Answers to Krugman: Krugman's seemingly visceral hostility to Barack Obama

[debatepro]

http://chronicle.com/blogs/footnoted/index.php?id=1641

In a post at Open University Sunstein argues that the Krugman-Obama contretemps can be explained in part by how the two men approach political disagreement. Simply put, "Krugman likes partisanship, and Obama does not." Krugman believes that any serious effort to push America in a more progressive direction will necessarily be highly polarizing.

"Krugman thinks that problems cannot be solved without squarely accepting bitter opposition, while Obama thinks that problems are best solved by attempting to listen to opponents, to learn from them, and to defuse their opposition," Sunstein writes. But this explanation only takes Sunstein so far. "I think that the difference between the two goes deeper, and that it is really one of temperament," Sunstein writes. "This is a speculation, but it is not otherwise easy to explain Krugman's seemingly visceral hostility to Barack Obama."



More:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2008/02/11/why-is-paul-krugman-so-hostile-to-barack-obama.aspx

Krugman insisted that politicians who seek "a new New Deal" should welcome the hatred of the right. Obama doesn't hate those who disagree with him, and he does not welcome people's hatred. Krugman seems to hate that.

[NoBorders]

1. Sounds about right to me. n/t

[MBS]

2. sounds about right to me, too

I think that Sunstein is on the right track here.

[papau]

3. About nails it - Krugman (and I) "think "non-confrontation" is Obama code for"I tried and failed"for

next 4 years as next to nothing gets moved left, and Congress gets blamed for not following our "great leader".

[BOSSHOG]

5. But the hostility is "visceral!!"

Anything said about Obama which is not adulation or praise is visceral hostility.

[KittyWampus]

8. shifting the political center Left accomplishes a hell of a lot more than just facing the opposition

and screaming at them.

The 50+1, keep the country divided evenly in half model that the DLC/Clinton machine AND Rove both embrace is killing this country and our Constitution.

[papau]

9. Like Bush was not able to be a direction changer with 50 plus 1? It takes determination that Obama

the want to change the tone and get bipartisan with GOP fellow, does not have.

If Obama is nominated you can kiss the slight single payer opening of a Medicare like policy for everyone being offered away - far far away - because you know that it will be explained as something he had to give up to get bipartisan support in getting the bill through congress.

I hate it when my GOP friends in insurance are so right so early on - they told me last spring that they would push Obama because they "could work with him" - and I thought his liberal votes in the past - which I had not yet reviewed - meant large change was possible with him. Boy was I wrong - Obama in that spring interview told everyone that he was a small change person - and no one wanted to hear that because he spoke so well

[frazzled]

4. I think it may be academic

I mean truly "academic." Krugman is a university (Princeton) economist who has certain academic positions (which are to a certain extent also political, but let's leave those aside). Obama, like all the candidates, has a certain number of economists who are academics as his advisors as well. I don't think Krugman's hostility to Obama has much to do with the "style" issues Sunstein mentions above as with one specific academic issue that is disputed among economists (and I suppose specifically "health economists"): whether or not mandates are necessary and/or desirable. All the rancor seems to be built around this issue. It is a pet one for Krugman. I understand that, but he needs to write about it in a more academically responsible way. That is where style (partisanship) comes in as a factor.

Secondly, to be fair, Frank Rich is equally rancorous (in a more abstract way) about Clinton, and in favor of Obama. This should be examined as well. I am an Obama supporter, but it bothers me when he writes in the way he does about Clinton. I remember all too well his distaste for Al Gore. I don't want to see that again.

Can't these folk write about issues, or even personalities, without being so cutthroat and vicious? Can't we have columnists who can discuss things civilly? I think the third NYT columnist, Bob Herbert, comes closer to that.

[MBS]

6. your first paragraph is right on the money.

really nails down the academic issue, which I agree is real, and a pet issue of Krugman. Though I do agree with Sunstein, too, about Krugman's style. I think you're both right (how about that for non-polarizing?:))

And, yeah, Bob Herbert is my favorite NYT columnist, pretty much exactly for the reasons you've outlined.
And Frank Rich bothers me also for the reasons you've outlined, even when I agree with him .

[KittyWampus]

7. Krugman feels his reputation is on the line. He's stake out his position which involves political

realities he's not comfortable with.

I still respect him.

Just disagree about the way to go with Health Care.

[TexasObserver]

10. Krugman is a Hillary Toadie. That's why he's her shill.