Paul Krugman: Dolt or Coward? Discuss

See, a wise man knows never to rush to make a judgment about a sudden event without having all the facts in hand.

“Is that a pussy,
or are you just glad to see me?”

Paul Krugman ain’t that wise man—all his strenuous pretentions to the contrary.

This is what happened: Representative Gabrielle Gifford (D-AZ) was shot yesterday, at a supermarket event with her constituents; she’s in critical condition, and likely her life changed irrevocably. Arizona District Court Judge John M. Roll was killed by the gunman, as was an as-yet unidentified 9 year-old girl.

This is a tragedy—and there is nothing intelligent that one can conclude from those bare-boned facts.

But Krugman? Oh, he doesn’t need boring old facts to get in the way of his conclusions!

In his blog post, “Assassination Attempt in Arizona”, Paul The Fool writes—

You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.

This entire Krugman rant is based on the assumption that the killer, Jared Lee Loughner, was a right-wing nut.

But lo and behold!, the details coming out are that Loughner—far from being a right-wing nut—might have been a left-wing nut: According to a girl who knew him in college, Loughner was “left-wing, quite liberal, and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.”

Further details are emerging that Loughner likely was suffering from psychiatric problems that might—caveat, might—have rendered him delusional.

At this point, it’s too soon to tell about Loughner—

—but it’s not too soon to tell about Krugman: Paul The Fool immediately came to the conclusion that the shooting was a political act, and ran with it, long before he had the facts all in.

Compare this attitude of Krugman’s to, say, Glenn Greenwald: Both are equally liberal, but the difference is, Greenwald never flings shit until he’s absolutely sure of his facts.

Krugman just flings shit—and when he’s proven wrong, he makes the cowardly move: He quickly changes the subject, while silencing debate.

As the facts about Loughner started to come out, Krugman posted another blog entry on the health care legislation—then shut off the comments on his Arizona killings post with the following update:

Update: I’m going to take down comments on this one; they would need a lot of moderating, because the crazies are coming out in force, and it’s all too likely to turn into a flame war.

The real reason he shut off comments on his blog post is not because “the crazies” were coming out in force—Krugman shut off comments on his blog because the truth was coming out in force: His blog post was likely being overwhelmed by people pointing out that Loughner wasn’t some zombie under the Svengali control of Beck, Limbaugh, et al.—he was just a disturbed nut-case.

We all make mistakes—some big, some small, some private, some public. How we deal with our mistakes is the measure of our worth.

Do you see Krugman retracting his foolish proposition that the killer, Loughner, might well not have been swayed by Beck, Limbaugh, et al.? Do you see him doing the adult thing, and saying word to the effect that, “I might very well have jumped the gun, and made some inferences and drawn some conclusions which are not consistent with the facts”?

Do you see Krugman acting like a man? 

No you do not.

QED, Professor Krugman is not only a dolt—he’s also a coward.

This is an important quality, that we must understand about Krugman: His cowardliness.

See, a brave man—or at least a non-coward—can realize he is mistaken, stand up and say, “I was wrong.” A coward, of course, cannot.

Krugman wrote in his blog post about the Arizona killings: “Violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.”

Why do you think he wrote that?

The answer’s easy: Since Krugman cannot defeat his opponents on an intellectual level—because his policy prescriptions are demonstrably wrong, and he lacks the courage to face facts and change his position—Krugman labels anyone disagreeing with his policy prescriptions as “creating a climate of hate”: Therefore, he justifies their silencing, because these people who disagree with him might be “violent”, might be “dangerous”.

So be forewarned: Krugman’s agenda is to identify those who have rational arguments that succesfully question his ideology as people who “create a climate of hate”. His strategy is to have those who disagree with him be identified with violence—and thereby create the excuse to have those people silenced.

Silenced permanently? Well, if Krugman had his druthers . . .