Where are we now? Iraq? Yankee Stadium? NO! We are in Malaysia, contemplating the aftermath of Prof. Krugman's recent column. I have my thoughts and some links here. However, the emerging consensus seems to be that the most cogent analysis was presented by Doc Drezner, who is HUGE in India. And if Brad Delong is with him who shall stand against him?
So, a good day for the Dark Force. But let's not overdo it - I think that Don Luskin, who plays pit bull to Paul Krugman's pant leg, goes too far here:
...the storm is just getting started. So far no one has revealed the ties between Krugman and Mahathir, or pointed out how Krugman appears to have been personally complicit in Mahathir's anti-Semitism.
Complicit? Well, it is defined here as "Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime; having complicity: newspapers complicit with the propaganda arm of a dictatorship."
I guess "associated with" is the key here, although before this week I surely did not associate Prof. Krugman with Malaysia. Now, we learn that he gave some advice which was independently adopted by the Malyasian Government, and he spoke at a conference in Malaysia.
Let's not get thrown out trying to turn a double into a triple. Defenders of Prof. Krugman will focus on the most extreme arguments as characteristic of them all - let's not make their job easier.
UPDATE: Defenders of Prof. Krugman will include Prof. Krugman himself, who ducks the issues raised by folks like Dan Drezner, pretends he is Joseph Wilson (and pretends the motive was to smear Wilson), and responds to Don Luskin. We especially like the generous use of "they" in the Earnest Prof's piece; "these people" got laughs when Adam Sandler used it in Anger Management, so we salute that as well.
MORE: The Man Without Qualities dissents.
UPDATE: Whirling fan impacted by dark mass.
Yeah, "complicit" is a bit over the top. Krugman did for Mahathir pretty much what Milton Friedman did for Pinochet, and so is complicit to the same extent-- i.e., not at all.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | October 25, 2003 at 05:03 PM
Why not make my job easier? I, at least, would have more fun.
And I need more fun in a world in which I am reduced to rooting for a bunch of fish to win the World Series.
Posted by: Brad DeLong | October 25, 2003 at 06:54 PM
Complicit in the same way, that he was with Enron, serving as an all too gullble hack
Posted by: narciso | October 26, 2003 at 12:43 AM
Tom,
You write:
Now, we learn that he gave some advice which was independently adopted by the Malyasian Government, and he spoke at a conference in Malaysia.
But, as the Luskin points out [http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_10_26_chronArchive.asp#106726864637792186],
we've learned a lot more than that.
Examples:
(1) From the AJC letter to the Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/27/opinion/L27MALA.html?tntemail0]:
The Paul Krugman's Oct. 21 column contextualized and rationalized the hateful anti-Semitic remarks of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad ...
See also the AJC paid ad in the Times [http://www.ajc.org/upload/pdf/NYTimes_ad_10_27_2003.pdf]
(2) From the ADL letter the Times refused to print [http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20031021-NYTimes.htm]:
In his obsession with criticizing U.S. policy, Paul Krugman underestimates the significance of the anti-Semitic diatribe by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad ... [and] explained [them] away by themes of domestic politics.
Krugmaniacal complicity? The shoe definitely fits.
Robert Musil
Posted by: Robert Musil | October 27, 2003 at 12:28 PM
Filed under "Takes one to know one", from a link from Don Luskin:
Last week, Krugman, speaking at a business conference in Kuala Lumpur dismissed allegations that larger powers were in a conspiracy to undermine smaller countries as "too paranoid."
Anyway, I am in complete agreement that Krugman gave a poor (but predictable) analysis of the motivations behind Mahathir's latest anti-Semitic outburst.
If someone wants to beat a drum and say that Krugman is so blinded by partisanship and Bush hatred that he can't even give a sensible view of anti-Semitism in Malaysia, a country about which he knows something, well, good point. And I will join the parade.
And that seems like a very useful point to make. How can you trust a guy on other subjects when he can't even recognize the causes and history of anti-Semitism, and blames that on Bush? Where's the credibility?
But it seems like an unnecessary stretch to argue that he is on Mahathir's payroll, or has gone soft on anti-Semitism for cash. I would drop "complicit" and emphasize "daft".
Posted by: TM | October 27, 2003 at 01:23 PM
I don't think Don has argued that Krugman is on Mahathir's payroll. But it certainly is a fair question to ask who paid the bills when Krugman flew to Malaysia. Since Malaysia is pretty well infested with government/business "cronyism" (one of Krugman's favorite topics!), it seems fair to expect that the Malaysian government had a lot to do with paying those bills.
Once Krugman admits that his host directly or indirectly paid his bills (assuming that's true), it's another analysis to determine whether or to what extent Krugman has been distorting or "softening" his Malaysia coverage on account of such goodies.
I tend to think that (1) the Malaysian government did directly or indirectly pay for Krugman's junket, (2) he has not changed or softened his Malaysia coverage for cash or because of goodies purchased for him by the Malaysian government, directly or indirectly, but (3) he has probably distorted and "softened" his Malaysia coverage (including the way he presents the anti-semitism of his host and likely goodie-giver) on account of the intellectual flattery inherent in the Malaysian government seeking his counsel and following his advice (at least as a matter of parallel play), and his trip was likely part of that seduction.
Krugman needs to feel that he is IMPORTANT. He is no longer an important academic economist. All that seems to leaves him open to intellectual seduction - even to the point of blinding him to much flagrant evil, as we see in this incident.
His willingness to flatter the hideous Malaysian prime minister because the prime minister flatters Krugman by following policies Krugman advocates (to the point of slobbering over Mahathir's "cageiness" and high intelligence) is just the mirror image of Krugman's obsessive dislike of a decent American president who doesn't follow policies Krugman advocates (to the point of blithering over Bush's supposed lack of intelligence and merit).
It's hard to feel sorry for Krugman, even as he is callously manipulated by the "cagey" Mahathir. Just as Krugman trafficks in the legitimacy of Princeton and the NY Times, the Malaysian dictator trafficks in the legitimacy of Krugman's positions in academics and journalism. Yes, it's pathetic - there's no fool like an academic fool. But Krugman brings it on himself with his bloated and overly sensitive ego - which needs to be seriously and constantly pricked for his own good.
In other words, Don Luskin's savaging Krugman is a work of charity towards Krugman himself. As the old saying goes, "Sometimes, you have to be cruel to be kind."
Posted by: Robert Musil | October 27, 2003 at 03:53 PM
I want to amend one paragraph in my comment above to read as follows:
His willingness to flatter the hideous Malaysian prime minister because the prime minister flatters Krugman by following policies Krugman advocates (to the point of slobbering over Mahathir's "cageiness" and high intelligence and playing down his anti-Semitism) is just the mirror image of Krugman's obsessive dislike of a decent American president who doesn't follow policies Krugman advocates (to the point of blithering over Bush's supposed lack of intelligence and merit and inventing coded and unsupportable charges of anti-Semitism against him). [http://www.musil.blogspot.com/2003_08_24_musil_archive.html#106192377595895216]
Posted by: Robert Musil | October 27, 2003 at 06:30 PM
Well, Prof. K explains all in his latest column:
...there's something broader going on: a sort of willful ignorance, supposedly driven by moral concerns but actually reflecting domestic politics.
He pretends that this passage is describing Bush, but we know better.
Hmm, I thought I was kidding - reading on, I see that this column really is about Mahathir.
Developing...
Posted by: TM | October 28, 2003 at 06:21 AM