News

Krugman jumps into debate over Beinart with both pinkies

It is a measure of Paul Krugman’s influence that within an hour or so of his posting a weak defense of Peter Beinart, yet still a defense, a half dozen people sent me the link. The guy is huge. Haaretz did a news story on the Krugman statement. His column is titled “The Conscience of a Liberal.” And this is part of what he says:

The truth is that like many liberal American Jews — and most American Jews are still liberal — I basically avoid thinking about where Israel is going. It seems obvious from here that the narrow-minded policies of the current government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide — and that’s bad for Jews everywhere, not to mention the world. But I have other battles to fight, and to say anything to that effect is to bring yourself under intense attack from organized groups that try to make any criticism of Israeli policies tantamount to anti-Semitism.

I find this stunning. The guy has a Nobel Prize and a professorship and a perch at the New York Times, and he is afraid to go near the issue, one of the most important issues we face today, and when he does go near it he offers platitudes. Is it true that the end of Israel would be bad for Jews everywhere? Explain. Is it true that organized groups intimidate people on this issue? Elaborate. John Mearsheimer says that tenure is wasted on most professors. This seems further proof of his theory. Krugman obeys the strictures of Jewish community orthodoxy.

Oh and go to the link but his statement on behalf of Beinart is the repetition that he’s brave. Krugman avoids the boycott issue entirely. Here’s Haaretz, wowed:

Krugman’s unusually harsh critique of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is sure to elicit howls of protest from Israeli spokespersons and American Jewish organizations – more so, perhaps, as they come on the eve of Israel’s Independence Day. It is also sure to further inflame the continuously deteriorating relationship between the Israeli government and the New York Times, considered by many to be the most important newspaper in the world.

45 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I have a different take. It’s that, quite simply, Krugman is not all that interested in Israel. Israel, even executing policies he equates to slow national suicide, is not as important to him as his other work focused on America. This will get more opprobrium heaped on him than MJR.

Taking him at his word, it is even more impressive that he would say this so casually in the Times. Or anywhere in public. This is BIG!

he is afraid to go near the issue, one of the most important issues we face today, and when he does go near it he offers platitudes. Is it true that the end of Israel would be bad for Jews everywhere? Explain.

hmmm, not sure i read this the way you did phil but i have not opened the link and read his whole article yet either.

It seems obvious from here that the narrow-minded policies of the current government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide — and that’s bad for Jews everywhere, not to mention the world.

i tend to agree with him “a gradual, long-run form of national suicide” is bad for jews and the world. i did not hear him say “the end of Israel would be bad for Jews everywhere”. and i am not sure if i would consider that blockquote a platitude, especially since he prefaced it with ‘It seems obvious’. one of the characteristics of platitudes is “uttered as if it were fresh or profound”. there’s nothing fresh about this nor is he alluding that it is. he offers it as if it’s old, too old and worn out, very everybody already knows.

i wish he were more into it tho, he was one of the first journalists that really took the neocons to task for iraq (as i recall).

i bet if he were feeling fresh he could give it a run for the money, but the prospect sounds like it exhausts him just thinking about it. the whole tone is very apropo in a certain way, very expressive of his mood. now that i have read his brief commentary i like it even more.

I agree with Doug. PK is not very interested in Israel. In that he is “normal”, wears his Jewishness very lightly, not as a crippling identity complex. His kid gloves treatment is simply the normal Amurkin reaction, despite the advantages of his position as Phil points out.

First of all, he poked the hornet’s nest with a long, little stick, rather than a short, big one. No Freudian implications intended. He will get stung by the militant expansionist Zionists over this, and seems to know that.

Secondly, Glenn Greenwald deserves a perch in mainstream journalism similar to the one Krugman occupies. Or Naomi Klein. Her ideas on how to fix economic end-games are more imaginative and worker-friendly than Paul’s usually are. Krugman simply wants to both keep his perch, and perhaps use this column as some sort of opening gambit to expand upon the kinds of issues he covers, or to test the waters on going outside his fairly safe place in the swimming hole.

As writers here, including Phil W. have often observed, maybe there’s family history or family dynamics that might offer illumination on why he chose to weigh in so carefully, and at this point in time.

Welcome to the club, Paul Krugman. There’s no turning back, if you have the cojones I believe you possess.

I think Krugman describes his compromises and his priorities honestly and accurately. I like the guy. Of course, he also explains why he has contributed so little to the I/P issue, and Philip’s right to doubt whether Krugman has much to offer there anyway. He has other priorities, and tackling the I/P issue would have hurt these priorities. This is annoying but it’s very reasonable.