(Before reading this post, check out this video on YouTube — bits of which were recently played on NPR’s Marketplace program and ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopolous. This video is popular because it perfectly represents the left’s attitude toward Paul Krugman — our new saviour, apparently.)
I was happy to see Nobel prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman featured on the front page of Newsweek — happy because I thought the article might contain some important facts and analysis for those of us who aren’t ready to accept him as the second coming of Christ.
Unfortunately, the article provides only the bare minimum of reporting required to avoid exemplifying the Krugman-worship it reports about. And sometimes the article doesn’t even provide that. The article appears reluctant to provide any substantive information that might weaken Krugman’s claim to perfection.
For example, consider this excerpt from the Newsweek article:
The Obama White House is careful not to provoke the wrath of Krugman any more than necessary. Treasury officials go out of their way to praise him by name (while also decrying the bank-rescue prescriptions of him and his ilk as “deeply impractical”). But the administration does not seek to cultivate him. Obama aides have invited commentators of all persuasions to the White House for some off-the-record stroking; in February, after Krugman’s fellow Times op-ed columnist David Brooks wrote a critical column accusing Obama of overreaching, Brooks, a moderate Republican, was cajoled by three different aides and by the president himself, who just happened to drop by. But, says Krugman, “the White House has done very little by way of serious outreach. I’ve never met Obama. He pronounced my name wrong”—when, at a press conference, the president, with a slight note of irritation in his voice, invited Krugman (pronounced with an “oo,” not an “uh” sound) to offer a better plan for fixing the banking system.
It’s possible that Krugman is a little wounded by this high-level disregard, and he said he felt sorry about criticizing officials whom he regards as friends, like White House Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer. But he didn’t seem all that sorry.
Given Krugman’s claim that the White House “has done very little by way of serious outreach,” and author Evan Thomas’ claim that the White House “does not seek to cultivate him,” isn’t it relevant that Obama offered to meet with Krugman and hear him out — and Krugman declined?
This is reported in Michael Calderone’s blog on Politico, in a report on Obama’s meeting with liberal columnists and pundits on January 14: “Paul Krugman, who Obama’s willing to hear out on economic issues, was invited, but didn’t attend.”
Why didn’t Krugman attend? Why would Newsweek report on the relationship between Obama and Krugman — and point out that Krugman has never met Obama — without mentioning that Krugman turned down an opportunity to meet him and talk with him?
Then, there’s this later in the Newsweek article:
Krugman has a bit of a reputation for settling scores. “He doesn’t suffer fools. He doesn’t like hauteur in any shape or form. He doesn’t like to be f––ked with,” says his friend and colleague Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz. “He’s not a Jim Baker; he’s not that kind of Princeton,” says Wilentz, referring to the ur-establishment operator who was Reagan’s secretary of the Treasury and George H.W. Bush’s secretary of state. But Wilentz went on to say that Krugman is “not a prima donna, he wears his fame lightly,” and that Krugman is not resented among his academic colleagues, who can be a jealous lot. Krugman’s fellow geniuses sometimes tease him or intentionally provoke his wrath. At an economic conference in Tokyo in 1994, Krugman spent so much time berating others that his friends purposely started telling him things that they knew weren’t true, just to see him get riled up. “He fell for it every time,” said a journalist who was there but asked not to be identified so she could speak candidly. “You’d think that eventually, he would say, ‘Oh, come on, you’re just jerking my chain’.” Krugman says he doesn’t recall the incident, but says it’s “possible.”
Why does Krugman have “a reputation for settling scores?” I personally believe (without sufficient evidence, I admit) that Krugman’s “opposition” to Obama — “he has been critical, if not hostile, to the Obama White House” is how the Newsweek article puts it — has more to do with Krugman trying to “settle a score” than it has to do with economics or politics. If Krugman has a “reputation for settling scores,” I think it might be interesting to know the details. But the article provides no evidence to justify its claim that Krugman is vindictive. And the details would make all the difference for those of us who are trying to make the case that Krugman isn’t what his worshippers think he is.
And then, consider this:
Arriving at the Times just before Bush’s election in 2000, he was soon writing about politics and national security as well as economics, sharply attacking the Bush administration for invading Iraq. Someone at the Times—Krugman won’t say who—told him to tone it down a bit and stick to what he knew. “I made them nervous,” he says. In 2005, Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent wrote, “Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.” Krugman says that Okrent “caved” to the criticism of conservative ideologues who were out to get him. (“I tried to be an honest broker,” says Okrent. “But when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance.”) It’s true that during the Bush era Krugman was the target of cranks and kooks, but it is also true that in areas outside his expertise he sometimes gets his facts wrong (his record has improved lately). Krugman is unrepentant about his Bush bashing. “I was more right in 2001 than anyone in the pundit class,” he says.
Suprise, surprise: Krugman “gets his facts wrong.” But which facts? The Newsweek article leaves out any evidence of factual inaccuracy. After reading the article, I perused his Wikipedia page in hopes of finding documentation of his factual inaccuracies, but there was nothing there. The article also says Krugman’s record “has improved lately.” What does that mean? Was he wrong 50% of the time five years ago, and now he’s only wrong 25% of the time? How did Evan Thomas determine that Krugman’s record “has improved lately?”
And what are the “substantive assaults” to which Krugman left himself open? Okrent seems to be making the argument that Krugman’s arguments didn’t hold up under scrutiny — but the article provides no insight into the real nature of the debate between Krugman and Okrent.
Then, there’s this paragraph from the Newsweek article:
Obama administration officials are dismissive of Krugman’s arguments, although not on the record. One official made the point that pundits can have a 60 percent chance of being right—and just go for it. They have nothing to lose but readers, and Krugman’s many fans have routinely forgiven his wrong calls. The government does not have the luxury of guessing wrong. If Obama miscalculates, he could truly crash the stock market and drive the economy into depression. Krugman’s suggestion that the government could take over the banking system is deeply impractical, Obama aides say. Krugman points to the example of Sweden, which nationalized its banks in the 1990s. But Sweden is tiny. The United States, with 8,000 banks, has a vastly more complex financial system. What’s more, the federal government does not have anywhere near the manpower or resources to take over the banking system.
Krugman swats away these arguments, though he acknowledges he’s not a “detail” man. He believes he is fighting a philosophical battle against the plutocrats and money-changers. Although he thinks Geithner has been captured by Wall Street, he has hope for Summers. “I have a strong suspicion that if Larry was on the outside and I was on the inside, we’d be reversing roles,” he says, but adds, “Well, not entirely. Larry has more faith in markets. I’m more of an interventionist.”
Thomas writes Krugman’s fans have “routinely forgiven his wrong calls.” What wrong calls? And what makes Thomas think Krugman has been “forgiven”? The truth is that most of Krugman’s fans are unaware that Krugman has ever been wrong about anything. It would certainly be a service to the readers of Newsweek if Thomas would explain the “wrong calls” Krugman has made — but Newsweek won’t go that far.
As for Krugman’s “swatting” away of the Obama administration’s arguments about the challenges of nationalizing the banks — is this the same as saying that Krugman fails to address these arguments? The word “swatting” typically refers to the killing of an insect — but Obama’s arguments aren’t insects, and Krugman’s “swatting” is only effective for those of us who have put Krugman in charge of our brains.
And what on earth does it mean that Krugman isn’t a “detail” man? Isn’t this the same as saying Krugman doesn’t really know what he’s talking about? George Bush wasn’t a “detail” man when it came to the reconstruction of Iraq, and the result was catastrophe. Isn’t it reasonable to argue that the details matter when you’re advocating the nationalization of the banks — an effort that seems comparable, at least in some ways, to the reconstruction of Iraq’s economy?
There’s this toward the end of the article:
Last week Krugman and Summers were “playing phone tag.” (“It doesn’t necessarily mean that much,” says Krugman. “We’ve known each other all our adult lives.” Summers initiated the call; Krugman suspects he wanted to talk him through the administration’s plan.) In Friday’s column, Krugman tweaked Summers directly for his faith in markets, though he grudgingly gave the Obamaites credit for calling for extensive regulation of the financial world. Krugman thinks that Obama needs some kind of “wise man” to advise him and mentions Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman who tamed inflation for Reagan and now heads an advisory panel for Obama.
Translation: Summers called Krugman, and Krugman hasn’t managed to get back to him yet. Krugman’s claim that “it doesn’t necessarily mean that much,” should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who thinks Krugman represents ordinary people in a battle with the powerful elite who run our nation’s economy. People who actually do represent the working class wouldn’t dismiss a call from Lawrence Summers — but Krugman belongs to the same elite that he criticizes, so his dismissiveness is just an indication of how unserious he really is in his efforts to make change.