Seeker Blog

Inherent in the mountain-top position is a kind of independence that often borders on madness.

Via Glenn, Daniel B. Klein with Harika Anna Barlett undertake a challenge — a serious critique of Krugman’s 654 columns.

…Here I interpret his ideological sensibilities. I think they are quite wrongheaded, but that claim is not something I attempt to defend. I do not dispute isolated statements. My critique assesses the 654 NYT columns as a whole. I argue that the pattern of policy positions and arguments do not square with his purported concern for general prosperity and the interests of the poor. There are contradictions between what Krugman makes himself out to be and certain patterns of his policy statements. Some of the evidence lies in statements made. But the more important evidence lies in patterns of statements not made. Because Krugman assumes the role of addressing the most important things, because Barlett and I have made a complete survey of his NYT columns 1997 through 2006, and because the omissions are flagrant, I may treat omissions as evidence of Krugman’s ideological character and sensibilities.

Krugman is best interpreted as a committed social democrat and Democratic partisan. My main contention is that his social-democratic impetus sometimes trumps people’s interests, notably poor people’s interests. The tension surfaces in what Krugman has written about immigration and the threat it is poses to the US welfare state. But the tension is found in his writings on several topics, and, importantly, in omissions in his writings. Krugman has almost never come out against extant government interventions, even ones that expert economists seem to agree are bad, and especially so for the poor.

Of course, Krugman might reply that advancing the social-democratic ethos is necessary to improving well-being. Indeed, Krugman has suggested that, because of political dynamics, promoting the long-term interests of poor people depends on promoting a social-democratic ethos in the United States and, more particularly, the Democrats over the Republicans.4 I maintain that the tension between Krugman’s NYT corpus and economic betterment is strong enough to present problems either way. If Krugman would deny that there is significant tension, then he functions irresponsibly, in ways indicated below. If Krugman would admit that, to some extent, he is ready to sacrifice poor people’s interests for the sake of social-democratic values, then he has to admit conflict among relevant values and give up posturing to the effect that he has been a voice of unbiased research and has stood above any ideological interpretation of affairs.

The commitment to a social-democratic ethos as against poor people’s interests is by no means specific to Krugman. He typifies something much wider, the establishment sort of social-democratic mentality as manifested in the United States. The principal reason that I scrutinize Krugman is that he is brilliant, outspoken, relatively candid, industrious, and highly visible and influential. Investigating him is a way of investigating the larger cultural phenomenon. Like any vital thinker, Krugman opens himself to public examination. Moreover, he is known to impeach people’s motives, scruples, and psychology.