Though I certainly recognize and respect Robert Reich\’s talents as an economist, I never liked him. Apart from the fact that I disagreed with a lot of what he said (as did many fellow economists – these guys never seem to agree on anything), I found that he often framed his comments in an insinuating, taunting way – as if to say “That\’s my opinion, since I\’m smarter than you it\’s better than yours, and you can foam at the mouth all you want about it, I\’m still right”).
I find exactly the same thing to be true – and then some – about economist and New York Times political columnist Paul Krugman – whom I disagree with more than I ever did with Reich. In terms of arrogance and a taunting way of presenting material, he leaves Reich in the dust.
Which leads me to this morning\’s column.
In reading it, I have to wonder if his purpose, at least in part, was to see how far he could go to get a rise out of people to his right (which is to say a very, very large complement of people), much the way Reich used to do (and probably still does).
Why do I say this? Here are several excerpts from Krugman\’s column – in rust, with my comments in blue – which should give you your answer:
Severaltimes in recent weeks I\’ve found myself in conversations withliberals who shake their heads sadly and express their disappointmentwith President Obama. Why? I suspect that they\’re being influenced,often without realizing it, by the prevailing media narrative. Yep,those mainstream media really hate Barack\’s guts, don\’t they? Great start Paul.
Thetruth is that these days much of the commentary you see on the Obamaadministration – and a lot of the reporting too – emphasizes thenegative: the contrast between the extravagant hopes of 2008 and theprosaic realities of political trench warfare, the troubles at theDepartment of Veterans Affairs, the mess in Iraq, and so on. Theaccepted thing, it seems, is to portray Mr. Obama as floundering, hispresidency as troubled if not failed. And youdon\’t? Who, exactly, do you think was sitting in the Oval Officewhen this “contrast” occurred? Bush? Taft? Garfield? Waldo? Bert &Ernie?
Butthis is all wrong. You should judge leaders by their achievements,not their press, and in terms of policy substance Mr. Obama is havinga seriously good year. In fact, there’s a very good chance that2014 will go down in the record books as one of those years whenAmerica took a major turn in the right direction. I swear, this is not a satire line I tossed in, he really wrote it. Timeout so you can stop laughing…..
First,health reform is now a reality – and despite a shambolic start,it\’s looking like a big success story. Remember how nobody wasgoing to sign up? First-yearenrollments came in above projections. Remember how people whosigned up weren\’t actually going to pay their premiums? The vastmajority have. Uh,you forgot that, for millions, the only reason they signed up is that ObamaCare caused them to lose their insurance. You also forgot the two yearwaivers for corporations to start ObamaCare which, when they kick in, will knock untold more millions out of their insurance. And the lies about keepingyour policy, keeping your doctor, saving an average $2,500 perfamily – not to mention the hundreds of millions lost on the website rollout, created a company with a Senior VP who happens to be one of Michelle Obama\’s BFFs (what an amazing coincidence!), with no demand for any refund at all. And lots, lots more. Your claim about the success of ObamaCare reads like an update of “Other than that, how did you like the play, Ms. Lincoln?”
Thenthere\’s climate policy. The Obama administration\’s new rules onpower plants won\’t be enough in themselves to save the planet, butthey\’re a real start – and are by far the most importantenvironmental initiative since the Clean Air Act. I\’d add that thisis an issue on which Mr. Obama is showing some real passion. Translation:”I believe in it, so you have to do it. As for congress? Who cares about congress, that\’s only some constitutional garbage, not worth the paper it\’s written on.” I\’m surprised you didn\’t tossin the “97% of scientists agree” lie as well.
Oh,and financial reform, although it\’s much weaker than it should havebeen, is real – just ask all those Wall Street types who, enragedby the new limits on their wheeling and dealing, have turned theirbacks on the Democrats. Yep, the country is ingreat fiscal shape. Still-high unemployment (even now it is above the average for Bush\’s years as President…a little something Mr. Krugman will never talk about), the lowest level of workforce participation in 35 years (since that other economic giant, Jimmy Carter), stagnant growth and the worstsituation for minority jobs in memory. Just great.
There\’s more, but I assume you get the idea.
Let me end by pointing out that, despite what you just read, I do respect Mr. Krugman\’s capabilities as an economist.
Anyone capable of getting a major newspaper to publish something like this and pay him for it, must be an economic genius.
