[H]ere's what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, "They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years" by passing civil rights legislation.
… Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality?
Remember this column not because it's fatuous nonsense. Remember it because it's a gleaming example of Krugman's tactics. It's dog whistle politics par excellence, where only the hint of Republican racism invokes nodding heads of agreement among loyal NYT readers.
His column also has the added benefit of being patently false. Gingrich never said that about the Civil Rights Act. But I suspect for Krugman's readers, just because he got his facts completely wrong shouldn't distract from the narrative. You see, imputation and innuendo are much more persuasive than actual data and facts. The facts just get in the way; they don't fit the story!
For Krugman, the protean term "Republican" covers all manner of sins. Depending on the day, it can mean anything from venal, to evil, to stupid. Today, Republican = Racist.
He is an influential American economist. He owns prime real estate in one of the most widely read newspapers in the world. He is a consistent fixture on Sunday morning talk shows. He commands (browbeats?) the respect of many important intellectuals. He is, after all, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist. Readers, analysts, policy makers, writers – anyone really – who bow at the altar of Krugman, remember this column.
We've discussed Krugman before, so let me just quickly recapitulate my thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. Krugman, the economist, I like. His political writings strike me as too strident and usually off the mark.
2. Did Newt Gingrich not say that? He tried to walk back after the WaPo quoted him, and who knows, maybe the context was off. It doesn't mean he's a racist; he could just have meant that passing health reform, which is currently deeply unpopular, could sway things for a generation against the Democrats.
The problem is he brought in civil rights, which was also a huge political risk, but still the right thing to do. In other words, Gingrich doesn't come off racist, but like an unprincipled politician, more focused on expediency than morality.
3. You don't know anything about what NYT readers nod their heads to. I don't think even the editors at the paper do either. Anyway, don't be condescending.