Paul Krugman Loses his Conscience in Three Months

Within hours of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on January 8th, the New York Times's Paul Krugman blamed that shooting on the 'rhetoric' of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin. He also insinuated a motive that proved not to exist. Krugman pointed to Palin's 'crosshairs' map that highlighted congressional races that needed attention and used logic that said Giffords could have been a target of the Tea Party because she didn't lose in November.

That was THEN and THIS is now. It took Krugman just a bit more than three months to encourage the left to engage in 'uncivil' discourse.

Last week, President Obama offered a spirited defense of his party’s values — in effect, of the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society. Immediately thereafter, as always happens when Democrats take a stand, the civility police came out in force. The president, we were told, was being too partisan; he needs to treat his opponents with respect; he should have lunch with them, and work out a consensus.

That’s a bad idea. Equally important, it’s an undemocratic idea.

Then Krugman goes Alinsky on the Heritage Foundation, singling the organization out in much the same way the Koch brothers were singled out in Wisconsin. Krugman then ends his call to incivility thusly:

Sorry to be cynical, but right now “bipartisan” is usually code for assembling some conservative Democrats and ultraconservative Republicans — all of them with close ties to the wealthy, and many who are wealthy themselves — and having them proclaim that low taxes on high incomes and drastic cuts in social insurance are the only possible solution.

This would be a corrupt, undemocratic way to make decisions about the shape of our society even if those involved really were wise men with a deep grasp of the issues. It’s much worse when many of those at the table are the sort of people who solicit and believe the kind of policy analyses that the Heritage Foundation supplies.

So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so — and take their case to the voters.

In Krugman's defense, the left has shown that it doesn't need much of a reason to engage in thuggish behavior and incivility. Here is a case in point:



That said, this dose of hypocrisy from Krugman could choke a donkey.

h/t Weasel Zippers