Krugman Needs to be Reminded about Argumentative Logic...Again

 Though I don't agree with Paul Krugman when he writes about economics, he occasionally pieces together honest-to-God arguments when he's trying to persuade his readers that the stimulus should have been bigger or that the banking sector should be made "boring" once again. When he writes about politics, his writing becomes downright childish. He is, of course, an opinion writer, but theoretically opinion writers are supposed to provide evidence for their views instead of making every statement a conclusion. Krugman's article today exemplifies the problems with his non-economic writing. In it, he argues that conservative media outlets are inciting crimes like the shooting that occurred at a Holocaust museum in Washington earlier this week. In his words, "right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment."

Let's stop and think what evidence one would need to prove a claim like this. A systematic exacerbation of right-wing extremism suggests an intentional plan to stoke extremism throughout "the conservative media and political establishment." So Krugman would have to prove that such a plan exists, that a vague, monolothic entity called "the conservative media and political establishment" formed it, and then that the aforementioned entity is actually implementing the plan. As we might expect, Krugman doesn't even try to prove any of those points; for the rest of the article he trys to paint a couple of irrelevant, innocent, or unrepresentative incidents as proving his entire thesis.

First, he brings up Glenn Beck and claims that Beck said FEMA under Obama was building concentration camps as part of a totalitarian agenda. The only thing Krugman quotes is the use of the word totalitarian, which instantly suggests that Krugman is playing fast and loose with his attribution. This type of argumentation doesn't even amount to a quote taken out of context. Krugman is describing a comment out of context without even showing us what the quote was. This hearsay is supposed to be proof of a conspiracy across "the conservative media and political establishment". Not a promising start.

Next, Krugman cites a Washington Times opinion piece as claiming that Obama is a Muslim, a declaration which oddly did not generate any controversy outside of Krugman's column. I was curious about that, so I found the article in question in the Washington Times. Here's the opening of that article:
 
 
During his White House years, William Jefferson Clinton -- someone Judge Sonia Sotomayor might call a "white male" -- was dubbed "America's first black president" by a black admirer. Applying the standard of identity politics and pandering to a special interest that earned Mr. Clinton that distinction, Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America's first Muslim president. This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black.

Krugman is being flat out dishonest. I am actually surprised that he would do something so obviously childish and wrong. Anyone who reads that article can see the author explicitly says Obama is not a Muslim. He clearly, with no possibility for misunderstanding explains that Obama is as Muslim as Bill Clinton is black (i.e. not at all.) Has Krugman no intellectual honesty? This tests the outer limits of deliberately misunderstanding a comment to try to generate controversy.

After that, Krugman not quite quotes Rush Limbaugh saying that the government was hyping swine flu fears to get people to respond to government orders. Forget for a moment the whole banal argument about whether Limbaugh speaks for the Republican Party. Is that even a particularly controversial statement on Limbaugh's part? I am actually just recovering from the flu as I write this, and I definitely still think the government's panicky pronouncements about potentially huge deathrates from a pandemic were aimed at getting people's attention. I think the government had a good reason for hyping the threat to get people to follow the CDC's advice, but that doesn't change the reasonably argued point that hyping the threat was what they were doing.

Finally, as the last bit of evidence, Krugman cites Jon Voight calling Obama "a false prophet" and that “we and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression.” Again, Krugman never quite manages to quote a source for an entire sentence, undoubtedly because the additional context would make the already anodyne comments even more harmless. False prophet? Is that really such a blood-curdling insult? As for freeing the nation from Obama oppression, I seem to recall leftists using much harsher language about the Bush presidency. Even if this somewhat strong but not at all extremist language were threatening, it wouldn't prove anything about a conspiracy, which was Krugman's ostensible argument.

Of course, the whole column is downright petulant, even for the New York Times. The argument that Fox News and the Washington Times inspired the Holocaust museum shooting is incredible in the literal sense. There is no credible evidence to believe such a ridiculous assertion and Krugman well realizes it. However, like any loyal party hack, he makes do with shoddy argumentative techniques and presses the attack with puerile, irrelevant name-calling in the hope that he might win partisan accolades from his homogenous leftist readership. I have enough respect for the left to expect that even they won't admire this tedious nonsense.

You can see this and the rest of my posts at the New Madisonian blog, where I'll be posting exclusively starting in under two weeks.