I often hear Paul Krugman deserves the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and I believe it. I know to a moral certainty he knows more about international trade — nay, about all economics, micro- macro- and in-between — than I do. But I’m firmly persuaded Paul Krugman wouldn’t know Richard Nixon if the zombified corpse of the thirty-seventh president up and bit Krugman right in his endowed chair.
Dude, campaign for Clinton all you like, I don’t care — I think academics are citizens, and get to have political positions. Tell me Obama’s health plan isn’t as good as Clinton’s, and I’ll read what you have to say — I gather there’s a real debate there about the effect of mandates, and David Cutler disagrees with you; okay.
But let’s talk about Richard Nixon, who embraced warrantless wiretapping, who prolonged and expanded wars in the name of peace, whose administration aimed specifically to crack the American electorate into bits in the hope of picking up just enough pieces in its paws to slouch toward electoral victory. Richard Nixon, who said, break into the Brookings Institution — no, who said “I want it implemented on a thievery basis [which is a phrase so awesome I giggle and goggle every time I read it]. Goddamn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.” Richard Nixon, who told his men to stonewall a criminal investigation, whose men wanted to use “the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”
So seriously, you’re looking around the political scene today, thinking, who looks a bit like Richard Nixon, and you think — yeah! it’s Barack Obama’s supporters!
Let me tell you, sir, about Richard Nixon, Richard Nixon who thought the Africans — the black ones, he was specific — were just out of the trees, really. Richard Nixon whose worst sin was thinking that everyone was as crazy and vindictive and morality-free as he was.
If you want to find Richard Nixon’s political heirs, there are better places in American public life to look than Obamaland.
50 comments
February 11, 2008 at 6:25 pm
teofilo
and in-between
Meso-.
February 11, 2008 at 6:46 pm
urbino
But what about home-?
Krugman is, by all accounts, a brilliant economist. (I don’t know enough about economics to have an opinion.) But when he’s engaged in politicking, he seems to have a tendency to personalize debates, then nurse long, petty grudges.
February 11, 2008 at 6:55 pm
teofilo
But what about home-?
That’s for girls, silly.
February 11, 2008 at 7:27 pm
andrew
Is this what’s meant by “jumping the snark”? I haven’t thought this about any of the earlier columns I’ve read where Krugman’s criticized Obama, but this is going too far. (And I say that as someone who’s not all that enthusiastic about Obama, but more enthusiastic about him than about Clinton.) It’s even weirder as a comparison of supporters since Nixon, though our most cinegenic President – as we’ve proven a few threads back – was not exactly the most charismatic.
February 11, 2008 at 7:31 pm
andrew
Incidentally, last fall I downloaded audio from all of the Nixon-Kennedy debates from 1960 and, on a long drive, listened to the first. In the beginning, I thought Nixon was clearly the better, by which I mean fluent or polished or comfortable, speaker – Kennedy seemed rushed and nervous to start – but by the end they were about even. (This is leaving aside their policy differences.) The debate was remarkably polite, with both candidates emphasizing that they had the same goals (more or less) but saw different means of reaching them.
February 11, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Josh
But when he’s engaged in politicking, he seems to have a tendency to personalize debates, then nurse long, petty grudges.
What uncharacteristic behavior for an academic.
February 11, 2008 at 7:47 pm
washerdreyer
I’ve been made to understand that having doubts about this column is incipient fascism. Heal thyself.
February 11, 2008 at 7:53 pm
eric
I have no doubts about this column.
February 11, 2008 at 8:09 pm
ari
Was this the threadjack that prompted Becks to issue her stern warning against future threadjacks?
February 11, 2008 at 8:21 pm
eric
Where was there a threadjack?
February 11, 2008 at 8:23 pm
teofilo
In the beginning, I thought Nixon was clearly the better, by which I mean fluent or polished or comfortable, speaker – Kennedy seemed rushed and nervous to start – but by the end they were about even.
My dad’s parents, who listened to the debates on the radio, thought Nixon had won. They already supported him, of course, but still.
February 11, 2008 at 8:24 pm
urbino
What uncharacteristic behavior for an academic.
Heh. Touché.
I’ve been made to understand that having doubts about this column is incipient fascism.
What isn’t?
February 11, 2008 at 8:26 pm
eric
What uncharacteristic behavior for an academic.
All our disagreements are high-minded and substantial.
February 11, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Michael
In today’s column Krugman mentions (a) Obama’s venomous supporters and (b) the smear campaign that Obama was a secret Muslim. Yet he fails to mention (c) that it was precisely Clinton’s supporters – including one of Clinton’s Iowa county chairs- who were caught spreading that smear. Who’s being Nixonian now?
I’ve long found Krugman to be the most informative columnist at the Times – damning with faint praise, I know, with Rich and Dowd and now Kristol – but ever since Obama’s people questioned his consistency, Krugman has gone loco.
I mean, when was the last time you read an article about a candidate’s supporters?!? And if we’re going to attack supporters, can’t we start with Huckabee’s, who think the world is only 6,000 years old?
Michael
February 11, 2008 at 8:38 pm
washerdreyer
Can’t speak for anyone else, but my understanding is that while it was the proverbial straw incessant Sen. Clinton versus Sen. Obama discussion had been bothering Becks for a while now.
February 11, 2008 at 8:39 pm
eric
Wait, if I post on our blog, it counts as a threadjack on Unfogged? The Internets are really confusing.
February 11, 2008 at 8:44 pm
ari
You’re unfamiliar with the Borg?
February 11, 2008 at 8:44 pm
washerdreyer
I know you’re only faux-confused on your positive claim , but not sure if that carries over to only being faux-confused about the actual threadjack under discussion. The comment of mine I link to above began it, other comments followed.
February 11, 2008 at 8:44 pm
urbino
I believe the antecedent of Ari’s “this thread” was the one linked to in WD’s comment. Not this here thread right here where we are.
(NB: Ignore if you were just kidding around. My bleeding heart can’t stand to see somebody remain left out of a joke.)
February 11, 2008 at 8:45 pm
ari
Talk about confusing. Plus, bonus: threadjack. Right here, right now.
February 11, 2008 at 8:47 pm
eric
Plus, bonus: threadjack
Yeah, Becks has unintentionally threadjacked by proxy my post about Krugman. Now I’m mad.
February 11, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Jay Salter
How old is Eric? What grade was he in in 1972?
February 11, 2008 at 8:50 pm
ari
She’s crafty, that one. Not to mention the long reach of Unfogged. Okay, I have to finish this weird post about steamboats, so stop bugging me.
February 11, 2008 at 8:50 pm
eric
How old is Eric? What grade was he in in 1972?
I was two.
February 11, 2008 at 8:50 pm
urbino
I don’t know anything about any of that, but I heard Krugman’s just cranky because what he really wants is to get married and make babies.
February 11, 2008 at 8:52 pm
ari
He’s as old as the hills and as young as leaves in springtime.
February 11, 2008 at 9:32 pm
andrew
My dad’s parents, who listened to the debates on the radio, thought Nixon had won. They already supported him, of course, but still.
This is one of those history and memory things I wonder about. I’ve heard this kind of story most often told about “the Kennedy-Nixon debate” – singular. (My grandmother, not a Nixon supporter, also said she thought Nixon won on the radio.) But there were four debates. Was everyone thinking of the first? Did people come to similar conclusions about each one – that Nixon won on the radio and Kennedy won on tv?
February 11, 2008 at 9:43 pm
teofilo
The way I recall my dad telling it it was about all the debates, but now that I think about it I’m not sure that that’s not a history/memory thing on my part.
February 11, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Walt
I have no doubt that Krugman is not really objective when it comes to Obama, but I suggest a) try being called out by name by operatives of a Presidential campaign, and b) after writing columns about a candidate being inundated by hate mail by crazed supporters of that candidate, and see how objective you’ll be.
February 11, 2008 at 9:56 pm
eric
Walt, nobody’s asking Krugman to be objective. I’m just saying: “Nixon? Dude.”
February 11, 2008 at 10:01 pm
ari
Also, if you write op-eds for the Times and can’t handle the hate mail, you’re in the wrong line of work. And I say this as someone who has, until very recently, counted Krugman as a national treasure. I still think the man is wonderful, and a great mind. But, for whatever reasons, he’s completely lost his way when it comes to Obama.
February 11, 2008 at 10:07 pm
eric
can’t handle the hate mail
I’m not even saying that. Because hate mail is nasty stuff. I’m just saying, “Nixon? Dude.”
Because seriously, dude. Nixon.
February 11, 2008 at 10:12 pm
urbino
So, what are you saying?
February 11, 2008 at 10:16 pm
urbino
Joking aside, I agree with Eric. Krugman’s not just mistaken, he’s making a spectacle of himself.
I mean, Nixon? We’re talking about Nixon. We’re talking about Nixon. Nixon? We’re talking about Nixon. We’re talking about Nixon. I mean, we’re talking about Nixon. Nixon? Nixon? I mean, we’re talking about Nixon. Nixon.
February 11, 2008 at 10:17 pm
eric
I’m assuming you’re really agreeing with me, while mocking me, while agreeing with me.
February 11, 2008 at 10:21 pm
urbino
It’s an Allen Iverson riff. Sub “practice” for “Nixon.” Hee-hee.
February 11, 2008 at 10:25 pm
ari
Really, though, you don’t think op-edsters at the Times need to be able to handle nasty mail? C’mon, that’s the highest profile spot from which a pundit can shout their opinion in this country. People are going to shout back. You have to know that going in to the job.
February 11, 2008 at 10:33 pm
urbino
Iverson. Because it’s worth a link.
February 11, 2008 at 10:37 pm
ari
Apperently we’re talking about practice. Not the game. Practice.
February 11, 2008 at 10:46 pm
urbino
That does seem to be the primary thrust of his remarks.
February 11, 2008 at 10:55 pm
eric
you don’t think op-edsters at the Times need to be able to handle nasty mail?
What I think about that issue is immaterial to the post at hand. Which is about Nixon. Dude.
February 11, 2008 at 11:03 pm
ari
And also about practice. Lest you forget.
February 11, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Colin
What are we talking about?
February 12, 2008 at 12:08 am
ari
Click Urbino’s link above. You’ll watch Alan Iverson rant about practice. So that explains from whence that digression emerged. But really we’re talking about Nixon. And Krugman. About which you can read more by clicking the link in Eric’s post. Oh, and for a while there, we were also talking about a thread at Unfogged. I think that’s it.
February 12, 2008 at 12:17 am
teofilo
We are always already talking about a thread at Unfogged, of course.
February 12, 2008 at 12:44 am
Walt
Sure, Krugman can handle the hate mail. Now we know how he handled all the hate mail from Bush administration lickspittles all those years: fierce unbending hatred. Since your usual journalist responds to the hate mail by becoming even more craven, we’ve got to take the bad with the good here.
What I’m saying, Ari, is that Krugman is still a national treasure. He is just not an oracle.
February 12, 2008 at 8:45 am
ari
Walt, I agree. I’m not writing Krugman off because I think he’s unhinged on a single subject. He’s a brilliant man and one of the few left voices in the national discussion.
February 12, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Colin
I had already clicked the link, Ari. So much for subtlety.
February 14, 2008 at 6:12 am
“I have already been there,” revisited. « The Edge of the American West
[…] 14, 2008 in history and current events by eric A little while ago I said to you all, you’re looking around the political scene today, thinking, who looks a bit like Richard […]
April 10, 2008 at 10:27 pm
history vs. memory, round [some large number written in Roman numerals] « along the wayside
[…] vs. memory, round [some large number written in Roman numerals] A while back in comments elsewhere, I wondered about a story I’ve heard about the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debates. Supposedly, Nixon […]