This may be the most devastating use of the asterisk I’ve ever seen. Paul Krugman begins a post on his blog comparing entrepreneurship during the Reagan and Clinton years with this line:
One thing that struck me about Obama’s apparent assertion that Reaganism represented a justified reaction against the excesses of liberalism.*
Where does that asterisk lead?
*In my next life I want to have legions of devoted followers who will fiercely declare that I didn’t really mean what I seem to have said, and that anyone who thinks I did must be a paid shill.
Ouch.
Let me propose The Krugman Rule, which is, if you are a left leaning Democratic candidate and you pick a fight with Paul Krugman, you will lose that fight badly.
Hold Fast 
I think in hindsight, the Obama–Krugman spat may end up being one of my favorite substories of this primary. It’s a debate over how progressive you need to be progressive, the degree of loyalty you need to show other progressives, and the silliness of the media–politics relationship all wrapped into a single package.
Interesting for me has been my ready willingness to take Krugman’s word as gospel since he’s been a progressive lighthouse for a long time. Sure, he’s clearly crabby about being the target of opposition research, but he’s also right, right? Maybe not. Check out Warren Reports (a source for progressive economic policy that is second to none): here. The article references Krugman’s attack on Obama’s stimulus packages as “to the right” of Clinton’s: here.
I hadn’t really considered it before that post but there are costs to this spat. If we have Krugman picking sides of a major policy debate based, at least in part, on his preference of one candidate over another; and if that preference is not made explicit; and if that preference is instead masked by faulty policy analysis, I think we may have lost a small part of Krugman the Policy Oracle to Krugman the Campaign Hack.
That doesn’t change the Krugman Rule. Obama still loses badly. But wouldn’t it be better if Krugman took a higher path and caused Obama to lose on the facts? If progressives’ instincts are to be trusted, Krugman could probably tear Obama a new one on real policy details instead of what he did on the stimulus package debate.
LikeLike
Just to clarify what I meant: there’s a difference between saying Obama’s plan is worse than Clinton’s because it won’t work to the benefit of needy families as well as hers and saying his is to the right of hers when the facts don’t support the statement. I think “to the right” was motivated by animus not policy.
LikeLike
You may be right, there’s certainly a level of animus in Krugman’s asterisk comment. But I think you’re wrong to suggest that the animus can be tied to “his preference of one candidate over another.” I think you were more spot on when you highlighted that this stems from the Obama campaign dropping oppo research documents on Krugman. That’s where this fight took a turn towards the partisan and it was very clearly the Obama campaign that went nuclear on Krugman, not the other way around.
I have no problem with him hitting back now that they’ve turned him into a bad guy.
I haven’t read the Warren Report piece yet, but until then, I’m not too concerned with his presentation of his case in that post.
LikeLike
“Partisan” is the right word to use here. Obama’s campaign is all about post-partisanship, when it comes to dealing with Republicans and Corporations. But he seems much more comfortable with being “partisan” against fellow Democrats.
LikeLike
You think this use of the asterik is “devastating”?
You think Krugman is winning some argument?
Geez…I find that all pretty silly.
Krugman is doing hack work against Obama.
Obama-haters cheer.
Others roll their eys. Actually its kinda sad – Krugman is smart enough to be able to serve as a resource for all progressives, but he is losing a lot of credibility with these games.
Maybe he thinks that because he is an expert in economics that his readers will submit to his political opinions, now matter how hacky they are?
LikeLike
JoeCitizen: “Krugman is doing hack work against Obama.”
Krugman: “In my next life I want to have legions of devoted followers who will fiercely declare that I didn’t really mean what I seem to have said, and that anyone who thinks I did must be a paid shill.”
It’s like he knew what you were going to say before you said it.
Oh and it’s worth noting, the asterisk is really an attack on Obama’s blind supporters, not Obama himself.
And also note that I’m not adjudicating this argument between Obama and Krugman. The Krugman Rule is something that clearly stands as a warning for candidates not to walk down a path that will not be positive for them. Getting into a war of words with America’s leading progressive columnist is not a path that leads to good things. That Krugman is taking shots at Obama supporters is evidence of that.
LikeLike