As I write, the Dow is collapsing; it’s down 237 points, and heading south. The reason? Standard and Poor’s has downgraded its long-term outlook for the US to “negative”. The reason for that? Simply put, we’ve utterly failed to demonstrate that we are serious about controlling our exploding public debt.
We’ve been hurtling toward a very tall cliff for a long time now; we may finally be going over it. If today isn’t the day, rest assured that it’s coming soon.
Meanwhile: remember the Gabrielle Giffords shooting? Remember the reeking cloud of opprobrium emitted by prominent figures on the Left, and their despicable attempt to blame a psychotic loner’s murderous rampage on the Right’s lack of “civility”? Remember their pious calls for a new era of politeness in public discourse, lest there be more “victims” of the Right’s “inflammatory” dissent?
Well, in today’s Times out slithers the worst of the lot, Paul Krugman — the arch-Keynesian liberal polemicist for whom the only problem with US deficits is that they aren’t vast enough — with a column entitled “Let’s Not Be Civil”.
By his own logic, this is nothing less than an incitement to political violence. But very well, then, Mr. Krugman, have it your way: if you would like for us all not to be civil any longer, I’m sure that can be arranged.
9 Comments
Did you read Krugman’s op-ed, or just the headline? The money quote is “let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences.” Does that sound like “an incitement to political violence” to you?
Moreover: are there any facts or conclusions in his article which you would dispute?
The debt ceiling is a joke but at least it slows them down a little and causes discussion like we’re having now. I just hate it when they shut down the government, and then all the government workers get “back pay” when they re-open.
The S&P is also a joke. They “warned” about U.S. debt but, as I look, long bonds are up for the day. Maybe if they do a full downgrade it will substantially lower U.S. interest payments and we can afford to raise the ceiling! Party on!
Hey, I didn’t choose the title; Krugman did.
Let’s see if I have this right: when conservatives express dissent, it’s “divisive, hate-filled rhetoric”; when Krugman’s side does it, it’s “frank discussion of our differences”.
Pah.
Actually, Krugman probably didn’t pick the title. I think the editors do that.
Sometimes when conservatives express dissent, it is divisive and hate-filled. See: Limbaugh, Rush; Beck, Glenn; O’Reilly, Bill; Rove, Karl etc.
Sometimes when conservatives express dissent, it is civil and thought-provoking. See: Krauthammer, Charles; Brooks, David; Pollack, Malcolm.
There is nothing in Krugman’s piece which is hate-filled. I’m not sure what divisive means. If you disagree with someone, is that necessarily divisive? If so, it’s not a bad thing.
However, this is all a side show. You dodged the question. Is there anything in Krugman’s piece which you dispute?
No, actually, YOU are starting up another side-show, as you so often like to do, and this time I’m going to call you on it, rather than starting another long-winded and digressive argument. The point of my post was simply to point out the hypocrisy of Krugman’s calling for incivility after lecturing us about it so piously just a few weeks ago. (Whoever picked that title, I’m sure it didn’t run without his approval.)
What is most telling of all is that to Krugman, apparently “being civil” and “having a frank discussion” are mutually exclusive.
Well, that’s because the problem of what to do about the deficit is vastly more interesting than whether or not Paul Krugman is hypocritical. (He isn’t. There is a world of difference between calling out politicians on inaccuracies and putting images of political opponents on your website in the cross hairs of a gun.) I’ve noticed that since the Ryan and Obama proposals came out, there has been no commentary in waka waka waka on the subject. I’m sure that your readership is eager to hear your thoughts on the matter.
On a somewhat related note — since you bring up the Giffords matter — I would like to take a victory lap for at least two of the three predictions I made on one of your threads at the time. I predicted that Obama would be ascendant, Palin would be marginalized, and the best days of the perpetually aggrieved Tea Party are behind it. Thus far, the first two have come to pass, and we’ll see about the third. You heard it here first, folks.
In your case it necessarily is, because the only discernible plank in your personal platform is to be as disagreeable as possible.
Looks like Henry decided to take a break from onanism to write something of no importance.
It’s almost 1 a.m., and I’ve just got home. Perhaps I’ll post on the budget question sometime in the days to come. You are correct to imagine that I have some opinions.
Readers have certainly seen enough of Paul Krugman, and presumably have a clear enough recollection of his tone following the Giffords shooting, to make up their own minds about whether they want to hear any more advice from him about civility. I haven’t the patience to rehash it all with you here and now.