Economist Paul Krugman has retired as a columnist for the New York Times, a former newspaper. Krugman published his final column Monday, and headlined it, “I will not be retiring from the New York Times,” in order to continue his unbroken record of being wrong about every single thing. Krugman began his column in January 2000 and won the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics for his discovery that money doesn’t really talk, that’s just a metaphor. He says he’s now going to cash in his investments in Kodak and Pets.com so he can afford to devote all his time to his tinfoil farm, where he grows the hats that help him communicate with the invisible spirits who see the economic future before it happens. In his final offering, Krugman reminisced about his most important columns, including his famous 2008 masterpiece, “Why the Good Times will Never End,” along with some older columns like “The Government Can Borrow as Much as It Wants As Long as the Moon is in the Seventh House and Jupiter Aligns with Mars,” and some recent ones, like “Don’t Blink or You’ll Miss the Transitory Inflation,” and “What’s Everyone Complaining About? My Intel Stock is Poised to Go Through the Roof.”
After Krugman announced his retirement from the opinion page — which is sometimes fondly called by nicknames like Knucklehead Row or Fathead City or what a bunch of stupid a-holes — the Big Brains of the page honored Krugman with a retirement party. A wild time was had by all as Charles Blow showed off his intellectual prowess by buttoning his shirt correctly while David Brooks and Thomas Friedman competed to see which of them would be first to figure out how to turn his Super Mario hat so that the brim faced forward. As the bubbly flowed and the anti-depressants were passed around, the gang grew nostalgic talking about their own famous columns, like that insightful Charles Blow favorite, “White People Are Meanies,” and David Brooks’ book on the importance of character, called, “How to Dump Your Wife for a Younger Woman,” not to mention Thomas Friedman’s thoughtful essay for last month’s Sunday Magazine, “Basheer al-Assad, a Leader with Staying Power.” Meanwhile, Ross Douthat threatened to ruin the festivities by continually grabbing the arms of passersby and screaming, “Look at me! I’m a sane, rational man! I am not supposed to be here! Please send help!”
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Andrew Klavan Show</a></h3>
The task of finding a replacement for Krugman now falls to the Times editorial board, which includes such journalistic powerhouses as the Mango Tango crayon from the jumbo size Crayola Box, a wax replica of the miraculously preserved corpse of Vladimir Lenin and that guy who walks up and down 47th Street screaming at his mother in her home in the sky. The question before them is: how to create a column that can match the level of Paul Krugman’s wit and wisdom without it becoming a series of meaningless characters that only resemble words until you look at them closely. 
One idea is to brighten up the opinion page with a typical Times Relationship column that will give readers helpful advice on where to find the best porn, how to arrange a throuple with your soon-to-be-former friends, and how you can spice up your marriage by refusing to sleep with your spouse. Another idea is a column called “Poor Little Dirtbag,” in which every week a Times writer explains why we should feel compassion for a different terrorist, pervert, murderer or Times editorialist while forgetting all about the suffering of his victim or subscriber. And finally, the board discussed a possible column by Times Editor-in-Chief Blithering Prevarication the Third called, “Why I Hate Donald Trump So So Much,” in which every single day Mr. Third gives yet another reason why he hates Donald Trump so, so much. But that idea was rejected after the editors decided it would be indistinguishable from the current opinion page.
In a statement to Times readers, the editorial board wrote, “We hope all our devoted subscribers will take a moment off from playing Wordle, and say a fond farewell to Mr. Krugman. His departure will leave a dark empty hole where his column used to be, so probably you won’t notice any difference.”
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. He is the bestselling author of the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fourth installment, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1613165536?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_thcv_3&amp;storeType=ebooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A WOMAN UNDERGROUND</a>,” is now available. Follow him on X: @andrewklavan
The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Portraits Of The Economist Paul Krugman At The Rafael Del Pino Foundation In Madrid

Man Who Was Wrong About Everything Retires From NY Times

Andrew Klavan

Economics

Humor

New York Times

Paul Krugman

Reporters

Satire

New York Times economist <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/paul-krugman-claims-america-had-low-inflation-this-summer-what-planet-is-he-living-on/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Paul Krugman</a> tried to join the exodus of blue-check liberal journalists fleeing <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/read-it-elon-musk-sends-blunt-message-to-3700-fired-twitter-employees/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a> following <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-elon-musk-issues-blanket-endorsement-of-gop-in-house-senate-races-cites-benefits-of-shared-power/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Elon Musk</a>&#8216;s takeover of the platform, but it did not go smoothly.
Worried about a &#8220;mass influx of crazy people&#8221; engaging with him on the platform, Krugman, who has 4.6 million followers, said in a Tweet that he opened up an account on the alternative social media platform Mastodon.
&#8220;So, I&#8217;ve opened a Mastodon account as a precaution against the possible Muskocalypse on this site,&#8221; Krugman wrote.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
So, I&#39;ve opened a Mastodon account as a precaution against the possible Muskocalypse on this site: <a href="https://t.co/ybVhwQgsyC">https://t.co/ybVhwQgsyC</a>
Let me talk about motivation, which may be a bit different from other Twitterati 1/
&mdash; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1589235984419651585?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Mastodon, an open-source social media site founded in 2016 by Eugen Rochko, dubs itself as a &#8220;social networking that&#8217;s not for sale.&#8221; According to its website, Rochko founded the site because he &#8220;was dissatisfied with the state and direction of Twitter.&#8221;
Krugman was trying to set up a social media escape hatch, claiming &#8220;Musk&#8217;s apparently uncontrollable nastiness and childishness&#8221; would drive away his followers and collapse the platform. But the effort fell flat within 24 hours of testing Mastodon, with Krugman returning to Twitter only to gripe about his experience on Mastodon.
&#8220;Update: so far things not going well on Mastodon,&#8221; Krugman said. &#8220;After the initial post, nothing I try to post is showing up. And despite setting it *not* to send an email every time someone follows me, it&#8217;s sending them. I hope these are just teething problems.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Update: so far things not going well on Mastodon. After the initial post, nothing I try to post is showing up. And despite setting it *not* to send an email every time someone follows me, it&#39;s sending them. I hope these are just teething problems.
&mdash; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1589276661941686272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I have no idea what will replace Twitter if and when that happens. But I&#8217;m doing what I can to retain an alternative social media foothold,&#8221; Krugman added.
Krugman, a former Princeton University professor who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2008, wrote the 2007 book &#8220;The Conscience of a Liberal,&#8221; a left-wing economics manifesto. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/paul-krugman-claims-america-had-low-inflation-this-summer-what-planet-is-he-living-on" target="_blank" rel="noopener">He recently claimed</a> America had low inflation, even as it rose more than 8% year over year. He also insisted the U.S. was not in a recession, even after the federal government&#8217;s own numbers showed two straight quarters of negative GDP growth, the classical definition. Earlier this year, he warned that lifting COVID mask mandates would lead to violence.
Musk reacted to Krugman on Monday in a tweet mocking the NY Times writer&#8217;s Mastodon activity, referring to the site as “Masterbatedone.”
The post has since been deleted.
Krugman&#8217;s temporary separation from Twitter happened on Sunday after Musk suspended left-wing comedian Kathy Griffin for violating the platform&#8217;s terms of service by impersonating other people.
Twitter has explicit rules prohibiting the impersonation of other people. &#8220;You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations to mislead, confuse, or deceive others, nor use a fake identity in a manner that disrupts the experience of others on Twitter,&#8221; the company&#8217;s terms of service says.
Musk warned that moving forward that the platform would permanently ban accounts without warning if they attempted to impersonate other users.

NY Times Economist Paul Krugman Faceplants In Bid To Flee Musk’s Twitter

NY Times Economist Paul Krugman Faceplants In Bid To Flee Musk's Twitter

Elon Musk

Social Media

Twitter

Lost in the brouhaha over the announcement of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Uncle Joe</a>&#8216;s plan to cancel <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/student-loans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">student debt this</a> week was a puzzling claim from The New York Times columnist <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/paul-krugman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Paul Krugman</a>.
Krugman <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/23/opinion/inflation-prices-food-employment-policy.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">claimed</a> that inflation was low this summer, contrary to predictions of pain. His observations fly in the face of even a basic understanding of economics.
&#8220;Not long ago, many people were predicting a long, hot summer of inflation,&#8221; Krugman wrote.
&#8220;To their surprise — and, for some Republicans, dismay — that isn’t happening,&#8221; the pundit proclaimed. &#8220;Overall consumer prices were flat in July, and nowcasts — estimates based on preliminary data — suggest that inflation will remain low in August.&#8221;
It is true that regarding month-to-month inflation from June to July, there was zero overall inflation. Of course, what Krugman leaves out is that year-over-year inflation in July was at 8.5%.
That is now the <a href="https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/#:~:text=The%20annual%20inflation%20rate%20for,at%208%3A30%20a.m.%20ET." target="_blank" rel="noopener">fifth straight month</a> with year-over-over inflation at 8% or higher. If that is considered low inflation, one would shudder to think of what Krugman considers &#8220;high inflation.&#8221;
He also pointed to evidence that &#8220;beef is <a title="" href="https://archive.ph/o/3fved/https://www.wsj.com/articles/your-steak-is-getting-cheaper-at-the-supermarket-11661160602?st=qpy97yybsieg0dv" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">already getting cheaper</a>.&#8221; Yet, high-end steak and other red meat is getting cheaper not because inflation is coming down, but because demand for such items are decreasing as shoppers search for cheaper options. As noted by the Robb Report, ground beef is increasing in price.
&#8220;Over the same four-week period ending August 7, ground-beef prices jumped about 7 percent compared with the same timeframe last year,&#8221; The Robb Report&#8217;s Tori Latham <a href="https://robbreport.com/food-drink/dining/beef-price-decline-premium-steak-1234741794/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>. &#8220;(In contrast, the price of ribeye and beef loin fell nearly 10 percent.)&#8221;
The purpose of Krugman&#8217;s article was to consider if there was any economic plan that could slow inflation (which he claims is already slowing) and help the economy without involving any pain. He points to an interesting historical example out of Israel, where the nation crafted a &#8220;package that included a temporary wage freeze and price ceilings&#8221; in the 80s.
Ultimately, Krugman concluded that &#8220;there don’t seem to be any realistic alternatives&#8221; to the Federal Reserve&#8217;s plan of &#8220;reducing inflation by engineering a slowdown.&#8221;
Indeed, that is the same conclusion that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell reached in Wyoming earlier this week.
&#8220;While higher interest rates, slower growth, and softer labor market conditions will bring down inflation, they will also bring some pain to households and businesses,” Powell <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jerome-powell-vows-to-restore-price-stability-even-though-federal-reserve-must-first-bring-some-pain" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “These are the unfortunate costs of reducing inflation. But a failure to restore price stability would mean far greater pain.”
Curiously enough, Krugman admitted last month that he was wrong about President Joe Biden&#8217;s spending package and the impact it would have on inflation.
&#8220;Some warned that the package would be dangerously inflationary; others were fairly relaxed. I was Team Relaxed. As it turned out, of course, that was a very bad call,&#8221; he wrote.
He also stated that &#8220;the whole experience has been a lesson in humility.&#8221;
With his latest claims about inflation, it seems that lesson didn&#8217;t quite stick.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Paul Krugman Claims America Had Low Inflation This Summer. What Planet Is He Living On?

Inflation

On Wednesday, leftist economist Paul Krugman of The New York Times flat-out called the Tea Party racist, barking, &#8220;It was always, from the beginning, about racial anger; opposition to big government only to the extent that it helps Those People.&#8221;
Krugman was responding to a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/us/politics/tea-party-trump.html?action=click&amp;module=Top%20Stories&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;login=email&amp;auth=login-email">story in The New York Times</a>, his home paper, that argued that the Tea Party was no longer interested in reducing the national deficit. The article stated:
<blockquote>In the late summer of 2009, as the recession-ravaged economy bled half a million jobs a month, the country seemed to lose its mind … Ten years since that summer of rage, the ideas that animated the Tea Party movement have been largely abandoned by Republicans under President Trump. Trillion-dollar deficits are back and on track to keep growing. The Affordable Care Act has never been repealed, and Republicans concede it may never be … (The Tea Party) ignited a revival of the politics of outrage and mistrust in government, breathing new life into the populist passions that continue to threaten the stability of both political parties. Even if the Tea Party’s ideas are dead, its attitude lives on.</blockquote>
Krugman ranted on Twitter:
<blockquote>Oh, God. Are we still pretending that the Tea Party was about small government and concern about budget deficits? It was always, from the beginning, about racial anger; opposition to big government only to the extent that it helps Those People. Academic research confirms the obvious. The idea that the Tea Party had something to do with notions of fiscal responsibility was a fairy tale told by centrists who didn&#8217;t want to acknowledge the true ugliness of the modern U.S. right. And any notion that the Tea Party failed in its objectives is nonsense. It was all about racial animosity; and now they have a president who legitimizes and feeds that animosity. They don&#8217;t care about deficits, and never did.</blockquote>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Oh, God. Are we still pretending that the Tea Party was about small government and concern about budget deficits? It was always, from the beginning, about racial anger; opposition to big government only to the extent that it helps Those People 1/ <a href="https://t.co/TI90hLoMsQ">https://t.co/TI90hLoMsQ</a>
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1166705957080092672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Academic research confirms the obvious. The idea that the Tea Party had something to do with notions of fiscal responsibility was a fairy tale told by centrists who didn&#8217;t want to acknowledge the true ugliness of the modern U.S. right. 2/ <a href="https://t.co/mEcIh8wqgY">https://t.co/mEcIh8wqgY</a>
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1166706647412236288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">And any notion that the Tea Party failed in its objectives is nonsense. It was all about racial animosity; and now they have a president who legitimizes and feeds that animosity. They don&#8217;t care about deficits, and never did 3/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1166707046210777089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Krugman&#8217;s hatred of conservatives runs deep; only days before the 2016 election, Krugman <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/793446418627203072">tweeted</a>, &#8220;At a fundamental level, the GOP decided a long time ago that there were no boundaries, no legitimacy to opponents. This was supposed to be in the service of right-wing ideology. Predictably it has gone out of their control and opened the door to thuggish authoritarianism.&#8221;
In June 2018, Krugman <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/opinion/blood-libel-trump-immigrants.html">wrote</a>, &#8220;The speed of America’s moral descent under Donald Trump is breathtaking. In a matter of months we’ve gone from a nation that stood for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a nation that tears children from their parents and puts them in cages.&#8221;
In 2011, after the massacre in which six people were murdered and Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot in the head and critically wounded, Krugman brought the Tea Party and Sarah Palin into the discussion, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/opinion/blood-libel-trump-immigrants.html">writing</a>:
<blockquote>We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She&#8217;s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she&#8217;s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that &#8220;the whole Tea Party&#8221; was her enemy. And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous &#8220;crosshairs&#8221; list.</blockquote>
H/T <a href="https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/08/29/s-m-r-t-paul-krugman-dons-his-dunce-cap-in-pathetic-thread-attempting-to-paint-the-tea-party-as-a-racist-movement/">Twitchy</a>​

Paul Krugman in Athens

New York Times’ Krugman: Tea Party Was Always About Racism

Racism

Republican Party

Nobel-prize winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman really stepped in it Monday night after disparaging Tiger Woods for receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
In a tweet sent that evening, Krugman said he was &#8220;old enough to remember when Presidential Medals of Freedom were given for showing courage and making sacrifices on behalf of the nation and the world. Tiger Woods &#8230; hits golf balls for money.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I&#8217;m old enough to remember when Presidential Medals of Freedom were given for showing courage and making sacrifices on behalf of the nation and the world. Tiger Woods &#8230; hits golf balls for money <a href="https://t.co/dYmWPVljL9">https://t.co/dYmWPVljL9</a>
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1125555671229960192?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
There are many things to criticize Woods for (his personal life has been a mess) but to make such a sniveling remark because someone plays a sport (or a hobby, if that&#8217;s how you view golf) for a living is just an insult to the millions who enjoy watching sports. I&#8217;ll admit I wish we valued real academics and scientists more, but Americans are willing to pay billions to be entertained, and those who do the entertaining should be paid.
But beyond that smear from possibly the country&#8217;s worst economist (he predicted a recession if Donald Trump won the 2016 election; the economy is currently booming), his resentment is misplaced.
Trump is not the first president to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to an athlete.
John F. Kennedy established the award in 1963, adding on to an award previously established by President Harry Truman in 1945, which honored civilians during World War II.
Kennedy also gave the award to swimmer Robert J. H. Kiputh, so from the very creation of this award, it was used to honor athletes. Would Krugman, who was born in 1953 (thus old enough to remember the award&#8217;s establishment) describe Kiputh as someone &#8220;who swims for money&#8221;?
Presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush also all gave the award to athletes. Even Krugman&#8217;s beloved President Barack Obama gave the award to athletes &#8212; 12 of them, to be exact.
Did Krugman describe Billie Jean King, who received the award from Obama, as someone who &#8220;&#8230; hits tennis balls for a living&#8221;? Would he describe Michael Jordan as someone who &#8220;dunks basketballs for a living&#8221;? Would he describe Charles Sifford, who also played gold and was given the award by Obama, in the same way he described Tiger Woods?
Unlikely.
It appears Woods&#8217; biggest scandal is that he accepted the award from a president hated by the Left. The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/05/us/politics/tiger-woods-trump-medal-of-freedom.html">criticized</a> the golfer for having a previous business relationship with Trump. News flash: Obama gave the award to his own vice president, Joe Biden, and there was hardly a peep about it from the Left.
The Times also suggested Trump only gave Woods the award because other black athletes have refused to go to the White House. Say what you will about the Times&#8217; bias and inability to get stories about Republicans correct, those investigators can find racism anywhere.
Woods made one of the greatest comebacks in sports history after he won the Masters Tournament last month. But because he had the gall to be awarded by Trump, his accomplishment must be destroyed.

Paul Krugman Mocks Trump For Giving Highest Honor To Someone Who ‘Hits Golf Balls For Money.’ There’s Just One Problem.

Barack Obama

Donald Trump

Tiger Woods

On Wednesday, leftist economist Paul Krugman, who is Jewish, eager to show his fealty to the political Left over any loyalty he has to the Jewish people, responded to the furor that has erupted over the anti-Semitic comments of Rep. Ilhan Omar by stating that the only anti-Semitism that frightens him is the anti-Semitism from the political Right. Krugman also used the opportunity to take a swipe at President Trump, tweeting, &#8220;There are three things in life that are certain: death, taxes (unless you&#8217;re Donald Trump), and persistence of anti-Semitism. But only one brand of antisemitism scares me &#8211; and it&#8217;s not on the left.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
There are three things in life that are certain: death, taxes (unless you&#8217;re Donald Trump), and persistence of anti-Semitism. But only one brand of antisemitism scares me &#8211; and it&#8217;s not on the left <a href="https://t.co/bvWmFfM945">pic.twitter.com/bvWmFfM945</a>
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1103387664114507776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Krugman&#8217;s warped sense of what constitutes dangerous anti-Semitism seems to largely be based on the supposition that Nazis hail from the political Right, a canard that the Left has propounded since World War II, and debunked by F.A. Hayek in his classic &#8220;The Road to Serfdom,&#8221; in which he <a href="v">called</a> Nazism a &#8220;genuine socialist movement,&#8221; and Jonah Goldberg in his book &#8220;Liberal Fascism.&#8221;
Additionally, would Krugman consider Russian mass murderer Josef Stalin, an ardent communist who killed thousands of Jews, a man of the political Right? The attempt to say that anti-Semitism from the political Left is not a frightening phenomenon is a spurious one, and despite Krugman&#8217;s hard-core allegiance to the Left, his willful denial of reality and blind obedience to his movement is telling.
Krugman taking the opportunity to use anti-Semitism in general to attack President Trump is nothing new; last June <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/opinion/blood-libel-trump-immigrants.html">he conflated</a> anti-Semitism with the Trump administration&#8217;s language on immigration, intimating that the administration&#8217;s rhetoric was similar to the infamous and murderous &#8220;blood libel&#8221; that was used for centuries as an excuse to murder Jews. Krugman wrote of the administration&#8217;s language, &#8220;And you know what this reminds me of? The history of anti-Semitism, a tale of prejudice fueled by myths and hoaxes that ended in genocide.&#8221;
He continued, &#8220;The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did. It was always about lurid myths, often based on deliberate fabrications, that were systematically spread to engender hatred. For example, for centuries people repeated the &#8216;blood libel&#8217; &#8212; the claim that Jews sacrificed Christian babies as part of the Passover ritual.&#8221;
Five days before Krugman posted his article, Former CIA Director Michael Hayden offered a similar perspective as he <a href="https://twitter.com/genmhayden/status/1008035777455026178?lang=en">posted</a> a picture of the entrance to the Nazi Birkenau death camp, captioning it, &#8220;Other governments have separated mothers and children.&#8221;
The day after Krugman&#8217;s article appeared, Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/holocaust-family-separation/563480/">slammed</a> Hayden, writing, &#8220;Equating the two is not only historically wrong, it is also strategically wrong. Glib comparisons to the Nazis provide the administration and its supporters with a chance to defend their position, something they do not deserve.&#8221;
Unwittingly, in Krugman&#8217;s article he attacked what is happening now, as Democrats have apparently resolved not to single out the rabid anti-Semitism of Omar but rather attempt to bury it by not only refusing to mention her in their resolution but by simply condemning all forms of racism. Krugman wrote: &#8220;No, the real crisis is an upsurge in hatred &#8212; unreasoning hatred that bears no relationship to anything the victims have done. And anyone making excuses for that hatred &#8212; who tries, for example, to turn it into a &#8216;both sides&#8217; story &#8212; is, in effect, an apologist for crimes against humanity.&#8221;

Leftist Economist Krugman Excuses Dems’ Anti-Semitism: Only Anti-Semitism From The Right Frightens Me

Anti-Semitism

Democratic Party

Ilhan Omar

On Tuesday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/25/opinion/america-is-not-yet-lost.html">issued a column</a> decrying the first year of President Trump. According to Krugman, America is now a hellscape of decaying financial power and social unrest. America would, of course, have been utopia had Hillary Clinton won, but Trump guaranteed the apocalypse.
Here&#8217;s Krugman:
<blockquote>
Many of us came into 2017 expecting the worst. And in many ways, the worst is what we got. Donald Trump has been every bit as horrible as one might have expected; he continues, day after day, to prove himself utterly unfit for office, morally and intellectually. And the Republican Party &#8212; including so-called moderates &#8212; turns out, if anything, to be even worse than one might have expected. At this point it&#8217;s evidently composed entirely of cynical apparatchiks, willing to sell out every principle &#8212; and every shred of their own dignity &#8212; as long as their donors get big tax cuts.
</blockquote>
This is one of the stupider Leftist talking points: that Republicans have not stood up to Trump enough so long as they don&#8217;t vote Democratic, that they should forego their policy priorities because Trump&#8217;s persona is so toxic. That&#8217;s ridiculous, and it&#8217;s insulting to Republicans who have consistently opposed Trump&#8217;s toxicity while maintaining support for conservative policy. But Krugman&#8217;s not done:
<blockquote>
Meanwhile, conservative media have given up even the pretense of doing real reporting, and become blatant organs of ruling-party propaganda.
</blockquote>
Krugman needs a mirror here &#8212; the man suffered from orgasmic overload during the Obama administration. But he&#8217;s not done:
<blockquote>
Yet I&#8217;m ending this year with a feeling of hope, because tens of millions of Americans have risen to the occasion. The U.S. may yet become another Turkey or Hungary &#8212; a state that preserves the forms of democracy but has become an authoritarian regime in practice. But it won&#8217;t happen as easily or as quickly as many of us had feared&#8230;.What we&#8217;ve seen instead is the emergence of a highly energized resistance. That resistance made itself visible literally the day after Trump took office, with the huge women&#8217;s marches that took place on Jan. 21, dwarfing the thin crowds at the inauguration. If American democracy survives this terrible episode, I vote that we make pink pussy hats the symbol of our delivery from evil.
</blockquote>
Yes, good luck with that. Nothing unites Americans like the sight of irritating feminists protesting something or other while wearing stupid knit caps. But Krugman is ready to prematurely celebrate Trump&#8217;s downfall: he cheers Republican losses in Alabama (where they ran an alleged child molester) and Virginia. But don&#8217;t get sanguine, Krugman warns:
<blockquote>
Let&#8217;s be clear: America as we know it is still in mortal danger. Republicans still control all the levers of federal power, and never in the course of our nation&#8217;s history have we been ruled by people less trustworthy.
</blockquote>
Never? Ever? Was he here for a guy named Bill Clinton, who was impeached for admitted perjury? How about the Nixon administration?
Nope, says Krugman: Trump&#8217;s the worst, &#8220;a dictator wannabe, with no respect whatsoever for democratic norms.&#8221; But it&#8217;s not just Trump:
<blockquote>
[I]t also goes for Republicans in Congress, who have demonstrated again and again that they will do nothing to limit his actions. They have backed him up as he uses his office to enrich himself and his cronies, as he foments racial hatred, as he attempts a slow-motion purge of the Justice Department and the F.B.I.
</blockquote>
Really? Who backed Trump over Charlottesville among prominent Republicans? And what&#8217;s that slow-motion purge at the DOJ and FBI? Literally the only person fired has been James Comey.
Krugman then moves on to claiming that there was certainly Trump-Russia collusion, despite a dramatic lack of evidence of such collusion:
<blockquote>
So we can&#8217;t count on the consciences of Republicans to protect us. In particular, we need to be realistic about the likely results of Robert Mueller&#8217;s investigation. The best bet is that no matter what Mueller finds, no matter how damning and no matter what Trump does &#8212; even if it involves blatant obstruction of justice &#8212; Republican majorities in Congress will back up their president and continue to sing his praises.
</blockquote>
Well, it sort of depends on what Mueller finds. If Mueller suggests that Trump obstructed justice on behalf of a non-crime by firing Comey, which is entirely within his authority, that would be silly. If, however, there&#8217;s any real evidence of obstruction, you can bet Republicans will be split.
But Krugman hasn&#8217;t lost faith: he&#8217;s still got those pussy-hats:
<blockquote>
It&#8217;s going to be hard, because the game is definitely rigged. Remember, Trump lost the popular vote but ended up in the White House anyway, and the midterm elections will be anything but fair. Gerrymandering and the concentration of Democratic-leaning voters in urban districts have created a situation in which Democrats could win a large majority of votes yet still fail to take the House of Representatives.
</blockquote>
It&#8217;s fascinating how Republicans were told over and over again that to disrespect the results of a presidential election would amount to treason &#8212; but once Trump was elected, such complaints became mainstream among Democrats. And it&#8217;s equally fascinating to see Krugman complain that Republicans are &#8220;irretrievably corrupt&#8221; &#8212; even as we find out that President Obama colluded with Russia and Iran to help prop up Hezbollah. But at least in Krugman&#8217;s delusional world, he&#8217;s happy: &#8220;America is not yet lost.&#8221;
But Krugman&#8217;s mind clearly is.

Krugman: If We Survive Trump, ‘Make Pink Pussy Hats The Symbol Of Our Delivery From Evil’

The latest <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/17120/breaking-man-plows-van-pedestrians-london-bridge-frank-camp">terrorist attacks</a> in London resurrected the same song and dance by leftist terror apologists. After President Trump correctly <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-london-mayor-sadiq-khan-response-to-london-bridge-terror-attacks-pathetic-2017-6">called out</a> London Mayor Sadiq Khan for his pathetic response, the Left <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/17146/left-enraged-trumps-strong-response-london-attack-james-barrett">excoriated</a> the President for having the audacity to target Khan, a Muslim, for his sophomoric opinions on terrorism rather than focus its energy on condemning the terrorist attack and calling out the perpetrators. Furthermore, as Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro wrote in his <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/17155/left-more-interested-fighting-trump-fighting-ben-shapiro">latest piece</a>:
<blockquote>
The Left spent the first day following the London attacks fulminating over Trump&#8217;s tweets so they didn&#8217;t have to talk about this issues. Instead, CNN&#8217;s Reza Aslan called Trump a &#8220;piece of s***,&#8221; Sally Kohn tweeted about why political correctness is necessary, and most of the mainstream media wondered about the global political impact of Trump&#8217;s twitter account.
</blockquote>
No predominant leftist exemplifies such selective outrage more than Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who also holds the position of chief arsonist at the dumpster fire known as the New York Times. He took to Twitter to announce his trip to London while also comparing radical Islamic terror to being hit by a drunk driver.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I&#8217;m going to London later this week. OMG! I might be stabbed! Or I might get hit by a drunk driver tonight, or run over by a cab tomorrow 1/
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/871422833154445312">June 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I mean, seriously. Terrorism = bad. But panicking about this stuff &#8212; or worse, inciting panic &#8212; is unforgivable. Especially for POTUS 2/
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/871423259845185536">June 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
In a sea of morons that is the leftist political scene, Krugman stands alone. In an attempt to slam President Trump for fear-mongering, he minimizes the threat of radical Islamic terror not only in the West but also across the world. It goes without saying that radical Islamic terror has slaughtered tens of thousands of people, including Muslims, in its attempt to create a caliphate and to impose Islamic supremacy. Nevertheless, Krugman treats radical Islam as a joke, spitting in the face of the victims of the London terrorist attack even before the bodies became cold.
<blockquote>
&#8220;I&#8217;m going to London later this week. OMG! I might be stabbed! Or I might get hit by a drunk driver tonight, or run over by a cab tomorrow.&#8221;
Paul Krugman
</blockquote>
Yes, there is a legitimate reason to fear radical Islam and Trump is correct to address that threat not only in the United States but also the world. The only thing Krugman cares about is virtue signaling to his leftist readership and making himself look like a jerk in the process. This lack of awareness from the Left played a contributory role in Trump&#8217;s rise to power; all these morons are doing is making a substantial case against allowing the Left to retain power in the United States.
Follow Elliott on <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ElliottRHams/">Facebook</a>

MORON ALERT: Krugman Compares Terrorism To Being Hit By A Drunk Driver

Islamic State (ISIS)

London

Radical Islamic Terror

Sadiq Khan

On Monday, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/opinion/on-economic-arrogance.html">New York Times</a> columnist Paul Krugman opened up his intellectual pop-gun on President Trump&#8217;s plans to base budget projections on higher numbers. Over the weekend, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-teams-growth-forecasts-far-rosier-than-those-of-cbo-private-economists-1487356278">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported:
<blockquote>
The Trump administration has drafted preliminary economic growth forecasts in its federal budget planning that rely on assumptions that are far rosier than projections made by independent agencies and most private forecasters, according to several people familiar with the discussions&#8230;. Discussions for the Trump administration unfolded differently, with transition officials telling the CEA staff the growth targets that their budget would produce and asking them to backfill other estimates off those figures.
</blockquote>
Now, this isn&#8217;t good. You don&#8217;t actually want the Trump administration to pencil in the sort of growth they&#8217;d like to see, then fill in the process later &#8211; that&#8217;s wishcasting. But what&#8217;s hilarious is Krugman&#8217;s conclusion:
I guess this was only to be expected from a man who keeps insisting that crime, which is actually near record lows, is at a record high, that millions of illegal ballots were responsible for his popular vote loss, and so on: In Trumpworld, numbers are what you want them to be, and anything else is fake news.
Now, let&#8217;s take a look at other administrations&#8217; estimates for economic growth:
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" alt src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/na-cn940a_trump_16u_20170217181233.jpg" /></div>
The White House forecasts have consistently overestimated growth for more than a decade, since the end of the Clinton administration. Not just by a little &#8211; by a lot. Which means that you can&#8217;t trust government &#8220;experts&#8221; to estimate growth in order to justify government expenditures. This has been a problem across the country, with various states embracing artificially high growth projections in order to justify massive government expenditures, particularly with regard to public pensions.
And yet Krugman is an advocate of increased government spending, not austerity. He thinks that overblown growth estimates should be a reason not to trust Trump &#8211; but they&#8217;re truly a reason not to trust the government not to blow out the deficit, no matter who is in charge. If we truly can&#8217;t trust the government, we can&#8217;t trust the government.
So thanks, Paul Krugman, for shedding a light on all of this. Let&#8217;s not take government estimates at face value &#8211; and let&#8217;s cut spending to deal with it.

na-cn940a_trump_16u_20170217181233

Krugman Says Not To Trust Trump’s Economic Forecasts. Fine, So Let’s Cut Government Spending.

Economy

A question for leftist economist Paul Krugman of the New York Times: which of these things is not like the others?
<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Paul&#8217;s Deficit: A Play in Four Acts
(Yes, those are all different posts) <a href="https://t.co/8H8BMdUUGq">pic.twitter.com/8H8BMdUUGq</a>
&#8212; neontaster (@neontaster) <a href="https://twitter.com/neontaster/status/818512103980023808">January 9, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
From the first post on November 14, 2010, reading, &#8220;No, really &#8211; Nobody Cares About the Deficit,&#8221; to August 23, 2012, reading, &#8220;Nobody Cares About the Deficit,&#8221; to May 21, 2015, reading, &#8220;Nobody Cares About the Deficit,&#8221; Krugman seemed reasonably consistent. 
But now . . .
On Monday, Krugman tweeted, &#8220;Deficits Matter Again.&#8221; He wrote in the linked article:
<blockquote>
Not long ago prominent Republicans like Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, liked to warn in apocalyptic terms about the dangers of budget deficits, declaring that a Greek-style crisis was just around the corner. But now, suddenly, those very same politicians are perfectly happy with the prospect of deficits swollen by tax cuts; the budget resolutionthey&#8217;re considering would, according to their own estimates, add $9 trillion in debt over the next decade. Hey, no problem.
This sudden turnaround comes as a huge shock to absolutely nobody &#8212; at least nobody with any sense. All that posturing about the deficit was obvious flimflam, whose purpose was to hobble a Democratic president, and it was completely predictable that the pretense of being fiscally responsible would be dropped as soon as the G.O.P. regained the White House.
What wasn&#8217;t quite so predictable, however, was that Republicans would stop pretending to care about deficits at almost precisely the moment that deficits were starting to matter again. Those apocalyptic warnings are still foolish: America, which borrows in its own currency and therefore can&#8217;t run out of cash, isn&#8217;t at all like Greece. But running big deficits is no longer harmless, let alone desirable.
</blockquote>
But wait. Now deficits are no longer harmless or desirable? 
Here&#8217;s how Krugman justifies his position; see if you can spot the giant flaw in his argument as he attempts to posit that his prior support for deficit spending made sense but doesn&#8217;t now :
<blockquote>
In particular, deficit spending was essential to support the economy, and attempts to balance the budget would be destructive. This diagnosis &#8212; shared by most professional economists &#8212; didn&#8217;t come out of thin air; it was based on well-established macroeconomic principles. Furthermore, the predictions that came out of those principles held up very well. In the depressed economy that prevailed for years after the financial crisis, government borrowing didn&#8217;t drive up interest rates, money creation by the Fed didn&#8217;t cause inflation, and nations that tried to slash budget deficits experienced severe recessions.
But these predictions were always conditional, applying only to an economy far from full employment. That was the kind of economy President Obama inherited; but the Trump-Putin administration will, instead, come into power at a time when full employment has been more or less restored.
</blockquote>
Of course you can see the hole in the argument: &#8220;full employment has been more or less restored.&#8221; Say what?
Krugman continues, &#8220;The low official unemployment rate is just one indicator. What I find more compelling are two facts: Wages are finally rising reasonably fast, showing that workers have bargaining power again, and the rate at which workers are quitting their jobs, an indication of how confident they are of finding new jobs, is back to pre-crisis levels.&#8221;
Has Krugman checked the labor force participation rate? It has been <a href="https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000">plunging consistently</a> ever since Barack Obama took office, which means the share of American civilians over the age of 16 who are working or looking for a job has dropped dramatically. So Krugman can lie to himself about how much better the economy is since Obama took over, but the truth lies elsewhere.
The only reason Krugman opines that deficits matter again is so he can lambast the GOP to his heart&#8217;s content. They are certainly wrong for expanding the deficit, but just where was Krugman when Obama was in office?

Paul Krugman’s Hypocrisy: Now The Deficit Matters

On Tuesday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman &#8211; fresh off his newfound enthusiasm for curbing the national debt, which he downplayed or ignored for eight years under President Obama &#8211; took to Twitter to defend Meryl Streep for her ridiculous anti-Trump attack at the Golden Globes.
Here&#8217;s Krugman:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The whole Streep-Trump thing reminds me of a theme that has been running through my thoughts a lot lately &#8212; namely, the death of honor 1/
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/818815387907293186">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
What do I mean? Well, I probably wouldn&#8217;t have used that word if I hadn&#8217;t once had a conversation with a young former Marine 2/
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/818815725615910912">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
He had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and been badly wounded (fully recovered). You might think this would make him glad to be done 3/
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/818816150402437120">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
But he was finding it hard; &#8220;There&#8217;s no honor in civilian life,&#8221; he said. And I think I know what he meant. It&#8217;s not just lack of heroism 4/
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/818816439264116737">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
None of us can know how we&#8217;d behave facing what he faced. But even the ordinary rules of taking responsibility for your actions &#8212; 5/
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/818816774389043200">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
what my parents called &#8220;being a mensch&#8221; &#8212; seem to have vanished. Of course many people weren&#8217;t mensches even in the old days, but it was 6/
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/818817080891998208">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
at least an aspiration, and there was some backlash against anyone obvious lack of honor. But now we&#8217;re about to install a man who 7/
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/818817443531542528">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
is clearly incapable of taking responsibility for anything, of ever admitting to a mistake or a personal fault. He mocks the disabled 8/
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/818817750491602944">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
then cravenly denies having done so. Time was when such a man would have been utterly shunned. Now, it&#8217;s hard to avoid the sense that 9/ <a href="https://t.co/YFirRBgYEz">pic.twitter.com/YFirRBgYEz</a>
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/818818431617298433">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
his lack of honor and menschhood, his cowardly-bully persona, is part of what his supporters like &#8212; it makes him one of them 10/
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/818818819011575808">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
For all the economic and social analysis I like to engage in, at some level I really don&#8217;t get it. What happened to us? 11/
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/818819008606728192">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
Now, Trump is certainly no embodiment of class and dignity. But Krugman&#8217;s lament for political class falls on deaf ears after nearly two decades of Democrats ripping Republicans as advocates for slavery and impoverishment and literally throwing grandma off a cliff. Where was the civility then?
And Krugman himself has been a large part of the problem. On November 1, Krugman essentially <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/10398/nyts-krugman-rages-against-republican-hitlers-ben-shapiro">compared Trump to Hitler</a>. Krugman said that Mitt Romney wanted the poor to die, called him &#8220;completely amoral&#8221; and a &#8220;dangerous fool.&#8221; In the past month, he&#8217;s suggested that the FBI &#8220;appears to have become a highly partisan institution, with distinct alt-right sympathies.&#8221; <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/useful-idiots-galore.html">What the actual hell</a>?
Two weeks ago, Krugman implied that Trump might engage in some sort of false flag operation in order to dispel doubts about his legitimacy:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Thought: There was (rightly) a cloud of illegitimacy over Bush, dispelled (wrongly) by 9/11. Creates some interesting incentives for Trump
&#8212; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/809851823687368704">December 16, 2016</a></blockquote>
Yet, there&#8217;s good ol&#8217; Krugman, talking about the wonders of civility and honor.
It&#8217;s this sort of blindness that drove Trump to new heights. If the left had acknowledged their role in destroying political rhetoric, the right might have had more tolerance for lectures about decency and civility in politics. But a party that humors Black Lives Matter, slanders Mitt Romney, and declares George W. Bush a war criminal can&#8217;t exactly take the lead on being a mentsch.
And certainly Krugman can&#8217;t.

Paul Krugman Rushes To Meryl Streep’s Defense. And It’s Idiotic.

On Monday, New York Times Official Chief Partisan Hack&#8482; Paul Krugman took to the op-ed pages to blame Republicans for the demise of the republic. Krugman rightly notes that our republic seems to be undergoing a profound change; he is correct when he states, &#8220;Republican institutions don&#8217;t protect against tyranny when powerful people start defying political norms. And tyranny, when it comes, can flourish even while maintaining a republican façade.&#8221;
But he then blames the rise of tyranny not on the Democrats who decided to implement an administrative state under the jurisdiction of the president, or who concluded that it was worthwhile to set up unelected judges as a super-legislature capable of overriding the Congress, or who cheered as FDR and LBJ and Barack Obama continuously expanded the power of the presidency.
No, says Krugman, it was those dastardly members of the GOP:
<blockquote>
[Now] we have a president-elect who openly asked Russia to help smear his opponent, and all indications are that the bulk of his party was and is just fine with that&#8230;. Winning domestic political struggles is all that matters, the good of the republic be damned.
</blockquote>
Leave aside the fact that Krugman completely ignores Obama&#8217;s open embrace of Russian interference in the 2012 election, or that Obama ignored Russian interference in this election in the hopes of maintaining his own popularity by kowtowing to Vladimir Putin. No, it&#8217;s all about Republicans and Donald Trump.
Krugman continues by stating that it undermines the principles of republicanism for the Republican legislature in North Carolina to pre-emptively strip power from the governor after losing an election &#8211; but of course, the legislature is not the source of tyranny. The executive is.
Krugman concludes:
<blockquote>
My question, instead, is why one party&#8217;s politicians and officials no longer seem to care about what we used to think were essential American values. And let&#8217;s be clear: This is a Republican story, not a case of &#8220;both sides do it.&#8221;
</blockquote>
That&#8217;s simply false.
Republics do not die because one party destroys them. Republics die because both parties decide it&#8217;s easier to abdicate power to a centralized government that can &#8220;get things done&#8221; than grind it out. Hitler did not merely rise to power because the Nazis didn&#8217;t care about democracy &#8211; the demise of the German republic happened under his predecessors, and Hitler took advantage of the situation that predated him (Germany did not have a popularly-formed government for several years before Hitler, opting instead for a presidential government serving at the pleasure of General Paul von Hindenburg). The Roman republic fell gradually, not all at once. An entire nation must be complicit in the destruction of republicanism for republicanism to fall. And that requires a mentality that states that centralization of power is fine, so long as the power occasionally falls to someone you like.
That&#8217;s a bipartisan problem, not just a Republican or Democratic one, although historically, Democrats have opted for the notion of centralized power far more than Republicans. What makes the current GOP unique is the fact that so many members are willing to overthrow their own beliefs in separation of powers and small government policy in favor of a strongman who will &#8220;get things done.&#8221;
But it&#8217;s certainly convenient for Krugman to blame the fall of the republic on Republicans. Then he doesn&#8217;t have to look in the mirror after spending an entire career pushing an increasingly powerful and unaccountable government.

Menu