Krugman and Newsweek
March 29, 2009 11:26 am ET by Eric Boehlert
The Times' liberal columnist is on the cover this week, with a provocative story headlined: “OBAMA IS WRONG: The Loyal Opposition of Paul Krugman.” It's about Krugman's criticism of Obama's economic policies made from the left.
Writes Newsweek chief Jon Meacham:
Every once a while, … a critic emerges who is more than a chatterer—a critic with credibility whose views seem more than a little plausible and who manages to rankle those in power in more than passing ways.
Here's what we think is telling about the whole thing: During the Bush years, Krugman, from his same perch on the pages of Times' opinion pages, waged about as vocal a campaign as humanly possible to warn readers and the country about what he considered to be the perilous policy decisions the Bush administration was embracing, and what the disastrous results for America would be.
Looking back on the Bush years, Krugman's track record was rather impeccable. But you'll note he didn't appear on the cover of Newsweek back then. (No "Bush is Wrong" cover lines.) And for years Krugman only occasionally appeared on the pundit talk shows. He wasn't referenced much inside The Village, either. Meaning, the Beltway press pros didn't seem to care what Krugman wrote about Bush and didn't think his writing--his opposition--needed to be examined closer. He was just a liberal critic, so who cared what he wrote about Bush. (That's my take on how much of the press viewed Krugman.)
But now a Democrat is in the Oval Office, Krugman is still hitting the president from the left, and suddenly the Beltway press thinks Krugman's work is fascinating and newsworthy. Trust us, it is. (For years he's been our pick as the country's premier columnist.) We just think everyone would have been better off if the press had paid this much attention to Krugman's work between, say, 2002 and 2006.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
"He was just a liberal critic, so who cared what he wrote about Bush. (That's my take on how much of the press viewed Krugman.)"
That makes it sound like any criticism of Bush would have to have been coming from the right for the Villagers to take notice - but they mostly didn't. Numerous former Republican officials from previous administratons (including Reagan's), and a number of well-known conservatives, made significant criticisms of Bush from the "principled conservative" position, but I didn't see them on the cover of Newsweek.
Krugman was okay with them back in the days when he didn't have anything good to say about President Clinton, but he wasn't regarded as "shrill" until he started crticizing Bush, at which point he became "a liberal columnist", something he hadn't been seen as before.
This is about it being okay to criticize Democrats, but not okay to criticize Republicans, no matter who you are.
But I'm still waiting for Krugman to advocate tax increases on the rich (above Clinton levels). If he doesn't, no one will. He is one of the very few who know that we are in a new Gilded Age and that the pockets of the rich are so deep that they could lose trillions and not even feel it.
I believe it's a calculated disrespect to neglect to put President in front of the man's name, when speaking or writing about him in that capacity.
Maybe not in all cases, but certainly in the one cited here, on the Newsweek cover.
It's a story because during Bush, anyone shooting from the left was considered crazy and the MSM feared being called a Butt Boy from Boss Limbaugh.
Besides, the right wingers stick together. They don't eat their own like libs obviously do.
I don't know, MK. They seem to be chowing down on Dubya's fetid carcass pretty ravenously these days.
You'd almost think that they hadn't spent the prior eight years defending his every move and accusing those who criticized him as being unpatriotic.
"I don't know, MK. They seem to be chowing down on Dubya's fetid carcass pretty ravenously these days."
I disagree. They're almost refusing to admit that W ever existed.
To be fair, there IS something to be said when the criticism comes from some that's on your own side of teh specturm. It IS more remarkable when a conservative criticed Bush (which did occasionally happen!) then when a liberal does. That's just par cfor the course. Likewise, conservative criticism of Obama is to be expected. But a liberal? That's news.
Now - first off, I'll be the first to admit that the press did not do anywhere near an acceptabel job criticizing Bush. Not by a damn sight. Second - what no one will know just from newsweek's cover in that Krugman is (basically) saying that Obama is not nearly liberal enough, fiscally speaking. So it's still hardly an argment that conservatives would embrace anyway.
Still - the cover is BS after the pass they gave to Bush for 8 years. Obama is still a lot CLOSER to Krugman that Bush ever was to doing the right thing.
After reading the Newsweek Article on Krugman answer in short paragraphs the following questions:
1)What is the significance of the work that earned Krugman his Nobel Prize
2) What reasons does Krugman give for opposing the Gaithner bank toxic waste bailout plan.
3) What counter arguments does the article give.
4) What reasons does Krugman give for nationalizing the banks?
5)What counter arguments does the article give.
6) Was Krugman right or wrong about Bush ?