DEBATING POLITICS, ECONOMICS AND OTHER TIMELY TOPICS WITH PAUL KRUGMAN OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2016

PAUL KRUGMAN

BACKSTORY

How Feeling the Bern Can Lead to Distortions

A Shift
In the Race

Personally, Im sick of the whole Bernie

Sanders/Hillary Clinton debate, but one of
my mottos for column-writing has been if it
feels bad, do it. If I really want to avoid a topic
because it makes my life uncomfortable and
will predictably lead to another wave of angry
email, thats probably a good indication that
its important.
There is one other aspect of this discussion
that should be aired, involving incentives and
motives.
What you get a lot from supporters of Mr.
Sanders are accusations of bad faith. In general, feeling the Bern often seems to mean
accusing anyone who doesnt of corruption. So
how should we think about such things?
First of all, yes, corruption including corruption of alleged experts really does happen. It tends to be a much bigger issue on the
right, simply because theres so much more
money and so many fewer scruples. Ive been
saying for a while that there are three kinds of
economists: liberal professional economists,
conservative professional economists and professional conservative economists. The box for
a fourth kind is mostly empty, for lack of funding. Still, it would be nave to claim that maintaining access to corporate consulting gigs
and the like has no effect on policy arguments.
But its also nave, and destructive, to presume that thats all there is. You dont have to
be a corporate hireling or a shill for Mrs. Clinton to be taken aback when a Democratic campaign endorses economic projections that are
even more outlandish than the Republican fantasies you were ridiculing just the other day.
And you really, really dont want to go down
the rabbit hole of assessing everyones arguments solely on their political convenience,
and assuming that nobody who disagrees with
you might honestly disagree with you. Thats
what right-wing apparatchiks do, and you
dont want to emulate them.
Its also important to understand that to the
extent that personal ambition distorts analysis, thats not a phenomenon unique to wellconnected insiders. For sure, big money or
the prospect of having big influence are much
more powerful corrupting forces than what

Mr. Krugman, when it comes to

Bernie Sanderss economic proposals, I agree with the central
points of your arguments. However, the constant criticism can get
tiring.
Someone should put together an
actual economic analysis of Mr.
Sanderss plans and provide a data
set that a broad swath of liberal professional economists can agree on.
Only then can we move on from
this sorry episode.
C.D.P., CALIFORNIA

I find the criticism of your recent

columns to be quite puzzling.
After the 1960s, I became skeptical of all the come the revolution
talk, and Mr. Sanderss supporters
seem to be using similar rhetoric
these days.
It seems to me that your criticism
is simply intended as a message to
Mr. Sanders that he should get his

ROWE/AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW - SYDNEY/CARTOON ARTS INTERNATIONAL/THE NEW YORK TIMES SYNDICATE

Im about to describe. But theyre not the only

sources of impurity.
Imagine an economist who has some following but is, for whatever reason, not in the
nomenklatura of policy wonks who typically get called upon to advise officials or give
speeches at financial conferences. That might
be because said economist holds views that
are considered too heterodox. Or it might be
because he is too honest about the corruption
of the mighty. Or perhaps insider circles dont
consider him especially insightful or even
technically competent which in turn could
be a huge injustice, or possibly kind of true.
Whatever the reason, he is, or feels himself to
be, on the outside looking in.
Now imagine that our outsider encounters a
situation in which another outsider, this time in
the sphere of politics, has some chance of staging an upset victory. It should be obvious that
our outsider economist has every personal
incentive to throw his lot in with the political
outsider even if the politicians chances of
winning are relatively small, and even if his
campaign could bring about disaster because
its not ready for the challenges of the larger
world. The point is that if the outsider politician
should happen to emerge victorious, it will
give the outsider economist a seat at the table,
which he wont have otherwise.
It also follows that this outsider has every
incentive to vilify and blacken the reputation
of insider types who arent on the challengers
bandwagon, even if this means alienating
progressives whose support he could really
use later on (after all, you dont want to see
your champion turn to established figures if he
makes it to office).
My point is not that outsiders are more corrupt than insiders, nor that everyones actions
right now should be seen as reflecting nothing
but self-interest. Thats exactly what Im arguing against! What Im saying instead is that
nobody can be presumed to be pure simply
because he is currently without much power or
access to power for that very lack of power
can have its own distorting effect.
What each of us should do all the time is ask
ourselves not just what we believe but why.

READER COMMENTS FROM NYTIMES.COM

Less Criticism and More Analysis

ducks in a row. I have yet to read
something of yours that would lead
me to believe that you are shilling for
Hillary Clinton, nor have I ever seen
a sign that you are an establishment
figure.
I am sorry that the debate has
come to this. If Mrs. Clinton holds
enough support to win the Democratic nomination and the disappointed Sanders fans decide to sit
on their hands on Election Day, the
United States could end up electing
Donald Trump, or even worse, Ted
Cruz or Marco Rubio.
STEPHEN BERWIND, BRITAIN

Mr. Krugman, just explain why

Mrs. Clintons policies are better
for America.

And dont begin your argument by

saying: While I support [specific
progressive policy], there is no way
it can happen.
We will never have progressive
policies implemented in this country
if we give up on them before we even
have a substantial debate.
SCOTT W., NORTH CAROLINA

As an ardent supporter of Mr.

Sanders, I greatly appreciate your
honest criticism and clear desire
to remain transparent about your
views.
Whether we want to admit it or
not, there is a certain strain of Sanders supporter who shows up on
various online comments sections
simply to disparage anyone who

disagrees with him. This is not the

path forward this tactic will only
discredit the genuine concerns thet
millions of people have about health
care, inequality, wages and perpetual war.
NAME WITHHELD, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Krugman, you have yet to

provide a direct analysis of either
of the Democratic candidates
economic policy proposals.Instead, you have chosen to lash out
against your critics, lumping them
together in a homogeneous mass.
A true wonk would engage with
the candidates proposed policies
and at least evaluate the analyses of
other liberal economists and commentators, while checking their as-

sumptions and math.

NAME WITHHELD, CALIFORNIA

The thing thats most worrisome about some of Mr. Sanderss

supporters is their tendency to
vilify Mrs. Clinton and her fans as
though they were Republicans.
When the center-left of the party
becomes the enemy, it feels like the
2000 election all over again, when
the Democratic candidate Al Gore
was treated as if he was part of the
problem, and Ralph Nader, of the
Green Party, was considered by
many to be the only candidate worth
voting for.
AMY MULLEN, NEW YORK

ONLINE: COMMENTS
Comments have been edited for clarity and
length. For Paul Krugmans latest thoughts
and to join the debate online, visit his blog at
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.

On Feb. 20, former Secretary

of State Hillary Clinton won the
Nevada Democratic caucus, her
first significant victory in the partys presidential nominating contest. A year ago, Mrs. Clinton was
widely expected to have a relatively easy path to the nomination, but in recent months she has
faced an unexpected challenge
from Senator Bernie Sanders, a
self-described democratic socialist from Vermont who is popular
among younger voters.
In the American nomination process, the contests in early states tend to receive outsized
media attention, and victories
can sometimes propel largely unknown candidates to national
prominence. The long-term success of Mr. Sanderss campaign
was predicated on besting Mrs.
Clinton in enough early states to
boost his national profile, and after he effectively tied Mrs. Clinton in Iowa and beat her in New
Hampshire, national polls showed
that the race was tightening.
Shortly before the Nevada caucus, polls there showed Mr. Sanders running even with Mrs. Clinton. However, Mrs. Clinton held
on to achieve a five-point victory
over Mr. Sanders, and some analysts have speculated that her
win effectively stopped the Vermont senators early momentum.
The upcoming nomination schedule heavily favors Mrs. Clinton,
and Mr. Sanders will have few opportunities to change the national
narrative in the coming months.
Still, while some political pundits believe that Mrs. Clinton once
again has a clear path to the nomination, others expect Mr. Sanders to continue to dominate with
younger voters, which he won by
70 points in Iowa, and by similar
margins in the other contests.
Whether or not Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination outright, hes already won in
another, perhaps more important
way: His brand of politics is the
future of the Democratic Party,
wrote the Vox commentator Matthew Yglesias earlier this month.
Whats clear is that theres robust demand among Democrats
especially the next generation of Democrats to remake
the party along more ideological,
more social democratic lines, and
party leaders are going to have
to answer that demand or get
steamrolled.

PAUL KRUGMAN

Debunking the Latest Tall Tales

One fun thing about being a public
figure is hearing some of the rumors
about the terrible, terrible things
that youve done. In my case, there
was the fake story about my personal bankruptcy a few years ago,
and then that story about how I had
to leave Princeton because of my
drunken brawls with colleagues.
I thought that was as good as it
was going to get. But now Im hearing that Ive received lavish favors
from Donald Trump, including stays
at his properties and free gambling
chips.
I have to say, this imaginary villain sounds a lot more interesting
than the real guy.
This Is What a Wall Street
Shill Sounds Like
The estimable Mike Konczal at the

Paul Krugman
joined The New
York Times in 1999
as a columnist on
the Op-Ed page
and continues
as a professor of
economics and
international
affairs at Princeton
University. He was awarded the
Nobel in economic science in 2008.
Mr. Krugman is the author or editor
of 21 books and more than 200
papers in professional journals and
edited volumes. His latest book is
End This Depression Now!

Roosevelt Institute recently pointed

out in a blog post that the Republican
presidential candidate Marco Rubio
is even more radical in his desire to
scrap all regulation of the financial
industry than the rest of the Republican field. Mr. Rubio wants to get
rid of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, with no replacement, and he
wants to eliminate all taxes on capital income.
The Florida senator has also fully
bought in to the Big Lie (as the
commentator Barry Ritholtz puts it)
that private sector abuses had nothing to do with the financial crisis,
and that somehow it was big government that forced banks to make all
those bad loans. This is dangerous
nonsense. We should, however, note
that one other potential candidate

is peddling the same stuff: Michael

Bloomberg.
Running Away
From the annals of they can dish
it out but they cant take it: MegaDonors Shy Away From Fight With
Trump, according to Politico.
Fearful of counterattacks, rich
conservatives and their allies are
mostly holding their fire. (Read the
article here: politi.co/1mW9RWK.)
Or to put it another way, the Republican Party has decided to run
away.
I still predict that once Mr. Trump
locks up the nomination, judicious,
chin-stroking Republican moderates will declare, after much cogitation, that given Hillary Clintons,
um, something or other, Mr. Trump
is the more responsible choice.

READER COMMENTS FROM NYTIMES.COM

Whos the Victim Here?

Mr. Krugman, when you find
yourself to be the target of legitimate criticism from the left, your
response is seldom to apologize.
Instead, you pull out your tattered
victim card and list some of the most
unhinged, ridiculous attacks that
the right has waged against you.
Why, it must be a vast right-wing
conspiracy!
Sorry, but I am turning down the
invite to your pity party this time,
with no regrets whatsoever. Your
misguided adventures in the Hillary Clinton apologist racket have
had the sad effect of destroying your

reputation and credibility with more

than a few erstwhile admirers.
T.B., NEW YORK

Donalds Trumps economic plan

could be called casino economics: The house always wins. And
the gamblers, who have been softened up with free drinks, wont realize that theyve been had until they
wake up the next morning.
ANDY W., ILLINOIS

Imaginary villains are always

more villainous than real villains.
STEPHEN BEARD, OHIO

RUTH FREMSON/THE NEW YORK TIMES

Donald Trump addresses supporters in Las Vegas earlier this month after winning the Nevada caucuses.

Mr. Krugman, I would like to see

you write about how Mrs. Clintons
policy decisions might be affected
by the tens of millions of dollars
that her and her husband have
received in speaking fees from
special interest groups over the
years.
Mrs. Clinton says that if she is
elected president, she will get tough
on Wall Street. But do you really believe that someone who accepted $3
million in fees from financial firms
in one year alone is going to deliver
on that pledge?
I suggest that you start writing
about your preferred candidate
with a critical pen, and explain why
money in politics is a good thing.
In the end, the real scandal for me
is how Mrs. Clintons supporters

refuse to explain how her presidency

would be anything but a continuation of the status quo.
Please explain why that wont be
the case, and dont bring Mr. Sanders into the conversation in order to
use him as a cover for not addressing
the issue.

best efforts and knowledge, it still

bugs me when someone exposes my
flaws.
There are times for self-criticism,
and then there are times to support
your friends. Such is the human
condition.
S., CANADA

S., NORTH CAROLINA

No matter how badly we paint

the opposition in our minds, they
remain human beings attached to
ideals.
Some of them sadly, I must admit considertheir expression of
favor and preference as a matter of
loyalty.
But can we blame them?
I am especially well versed in
intellectual matters, and despite my

The Republican Party has become dangerous to American

democracy, as well as to our
economy.
I am an old-fashioned conservative voter, and right now even Mr.
Sanders seems much more desirable
than any of the candidates in the Republican stable. He seems to be far
less radical and much more knowledgeable.
STEPHEN, FLORIDA