The Legal Reader

Re. Paul Krugman's "Exploiting the Atrocity," it's pure (and puerile) partisan nonsense.

Paul Krugman’s accusations demonstrate a level of intellectual dishonesty I’ve never before seen in the Op-Ed pages. Even stipulating that Bush uses 9/11 for political purposes (which can be debated as far as degree and appropriateness)… so what?? It’s at worst a venial sin. Krugman is disingenuously hysterical over something that would be expected from any politician. His intellectual dishonesty begins with what he doesn’t say: that any Democrat would use 9/11 in a similar fashion (just imagine the amount of lip-biting that Clinton would do). The ultimate laugher comes right on the heels of the allegation that Bush now produces his own TV shows, when Krugman blames the president for NOT showing up at the 9/11 commemoration. Which is it? Is Bush an exploiter or is he a neglecter? Captain Yossarian knows about this game.

But the biggest cheap shot in this foaming-at-the-mouth polemic comes when Krugman decides to accuse the administration of “major scandals” based on his feelings. Hey, when facts aren’t available just go ahead and make the most heinous allegations possible based on “suggestions.” The effect is essentially the same, isn’t it? The message is put in the minds of readers without the messy burden of proof. Then vaulting into absurdity, Krugman predicts that the 2004 election will be the nastiest ever …from the Republican side! …from the Republican side! (Rim shot here.) All I can say at this point is that Krugman’s clinical hatred for Bush has completely unhinged him. Incapable of forming a rational argument, he resorts to the basest form of personal vilification – over and over – upping the ante in every column. What I predict is that at this rate he’ll be accusing George W. Bush of personally masterminding 9/11, the holocaust, and slavery within the month.

Oh, and I’ll look forward to the New York Times’ articles about Bush-haters. You know, just like all those articles on Clinton-haters, right? Hello? Hello?

Thanks for your comment, Richard. Although I don't agree with you, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you express it well.

If you didn't like my post about Krugman, you'll like this one from CalPundit even less. (via TalkLeft)

John, I read the column from CalPundit, and I'm confused as to why you think I would like that posting "even less" than yours about Krugman. Having been born and raised in California, I was happy to move to Virginia from Silicon Valley for several reasons (less congestion, affordable housing, lower taxes, less onerous regulation of small businesses, four seasons, and more). None of my reasons had anything to do with the Bay Area's noted tolerance for gays and lesbians.

Perhaps your inference was that conservatives are by definition intolerant of non-traditional lifestyles. If so, that's a convenient conceit of many on the left: that because a percentage of (mainly religious) conservatives oppose homosexual behavior, then all conservatives are intolerant, narrow-minded bigots. The irony of this belief is that while it may be true in specific cases, it's completely untrue in general. And the stereotype itself is a reflection of an intolerant, narrow-minded point of view.

What many on the left fail to see is that the right-wingers we all mocked back in the days of Easy Rider are being replaced by those boomers who were marching in peace rallies in the 60's and 70's. But we grew up. We had families and started businesses (and importantly, didn't stay on campus as professors and administrators), and our political ideas matured into a conservatism that's very tolerant on social issues but practical and realistic on political, economic and national security issues.

I consider myself a traditional liberal - one that embraces individual freedom for ALL people, diversity of thought and religious expression as well as race and ethnicity, and equality of opportunity for all as opposed to equality of outcome.

Both sides of the political divide can make a valid argument when they use narrowly specific examples of malfeasance by their opponents. But that kind of reasoned debate has devolved into silly, emotional bomb-throwing exemplified by Krugman's columns. The principles I described in the previous paragraph are what guide my political preferences, and they're what modern conservatism is about.

By holding on to the fiction that conservatives are "racist misogynistic homophobes," liberals will continue their marginalization into a very ineffective minority.

Richard Provost

Richard,

My suggestion that you might like the interview linked by CalPundit "even less" than the op-ed piece I linked to had nothing to do with race, gender, or sexual identity.

I thought the op-ed I linked to was relatively tame material for Mr. Krugman. All I meant in my comment was that if you found the (rather tame) Krugman piece I linked to out of bounds, then you would probably find the much more radical Krugman interview that CalPundit linked to to be even worse. I think that's a reasonable assumption, and not one that reflects badly on you in any way.

That's all. I didn't mean to express any opinion whatsoever about you or your views other than that you seem to disagree with Mr. Krugman.

Thanks -- It occurred to me that I should have added "...or... the link you posted may not be a durable link." By the time I returned and read your posting, the link was to a different column (it was about how the creatively-destructive people in California were more tolerant of homosexual lifestyles than the tradition-bound people in Mississippi / California was wealthier than Mississippi / therefore tolerance is better ["it's the people, stupid" was the closer]). Sorry for the defense of something you never intended to say.