Some people would want to convince us that one man has all the answers. Apparently we made a serious mistake last November as the wrong man was elected. Well I have some thoughts about him and the way he has gone about selling himself.
Follow me below:
- Paul Krugman has not undergone the same scrutiny as the any of the recent nominees have been subjected. Nobody knows if he would have survived the vetting process. It is understood that Bill Clinton considered offering him a job and that after meeting him, Clinton decided against it. That decision not to offer him the job was then spun in a light most favorable to Krugman, that he was too "outspoken." But Krugman did make one very revealing comment:
"I'm temperamentally unsuited for that kind of role. You have to be very good at people skills..."
And that was then. Not in 2009 with investigative blogs and 24 hour cable.
- Paul Krugman is not not a charismatic presence. He can write with all the ferocity and righteous indignation that he wants but his speaking style is not authoritative and his presence does not inspire confidence. Much like the "blah blah" of the much maligned Geithner. Not only would he not be a soothing, motivational or inspiring presence but the general populace would very quickly develop a decided aversion to him precisely because of his know-it-all attitude
- Krugman would not get the cooperation from Congress (remember that little body over there) do ANYTHING other than what Obama or Geithner is doing. Matter-of-fact, he would get even less because his style is even more abrasive, smug and pompous.
- The idea that Krugman would use some of the hyperbolic language that he has been using against a 2 month old administration is proof positive to me that he is more intent on promoting himself and his much touted expertise than he is in really trying to solve the many, many problems this country now faces. And bear in mind, for those who want to knock us over our head with a two-by-four until we get it, that Krugman's area of expertise is to "analyze the impact of economies of scale in international trade." His Nobel Prize was for his work associated with New Trade Theory. And I would put the emphasis on theory.
And before the Krugmaniacs start attacking me, let me making it clear, I am an Obama-loving-zealot. Or whatever else you want to call me. I have Obama's back. Paul Krugman with 100 Nobel Prizes cannot do, and will never do what Obama has already done for so, so many people. There are already so many examples of people and communities turning their lives around because of Obama. I resent the tone being adopted by Krugman against Obama even as he sells himself as the liberal savior. Don't get me wrong now. I do agree with most of Krugmans arguments especially has it has to do with nationalizing banks. No quarrel there. I disagree with his shortsighted analysis of what it will take to move us from here to where all liberals want us to go. This is a democracy and our constitution provides for three equal branches of government. How would Krugman deal with Evan Bayh's so-called, "Moderate Dem's Working Group?" Until he can tell us how, he needs to tone down a bit here (and that was so euphemistically said).
We need to be reminded that the prestigious Nobel Prize was also awarded to people like Yasser Arafat (1994), Menachem Begin (1978), F. W. de Klerk (1993) among others. Because you have won a Nobel Prize doesn't mean that automatically and instantaneously you become the smartest guy in the room. A little humility can do a whole lot of good. I have no patience for those who would use this crises to promote and or enrich themselves at our expense.