« Property rights in Africa | Main | Global warming causes everything, Part II» Russell Roberts
December 17, 2007
Naivete
Russell Roberts
Paul Krugman thinks that Obama's naive in thinking that he can change the country by being more congenial:
At one extreme, Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is that our politics are so “bitter and partisan,” and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a “different kind of politics.”
At the opposite extreme, John Edwards blames the power of the wealthy and corporate interests for our problems, and says, in effect, that America needs another F.D.R. — a polarizing figure, the object of much hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big changes.
Over the last few days Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have been conducting a long-range argument over health care that gets right to this issue. And I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve.
Maybe. Or is it Mr. Krugman who is naive? Surely Obama knows that sitting around and being congenial won't bring about change. But he's running for President. He says what he thinks voters want to hear. How naive can Krugman be to think that Obama really thinks that change simply requires playing nice with everybody.
Or maybe I'm being naive. I actually think sometimes that Paul Krugman writes what he believes rather than what appeals to his readership in the New York Times. Surely he knows that Obama isn't being naive but clever. Or does he?
It's a strange game the press plays. They sort of kind of have to pretend that the candidates mean what they say. Sort of kind of. Because the rest of the they treat the campaign as a strategic battle of messages.
I vote for less naivete all around.
Posted by Russell Roberts in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/24280362
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Naivete:
Comments
I think that Obama is playing a Jedi mind trick.
Obama's voting record is pretty left leaning. If he could just give me one instance when he compromised his leftism in order to "get something done", I would be all for the guy.
I contrast this with Hillary!, who has made some compromises over her brief legislative career. You know, like that Iraq War vote.
Obama is an amazing candidate, though. Good looking, a great orator, and absolutely no substance to him whatsoever. I totally understand why he is surging in the polls.
I just think that Hillary! is the more... mature candidate.
Posted by: Buzzcut | Dec 17, 2007 11:12:42 AM
First, the problem with Obama is not being naive (funny Krugman follows the Clinton campaign attack position), it is his campaign theme. He is telling Democratic primary voters that he is going to go to Washington to work with Democrats enemies to accomplish some undefined goal, while Hillary and Edwards are arguing that they will go to Washington to fight Democrats enemies to accomplish what Democrats want. Obama's message is good in a general election but flawed in a primary.
Second, I was surprised to see that you did not mention Krugmans logic on health care reform: profits in health care must be eliminated because they cause waste. I try hard not to read Krugman's stuff so maybe you are numb to it while it still aggravates me.
Posted by: matt santos | Dec 17, 2007 12:46:59 PM
Matt - I too found Krugman's argument (that profit-driven enterprises have a vest interest in retaining waste) to be laughable and blogged on it here. If this is truly what Krugman believes (rather than what his NYTimes readership expects to hear from him), then I call into doubt Krugman's basic understanding of economics. Perhaps he could take a refresher in Econ 101?
Perhaps there's a wasteful private enterprise (that uses online courses instead of the costs associated with physical classrooms) like University of Phoenix that would be willing to allow him to matriculate.
Posted by: St Wendeler | Dec 17, 2007 1:09:01 PM
Wait. So does this mean that your colleague Don Boudreaux is being naïve every time he sends a letter to editor responding directly to the comments of various politicians as if they actually believed them??? Like he did, oh, last week? I smell trouble in paradise.
Of course, I don’t believe you actually meant what you said. This post wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. The thinking is too sloppy and self-serving. It was just red-meat for your right-wing readership (nothing like Krugman bashing to stir the base). Of course, maybe I’m being naïve by thinking you don’t believe everything you post. Or not? This is a very difficult game.
Posted by: Student | Dec 17, 2007 2:47:55 PM
I vote for less Krugman all around.
Posted by: phaedrus | Dec 17, 2007 4:11:11 PM
Right-wing readership? Russ do you post other, super-secret posts in which you express hate for Mexicans and agitate for war against Muslims?
Posted by: El Geecho | Dec 17, 2007 10:37:23 PM
El Geecho,
I think if the best complaint you can make of my post is that you prefer a political labeling scheme with more dimensions, then I think I did alright.
The point is that Russ can't over come his own political bias, especially when writing throw-away posts like this one. That's nothing new, I guess. Robin Hanson called him out on exactly the same problem earlier this season. I just don't want to let him forget it.
Posted by: Student | Dec 18, 2007 6:48:48 AM
"Of course, maybe I’m being naïve by thinking you don’t believe everything you post. Or not? This is a very difficult game.
Posted by: Student | Dec 17, 2007 2:47:55 PM"
Naive? Naw delusional in believing that you're thinking.
Bias? Naw!! Com'on man, does Russ have a bias, of course not. Does Krugman have a bias, of course not, does student have a bias, of course not, does vidyohs have a bias, of course not, does muirduck have a bias, of course not.
Let us know when you can sign on as Graduate.
Posted by: vidyohs | Dec 18, 2007 8:27:10 PM
vid,
I recomend you read more Robin Hanson. Apparently, the entire point of my comment passed you by.
Posted by: Student | Dec 19, 2007 5:54:34 AM
Sir student,
I find that today a lot of things have passed me by and the feeling grows in intensity with each passing day.
But, my ability to read has not.
In your post I saw no tongue in cheek, I saw no satire, so no I don't think I missed the point of your comment and reading more of Robin Hanson might be interesting but I have to doubt it would change my opinion of what was clear cut, that being your comments.
Perhaps you missed the point of mine which I will repeat, only in more blunt speech.
Russ has a bias? Weeeeeeelllll no shit? Really! Is he alone in having a bias? No. Does it surprise you that a man might let his bias show through sometimes, well as a student it might but as a graduate it won't.
Is Robin Hanson's bias less or more noticable than that of Russ?
A bias is a bias is a bias, and we all have them.
Clear enough amigo? That's what I said, that's what I meant, and I meant nothing more than that.
Posted by: vidyohs | Dec 19, 2007 7:54:49 AM
Student,
Your snideness surpasses your substance. Boudreaux's pieces to newspapers do not imply that he believes that his target believes what he/she said. Dr. Boudreaux's writings may be attempts to illustrate that his targets point of view is untenable, and either not believed by the target or proof that the target is illogical. Is that new information to you?
There are (sadly) a large number of people who look to politicians/government/leaders for truth and/or moral authority. Taking their words to task is a beautiful thing in my mind because some innocent may begin to figure out that politicians are not to be trusted to make change for a dollar.
And how simply boring it is of you to use the phrase right-wing.
Posted by: Python | Dec 21, 2007 12:21:26 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
