Response to: The Real Winners
Krugman wrote an editorial about the Supreme Court’s health care ruling, declaring that the real victors are not the Democrats, but “ordinary Americans.”
He then goes on to do something I can’t stand, and which is the greatest source of fatigue for me in discussing politics. He paints opponents of Obamacare as morally corrupt and evil.
Krugman says the ACA will make America a “kinder and more decent society.” And that, while not a perfect solution, “it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society.”
I take it upon myself to prove, using empirical data, all the ways Krugman distorts facts and economic theory. It’s a lot of work (remember, I am supposed to be a comedian), but - even though my readership is small - I still feel it’s worthwhile to help clarify complex issues for people. My last two posts (here and here) were about Obamacare and why I think the plan doesn’t work. You could say, then, that I oppose the Affordable Care Act.
And what does Krugman say about people like me?:
But what was and is really striking about the anti-reformers is their cruelty.
But it has long been obvious that the opposition’s goal is simply to kill reform, never mind the human consequences.
The cruelty and ruthlessness that made this court decision such a nail-biter aren’t going away. But, for now, let’s celebrate. This was a big day, a victory for due process, decency and the American people.
When I call Krugman a “fraud,” it’s because I have something like 50+ indisputable examples of him distorting data to advance an ideological agenda. I also have shown there were times when he was either lying or ignorant of basic economics. I apply the word to him because he fits the dictionary definition and I have plenty of data to support that (spend an hour reading this blog).
Now, I don’t mind what Krugman personally thinks of me. I think he’s a fraud, after all. The trouble with “dehumanizing” everyone who opposes the ACA (and why I find it so tiring) is that Krugman is a very influential person and people tend to blindly accept everything he says (just read the user comments on his blog…but have an airsick bag handy).
For me, editorials like this from Kugman are like a never-ending series of hurdles that get thrown in front of honest, intellectual discussion on socioeconomic topics that affect us. You have to understand that EVERY political debate I get into begins from a starting point of my opponent thinking I’m a heartless monster (or an uneducated idiot who should start reading New York Times editorials). 9 times out of 10 they don’t even want to talk to someone so horrible.
In most every conversation, I make it a point to concede, up front, that a lot of Republicans are wrong about “things.” If I don’t at least say something negative about conservatives I get stares like I’m in hari-krishna garb asking them to pray with me. I never automatically assume the people I disagree with are cruel, uncaring, and motivated only by greed. But that’s how they all think of me. And it’s because of the crowd-pleasing, baseless name-calling that colors all these high-traffic opinion pieces.
And YES - BOTH SIDES DO IT. [jerk off motion] That doesn’t make it less of a problem when someone with as large a readership as Krugman does it.
Krugman’s editorial is nothing but partisan flag waving and high-fives. He doesn’t address any of the ACA criticism (certainly none of the points I’ve made). It’s just this big obstacle between the public and their ability to understand and analyze the effects the ruling will have on them.
But people love him! Because they know - just know - that anyone who disagrees with them are heartless, cruel, and dishonest. How do they know that? Because people like Krugman told them…with a daily blog using graphs and charts to lend legitimacy to positions that rarely withstand the slightest scrutiny.
I don’t go through all this effort and do all this research - for nothing in return - just to prove I’m a cruel, ruthless person who doesn’t care about the human consequence of actions. I do it precisely because I believe the policies being pursued ARE harmful to “ordinary Americans.”
But now I’ve spent this entire post responding to Krugman’s malicious mischaracterization of anyone who happens to disagree with him. I should really address the substantive arguments he made…
….oh, thankfully he didn’t make any.
I can go to sleep.
(And dream about screaming poor people.)
