Yesterday on the Diane Rehm show she spent the hour talking to Paul Krugman (Princeton Professor, NYTimes columnist) and Grover Norquist (tax reform activist). Krugman wouldn't appear on the show with Norquist, so Rehm interviewed them both separately over the course of the hour with Krugman getting the first half, and Norquist getting the chance to rebut in the second half.
Dustbury doesn't know what the hubbub is about...and neither do his readers. Norquist doesn't have beef with Krugman...why would Krugman have been with Norquist? There's a very clear, and very conservative reason actually. While Norquist is an activist (in the area of tax reform, an activist without peer), Krugman has a PhD in economics and is currently a full professor at one of the best institutions of higher learning on the face of the planet. He's published article after article after article in some of the toughest academic journals, and emerged through literally dozens of intellectual battles (you've got to wage war and WIN to get published in an academic journal, jack) unscathed. He SHOULDN'T be on the same panel with Norquist.
Think about this another way. If I were Michael Jordan, and someone came up to me and said that they wanted me to play one-on-one against Michael J. Fox, unless it was a joke, or for charity, or for the lives of my children, I'd feel insulted. While Fox is an excellent actor, he isn't anywhere near a basketball player...much less one of my caliber.
Krugman probably feels similarly. And he has a right to.
I say this position is a conservative one...and it is. It is based on the idea that merit exists, that it can be measured, and that people who rank high on that list should be treated differently than people low on that list. I think when it comes to analyzing arguments at least, we HAVE to be elitist. Anything else is uncivilized. Norquist and Krugman are by no means peers.
I would've liked to see them go head to head too. When I heard Rehm say that Krugman wouldn't appear with him, my FIRST reaction was DAMN (disclosure--Krugman is my road dog...). Even if Krugman is an elitist, he made the decision to enter the public realm and this is the price he has to pay. Debating folks who (based on the merits) probably couldn't hold his jock (pardon the sports metaphor).
But at some point in time you've got to take a stand for what is right. In my own case, I've decided that if I were to get that opportunity, I would take another route. I'd simply be the elitist every chance I got. So while i would NEVER appear on the same stage (for loot) as someone like D'Souza...if I were to do a radio show with him I'd rib him the entire time.
"Wow. That sounds like some impressive research. Did you do that for your dissertation?"
"Damn. What journal did you publish THOSE results in?"
Posted by: lks at January 6, 2004 01:34 PM
Politically, I'm a tad closer to Norquist than to Krugman, at least on these particular issues, but I would have welcomed hearing the two of them bounce things off one another; what we wound up with was unnecessarily sterile, and Norquist had perhaps too many opportunities to fall back on his standard fundraising shtick.
Anyway, thanks for weighing in.
Posted by: CGHill at January 6, 2004 01:25 PM