Meet the newest neocon

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Monday, February 9, 2009 - 2:56 PM Share

I'm 50% convinced that Paul Krugman's op-ed today is correct, and the moderates wound up damaging the stimulus more than they improved it.

The thing is, I'm also 50% convinced that Krugman is to Keynesians as Richard Perle is to neoconservatives. When an embittered ideologue derides his political leader for demonstrating a willingness to compromise and "negotiating with yourself," well, one does get the sense of deja vu.

The rhetorical parallels between neocons and Keynesians are increasingly disturbing. Martin Wolf argued late last week that "shock and awe" is required to stimulate the global economy -- a point seconded by Krugman. Critics of the Keynesian approach are summarily dismissed as wingnuts.

Not all Keynesians are acting in this manner. Brad DeLong has provided substantive rebuttals to critics of the stimulus.

I'm in the Ken Rogoff camp on the economy -- I'm somewhat dubious about the ability of any stimulus package to really jumpstart the economy, and very wary about the long-term costs of this strategy (for one thing, Bretton Woods II still needs to be unwound). But I also don't have a better idea and "the situation is so dangerous it has to be tried."

But I also know that when I hear anyone using rhetorical tropes that remind me of Richard Perle, I run like hell in the opposite direction. And Krugman is increasingly sounding like Perle.

UPDATE: See Clive Crook and Will Wilkinson on this point as well.

EXPLORE:MEDIASPHERE, KEYNESIANS, NEOCONSERVATIVES, PAUL KRUGMAN, STIMULUS

(5)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

GNARLYTROMBONE

4:49 PM ET

February 9, 2009

Ahem. Richard Perle didn't

Ahem. Richard Perle didn't earn the Prince of Darkness moniker because he was shrill and uncompromising.

BLUE13326

10:46 PM ET

February 9, 2009

When you have a social

When you have a social science that is so ill-suited to testing via the scientific method like economics it's only natural that over time it would become politics by another name.

From my understanding of economics, it's a no-brainer that this bill is going to destroy what's left of the US economy.

In just the past month, in the time since this bill was first being debated, the yield on the 10-year Treasury has jumped from 2% to 3%. This trend is only going to get worse as we have to borrow more money. Even Krugman should realize that if the cost of capital increases while the economy continues to weaken, we're in a hell of a lot of trouble.

THREETREES

8:45 AM ET

February 10, 2009

Krugman's not the only one

I always wondered before the election about the claim that voting for one particular candidate would help bring the country together and end divisiveness. It didn't really make any sense to me.

I'm just starting to read here and there on the topic of economic stimulus. It seems like there are many economists who support it, and some who are skeptical, but while both groups may use economics to make their case, there are many on the stimulus side who are also able to delve deeply into the true minds of the skeptics and find that they are liars and panderers who couldn't care less about their country, and whose only motive is to pander to the Republican party.

It's not just Krugman who writes like this. Brad DeLong basically says here a bunch of senators don't care about the country. Nate Silver (econ grad turned baseball analyst turned political analyst) calls Harvard professor Greg Mankiw a liar here. The blog commentary, of course, is even more venemous, with talk of "whoring" economists and rescinding Nobel prizes from stimulus skeptics.

If I were Prof. Drezner, I would not even make the slightness admission of doubt or wariness regarding economic stimulus because it is really starting to seem like there isn't any debate over this, just Good vs. Evil.

GNARLYTROMBONE

10:13 AM ET

February 10, 2009

Right. And when called out on

Right. And when called out on his "error" - which he has been repeating since last fall - Harvard economist Greg Mankiw accuses his critics of "reprinting White House talking points."

JMS180

4:01 PM ET

February 10, 2009

Here Here

Good to hear some people in the media defending the center -- and their surprisingly pragmatic president -- against ideologues in their party. (And yes, Krugman stopped being an economist and started being a political pundit with a PhD long ago) Moderate conservatives were rightly criticized for not doing enough of this during Bush's term;I hope centrist liberals do not make the same mistake. To that end, well put, Sir.