Last week at the National Press Club, Paul Krugman said what he's said before, but even more pithily: To be taken seriously on foreign policy in Washington, you have to have been wrong about Iraq. Or words close to that. I've heard it before, I've said it myself, but I'm calling it Krugman's Paradox.
Here's a sign that the days of Krugman's Paradox are ending: Here's a report that the American Enterprise Institute is purging the neocons from its scholarly ranks. The Obama effect. And about time. (PS you read it here first: we told you AEI chairman Bruce Kovner was supporting a realist). (And thanks to Rupa Shah)
To be taken seriously about the economy,you have to have blown it also.
I would not call it the Obama effect. Obama is busy appointing all the losers. I dont have a better name. Its the real progressive trend. Obama is running against it since he got elected.
From the report: vicious purge is being carried out at AEI, spearheaded by vice-president for foreign and defense policy studies, Danielle Pletka.
Since Pletka is a raving neocon herself, as the article acknowledges, you have to wonder what she's doing this for? To remain relevant in an Obama admin? Is she going to replace with Dem neolibs? Is this a suck-up? Is this all Kovner's doing?
The NYT reported today that Hillary might bring Holbrooke, Dennis Ross, and Indyck on board as envoys.
If true, same old story. Is Pletka clearing house to bring in their backup teams? Unimpressed.
Maybe the Krugman Paradox is not really a paradox at all. The job of the center right is always to make the hard right more palatable, by serving the same wingnut wine in a different bottle. No paradox there.
Economic discourse about Friedmanism and Zionist domination of the economic system is just as dishonest as political discourse about the Neocons and Israel Lobby domination of the political system has been.
When has Krugman addressed the nature of Neoconservatism as a Jewish special interest?
For a more general discussion, see Economics of Intangibles, Conspiracies, Corruption.
I suspect Friedman never gave a damn about Zionism as a political movement. This line of thought is fruitless and counterproductive.
Friedman's economic theory is quite similar to Jabotinsky's, and Friedman's family were strong followers of Jabotinsky.