Ed Driscoll, at PJM, wonders if Paul Krugman has not, after the past week, become a millstone around the neck of the NYT and the left. Given his column of today, it would seem that Krugman himself might be getting that message.
For the last six days, the left in general, and Paul Krugman in particular, has experienced a massive push back against the "blood libel" Krugman initiated when he claimed, iu the immediate aftermath of the mass murder in Arizona and in the total absence of any supporting facts, that the right created the climate of hate that drove the mass murder. Today, in his column, this ethically challenged hyper-partisans beats a retreat, still vaguely implying the same about the right, but couching it in a manner that is far less caustic. He appends his implications as an ad hominem to the conclusion of his column, wherein he divides America into two warring camps - those who support the welfare state and those who do not - with the latter being utterly heartless beings willing to see the poor starve. He concludes:
Right now, each side in that debate [about the direction of our country] passionately believes that the other side is wrong. And it’s all right for them to say that. What’s not acceptable is the kind of violence and eliminationist rhetoric encouraging violence that has become all too common these past two years.
This is a face saving - and perhaps job saving - effort if there ever was one. Krugman is trying to morph his libelous accusations into a general condemnation of the current political atmosphere. It won't work. We will have to wait and see, but I think Krugman has done tremendous damage to the progressive brand, at least among any of those in the middle who have been paying any attention.