OBAMA IN BOSTON MEETS KRUGMAN! Krugmans description is factually wrong. What makes us wander this way? // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2011
The lossand the dutyof citizens: We thought President Obama did a good job Wednesday night helping create a sense of community, focusing on the value of the people whose lives were lost.
To our ear, there has been a bit of a statistical oddness to this event. Gabrielle Giffords seems to be an especially sane and sensible member of Congressdespite the fact that she has been criticized for daring to be a Blue Dog. Somewhat similarly, Christina-Taylor Green seems to have been an unusual nine-year-old, from her date of birth on.
Several young people have emergedyoung people who are remarkably poised and impressive. We think of Daniel Hernandez, age 20. And of Christin Gilmer, a remarkably impressive and poised young activist who organized a counter-protest to shield the Green family from the lunacy of the Westboro Baptist Church, who were threatening to bring their brand of public insanity to Christian-Taylor Greens funeral. For the transcript of Gilmers discussion with Anderson Cooper, just click herethough youll miss her extraordinary sense of sanity, devotion and calm. (Gilmer: It's about protecting this family and letting them grieve and show the compassion that our entire community has for them.)
A federal judge was lost that day too. We were struck by Obamas words about Dorwan and Mavy Stoddard:
ImagineTucson in 1940! Population: 35,000. Or so Wikipedia says.
If liberals want to create a saner conversation, wed suggest that we focus on the notion of citizenship. If you want to persuade a person of something, it helps to connect your presentation to that persons pre-existing valuesvalues in which they have an investment. Most people have a (positive) sense of the valueand the dutiesof citizenship.
What are a citizens duties? A citizen shouldnt be hateful or violent, of coursebut a citizen also shouldnt be foolish. Were all inclined to believe certain things. But we have a citizens duty to question our own inclinationsto make sure that we arent being utterly foolish in the ideas we advance?
A tremendous amount of damn-fool nonsense has defined our public discourse for the past several decades. Have you ever seen a major press organ introduce that concept into our discourseintroduce the notion that we citizens, who may end up believing various things, do have a citizens duty not to be flat-out foolish?
Were all inclined to believe certain thingsthings which reinforce our instinctive world-view. Dont we have an obligation to do betterto question our own inclinations? To follow Obamas child-centric framing from Wednesday, lets quote Laura Ingalls Wilder from September 1921: In the light of experience and the test of the years, can you see how your mother might have been more to you, could have guided you better? Then be sure you are making the most of your privileges with the children who are looking to you for love and guidance.
Were all inclined to believe certain thingsbut dont citizens have a duty to do better? Dont citizens have a duty to avoid advancing ideas or beliefs which are utterly foolish? Of course, we liberals cant impose this regime on The Other until we observe it ourselves.
OBAMA IN BOSTON MEETS KRUGMAN (permalink): Barack Obama got famous in Boston, in July 2004.
He spoke at the Democratic convention. With these words, a little-known senate candidatea skinny kid with a funny namebecame a much-praised public figure:
Those designations of cheers, applause come from the Federal News Service transcript.
What did Obama mean in these famous remarks about red states and blue states? Presumably, he meant something like this: We arent really a nation of two separate tribes. You can find many liberals in the red states, and many conservatives in the blue states. And he may have meant something like this: As individuals, most Americans arent pure blue or pure red.
Presumably, he may have meant something like this: The pundits who like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states misunderstand these basic facts. They like to imagine a degree of division which doesnt exist on the ground.
This morning, Paul Krugman became one of those pundits, in a column which is profoundly unwise and remarkably unintelligent. That said, the column is also highly instructive as we move forward from here.
Before reviewing that column, lets say it again: In our opinion, Krugman has been our most valuable mainstream journalist over the past dozen years. When it comes to policy matters, he is the journalist we consult first. Weve learned a great deal from his New York Times columns and from his books. (We especially recommend the economic history Krugman presented in The Conscience of a Liberal.)
We are extremely grateful to Krugman for his policy work. But this mornings column is about politics, not policy. And this is the area where Krugman sometimes tends to fall short a small tad.
This morning, he fails in a ginormous way. This morning, Krugman describes the world Obama denied in his speech up in Boston.
[W]e are a deeply divided nation and are likely to remain one for a long time, Krugman says, at the start of his piece. As a general matter, that may well be true, of course. But when he describes the nature of that division, Krugmans logic grossly fails in a familiar, destructive way. In the following passage, Krugman describes the state of the nation. As he does, he divides us into two warring camps, in a manner which has routinely issued in war:
Its truethere is no apparent middle ground between the two views described in this passage. But how many people in this country actually hold such views? For ourselves, we pretty much wouldnt sign on to the (un-nuanced) view that wealthy nation have an obligation to provide all citizens with essential care, although we would support such a policy. Nor do we see the recent health reform law, which we supported, as a moral outragethough we understand why people want the right to spend their money as they choose.
When it comes to national health care, is there a middle ground between these viewsbetween those views as Krugman described them? Wed say theres an obvious middle groundand wed guess that most citizens live there. But thats also true when it comes to another major issuethough once again, Krugman claims there are two sides and two sides only:
Really? When it comes to abortion, does each side believe that the other side is morally in the wrong? Some people see the issue that way; some people do so quite starkly. But vast numbers of people have mixed views about the morality hereuntil you enter Krugmans world, where the whole country seems to consist of two sides, each of which sees the other as morally in the wrong.
Whenever we read such descriptions, we think of various things weve read about the run-up to the Civil War.
In an excess of fairness, we might note that Krugman says hes describing American politics. His description would be a bit more accurate if he limited himself to American party politics. Eventually, he talks about the two major parties; when he does, his never the twain shall meet description becomes a bit more accurate. But if hes describing the world of the two major parties, he thereby disappears many of the people Obama described in Boston. Tens of millions of American adults dont belong to either party. Tens of millions who do belong dont ascribe to either of the warring views into which Krugman divides the world.
Krugman ends his column with sound advice. Despite our opposing moral viewswithin which there is no middle groundwe mustnt resort to violence or to eliminationist rhetoric. (Has Krugman descended into the bunker? How many readers could even explain what that latter phrase means?) But Krugmans portrait of the American landscape isnt just vastly limited, and thereby inaccurate; its also quite dangerous. Before all wars, there are people who insist that there is no middle ground to be found. These people are caught in their own tribal furyand theyre happy to insist that we all get dragged along
When their fury leads to war, many innocent people get hurt. Christina-Taylor Green was 9. Which side was she on?
Unless you parse his words with excessive care, Krugmans description this morning is grossly inaccurate. That said, many people have succumbed to the loathing which makes the rest of the world go away in the manner of Krugmans columna type of airbrushing Obama challenged in his speech in Boston. These people believe that the nation consists of two warring sides, with no middle groundwith each side believing the other side is morally wrong. That really doesnt describe this nationbut such a vision can lead to more error. Heres Krugman, in a remarkable passage, describing how he will proceed from here:
Wow. If Krugman actually means what he says, he expects to spend a lot of time pointing out the hypocrisy and logical fallacies of the other side. But when he sees such failures on his own side, he doesnt plan to inform us!
Do we really need more of this ugly approach? Just last night, we saw Lawrence ODonnell and Ed Schultz playing this same stupid game.
This game is ugly because it leads to war, even as facile profiteers stuff millions of dollars into their pants. Despite Krugmans closing plea, his (inaccurate) description may tend to encourage the uber-committed to march us all off to war, as Jared Loughner did last weekend, killing innocents in the process. But then, careless people have always urged the rest of us on to war. At the end of the World War I, Wilfred Owen described the processand bitterly criticized those who urged the persuadable on.
Owen himself had seen what happens when we buy into war:
Roughly: It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. In this country, the two ardent sides were once blue and gray. By 2004, Obamas facile pundits had moved on to blue and red.
Were very grateful to Columnist Krugman for the past twelve years of policy writing. For us, his work has been invaluable; we look forward to many more years of the same. But his portrait this morning is baldly inaccurateand Owen describes where such pictures can lead when theyre bought by the ardent.
Given the way the ardent proceed, the next shot could be fired by those on our side. Krugmans description is just plain wrong. What makes us blunder this way?