The funny thing about the Brooks–Krugman spat is that neither of them are mentioning each other. I find Krugman’s “it’s all about race” thesis deeply flawed, though if he was less ambitiously strident he could use the same facts to support a weaker but more effective indictment. His latest response is particularly weak because he doesn’t in fact respond to Brooks’ argument at all. Brooks was not trying to exonerate Reagan from any criticism on the grounds of racial politics. He was attempting to clear the air about the slur that Reagan’s Neshoba County Fair speech in Mississippi was a flagrant attempt to win racist votes as part of a larger racist strategy. Krugman doesn’t say word one about that. Rather, he simply changes the subject to other familiar (and inflated) charges against Reagan insinuating that since these charges are true, all charges must be true, including the one Brooks debunks. It’s not very impressive stuff.

Update: Woops: Bob Herbert is in the mix too.