Posted on 06/05/2005 3:18:04 PM PDT by Chi-townChief
In 1999, the boy-publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., had a reasonable idea. He looked at his lineup of columnists and wondered why he had no one who really knew economics. This led him to hire Paul Krugman, a professor from Princeton University.
Today, Krugman writes a column for the Times every Monday and Friday.
Krugman has an impressive resume. He probably knows his economics. (I certainly don't.) But he's also the meanest Bush-hater at the Times. That's saying a lot, considering that the Times also employs Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich and formerly employed Howell Raines.
It's hardly surprising that the Times would hire a columnist who blames everything wrong in the world on President Bush. And it's hardly surprising that libertarian Republicans like me would dislike such a man.
What is surprising is that one of his colleagues — a good Democrat at that — appears to dislike Krugman just as much.
This man is Daniel Okrent, who until May 25 was the Times' public editor. In the last column of his 18-month contract, Okrent wrote:
"Op-ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."
Okrent added that Krugman is ideological and unfair and should be held to higher standards by the man who hired him.
Okrent also jabbed Maureen Dowd and William Safire, but Krugman got the worst of it. He's also complaining the loudest. According to New York magazine, Okrent says that "Krugman's been writing to me two, three times a day demanding a retraction or apology, and I'm not going to give him either."
Krugman's weeping and gnashing of teeth remind me of the words of Whittaker Chambers: "Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does."
What is Krugman's guilt? Well, in short, he's a little Churchill. He's a little Ward Churchill, that is — the Colorado professor who called our 9-11 victims "little Eichmanns." Churchill takes advantage of his droplet of Indian blood to hate America. He thinks it should disappear from the planet.
Similarly, Krugman takes advantage of his economics knowledge to hate Republicans.
Possibly Krugman's grossest statement ever came in October 2003, after the leader of Malaysia declared that "the Jews rule this world by proxy: They get others to fight and die for them."
When the leader of Malaysia makes such a statement, a reasonable person might blame, oh, I don't know, the leader of Malaysia? But we're talking about Paul Krugman here. So he blamed Bush.
Krugman's reasoning went like this: "Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform. That tells you, more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become.
"Thanks to its war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon, Washington has squandered post-9-11 sympathy and brought relations with the Muslim world to a new low."
See how the Krugman game works? Everything is the fault of Bush. We elect him president, and look what happens: Muslims in Malaysia start hating Jews more. Amazing. Who knew Bush had such power?
Anyway, back in the present, when Okrent made his parting statements on May 22, Krugman denied everything and asked for specifics. Okrent supplied them. Krugman rebutted them. I read the debate, but I didn't really understand it. It was mostly about employment statistics and household surveys, making my eyes glaze over.
I was amused by one concession that Krugman did make, however. He wrote that last June 8, "I made a numerical mistake, reading from the wrong line in a table of tax rates during the Reagan years. Although the mistake didn't change the column's conclusions, I reluctantly issued a correction. But I forgot to use the word 'correction,' which I hear got Mr. Okrent upset."
This gave Okrent a chance to spear Krugman one more time. He replied:
"When he says he agreed 'reluctantly' to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word 'reluctantly'; I can't come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism."
This is one damning statement. And it's even more damning when you consider the context. This is the New York Times we're talking about here — the newspaper by and for the world's Bush-haters.
When one Democrat at the New York Times criticizes another Democrat at the New York Times, you know there's got to be a raging fire underneath the smoke. If this is what Okrent says about Krugman in public, can you imagine what he says in private?
That's why I say Okrent must really hate the guy. And now that Okrent has come out, perhaps others at the Times will do the same.
Remember when Howell Raines was clinging to his job during the Jayson Blair debacle? He was pained to find out how so many of his colleagues hated him. I wonder if Krugman will go through a similar process. I hope so. It would make the Times a better, fairer paper.
The final lesson of this saga is that there are two kinds of Democrats. There are Okrent Democrats, and there are Krugman Democrats. The former are honorable. The latter are not. You know which one you are.
Michael Bowers is a copy editor and page designer for The Star. Send e-mail to mbowers@starnewspapers.com.
Man, a Californian posting a column from The Star! Who would have thought?
Bump.
Someone posted statistics on giving to the two parties from various universities. Princeton's ration of Demon_rat to GOP donations was even higher than Yale's.
Princeton and Yale were once quite conservative in theology. Yale fell into apostasy first by 1900. Princeton had a battle over doctrine and began going liberal in the 1930's, as I recall.
Look up the writings of Pete Singer, the ethicist at Princeton. Beastiality Oh My! That was considered the prestige ethics position in America. That tells us a lot about Princeton.
It's my understanding that you do know economics as well as Krugman.
We need people like krugman to keep reminding voters that the evil donkey is a party of crazy people who have nothing of substance to attack us with. Hate doen't win elections.
"Krugman has an impressive resume. He probably knows his economics. (I certainly don't.) But he's also the meanest Bush-hater at the Times. That's saying a lot, considering that the Times also employs Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich and formerly employed Howell Raines."
Resume and appointment notwithstanding, what Krugman does is not economics, it is partisan sniping disguised as economics. Krugman knowingly and deliberately witholds pertinent information to make his case. His opinion is not merely tainted by his gross liberalism, it is formed by it, and his knowledge of economics is deformed by it.
"Krugman's weeping and gnashing of teeth remind me of the words of Whittaker Chambers: 'Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.'"
Or was it Shakespeare that said "methinks he doth protest too much?"
"When he says he agreed 'reluctantly' to one correction, he (Krugman) gives new meaning to the word 'reluctantly'; I can't come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism."
Krugman apparently has grossly unfounded delusions of godhood. He believes himself to be infallible, if Okrent's criticisms are accurate, which I have no reason to doubt.
His appearances on Meet the Press are enlightening: he gets this creepy criminal-in-the-interrogation-room look, with shifty eyes and beads of sweat.
"The final lesson of this saga is that there are two kinds of Democrats. There are Okrent Democrats, and there are Krugman Democrats. The former are honorable. The latter are not. You know which one you are."
That gives me hope that there are more Zell Millers in the Democrat party and fewer ultraleft loons like Dean, Churchill and Krugman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.