The Corner

The one and only.



I think I’ve figured it out. Paul Krugman is the media equivalent of John McCain. McCain was a reasonable, decent conservative who was implicated in a money-scandal. In response, he went batty about campaign-finance-reform. I think he’s still a decent guy in other ways. But when it comes to CFR he lost the ability to think seriously. He claimed that everyone was corrupt even though he could not name anyone in particular who was corrupt.

Something similar is going on with Krugman. He used to write some pretty reasonable stuff in the mid-1990s. He got paid boatloads for speeches, to sit on boards etc. He was up to his beard in academic-media-business incestuousness. Then he got his NYT column and he was forced to sever all such relationships. This freed him up to denounce everyone else even while claiming his pwn purity, even when it was revealed that he’d taken big dollars from Enron himself. Rightly exposed as a hypocrite — and quite often a hack — he did what is natural to most humans. He dug deeper into denial. He became more strident. More angry. he protested too much over and over again to prove he was the exception to the very rule he has asserted but not proved. He probably also became addicted to his fan mail (and convinced himself is biggest fans are wise and perceptive), a real danger in the internet age.

Anyway, when I read him now iI see him as a psychological and political phenomena, not as a serious person who thinks about things in a serious way. I have no doubt his fans think the same thing about me and many of my NR colleagues. That’s fine. My only complaint is that I wish we, as conservative cronies of corporate America, could get paid a fraction of what this shining paladin of the proletariat makes (working for the War Room of corporate media, I might add).


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review