have failed to note that I have made no specific claims regarding Bush torture policies.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:33 PM

Hey, three weeks ago there was a rumor that Times Select was being killed freeing Paul Krugman.

What ever happened to that?

Posted by jerry | September 5, 2007 7:34 PM

The amazing thing is that Will Allen's first post was quite astute. I think Duane nails the problem though: the man can't pull the lever for a democrat. Probably because he might raise his taxes a few percent. And you get excuses like, (paraphrasing) "Kerry was part of the nuclear freeze movement in the early 80s, so even fully acknowleding the train wreck that the Bush administration had been, Kerry was less qualified for the office in 2004".

The 15 years stuff is pretty good, too. The whole point is that in 15 years things may be better or worse. And either way it could be because of or in spite of our actions in Iraq. But what we know is that we caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of American soldiers and cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars. On top of that most intelligent analysts are looking at the situation and thinking that anything good that develops in the middle east in the next 5-15 years will probably be in spite of our actions in Iraq.

At the end of the day Will has made one thing extremely clear: he must really hate democrats. The sentiment is so strong, it makes me really wonder what the psychological motivation really is.

Posted by mpowell | September 5, 2007 7:36 PM

Here's the opening paragraph to the Paul Krugman column (July 16, 2002) Will Allen takes issue with:

Why are George W. Bush's business dealings relevant? Given that his aides tout his ''character,'' the public deserves to know that he became wealthy entirely through patronage and connections. But more important, those dealings foreshadow many characteristics of his administration, such as its obsession with secrecy and its intermingling of public policy with private interest.

So that's why George W. Bush's Rangers deal wasn't used as "the hook" in an argument against government subsidized projects for MLB teams. Because that wasn't the point of the column! A worthwhile issue, sure, (even though I respect the Green Bay Packer ownership model), but the opening paragraph lays out what he's going to talk about.

Posted by Jeopardude | September 5, 2007 7:37 PM

PAT and jeapordude, you, for some reason, have failed to note that I have made no specific claims regarding Bush torture policies

Specific claims? My god, tell us--are you for it or against it? Eager humanitarians wish to know.

Posted by Thomas | September 5, 2007 7:39 PM

By the way, I've noticed something about Republicans: they like to say "well, if Bill Clinton did it, we can to" or some variation thereof ("sure we're doing A, but Bill Clinton did B, so it's alright" or "why is A wrong if the New York Times does B?" etc.) I really don't think that, in years to come, Democrats will be saying "well, if George W Bush did A it's alright for us to do B". Does anyone else?

I just googled "George Bush Texas Rangers" and read a few articles. If anyone thinks this episode reflects more poorly on Krugman than on Bush, they are the hack, not Krugman.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | September 5, 2007 7:41 PM

How awful has Bush been? Well, domestically, every bit as bad as I expected. Internationally? Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years, and I'll make my judgement.

How utterly disingenuous. If the Iraq War had really turned out to be everything Bush and his backers had promised it would be, would you be telling us we have to wait 15 years to judge the real outcome? Obviously not.

But since this war has proven to be the exact opposite of everything Bush promised it would be, everyone who points out the obvious is told we have to wait 10, 15, 50 or even 100 years before we can judge the "real" consequences of this disaster.

That's a heck of a lot of Friedmans.

Posted by chuck | September 5, 2007 7:41 PM

PAT and jeapordude, you, for some reason, have failed to note that I have made no specific claims regarding Bush torture policies.

What you said was, it might be better for America to commit torture itself than to ask other countries to do it for us because when home-grown US citizens do it there is "accountability".

I don't see how that is. In theory I wouldn't expect someone who tortures people to be honest about it, and in practice that is exactly what we have found. The Bush administration did not want the Abu Ghraib photos released, did everything they could to confine investigations into same to the grunts in the prison rather than their superiors, etc. How is accountability possible in such situations?

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | September 5, 2007 7:45 PM

Will, I wasn't commenting on your stance on Bush torture. I was commenting on the inevitable reference to Clinton that happens with every blog argument about Bush.

Posted by Jeopardude | September 5, 2007 7:47 PM

This comment by PJ is right on about Krugman:

As for Krugman, the most important thing about Krugman is that he plays by the conservative pundit rules instead of by the liberal pundit rules. Under the liberal pundit rules, all liberal pundits must write 1 out of 3 columns criticizing democrats to maintain their "credibility." Conservatives love to enforce this rule against liberal pundits, but it's also ingrained within the liberal punditry itself.

As far as I can tell, Krugman is the only liberal pundit who stakes out his positions by arguments. Dionne and others rarely take positions--they explain strategy and other crap like that. But the right side is full of vicious types--Krauthammer, Will, Brooks, now Gerson, and much much more. Compare Krugman to them and he comes out way better.

Posted by jcasey | September 5, 2007 7:47 PM

>>Tell me what the Persian Gulf looks like in 15 years

Hey, that's what I said about Vietnam in the late 70's. Look at the Tonkin Gulf in the mid-90s. Vietnam averaged 8% GDP growth throughout most of the 90s. Hmm, seems to undercut the "cut and run from Nam was such a disaster, we can't do that in Iraq" argument -- as long as we are fantasizing 15 years into the future.

Posted by jim | September 5, 2007 7:50 PM

So, Will, unlike W, you haven't been able to parlay your insider connections into the personal wealth that will enable you to represent yourself as a successful (therefore better than the rest of us) businessman?

Well, hell, if you're so smart, why ain't ya rich? I'm sure your mom would like you to move out of the basement so she can store her Beanie Baby collection.

Posted by ignoreland | September 5, 2007 7:52 PM

Well, mpowell, you are wrong. I have voted for Democrats. Not a lot, but some. I won't vote for a Democrat, however, who thought challenging the Soviet Empire in Central Europe in the early '80s was a mistake.

PAT, please read what I wrote. I said contracting out torture to foreign powers was no better than doing it yourself, and that a case might be made that doing it yourself was wrong, but preferable, due to a chance of greater accountability.

Thomas, please learn to read.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:56 PM

Remember back in the 80s when Cheney and Rumsfeld helped to make sure Saddam was well armed?

And yet you voted for a guy who surrounded, nay, cocooned himself with the very same people who helped to create this monster.

Maybe it's just me, Will, but I don't think I really trust your long-term judgement.

Posted by john | September 5, 2007 7:57 PM

Yes, ignoreland, the usual empty ad hominem invective arrives right on schedule. Congratulations.

Posted by Will Allen | September 5, 2007 7:58 PM