Paul Krugman’s Conscience
On his aptly named website The Conscience of a Liberal, Paul Krugman posted a piece this morning entitled The Years of Shame, noting that the commemorations of 9/11 being held today are “oddly subdued.”
I cannot myself fathom anyone should think this odd. The commemoration of an act of mass murder is not ordinarily an occasion for joy and hilarity. If it were not subdued, it would be very odd, indeed. But, of course, Krugman will not allow common sense, a sense of propriety, or even shame to get in the way of his making a partisan point.
You see, he thinks that we are and ought to be ashamed of ourselves. The absence of joy and hilarity all makes sense, he explains, if one sees it from his point of view:
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?
“The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned,” Krugman concludes. “It has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.” Then, he remarks, “I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.”
It strikes me that on this morning, of all mornings, Krugman should have exercised some self-restraint – for obvious reasons. If the memory of 9/11 has been poisoned, it might have something to do with the partisan game played by Krugman, those on the anti-war left, and leading Democrats in the years following our overthrow of the terrorist regime in Iraq. Krugman’s website is a reminder that being a liberal today means that you can dispense with having a conscience, that you know no shame, and that you need never say that you are sorry.
Krugman will not allow you to comment on his website. I invite you to do so here. But, before you do, you might want to read what Mark Steyn has to say. It will not cheer you up.
- Comment (42)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
I seem to recall that the people who made 9/11 and the War on Terror into a wedge issue were all on the Left. They were enraged that 9/11 didn't cause everyone to see the world the way they do, and they were also deeply ashamed that they temporarily opened their eyes to the reality that an appreciable fraction of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims want to kill everyone who does not submit to their particular strain of fundamentalist Islam. (Well, most of them are ashamed: some, like Ted Rall, can hold their heads high, having blamed America for 9/11 from the moment the second plane hit.)
Jul '11
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
I posted this under the member feed earlier today. The small consensus was that this man is a shameless coward. My own opinion is that he is afraid of what real leadership looks like and is trying to color it as grandstanding in order to protect his own feckless leader.
Jun '10
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
Honorifics like the Nobel serve the leftist like a chest full of phony medals serves a tinpot dictator. They reward themselves for imaginary accomplishments and then strut about like popinjays expecting the rest of us to take them seriously. The spectacle would be merely pathetic but for the damage they do. Krugman is a clown.
Feb '11
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
Krugman is an (expletive). I have absolutely no interest in hearing what he has to say nor do I care why he thinks it. I can't even muster enough concern about Krugman to feel contempt for him, even though he richly deserves it.
Pitiful, he is.
Unfortunately, as Mark Steyn notes, so is much of what passes for public life and discourse in the United States these days.
Oct '10
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
KRUGMAN: I'm going to say something provocative and inappropriate on a national day of mourning, then I'm going to disallow commenting on it.
This is truly breathtaking. How puerile - and cowardly - can one be? "I'm going to hit you but you can't hit back."
Oct '10
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
Andy Freeman: KRUGMAN: I'm going to say something provocative and inappropriate on a national day of mourning, then I'm going to disallow commenting on it.
This is truly breathtaking. How puerile - and cowardly - can one be? "I'm going to hit you but you can't hit back." · Sep 11 at 12:30pm
Because Paul Krugman is a jackass. Why people keep acting surprised by this after decades of it is completely beyond me.
Oct '10
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
Paul Snively
Because Paul Krugman is a jackass. Why people keep acting surprised by this after decades of it is completely beyond me. · Sep 11 at 12:42pm
No surprise that he would post something like that - even if he's never quite been this brazen, his career has been building up to this - but AFAIK he's never disallowed commenting on a post like that. That's the mark of a man who is either afraid of confrontation or afraid of his own convictions. This is a distinction without a difference.
Apr '11
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
I am ashamed and discouraged that so many of my good and dear friends don't know what to think until they have read it in the NY Times, that they refuse to consider any alternative if it does not bear the NY Times stamp of approval, that they belong to a sub-culture that believes they are highly informed but instead are adherents of dogma, that they think they are progressive instead of reactionary, that they are craven when they should be brave, that they believe they are enlightened when they are athwart history, that their lives are illuminated when they are huddled together in a dark corner of the zeitgeist. Yes, I am ashamed and discouraged.
Aug '10
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
So sad to say that Krugman would be right in the mainstream of popular opinion-at least as expressed by the noisiest voices- outside the USA. Sad too that "Trutherism" is acceptable in polite European society-"Birthers" are,scorned of course (as well they might be). Seeing this momentous anniversary used as an opportunity for anti-Americans to vent is profoundly depressing. Being on the right side of the issue is inadequate consolation.
Jan '11
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
Where can I find a list of the names and pictures of all of the al-Qaeda scum that America has righteously killed since 9/11? I'd like to reflect on that.
If we had a real President, today would have been the day he or she released the bin Laden death photographs. America paid for those pictures and we deserve to have them - especially on thoughtful, somber moments like these.
And in order to read Mr. Krugman with greater understanding, the following definition is offered from Freesmith's Political Dictionary:
Wedge Issue: An issue that divides Democrat constituencies and is therefore bad.
May '10
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
Precisely why my overall emotion today is anger.
Not anger at the 9/11 terrorists or their ilk. Like mad dogs it was simply their nature, like mad dogs they simply need to be hunted down and exterminated. No point being angry about them.
It is anger at people like
Feb '11
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
So many letters, words, and column inches wasted by Mr. Krugman and his ilk over the years, simply to gloss over the cowardice that drives their every thought.
May '10
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
Expect to see all of the same "voices" demanding we bail them out when the Mother of all Economic House of Cards, known as the EU, collapses over the next several months.
Oct '10
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
Just another offering from Krugman to help strenghten the neck and jaw muscles.
Goes beyond the pale with his unrealistic remarks. Truly twisted thinking.
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
"Raced to cash in on the horror." Yes, we all remember the famous words of the Bush-Rove cabal: "You never want a crisis go to waste."
At least he called 9/11 an "atrocity," but it takes an ear made of a particularly non-resonanating metal to refer to the administration's actions as "hijacking," since the planes that committed the atrocity were - well, you know. Nifty bit of equivalence there.
Oct '10
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
He writes 185 words that scold a bit but say almost nothing, involving no research and no argumentation whatsoever. For this he gets a gazillion hits for the NYT website. I’ve no idea what he gets paid, but I doubt it’s by the word. It’s certainly not by the hour, unless it’s like lawyers and billable segments are six minutes each. We’re talking a good gig here . . . sure beats working for living. No peer-review hassles, no papers to grade, seminars to conduct. Damn, I’m starting to admire the man’s entrepreneurship. In what supposedly is the most intellectually sophisticated market in the world, he sells his thin gruel for what is probably a princely sum, he being “the conscience” and all. Wow. Turns out he’s not as dumb as his ideas after all.
Sep '10
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
In the immortal words of Barb Nicolosi:
"Cowardice masquerading as charity."
He has his reward.
May '10
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
I've never read any of Mr. Krugman's columns; I just wait for James Taranto at the WSJ to de-construct them for me and my amusement. Having read the few lines posted here, my only comment is: what a bizarrely hateful thing to write. Weird.
Feb '11
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
The man has been adequately epitomized above. I would like to add something brilliant, penetrating and witty here but, unfortunately, for the rest of my life every time I think of the man the image from the comments under James Delingpole's post will pop back into my mind and when the laughter stops my train of thought will be hopelessly lost.
Edit: I'm afraid the image above isn't helping the situation.
Edited on September 12, 2011 at 12:07amAug '11
Re: Paul Krugman’s Conscience
Paul Krugman's Conscience? Sadly, he has none...and apparently no backbone either.