Good God Not Again

Dear Paul Krugman,

Please stop saying stupid things.

Respectfully,
A Liberal

Yea, the Berniebros are pretty ignorant of facts, and I really don't get Sanders's campaign at this point (I think I read a theory on why...something about more delegates meaning having a stronger position for determining the party platform).  On the other hand, the "center-left" thought the Iraq war was a good idea.  They supported financial deregulation that gave us the financial crisis and lesser depression.  More recently they wanted to make a deal with Republicans to cut Social Security and Medicare because grand bargain mysticism rules them.  The [professional] center-left is hardly the home of "intellectual values".

Of course there are fact challenged liberals and other left wing types.  The more progressive activists of the Democratic party tend to be anti-GMO, and think that organic and local = sustainable.  There's also a lot of anti-nuclear [power] that tends to be more left-wing.  But, fortunately I think, those types are a (loud) minority within the party.  The liberal sphere of our politics is, as a whole pro-science, pro-facts, and pro-intellect.  So the saying "facts have a well known liberal bias" is accurate, but the second you try and subdivide the left you leave yourself very open to the failings of whichever branch you have decided is the bearer of The Truth.

The center left has some pretty fucking horrible failings.  Way out there left wing nuts may have some kooky aspects, but no one has ever listened to them...even when they have been right.

Good Post By Krugman on Sanders/Clinton

Since I've given Paul Krugman lots of shit about many of his anti-Bernie columns I feel obligated to give kudos to a good anti-Bernie column.  (Yes, despite the fact that he has no idea that I've been giving him shit nor would he care if he did know.)

I pretty much got his point of view from earlier columns but they were very dismissive of any point of view that would lead someone to support Sanders over Clinton, which, frankly is what is relevant.  We are not looking at these two candidates vs. Platonic forms but vs. each other, and there are perfectly legitimate reasons to select either candidate depending on your personal preferences/ideas.

I also agree with Krugman's problems with Sanders, but I'm not sure I agree so much with him on Clinton.  I think it is quite possible she learned the wrong lessons from Iraq and the financial crisis...not nothing as with Republicans, but still not the right lessons.

Really Wish Krugman Would Stop This Shit

Krugman publishes a comparative plot.  Here's another plot that looks a lot different than his, under which 5% growth doesn't look even a little crazy.  Which should be used?  Well that depends a lot on how you view the models/policies, probably how long a president is in office for, and the timing for effects of said policies (which will not be implemented).  Again, Krugman should know better, which is the real problem with his anti-Bernie posts.  He argues that Sanders (and/or his supporters) are not facing reality then he turns away from reality himself.

I don't even really care who wins the Democratic primary.  I, personally, can't vote for Hillary Clinton because I am very opposed to her more militaristic foreign policy which, despite her protests, is very well represented by her vote for the Iraq war.  Bernie has lots of flaws and certainly wouldn't be my first choice for a not-Hillary candidate but that's who's left.  Krugman's continued insistence that Bernie Sanders supporters are thoughtless dreamers who don't care about reality just really pisses me off.  

At this point it seems reflexive on his part: "People disagree with me so I must be on to something, let me repeat it!"  

I really don't like being a Sanders shill (because, again, don't actually care much who wins) but lots of the dickish behavior of Clinton supporters pisses me off as much as the Bernie-bros, and it particularly pisses me off when it comes from someone like Krugman on the pages of the NYT.  The Bernie-bros are bigger assholes but they don't have the institutional megaphone that Clinton backers have (because Clinton has all the institutional support, much of which has treated Sanders as a joke from the start).

So, to supporters of both Democratic candidates:  

Your preferred candidate does not have all the answers and supporters of your preferred candidate's opponent are not deluded robotic simpletons without capacity for thought.  Stop fucking treating them as such.

(Note to supporters of any GOP nominee:  Sorry, but your preferred candidate really is either stupid, a yuge asshole or, likely, both.)

More Defensive Krugman

I really don't get it.  It's fine that he supports HRC, but how is it that he can be so blind as to treat Sanders supporters the same way so many of his [right-wing] critics treat him?  Ignore substantial differences (which may be either pro-Sanders or just anti-Hillary) and construct magical straw-unicorns.

Not Understanding Krugman's Defensiveness Here

Paul Krugman clearly supports Clintion in the primary, and for sensible reasons.  But his attacks on Sanders supporters are, frankly, bonkers.  While I'm sure there are people who support Sanders for the reasons he mentions, generalizing from them is like the people who generalize from a small number of Clinton supporters who only support her because she is a woman.  It's, for lack of a better word, stupid.

I find the attacks on both of the Democratic candidates (remaining) to be pretty small minded, petty and, yes, stupid.  While it isn't surprising from many people I would think Krugman would be more thoughtful about it, but he really seems very reactionary and defensive.

I read the Vox article he quotes from and my takeaway was that this election has messed with the historical based prediction models and you can't effectively extrapolate what will happen.  If a more conventional Republican were to win, then maybe you can go back to those.  But that is looking less likely as time passes, and if the GOP nominee is Trump or Cruz or even Rubio then you are likely looking at a general that will not shape up as the historical models would predict.

Also, that Nixon - McGovern as a basis for comparison is just weird.  Yes, McGovern was a radical liberal, but Nixon was to left of much of his party's base and in many ways more liberal than most "conventional" Democrats today, including Obama and Clinton.  He was a Keynesian for God's sakes!  If you really wanted to try and parallel that election then Cruz is the McGovern equivalent and Hillary would be Nixon (she is to the right of most of her party base, Cruz is a radical conservative).  Trump is who the hell knows what, and Sanders is, in reality, only a bit more liberal than Clinton.  Mostly he is just not apologetic about his liberalism, and that matters to lots of Democrats who are tired of politicians who they vote for not representing them.  Not defending their views.

In terms of what can be accomplished, neither Clinton nor Sanders will be able to do much as president thanks to the US House (gerrymandering has pretty much guaranteed a GOP majority until 2022).  It may be that Clinton will be better at getting things done in spite of that.  It could also be that Sanders would be able to shift the Overton window such that better results become possible [in the future].

Who the fuck knows?