HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE LETTERS SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Paul
Krugman: Part of the Problem
by
Alexander Cockburn
Dissident
Voice
November 1, 2003
Enter
the world of Paul Krugman, a world either dark (the eras of Bush One and Bush
Two), or bathed in light (when Bill was king). "What do you think of the
French revolution?" someone is supposed to have asked Chou En Lai.
"Too soon to tell", Chou laconically riposted. Krugman entertains no
such prudence. Near the beginning of his collection of columns, The Great
Unraveling, Krugman looks back on Clinton-time. A throb enters his voice.
He becomes a Hesiod, basking in the golden age.
"At
the beginning of the new millennium, then, it seemed that the United States was
blessed with mature, skillful economic leaders, who in a pinch would do what
had to be done. They would insist on responsible fiscal policies; they would
act quickly and effectively to prevent a repeat of the jobless recovery of the
early 90s, let alone a slide into Japanese-style stagnation. Even those of us
who considered ourselves pessimists were basically optimists: we thought that
bullish investors might face a rude awakening, but that it would all have a
happy ending." A few lines later: "What happened to the good
years?" A couple of hundred pages later: "How did we get here? How
did the American political system, which produced such reasonable economic
leadership during the 1990s, lead us into our current morass of dishonesty and
irresponsibility?"
Across
the past three years Krugman has become the Democrats' Clark Kent. A couple of
times each week he bursts onto the New York Times op-ed in his blue jumpsuit,
shoulders aside the Geneva Conventions and whacks the bad guys. For an
economist he writes pretty good basic English. He lays about him with simple
words like "liar", as applied to the Bush crowd, from the president
on down. He makes liberals feel good, the way William Safire returned right-wingers
their sense of self-esteem after Watergate.
Krugman
paints himself as a homely Will Rogers type, speakin' truth to the power elite
from his virtuous perch far outside the Beltway: "Why did I see what
others failed to see?" he asks, apropos his swiftness in pinning the Liars
label on the Bush administration. "I'm not part of the gang," he
answers. "I work from central New Jersey, and continue to live the life of
a college professor--so I never bought into the shared assumptions. I don't
need to be in the good graces of top officials, so I also have no need to
display the deference that characterizes many journalists."
All
of which is self-serving hooey. The homely perch is Princeton. Krugman shares,
with no serious demur, all the central assumptions of the neo-liberal creed
that has governed the prime institutions of the world capitalist system for the
past generation and driven much of the world deeper, ever deeper into extreme
distress. The unseemly deference he shows Clinton's top officials could be
simply, if maliciously explained by his probable hope that one day, perhaps not
to long delayed in the event of a Democratic administration taking over in
2005, he may be driving his buggy south down the New Jersey turnpike towards a
powerful position of the sort he has certainly entertained hopes of in the
past.
Faintly,
though not frequently, a riffle of doubt perturbs Krugman's chipmunk paeans to
the Clinton Age. "In an era of ever rising stock prices hardly any one
noticed, but in the clear light of the morning after we can see that by the
turn of the millennium something was very rotten in the state of American
capitalism." It turns out he means only book-cooking of the Enron type, an
outfit on whose advisory board the hermit of Princeton once sat with an annual
stipend of $50,000 and which he hailed in Fortune magazine in 1999 (cited by
Robin Blackburn in a good piece on Enron in New Left Review) as the prime
emblem of neoliberal corporate strategy.
"What
we have", Krugman gurgled ecstatically in Fortune as he described the
Enron trading room, (stuffed as we now know with shysters faking and lying
their way through the working day) " in a growing number of
markets--phones, gas, electricity today--is a combination of deregulation that
lets new companies enter and 'common carrier' regulation that prevents
middlemen playing favorites, making freewheeling markets possible." Dr
Pangloss couldn't have put it better.
As
a neo-liberal Krugman makes sure to advertise he has enemies to his left. He
carefully reprints at the end of his collection a 1999 paean to the WTO from
Slate (where he had plenty of room to burst through the straitjacket of 720
op-ed words) stuffed with vainglorious claims for the virtues of globalization.
But has "every successful example of economic development this past
century--every case of a poor nation that worked its way up to a more or less
decent, or at least dramatically better, standard of living taken place via
globalization; that is, by producing for the world market"?
The
fact that he skirts Cuba, can't be bothered even to address the consequences,
or even contours, of the shift in Third World economic strategies in the
post-war period tells us how little Krugman is prepared to look with any
honesty at his own economic ideas in the mirror. What of Argentina, a
devastating advertisement for neo-liberal failure? Amid the rubble Krugman has
this to mumble from within the 750 word straitjacket: "I could explain at
length the causes of Argentina's slump: it had more to do with monetary policy
than free markets." A page or two later, brooding comfortably in a column
titled "The Lost Continent" (of Latin America), Krugman asks,
"Why hasn't reform worked as promised? That's a difficult and disturbing
question." But not one that he's prepared to address.
In
the concluding pages of a 426 book where Krugman might have disturbed himself
and his audience with difficult questions about the widening gap, right through
Clinton time, between rich and poor across the world and here in the US, about
the reasons why Clinton's bubble economy collapsed so abruptly, Krugman prefers
to indulge himself in playing to the gallery, Thomas Friedman-style, with some
Nader-bashing. He reprints a column written in July 2000, when Nader had
decided that a Third Party candidacy was the only way he could forcefully raise
just those "difficult and disturbing" questions the respectable and
conventional Krugman shirks: "And was I the only person who shuddered when
Mr. Nader declared that if he were president, he wouldn't reappoint Alan
Greenspan--he would 're-educate' him?"
Now
suppose someone like Ralph Nader had re-educated Alan Greenspan prior to 1996,
when the Fed chairman refused to impose the margin requirements on stock market
speculators that would have punctured the bubble. It would have been a useful
piece of schooling. But reeducation classes weren't on the agenda them any more
than they are now, at least in Krugman's pages, so deferential to his heroes,
like Robert Rubin, (Krugman reverently invokes "Rubinomics") who
kicked aside regulatory impedimenta like Glass-Steagall and then sprinted out
of his Treasury job to cash in on the fruits of his deregulatory labors as
co-director of the Citigroup conglomerate.
Krugman
is a press agent, a busker, for Clintonomics. For him as for so many others on
the liberal side, the world only went bad in January, 2001. If a Democrat,
pretty much any Democrat conventional enough to win Wall Street's approval,
takes over again, maybe in 2005, the world will get better again. Who wants to
read a 426-page press release?
Fortunately
we don't have to, particularly as we have to hand a new, serious, radical
scrutiny of Clintonomics and neoliberalism, by Robert Pollin, and it is to his Contours
of Descent that I propose to turn in a week or two.
Alexander
Cockburn is coeditor of The Politics of Anti-Semitism,
and the author of The Golden Age is In Us (Verso, 1995) and 5 Days
That Shook the World: Seattle and Beyond (Verso, 2000) with Jeffrey St.
Clair. Cockburn and St. Clair are the editors of CounterPunch, where this article first
appeared.
* Welcome to
Arnold, King for a Day
* Edward Said,
Dead at 67: A Mighty and Passionate Heart
* Behold, the
Head of a Neo-Con!
* Handmaid in
Babylon: Annan, Vieira de Mello And the UN's Decline and Fall
* California's
Glorious Recall: If Not Camejo, Then Flynt!
* Meet the Real
WMD Fabricator: A Swede Called Rolf Ekeus
* The
Terrible Truth (Part MMCCXVILL)
* A Whiner
Called David Horowitz Moans at Sid Blumenthal and Imagined CIA Slur