Paul Krugman says goodbye to his self-awareness

The last few paragraphs of today’s Paul Krugman column: [W]hat happens if Mr. Obama is the nominee? He will probably win ? but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform. Let?s be blunt: pundits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, ...

By Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast.

December 17, 2007, 1:49 PM

The last few paragraphs of today's Paul Krugman column: [W]hat happens if Mr. Obama is the nominee? He will probably win ? but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform. Let?s be blunt: pundits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public. And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done. (emphasis added)Let's stipulate that Krugman is not necessarily wrong in the bolded passage. Maybe, just maybe, however, pundits who imply that what voters want is a full-throated, partisan, populist candidate are also projecting their own desires onto the public. UPDATE: Matt Yglesias thinks that the Obama campaign is "poor[ly] handling... its relationship with the country's highest-profile liberal columnist," but I have to wonder if Obama is calculating that the long-term benefits outweigh any short-term costs. As Krugman acknowledges at the beginning of his column, "Broadly speaking, the serious contenders for the Democratic nomination are offering similar policy proposals." Therefore, he's going to broadly support whichever Dem is nominated. Obama, on the other hand, is not going to be hurt in the general election from a pissing match with Paul Krugman. Indeed, dust-ups like this provide Obama with the kind of perceived independence that plays well with... er... independents.

The last few paragraphs of today’s Paul Krugman column:

[W]hat happens if Mr. Obama is the nominee? He will probably win ? but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform. Let?s be blunt: pundits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public. And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done. (emphasis added)

Let’s stipulate that Krugman is not necessarily wrong in the bolded passage. Maybe, just maybe, however, pundits who imply that what voters want is a full-throated, partisan, populist candidate are also projecting their own desires onto the public. UPDATE: Matt Yglesias thinks that the Obama campaign is “poor[ly] handling… its relationship with the country’s highest-profile liberal columnist,” but I have to wonder if Obama is calculating that the long-term benefits outweigh any short-term costs. As Krugman acknowledges at the beginning of his column, “Broadly speaking, the serious contenders for the Democratic nomination are offering similar policy proposals.” Therefore, he’s going to broadly support whichever Dem is nominated. Obama, on the other hand, is not going to be hurt in the general election from a pissing match with Paul Krugman. Indeed, dust-ups like this provide Obama with the kind of perceived independence that plays well with… er… independents.

Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner

Tag: Politics