It Makes a Difference to the Sheep

KRUGMAN! I heard an interview with the Princeton economist/NYT columnist on Marketplace Morning Report on the way to work this morning. He is ubiquitous in the media hawking his new book (collection of columns and other writings) The Great Unraveling. He also has been interviewed by blogger Kevin Drum (Calpundit). Krugman clearly has become something of a lightning rod: hated by conservatives, praised by liberals. I quite like some of his work and regularly assign it in my classes (for example his excellent essay, "The Myth of Asia's Miracle"). However, ever since he has started writing pieces for the New York Times, I have noticed two disappointing developments. First, he has ventured off of his home turf of economics with increasing frequency. It is often a temptation of academics to assume that since they are well-versed in one discipline, this makes them competent to comment on anything and everything (after all, academics are smarter than everyone else, right?). This is an enticing but dangerous route to take. Why is Paul Krugman more qualified to comment on Bush's lies on Iraq than I am? Does he have access to intelligence sources the average person lacks? Does knowledge of economics immediately qualify one to make geopolitical and psychoanalytical judgments on political leaders? Not among the academics I know. Second, he has become increasingly strident almost to the point of sounding slightly unhinged. Note the following excerpt from Drum's interview:

In fact, there's ample evidence that key elements of the coalition that now runs the country believe that some long-established American political and social institutions should not, in principle, exist....Consider, for example....New Deal programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance, Great Society programs like Medicare....Or consider foreign policy....separation of church and state....The goal would seem to be something like this: a country that basically has no social safety net at home, which relies mainly on military force to enforce its will abroad, in which schools don't teach evolution but do teach religion and — possibly — in which elections are only a formality....

Can one make a reasonable argument that some members of the Bush team or their influential supporters would like to completely revamp if not eliminate Social Security or Medicare? Sure (though given Bush's profligate spending to date, calling him an anti-government figure seems something of a stretch). Does the Bush team rely on military force in its foreign policy? Again, absolutely. However, has anyone on the Bush team even made a peep about wanting to ban evolution and "teach religion" in schools? And make elections "only a formality?" It is extreme and unfounded statements like these (and Krugman has made many) that undercut his more valid and important message. Sad and frustrating!

UPDATE: more on Krugman here.