So I reluctantly read his latest when Real Clear Politics linked to him. What an idiot. (And I am referring to myself for reading him as much as Krugman for what he wrote).
Krugman thinks that the very idea that we face a threat from Islamo-fascists is a fantasy concocted by the Republican Party.
Let's first just move past this bit of slander:
But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general.
That's nice. Never mind that the Islamist terrorists mostly kill dark-skinned Iraqis, and Lebanese, and Indonesians, and Indians, and Afghans, and Pakistanis. And never mind that we are helping dark-skinned people all over the world, including in Iraq, to fight these terrorists.
Or is Krugman saying that we can only fight white-skinned terrorists? Perhaps dark-skinned terrorists have a privilege of attacking Americans without blame? I mean, should the jihadis stop killing dark-skinned Moslems long enough to work on plans to attack us.
But I shouldn't be distracted by this sideshow into idiocy from the primary fight against Krugman's insanity:
In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then.
Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president — including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination — have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns.
And I thought that Iraq was a "distraction" from the "real fight" against bin Laden in Afghanistan! Huh. Now it turns out that there really isn't a fight at all against terrorism worthy of the name.
Krugman says that we have only fear itself to fear. And naturally, if only we'd realize we have nothing to fear, we would refuse to lower ourselves by fighting that source of our ridiculous fear.
Of course, Krugman truncates his quote of President Roosevelt enough to support Krugman's preference to do nothing in the face of murderous thugs.
In reality, FDR's quote was never about ignoring the Depression and just claiming worries about poverty and unemployment were baseless fears. No, it was about confronting that which caused those fears:
I AM certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
Was this a call to ignore our problems? Was it a call that ridiculed the idea that we had a problem? Did FDR belittle the idea that the problem could get worse?
Heavens no. It was a call to unite and confront the problem. To beat the problem. To end the threat the problem posed to our nation and to restore our nation. It was a call for public support to fight the problem and a plea to not let the fear of the problem paralyze us into inaction.
In this 1933 inaugural address, FDR wanted to turn retreat into advance.
Our Long War is doing exactly this. We are not reacting to every jihadi attack with cruise missile attacks and arrest warrants. We are striking at the enemy and working to undermine the source of fears within the Islamic world that blames the West for their problems and inspires fanatics to kill us in so-called retribution.
And Krugman makes much the same mistake as Zakaria makes in assuming that no threat that cannot conquer us is worth worrying about. But Krugman is sophisticated, after all. He mistakes paralysis in the face of danger for bravery, imagining he is refusing to succumb to fear.
Funny enough, Krugman can't even get the FDR quote right to hammer his idiotic point. He's learned much from Maureen Dowd in their cocoon. But as I learned long ago, Krugman is a waste of time. I'd kind of forgotten him as he was available only to the loyal few who subscribed to the NYT.
These are strange days indeed when gossip columnists and economists are judged to be the best foreign policy analysts that the New York Times can offer its readers on a regular basis (and surely the Times curses their bad luck every day not to have a film critic in their stable!). May I learn my lesson and leave this paper alone, as I vowed long ago.
CORRECTION: For some reason, I thought the Washington Post had the film critic-turned-foreign policy analyst. The Times does indeed get the hat trick. My apologies to the Post.
