I start with a confession; I am an economist.
Paul Krugman is a brilliant economist. When he began writing his NY Times op-ed columns I was utterly delighted. Here was a chance for some excellent popular economics journalism, writing that could reach a broad audience while still being rooted in sound economic analysis. Good for the economics profession, good for readers, good for the policy dialogue, where economists are often disgregarded.
Why oh why did Krugman decide that he should be a political commentator instead? Why not stick to economics? His column in today's Times, "Divided We Stand", yet another piece by him in which nothing that Hillary Clinton does is subject to any sort of critical scrutiny, and Obama and his supporters are conflated and subject to sweeping criticisms, all in the context of superficial political analysis that sounds more like personal venting than the writings of a thoughtful person.
Frankly, what bothers me the most about this is not just the spectacle of seeing a smart person make a total idiot of himself. Krugman is verging dangerously close on revealing one of the dirty secrets of the economics profession; that almost all economists start with their political or ideological biases and find econometric evidence to verify them. It's not hard to do. It's interesting work. But it's not science, the way physics and biology are science, although economists like to pretend that it is. Could there be liberal physicists finding new laws regarding the movement of subatomic particles that are completely different from the findings of conservative physicists? But that is what happens with economists all the time.
He starts with this:
It is, in a way, almost appropriate that the final days of the struggle for the Democratic nomination have been marked by yet another fake Clinton scandal — the latest in a long line that goes all the way back to Whitewater.
Once you've read that opening it really isn't necessary to read on, is it? Krugman does not mind that Hillary's citing of 1968 as an analagous situation to the current one is totally bogus, as has been noted by many in the Times and elsewhere; Kennedy's campaign was just getting started in June, 1968, after all, and major primaries had not yet been held. I won't repeat what's been written elsewhere already. Instead he compares the political reaction to some of Hillary's statements to, umm, Whitewater. Whitewater? That was when the Republicans appointed a special prosecutor to spend tens of millions of public dollars to dig everywhere he could, in anything he could find, to find anything at all that might bring Bill Clinton down, and ended up impeaching him for lying about a sexual affair. That's pretty serious, what those Clinton opponents did during the Whitewater years. Now how exactly do you equate that with private citizens criticizing Hillary for some incredibly awkward things she said? Has someone proposed a criminal investigation of her conduct? Is she in danger of losing her seat in the senate? Whitewater?
But anyway, the real point of Krugman's column -- and this is why I say that his political analysis is embarrasingly childish and superficial -- is the following:
But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.... The point is that Mr. Obama may need those disgruntled Clinton supporters, lest he manage to lose in what ought to be a banner Democratic year.
This is analysis? People "feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment." Well, Paul, are they right? Is that justified? And to the extent that they feel it, is it all Obama's fault, or might that have something to do with the way in which Hillary has campaigned, her and Bill's constant whining about unfair treatment (despite the huge advantages she started with), the non-stop attacks on Obama, week after week, by her and her colleagues that have had such a polarizing effect?
And all this leads to his conclusions. Unfortunately for Krugman he can't say that Obama should stop attacking Clinton, because Obama has NEVER attacked her, and certainly is not doing it now. No. So instead he suggests that Obama should;
a. Seat the full Florida delegation, with full votes
b. Offer Hillary the vice presidency
I kid you not! Here is the link, below. He doesn't even mention what so many of her own supporters have been mentioning more and more frequently; that Hillary's rhetoric about Florida and Michigan has been so heated, so exaggerated -- Zimbabwe! 2000 Florida vote count! Women's suffrage! -- that she is losing her credibility even with those who are still on her side.
Paul, what happened? Is it the nasty emails you've been getting from Obama supporters who are upset with your columns? Can't take the heat? Maybe it's time you took a long break and then resolve, when you start writing again, to stick to topics that you have some expertise in, and leave the political commentary to others. Please. For all of our sakes!
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Update
Thanks, all, for the recommends and the many interesting comments.
Several posters here suggested that my deep unhappiness with Krugman is simply a matter of my intolerance toward any Clinton supporter/Obama critic. I don't think that's the case. As others here have pointed out, it's not that he supports Clinton and criticizes Obama, it's the way he does this; his analysis is sophomoric and superficial, he relies on heavy-handed and emotional language instead of the more nuanced (or even witty) touch that one would expect from a skillful commentator, and he always seems to have some large personal stake in the issue that leads him to present completely one-sided discussions. That approach eventually became a weakness even in his attacks on Bush, which at times felt really over the top. It makes me (like a lot of other readers of his) roll my eyes by now whenever he launches another tirade against Alan Greenspan on his blog. But against Obama, at a time when I genuinely do want to see unity in the party against McCain, it is ten times more disappointing and upsetting.