New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has been at war with Sanders supporters, dismissing them as Bernie Bros and claiming all the “serious ” health care advocates are with Hillary Clinton. He’s also been passive aggressive, complaining about nastiness from Sanders supporters while insulting them. Whether his criticisms of the Sanders plan are right I couldn’t say– they might be, but he isn’t acting like someone only driven by policy concerns. He wants to discredit Sanders supporters as name-calling irrational personality cultists and is attempting to do so with name-calling.
Today he outlines two theories of what is wrong with America, claiming that Sanders focuses on the corrupting power of money, while Clinton sees the problem of racism and as before, Krugman sees Clinton’s view as superior. Interesting, but whatever one thinks of this theory (I think it is both bigotry and money which are the problems without granting that Clinton is the better candidate), what is missing here?
Foreign policy. American militarism. American support for thuggish allies. The utter catastrophe of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Sanders has been bad, but Clinton has been much worse, supportive of the Iraq invasion (which in a just world would have much of America’s political class on trial for war crimes), supportive of Israel, mocking Obama in 2008 for saying he wanted to talk to Iran. I assume she supports the Obama policy of helping the Saudis as they commit war crimes in Yemen. And by the way, is there any bigotry involved in our support for Israel when they bomb civilians? Or does that not count?
Has Krugman mentioned any of this? Yeah. Blink and you could miss it.
Clinton’s support for the Iraq invasion? Oopsie. It was a “special” time, as he says in a parentheses. Yeah, a massive terrorist attack, public hysteria, and cynical people with an agenda use this as an excuse to invade a country which had nothing to do with it, killing hundreds of thousands, creating millions of refugees, and creating a situation where jihadism can thrive. And why did Clinton and some other centrist liberal Democrats support this? Maybe some of the corrupting forces of bigotry and money cross party lines.