I wonder what happens to his career on January 21st, 2008? I presume we will have a Democratic candidate inaugurated; and so much of his current fame lies in his vocal opposition to a much disliked Republican president. I don't think it's crazy to speculate that, had Al Gore taken office in 2000, Paul Krugman would still be fairly obscure--better read by people like me, who loved his Slate columns, but not much noticed by the ordinary run of New York Times readers. What on earth will he write about when "Bush is evil" no longer suffices to fill column inches?
« The real problem | Main | Eurolicious »
Speaking of Paul Krugman
23 Nov 2007 12:43 pm
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/17661
Comments (31)
That would actually be 2009.
He might just have to go back to being an MIT educated, Princeton Tenured, Clark-medal winning economist instead of the myopic and obsessive opinion columnist he's been for the past eight years or so. That might be a tragedy for the NYT circulation desk, but I can't see it as anything but a win for the economics profession. Krugman is a really, really smart guy who's past work in actual economics is pretty interesting...but the past few years have made me stop caring about all of that due to his incredible shrillness and his badly reasoned columns. Here's hoping he goes back to doing more good work in the field in which he's trained.
Bill Clinton leaving office didn't cause Rush Limbaugh to suddenly disintegrate....
That would actually be 2009.
Indeed.
That actually brings up another question - do partisan affirmations sell as well as do partisan attacks?
"...and so much of his current fame lies in his vocal opposition to a much disliked Republican president."
I disagree. His fame was garnered during his opposition to the extremely popular George Bush. That is why he is considered shrill. Had he waited for Bush to become unpopular before making his reasonable critiques of his policies, he would be lumped in with all of the other pundits who are pretty sure that the emeror had clothes on before, but they disappeared somehow.
I wonder what happens to his career on January 21st, 2008? I presume we will have a Democratic candidate inaugurated?
Who, Nancy Pelosi?
Nevermind, I see it's already been covered
Amen, Megan. From one libertarian to another, my thoughts exactly.
Krugman has throughly enjoyed the inversed effect between his rise in fame, fortune and notoriety one side and the fall in the variety and quality and objectivity in his work.
Whatever will he do?
I say he just stops the charade and becomes a full time pundit with a radio show.
I imagine that he'll be fully occupied with either telling people how great the economy is now that we have a Democrat in the White House (regardless of how the numbers are compared to their current status), or assigning all blame for any current problems on the previous administration.
John, Origen,
Come out of the darkness.
Northern Observer,
What exactly are you implying by saying that? What simplistic and presumptuous ideas about me and my POV and what I hold that POV lie behind your statement? Dare I guess?
I love how conservatives whine about guys like Krugman. They just can't stand being shown to be wrong time after time, day after day, column after column. So they whine like little children and call Krugman bad names.
Grow up. You got a beef with Krugman? Bring it on. His views are fully exposed, try exposing yours in a way that take's Krugman's on. Stop whining just because your ideology can't win any arguments for you.
I'm trying hard to find a good analogy here. Let's try this: What did Orwell find to write about after fascism was defeated? A couple of good books, as I recall.
I mean, Megan, your whole disappointment-with-Krugman schtick rests on the presumption that what the US has faced over the past 7 years has not been an extraordinarily awful, dishonest, incompetent, violent regime slavishly devoted to the interests of the rich. Well, okay, you're in a weird minority there at this point, while Krugman is in the majority, but whatever. But just try this: you presumably don't think it's impossible that such an administration COULD be elected in the US. So, what if one were? What, then, would the response of a brilliant middle-of-the-road economist, who had done his greatest work on market failure in international trade, be? What ought the response of middle-of-the-road intellectuals be when regimes they view as reprehensible take power in their countries? Ought they to nod to the will of the people, write "on the one hand, on the other hand," and so forth? Or should they start screaming from the rooftops? Think about how intellectuals behaved in several of the regimes you think of as truly awful, which ones adulterated their old views and accommodated themselves to the regime, and which ones found that their middle-of-the-road views, because they still held them, had made of them flaming, barricade-manning radicals.
"I presume we will have a Democratic candidate inaugurated..."
It's a national disgrace that such a presumption has merit. The Democratic party should not be rewarded for it destructive behavior of the last seven years.
God, what a bitter hack.
What on earth will McArdle write about when peons deliver her luggage on time, poor people die painful deaths like they're supposed to and only the most pathetic ass-kissers gives a sh*t about her freakish personal life.
Before there was Bush 43, there was Clinton. As I recall, Krugman was turned down for a post in the Clinton administration because he was considered too critical of Clinton's economic policies.
So Krugman continues publishing cogent and reasoned critiques of bad economic policies after 1/20/2009 and the poor right wingnuts will have to explain how this "hyper-partisan Bushbasher" is suddenly so critical of Clinton/Obama/Edwards/Richardson/fill-in-the-blank. Maybe they (and you) will begin to recognize Krugman's columns for what they have always been, one really bright guy's version of the truth.
Bill Clinton leaving office didn't cause Rush Limbaugh to suddenly disintegrate....
Rush (version 2.007) is not nearly as 'effective'/'influential' as Rush (version 1.993).
Yet, "poll" 1000 Americans today and ask who they know- Rush will still beat Krugman 2-1...
"Mr. Krugman-- may I re-introduce you to 'Obscurity'..."
Even if he were to stop writing for the NYTimes today, I think he'd be all right with his textbooks, other economics texts, Princeton economics department position, John Bates Clark medal, likely Nobel down the road for his international finance work...
Even most of the conservatives I know who have a rabid hatred of him are willing to at least grudgingly acknowledge that the guy is an extremely well-regarded economist. So while he might fall off your radar into "obscurity," he'll be a player in the world of economics as long as he chooses.
Megan,
I do not see what you have aganst Paul Krugman.
After all, he found a lie in an OMB document and reasoning that an administration that will lie in one department will lie in others - which he found to be true (and so have many others since!).
In effect, he found GWB to be precisely the sort of person the hippies warned us against, and so became a 'liberal'.
What McArdle has against Krugman is that he's an actual economist, and a respected one, not an English major who got through school on daddy's dime, read The Fountainhead fifty times because he couldn't get laid and then started a blog.
This post is unworthy of you, Megan. Krugman is a brilliant guy who is thoughtful, analytical, and has been generally right. To reduce his public work to a personal vendetta is shallow - and it also sounds a lot like sour grapes.
What happens? He starts criticizing Democratic policies, particularly protectionism and ignorance of budget discipline, and Republicans and conservatives rediscover his value with a multitude of "even Paul Krugman says..." comments used to buttress their opposition to the President.
He's got a long future ahead of him.
The fact is, Krugman hates America, and so do you hippies who support him mindlessly. He has no balance in his views which are entirely of the left, liberal, classwar, bias variety. His criticism is unfoundered as the economy is going great and USA is on top. So he can suck it.
I can only conclude that half the posters here never actually read Krugman's columns, and the others haven't been paying attention to Megan's.
The problem with Krugman's writing isn't that he opposes Bush's policies or points out Bush's flaws. That's to be expected from anyone on the opposite side of the political fence, and these days even those on the Republican side of that fence are pretty skeptical of the Bush administration.
The problem with Krugman's writing is that he sounds like a nutjob. Seriously. Actualy read them. The columns he wrote (and I read almost all of them before they went behind the Select barrier) weren't rational critiques of flawed policy, or collections of evidence that disputed a public statement from the administration. They read like a Harry Potter novel, describing how he-who-must-not-be-named had conquered and brought a reign of evil and misery to the world. They relied, not on the calm and reasoned analysis of an economist, but on the dramatic rhetoric of a fiction novelist or talk show pundit.
And this isn't some scoreboard where "we" declare that "you guys" have this bad pundit on "your side", so "we" score some point. Of course liberals and democrats can point to people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann whats-her-name-Treason. Of course there's crazy loudmouth pundits out there on all sides. The point is that in Krugman's case it's tremendously disappointing. He IS an economist, and a very smart one, and Megan doesn't deny that. It's the whole point, the whole problem. He used to write stuff that made curious people smarter. Now his writing just makes angry people feel more self-righteous.
Now his writing just makes angry people feel more self-righteous.
Good, Geoff. You'll never get better unless you acknowledge your problems.
The problem with Krugman's writing is that he sounds like a nutjob. Seriously. Actualy read them. The columns he wrote (and I read almost all of them before they went behind the Select barrier) weren't rational critiques of flawed policy, or collections of evidence that disputed a public statement from the administration. They read like a Harry Potter novel, describing how he-who-must-not-be-named had conquered and brought a reign of evil and misery to the world. They relied, not on the calm and reasoned analysis of an economist, but on the dramatic rhetoric of a fiction novelist or talk show pundit.
Well put, I would just add one point. The relevant comparison isn’t between how Paul Krugman publicly expresses his political or policy preferences and how Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter express theirs. It’s how Krugman expresses himself publicly and how a right-leaning economist like Arnold Kling or Greg Mankiw express their ideas to the public. Read their blogs or op-ed pieces and there is a world of difference in terms of the level of analysis, the use of facts rather than hyperbole, and (particularly important when writing for a lay audience) the tone they take when addressing (rather than dismissing or demonizing) those who disagree with them. I don’t care if Krugman decides to act like a refugee from the Daily Kos because he only undermines himself and his arguments in the long run. I am damn glad though that Kling and Mankiw don’t behave that way because it only improves their effectiveness in the long run.
Well, I predict Krugman will get his dates right, regardless of who lands in the White House.
Not to worry. Krugman could spend 8 years blaming the former president for anything that goes wrong.
I wonder what happens to his career on January 21st, 2008?
Probably roughly the same thing that will happen to it on January 20th, 2008.
Shockingly, and quite sadly, I could probably say the same thing about you.
"I am damn glad though that Kling and Mankiw don’t behave that way because it only improves their effectiveness in the long run."
Kling and Mankiw are the very epitome of dishonest partisan hackery.
Geoff, since Krugman hasn't been behind the Select wall since the Select wall came down a while back, could you please reference any particular posts where he reads "like a Harry Potter novel?" The only political hackery I see evident in Krugman's work is when he acts as a hatchet man for Clinton beating down Obama, and at times, Edwards (see recent pieces regarding healthcare reform). Even in these limited instances his positions are consistent, though admittedly narrowly argued so as to splinter off Clinton as the sole voice of reason in the primaries.
If I were to guess why Krugman strikes such a nerve it would be that he can't be so easily written off as can theater critic/ pundit Frank Rich or, more apples-to-apples, the diminutive Robert Reich. Krugman is a serious scholar who is most effective when his punditry maps to his expertise in economics. But even when he makes more general, partisan arguments having to do with his perception of the moral responsibilities of government, he provides solid footing to his reasoning acknowledging the trade-offs and compromises necessary to acheive his goals. Rather than simply bad mouth him, perhaps Megan and her clique of fellow Krugman haters might spend the few hours it would take to read Conscience of a Liberal before making further snide remarks.
| 
Errrr No,
How should I put it... it's the policy stupid?
It's the policies, stupid.
Krugman became THE KRUGMAN because of the policies candidate GW Bush and later President Bush advocated, misrepresented and implimented. If Bush 43 had behaved like Bush 41, Kurgman would have remained Krugman and not become THE KRUGMAN.
In short, it wasn't personal until the President's character was revealed through his actions. So how Krugman would respond to a Huckabee or an Obama presidency will depend on their policies and actions, rather then their personalities and ticks. In short he is the unlimate Washington anti-pundit, the superficial doesn't inform his analysis, it's all about the essential.
But really the problem with Bush isn't Bush per se it's the amalgame of the ideas, habits and political strategems of the Republican Party. This is a worthy foe, and has really been THE KRUGMAN's foe for some time now, Bush being simply the formost personality to express the idea of the GOP. Krugman, along with many other professional non-republicans who care about the republic, has conluded that something essentially rotten animates the modern Republican Party and until that changes, it must be opposed with steady determination. America's Crisis is the Republican Party and the Republican Party is America's Crisis.
Posted by Northern Observer | November 23, 2007 1:10 PM