Krugman vs. Brooks

More calumnies from the left, with wild-eyed nutjob Paul Krugman arguing that Ronald Reagan's opposition to creating a federal holiday for Martin Luther King and his efforts to prevent Bob Jones University from losing its tax-exempt status for failure to desegregate might have had something to do with an effort to court the white supremacist vote.

Hilariously, for some reason Krugman and David Brooks need to carry out this argument without referring to each other by name or even acknowledging that the other one exists. I think this is a very dumb policy the Times has, as it might be easier to have a productive argument if the participants in the debate could talk to each other properly.

Comments

As a former college editorial editor, I can vouch that when op-ed writers and columnists are allowed to refer to each other by name, there is a tendency for the opinion pieces to become: narrow, unreadable, navel-gazing, repetitive, unproductively vitriolic, confusing. Could Brooks and Krugman handle it? Maybe. Is it a good policy for an editorial page? In general, no.

Posted by lkjaf | November 11, 2007 1:16 PM

I was hoping you'd notice Krugman's blog post on this topic. It gives me hope that a national columnist refuses to resign our last 30 years of Reaganite / New Right politics to the memory hole.

Posted by El Cid | November 11, 2007 1:23 PM

Perhaps the Times is afraid that an open debate will be too one sided, and expose the dearth of columnists on the right whose qualifications are equal to its stature. Or that on one side of the debate, the positions taken by the columnists are devoid of any empirical basis, intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt.

Posted by gregor | November 11, 2007 1:24 PM

Dear lord. I can't wait for Obama to get elected so we can move past this crap.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | November 11, 2007 1:33 PM

No kidding, gregor.

Once I went into my basement and found my orange cat batting around a mouse that obviously was close to death, probably had eaten some poison a little while earlier and was more spaced out than Brian Jones in his last days as a Rolling Stone. Elmore was having a good time, but I felt bad for the mouse.

All I'm saying is the NYT editorial folks should do what I did - knock Brooks on the head with a gardening spade, scoop him up with a dust pan and put him in the outside garbage.

Posted by Woody Bombay | November 11, 2007 1:33 PM

without referring to each other by name or even acknowledging that the other one exists

Before we invaded Iraq, Krugman was writing op-eds discussing how disastrous the Bush response would likely be (based on Krugman's analysis of Bush up to that point), and Friedman was writing, well we know what he was writing.

I actually wrote to Krugman that it would be good if he could publically debate Friedman on the issues.

Posted by jerry | November 11, 2007 1:34 PM

Woody:
The NYT doesn't want to embarass Brooks. They don't want to acknowledge that Brooks keeps getting punked by Krugman. Just imagine if Tweety found out(I'd love for someone on Tweety's show to point out Brooks getting punked).

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | November 11, 2007 2:05 PM

What amazes me is how Reagan-worshippers (like Douthat) can consistently ignore the fact that Reagan was a pathological liar. The welfare mother in a Cadillac, the retarded janitor, Iran/Contra, claiming (on two occasions) that he had liberated a Nazi death camp, Iran-Contra... it's just been written out of the popular history.

Posted by Freddie | November 11, 2007 2:12 PM

We don't call it a mistake; we call it a "Bo Bo."

Posted by Roger Ailes | November 11, 2007 2:15 PM

it might be easier to have a productive argument if the participants in the debate could talk to each other properly.

Because then, Brooks would magically be forced to argue honestly and engage the facts that Krugman presents, rather than trying to stigmatize them away as a far-left slur.

I see your point in theory, but just don't think it would really do much here. And lkjaf probably has the better of the argument.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | November 11, 2007 3:02 PM

the retarded janitor

I believe that Dick Armey made that one up.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 11, 2007 3:28 PM

I'm familiar with a lot of right-wing fables, but I haven't heard the retarded janitor tale. How does it go?

Posted by jimbo | November 11, 2007 3:51 PM

We claim that the left doesn't approve of torture and inhuman treatment of the less powerful, and yet we gleefully turn Krugman lose on Brooks . . .

Shame!

Posted by rea | November 11, 2007 4:03 PM

I'm familiar with a lot of right-wing fables, but I haven't heard the retarded janitor tale. How does it go?

Reagan claimed that his opposition to the minimum wage was inspired by an anecdote about a retarded janitor. Supposedly, when Reagan was in college there was a retarted janitor who was a great guy, loved by the student body, etc. etc. But the state raised the minimum wage, and he was let go because the university couldn't afford to employ him.

However, an investigation by the press revealed that no one else at the university at that time could remember this janitor, that there wasn't an increase in the state minimum wage while Ronald Reagan was there, and even if there had been, it wouldn't have affected any janitor, because the university janitorial staff had always made significantly more than the minimum wage.

Posted by Freddie | November 11, 2007 4:13 PM

Karping and kvetching. Can't you understand that one can be inspired by a VISION? Something like a vignette of an ebony-skinned fertility goddess with letters underneath "in hoc signo vinces".

Horrors of minimum wage are known from many anegdotes and studies. The worst thing is that employers may respond with measures increasing the productivity. Think how much better our society would be without labor saving gadgets like bar-code scanners (which are a part of some diabolical plot anyway, it all connects).

As far as conducting disputes without naming names, I think it is OK. In some sense, journalists and columnists are not "real people" and "real topic", and showing that your esteem collegue has the mental power of a turnip should be reserved for the occasions where it actually connects with something of social import. E.g. when the esteem collegue regurgitates propaganda that has some political currency.

Posted by piotr | November 11, 2007 4:58 PM

I think they should refer to each other with pig Latin, such as:

Avidday Rooksbay isa tupidsay othermuckerfay...

Posted by Rihilism | November 11, 2007 5:39 PM

"Dear lord. I can't wait for Obama to get elected so we can move past this crap."-Posted by Jayhawk Max

It would take 4-8 years more to "move past this crap". He'd have to get through his term alive.

Posted by Njorl | November 12, 2007 2:22 AM

Thought you folks might be interested in this: Ruth Marcus of the WaPo handing Paul Krugman his head" "Krugman versus Krugman".

Posted by Fred | November 21, 2007 3:25 PM