Paul Krugman's blog is one of a handful that I follow closely. So when all the furor erupted yesterday over Mitt Romney's latest foreign policy initiative, I wondered what he would have to say.
As of last night the answer was: Nothing. This was not completely surprising as his main topic and core expertise is economics and the economic implications of the incident were indirect at best.
But finally this morning our patience was rewarded. In a post titled Why The Vileness Matters he provides an interesting insight at the meta level.
He doesn't waste much time on the direct implications starting off:
I haven’t weighed in on Romney’s awesomely awful intervention on events in Egypt and Libya; with even Republicans joining in the chorus of shocked disapproval, not much I can add.
And goes on to note that there was no upside to the pronouncement— that anyone who was not already a Romney supporter would think he looked 'small and hysterical'.
The lasting damage, though, will come from the press. He remembers with dismay the 2000 campaign when:
... the press took sides. Reporters liked Bush and didn’t like Gore, and as a result they treated Bush with kid gloves while gleefully passing on every smear against his opponent (“Gore says he invented the internet!” No, he never did).
But the real killer for Romney is:
... now Romney has really ensured that everyone in the news media, the GOP propaganda organs aside, is going to view him with distaste and alarm — as well they should.
The whole post is short and well worth reading. One thing I appreciate about Paul Krugman is that he holds back until he has
something to add to the conversation.
6:49 AM PT: Correction: I see now that this item was posted last night. I plead as excuse that it was after I went to bed.