"Thus, throughout the Obama years, centrists called for political leaders who would address their debt concerns with an approach that combined spending cuts with revenue increases, offer a market-based health care plan and invest in infrastructure, somehow never managing to acknowledge that there was one major figure proposing exactly that — President Barack Obama. And now, with Democrats taking a turn that is more progressive but hardly radical, centrist rhetoric has become downright hysterical. Medicare and Medicaid already cover more than a third of U.S. residents and pay more bills than private insurance. But Medicare for all, says Schultz, is 'not American.' Elizabeth Warren has proposed taxes on the wealthy that are squarely in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt; Bloomberg says that they would turn us into Venezuela. Where does the fanaticism of the centrists come from? Much of the explanation, I think, is sheer vanity. Both pundits and plutocrats like to imagine themselves as superior beings, standing above the political fray. They want to think of themselves as standing tall against extremism right and left. Yet the reality of American politics is asymmetric polarization: extremism on the right is a powerful political force, while extremism on the left isn’t. What’s a would-be courageous centrist to do? The answer, all too often, is to retreat into a fantasy world, almost as hermetic as the right-wing, Fox News bubble. In this fantasy world, social democrats like Harris or Warren are portrayed as the second coming of Hugo Chávez, so that taking what is actually a conservative position can be represented as a brave defense of moderation."
Writes Paul Krugman in "Attack of the Fanatical Centrists/Of obsessions, vanity and delusions of superiority" (NYT).
১১৮টি মন্তব্য:
F Krugman, he’s a jack ass!
I almost hate to yell "Strawman!" but: STRAWMAN!
Has he ever been right about anything?
Don't forget the epithet "former Enron advisor" when referring to Krugman.
Maybe I should revise my comment. I made the mistake of taking him at his word, not realizing he wasn't referring to the entirely imaginary "fanatical centrists," but specifically to Howard Schultz, who he's mad at for potentially taking votes away from the Dem nominee in 2020.
MY MISTAKE.
"an approach that combined spending cuts with revenue increases"
One of Obama's constant lies was calling tax increases revenue increases as though they are the same thing. They'are not.
What is a Fanatical Centrist anyway? And why would Paul get to decide what’s authentically center or right or left?
"Yet the reality of American politics is asymmetric polarization: extremism on the right is a powerful political force, while extremism on the left isn’t."
Sufferin' succotash. Was Krugman's Nobel prize for fictional literature?
Yet the reality of American politics is asymmetric polarization: extremism on the right is a powerful political force, while extremism on the left isn’t.
Krugman is so full of shit. He really is
Yo, Kruggy, a judicial nominee got hammered by the Senate for belonging to the fucking Knights of Columbus! Antifa shut down the Trump campaign's Chicago stop in 2016! A Bernie Bro tried to assassinate a gaggle of Republican congressmen. The Obama admin itself took the Little Sisters of the Poor to the Supreme Court. Try and have a conservative conference at many universities & see what happens.
The list goes on & on.
The NYT has never stopped kissing Stalin's ass, has it?
Extremism on the left is too a potent political force.
I'll never forget the episodes when both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were forced, by physical force, to cede the stage to some extreme groups during the primary season.
There is no serious opposition to the extreme left left within the left. Moderates have been marginalized, like Blair, are keeping silent and agreeing tacitly with the extremists, like Obama, or have converted to a more extreme stance, like Clinton.
Witness the fate of moderate candidates, such as Jim Webb, during the last election cycle, or Schultz and Bloomberg this time. There's no audience left for moderation. There are good reasons for that.
Anyway, claiming that extremism has no strength on the left is a bald-faced lie.
Obama didn’t propose spending cuts. He ignored all of the recommendations of that Blue Ribbon Commisssion he appointed.
He added a new entitlement even though we can’t afford the entitlements we have. In fairness, W was also a big spender and added another entitlement. He also started a War in Iraq with Congressional Approval. So Obama was marginally less fiscally reckless than W.
There is not enough money to pay for all the Entitlements. Unless someone invents a magic pill health care is never going to get efficient enough in the US to be remotely affordable for all people.
It’s not about Centrism or Socialism or Nationalism.
There is not and will never be enough money under any system to pay for all this shit.
That said, Krugman is free to move to Venezuela and eat zoo animals.
#PrinciplesMatter
Did Obama ever sign a budget?
Kudu tastes good...
Blogger mccullough said...
"Unless someone invents a magic pill health care is never going to get efficient enough in the US to be remotely affordable for all people."
That magic pill exists. It is called "rationing".
War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance Is Strength, Cooling is Warming, Centrism is Extremism. The list gets longer as Progs tie themselves into rhetorical knots.
"Extremism in defense of socialism is not... extremism."
Oh goodie - Paul Krugman, the radical leftist, attempts to tell us how he's totally, normal and stuff.
I see that Krugman is following Goebbel's classic advice: "Accuse your enemy of that which you are doing."
The extreme left has seized the wheel of the Democratic party and is determined to steer the nation onto the rocks. But yeah, it's the *right* who are out of control.
Tommy,
I think it’s called The Christian Science health plan.
Rule number 1) Never trust a guy with a bad toupee. They lie on a daily basis.
Let me guess......He's wrong, again!!
Markets are forward looking.
They shot up and kept going the minute Obama left (check the graphs).
Jobs followed...
Prosperity doesn't come from govt programs.
Its like Krugman learned nothing from 2009-2018.
with Democrats taking a turn that is more progressive but hardly radical
I can just imagine Krugman sitting at his typewriter trying to come up with an explanation for why centrists are upset but really shouldn't be and therefore are the true crazies.
All while finishing his third cup of intern-fetched Starbucks beverage.
Calming down for just a minute, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the Dems really, really, really don't want Schultz to run, do they?
My guess is that some polling firm got retained & the poll results looked very bad indeed for Mr/Ms Generic Democratic Candidate with Schultz in the mix.
Democratics want to piss on you - Paul Drugman insists it's rain.
Blogger Unknown said...
"Its like Krugman learned nothing from 2009-2018"
There are 100 million graves across the world that attest to the fact that some point socialism becomes a religion to these folks and they become enforcers of the narrative.
Medicare for all is YET another Trojan Horse for a National Health Service. Single Payer.
Medicare for all would destroy medicare - and it is a radical idea.
"Fanatical Centrists" LOL
You have to admit, that's pretty freaking desperate.
Krugman didn't even wait until the bodies were cold before he started blaming the TEA Party for the Gabby Giffords shooting.
Fuck him.
Well, when it comes to "vanity and delusions of superiority", no one's better at it than Krugman
Krugman is so lost, he needs a compass.
The Chinese and the Cubans should direct a microwave beam at Krugman's head.
He'd have an excuse, then.
"vanity" is the leftwing word du jour.
Here is a question for you Professor. Is there any nationally known economist who is proven o be wrong more times than Paul Krugman?
The answer, you will find after searching, is "no".
Noone.
"Wrong way Krugman" is at it again. Zzzzzz.
I just saw an ad for Hickenlooper.
I think Radical leftwing Krugman might be offended by his centrism.
Krugman hates Schultz AND Bloomberg. That's why he's a big thinker.
The oxymoron is rhetorically powerful. The Oceania guys don't get enough credit.
Doing away with all private insurance, deeply slashing salaries for medical workers (doctors, nurses, techs--everyone), adding tons of new taxes to almost all taxpayers, and basically outlawing internal combustion cars (as the Green New Deal would require), aren't radical ideas--they're just barely to the left of the center!
Sure, asshole; sure. Does anyone believe that? Really, does anyone?
So if 80% of Americans want to be able to choose their own health plan, the moderate position is that they shouldn't.
Thus, throughout the Obama years, centrists called for political leaders who would address their debt concerns with an approach that combined spending cuts with revenue increases, offer a market-based health care plan and invest in infrastructure, somehow never managing to acknowledge that there was one major figure proposing exactly that — President Barack Obama.
Lolol
I recall Barry wanted to cut defense, the republicans said ok and he wasn’t happy.
What market-based health care plan? The plan that raised my rates and my deductible to give free stuff?
How many exchanges failed and how much did it cost the taxpayer?
Shovel-ready jobs, took I think 18 months. Barry didn’t know it would take that long from start to acceptance. But the signs I saw touting where the money came from on the roadways being repaired...Perhaps loosening the regs and not listening to the women bitch there wasn’t enough money put into soft items like art museums, etc.?
My guess is that some polling firm got retained & the poll results looked very bad indeed for Mr/Ms Generic Democratic Candidate with Schultz in the mix.
You know how to tell the polls are bad for Dems?
You're not hearing about them.
That's called "projection", Krugman.
81% of Americans wan't restrictions on abortion in the last trimester.
they are radical centrists
Uh oh, Krugman's wife is pissed again.
Hit me with your midpoint, she said meanly.
- Computer generated Tom Swifty
Not in agreement with tax rape = radical centrist.
In the past week, we've seen Warren's phony Cherokee bloodline, Northam's blackface/KKK yearbook pictures and post-birth abortions, Harris' mayoral blow jobs, and Krugman's wacky political centrism -- and yet they think Howard Schultz is the crazy one!
His mannerisms and appearance closely align with his writings. There's something shifty and untrustworthy about him. You wouldn't want him as your little girl's basketball coach.........I've read bios of Americans at mid - century. Some of them tried to arrange their earnings so that they fell under capital gains, but others escaped the dilemna of high taxes by not working. A tax rate of 70-90% will have an effect on people's efforts and productivity.
So he got another one of those “money calls” to wriite an op-ed against Shultz.
The right and the center are extreme, the left is moderate. Got it.
If Krugman were consistent, he would be for the wall just to grow the economy some more. Spending is free! He posts here as peanut butters, BTW.
A centrist is a good old fashioned liberal Democrat who thinks people like me are racist extremists. They think they are moderates just like they consider CNN balanced.
We should cut him some slack. Given how bad he is at calling the market, Krugman needs his writing gig. And he knows what the NYT wants.
Does adherence to cruel neutrality qualify as being a fanatical centrist? Is Althouse a fanatic? Meade, feel free to opine.
Anne teases the horde. It's cruel, but entertaining.
Shorter Paul Krugman:
“Extremism is what you believe. Common sense is what I believe.”
I suggest Krugman close his eyes and say, “ I believe in fairies “ three times. Tinkerbell is sure to come back to life. It works every time.
BTW The Queen of the Fairies is named Titania.
Why does he still have a column?
For some reason I am watching Monty Python, and the first scene where King Arthur is arguing with the guy on the battlements of that castle about swallows and coconuts sounds remarkably like a a comment thread.
And now, with Democrats taking a turn that is more progressive but hardly radical, centrist rhetoric has become downright hysterical.
hardly radical?
a democrat governor of a democrat state announces that there will be abortions up to 40 weeks,
THEN!
Another democrat governor of a another democrat state PUTS ON A KKK ROBE and says:
"for darkies, my state will allow abortions PAST 40 weeks"
and that's Not hardly radical?
TiV, are you talking about European Swallows?
Who is Ann Althouse?
There's a Thomas Berger book "Who Is Teddy Villanova?"
which translated from Italian is Newhouse.
Reason #451 why Paul Krugman shills for single payer: he thinks it'll never apply to Eloi like him--just to the unwashed, troglodytic, knuckle-dragging Morlocks.
Elizabeth Warren has proposed taxes on the wealthy that are squarely in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt
Not exactly. A lie of omission is still a lie.
Let's see. If you don't have a definable point that you can call center, then the center is whatever you want it to be. Centrist just becomes a meaningless term. The people who support Democrats decide that center means center of the universe of democrat pundits. Thus anything that is not democrat is extremist right, and there is no such things as extremist left because left IS center.
The center should be defined as what the whole of the American public thinks of something. But, for the MSM, the only people they "poll" are the left. True moderates and conservatives are not counted, thus when their opinions are evaluated, they naturally fall to the "extreme right". The media is not interested in truth, they are interested in setting the agenda. Krugman is no different.
The Chinese and the Cubans should direct a microwave beam at Krugman's head.
Maybe they already have. That would explain a lot.
I was making a point similar to Krugman's the other day on the Howard Schultz centrism post. Centrism is another name for the Establishment position. It is of course not one set of things but rather a continuum of acceptable positions. What the Establishment does is set the parameters of acceptable opinion on the left and on the right and then permits a great deal of disagreement and debate within those parameters. Yet if you step an inch outside those parameters, you are immediately pounced upon and denounced as a radical or a crank or ab extremist or far right or extreme left. Being outside of these parameters is precisely what united the far left and right in this country.
It is just another form of the ad hominem. By attacking a person making an argument with some kind of label, you say nothing about the soundness of the argument. Just because something is "radical" or "extreme" does not ipso facto bad or wrong.
Every president of the last several decades has been a centrist. All the sturm und drang against Reagan and Bush from the left or Clinton and Obama from the right is the noise permitted within the parameters. It gives people the illusion that they are faced with stark choices between two disparate "visions for America," when in fact both major party candidates are invariably operating within acceptable parameters to the Establishment.
Since anyone left of Karl Marx is a centrist in Paul Krugman's eyes, who gives a damn what he says.
The only fanaticism left is in the squishy center. Ordering a latte at Starbucks, extra foam, please. Foam. Howard's Special Foamy Squirt, yes, extra. Later! Mmmm, foamy.
This the economic guru that predicted the economy would tank under Trump.
Listen to HIM.
Has he ever been right about anything?
Actually, he's usually left about everything.
So you think Obama was a "centrist".
Right on.
Enron's infamous economic advisor, not surprisingly, fails to look at economic reality.
"Medicare and Medicaid already cover more than a third of U.S. residents and pay more bills than private insurance."
The problem is that the government only pays providers about 10% of the billed amount. Insurance companies and providers make up the difference through upcharges to everybody else.
Notice that Paul Krugman does not claim that the government pays 1/3 of medical claims value nor does he mention the extremely high cost to process these claims through the bureaucracy.
National Review has an opinion of the New York Times columnist:
In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its “advisory board,” and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine. But he would change his tune. After Enron collapsed in 2001, Krugman wrote several columns excoriating the company. (One featured what may be the most absurd howler in the history of op-ed journalism: “I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.”) In most of these columns Krugman worked hard to link Enron to the Bush administration, and in one he actually blamed Enron’s consultants for the company’s collapse — while neglecting to mention that he, too, had been an Enron consultant.
Trump's rearranged economic relationships fly counter to Krugman citation for Nobel ... New Trade Theory or some such.
Trump deserves Nobel for
Economics ... taken away from Krugman
Peace ... Taken away from Obama.
Fanatical centrism?
You mean baby murdering racists like the Democratic Governor of Virginia?
Like the followers of Margaret Sanger, democratics love to abort black babies.
Fanatical to be sure.
What? Krugman made an assertion? Whatever it is I need to find a way to invest my entire life savings in direct opposition to it. Does he happen to have an opinion on what numbers will NOT win the lottery?
@walter:
So you think Obama was a "centrist".
Right on.
Obama was absolutely a centrist. He pursued more managed trade agreements, he was weak on immigration, and he pursued an interventionist foreign policy. Just like Bush. And just like Clinton.
And somehow, that arrangement with Enron didn't violate NYT's journolistic standards?
Maybe that was an elaborate demonstration of supply and demand.
Just kinda skipped over his signature "achievement"...
There is such a thing as fanatical centrism, but this is not it. Where I do see it is with libertarian "intellectuals". They cannot resist trying to show everyone how they are not in one camp or the other by mostly finding where they disagree with everyone except other libertarians. I fancy myself as mostly libertarian, but I can also see that one side is much more likely to find a way to reduce or eliminate my civil rights, my independence, my freedom, and my income. The other side is far from perfect, but the comparison isn't even close. Adherent centrism requires blindness, and is just as partisan in it's own way as either side.
Ah the Krugster. I tend to think he doesn't see much because his head is constantly up an orifice where the Sun don't shine.
But when he does pull his head out, a paraphrase of a line from Kinky Friedman's song "Wild Man of Borneo" is appropriate. "Krugman comes to see, what Krugman wants to see, but Krugman never comes to know".
Blinkered and babbling--I can't understand why Krugman keeps his day job at the NYT.
"Fanatical Centrism" sounds like an oxymoron.
I try not to skip over my, "achievement." It's a poopie. My signature achievement. Pwnd. Ow me arse. Pwnd.
This is either an inane or an insane opinion piece. Why was it posted here? For what insidious reason did you invite your audience to read it>
Paul’s column reminded me of Jules Feiffer in the mid-1960’s complaining about the “Radical Middle”.
You can read about it here (scroll down to the third pane):
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/hope-for-america/cartoons-and-satire.html
Fanatical centrism is not something I'm willing to get worked up about.
Krugman is actually very stupid. Nothing he writes about is real.
chillblaine,
From each according to their ability.
When one sides and is friends with (disenfranchised) Marxists, one is not a “centrist.”
The word democrat or democratic is not anywhere in any founding document.
Why? Democracy is one small step outside of fascism and tyranny of the 51%.
If 10% can rule over 90% - and use those fake medicare stats to deceive you, they have achieved the Royal democratic-Krugman sweet spot. Stop your whining as they shift the overton window, you radical centrists.
@ Bagoh
I fancy myself as mostly libertarian, but I can also see that one side is much more likely to find a way to reduce or eliminate my civil rights, my independence, my freedom, and my income. I'd add... & limit free speech.
This is where the "both D's and R's are the same" argument falls apart. Both parties stink, sure, and let us down, but I know the side who lies to me, the side who wants to exact revenge and hurt me.
Jesus..why does anyone still read/quote this idiot? He hasn't gotten a single thing right in the last decade.
The word democrat or democratic is not anywhere in any founding document.
Our government was deliberately constructed not to be democratic. It was in fact designed with protections against democracy. As those protections have been destroyed and our government become more democratic, things have gotten worse.
Adherent centrism requires blindness, and is just as partisan in it's own way as either side.
Yes...just like "cruel neutrality" does.
So when people scream "I want my democracy now!" -
They could just as easily say and mean the same thing with:
"I want the tyranny of the majority to smother my individual rights - NOW!"
or "I want my Fascism NOW!"
Adherent left-wing loyal requires blindness. Krugman is a propagandist for whoever is paying him - Enron or the NYT.
Enron - NYT - same diff.
I used to jokingly call myself a "far middle nutjob radical" until I realized everyone else hated me and they told me to "pick a side."
I am pleased to see several here picking out this, the central thesis in this screed:
"Yet the reality of American politics is asymmetric polarization: extremism on the right is a powerful political force, while extremism on the left isn’t."
It is really hard to see why Krugman is worth commenting on at all. Except that he is a man of prestige. My choice as counter to this would be the Farrakhan admiring bigots in the Democratic Party now. The Nation of Islam is indeed powerful. It is also disgustingly hate-filled. And we now have members of Congress who regard Farrakhan as the GOAT - "Greatest of All Time." Krugman may be in denial, but I will not be.
Get a load of the aerial view of Krugman's house.
He's not a limousine liberal: he's a sprawling oceanfront mansion leftist.
Tina Trent,
We call them dachas.
Historical accuracy is important.
Yes, centrism is often a matter of vanity. If Trump is smart, which I think he is, though at times a smart clown, he will cultivate that vanity: Schultz to run, the Althouses to defect from the Dems.
But, Paul, man, when will markets ever recover from Trump's win?
J. Farmer said...
@walter:
So you think Obama was a "centrist".
Right on.
Obama was absolutely a centrist. He pursued more managed trade agreements, he was weak on immigration, and he pursued an interventionist foreign policy. Just like Bush. And just like Clinton.
That is not centrist.
That is globalist.
There is no "centrist" political party. That is not a thing. Centrist is a title political partisans claim as a proxy for majority or mainstream.
We are fully into the nationalist vs. globalist fight right now. The only other constituency is the apethetics.
OK, I read the passage from Krugman. There isn't anything in it that is correct. So why do we bother with it?
I've also read all the comments, and the answer to my own question is: Because it's fun to mock Krugman! In earlier eras they had village idiots. We have Krugman.
If Paullie "The Beard" Krugman says/writes something, I just can't force myself to believe it.
Medicare is on an unsustainable trajectory already. By all means let's triple its coverage and bring on the fiscal collapse right away.
No more centrist half-measures!
People are wondering why Krugman still has a column despite being wrong about everything.
He is a globalist tool. They pay him more than most of you make. He says what they want said.
And enough people buy what he says so that they think they get a fair return on their investment.
You all need to realize what kind of fight we are in and be ready for what is coming.
So Krugman has finally lost the plot completely. If you remember your high school German, Krugman is a mug. If he were a genius he'd be Klugman.
I actually agree with the concept of fanatical centrism, but of course Krugman gets the direction that it goes in in our society 100% backwards. I know plenty of people who fit that bill... the further crazy the Left goes, the further left the "centrists" will follow to maintain their above-it-all position, and the left has gone *so* crazy now that the fanatical centrists have to be pretty accepting of crazy to maintain their facade.
Basically, Krugman is just engaging in nuclear levels of projection here. Whenever the Left gets caught red handed doing something, they jump to "a pox on both their houses" rhetoric precisely to create fanatical centrists, since they serve the Left's goals just as well as the fanatical leftists, and they tend to be less troublesome about it.
The first coming of Hugo Chavez was not treated as the second coming of Hugo Chavez, though it should have been. Because of course it was the second coming of any one of a horde of his predecessors.
Whatever, its Krugman.
"**I** will take care of any screeching rhetorical excess that's required, thank you very much."
Only Krugman could describe a health-care system mandated and enforced by the federal government as "market-based".
"What is a Fanatical Centrist anyway"
A moderate Democrat saying, "Uh, hey guys? That turn towards Maoism? Might want to rethink that..."
Thus, throughout the Obama years, centrists called for political leaders who would address their debt concerns with an approach that combined spending cuts with revenue increases, offer a market-based health care plan and invest in infrastructure, somehow never managing to acknowledge that there was one major figure proposing exactly that — President Barack Obama.
Krugman is probably the most damaging public commenter in America. His willingness to hide lies behind his Nobel Prize encourages everyone to ignore reality to further their partisanship.
Obama pushed the "stimulus" which vastly increased spending and then Obamnacare which did the same. The handful of spending cuts he favored were carefully targeted at his enemies but weren't within orders of magnitude of his spending increases. And yet Krugman lies that a President who increased spending as much as was politically possible favored "cuts" because it furthers Krugman's goal of even more spending.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন