Winning a Nobel Prize in any topic apparently grants the recipient magical powers to be right about everything. Or at least economist-wannabe-political theorist Paul Krugman believes that.
This is Krugman’s latest philippic in the New York Times, which he smugly titled “The Tainted Election:”
So this was a tainted election. It was not, as far as we can tell, stolen in the sense that votes were counted wrong, and the result won’t be overturned. But the result was nonetheless illegitimate in important ways; the victor was rejected by the public, and won the Electoral College only thanks to foreign intervention and grotesquely inappropriate, partisan behavior on the part of domestic law enforcement.
I’ll give him a break: Krugman isn’t wrong about everything–just everything he writes about the 2016 presidential election. In just one sentence, Krugman has bought into the doubled-down pabulum on every conspiracy theory spouted by the left.
Let me splendidly debunk the man who famously wrote in 2012: “Intellectually it was, I think I can say without false modesty, a huge win; I (and those of like mind) have been right about everything.”
Trump is not rejected by the public
Trump was in fact not rejected by the public, and Krugman proves this himself. “It was not, as far as we can tell, stolen in the sense that votes were counted wrong.” In fact, the votes were counted right. The states that went to Trump indeed went to Trump.
There was no coercing, nobody standing at the polls with batons discouraging Hillary Clinton voters, nobody handing out “walking around money,” about which Paul Rosenberg at Salon wrote “there’s nothing wrong…if it’s used to carry people to the polls.” (Oh, really? Since when has giving someone a $5 and bussing them to the polls with a big “vote for me” card been above board?)
People made up their own minds and voted accordingly. The Electoral College system, in which small population states got an equal say for who will lead the federal government, worked as the founders intended.
So what’s Krugman’s beef?
Liberals don’t like the outcome
As with everything, liberals like Krugman wanted a different outcome. They look at everything from the perspective of engineering outcomes. Economists especially fall for this almost irresistible pit of ignorance of human nature. The question beginning with “if only…” usually starts the discussion.
If only the Electoral College worked differently, or didn’t exist at all (except when it helps the outcome liberals want).
If only people were required to vote or face a penalty, because running a terrible candidate should not hurt the liberal cause.
If only the wild claims of the people who support President-elect Donald Trump, and Trump’s own mocking claims of rigged elections, illegal voting, and encouraging Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, were to cancel out the left’s own biased media and moral preening. If only there were a set of balances and scales to weigh these things and force the desired outcome.
But there isn’t.
It’s called “liberty”
The reason people didn’t vote the way Krugman wants is summed up in one word: liberty.
Krugman haughtily declared, “Democratic norms have been and continue to be violated, and anyone who refuses to acknowledge this reality is, in effect, complicit in the degradation of our republic.”
This is a facially ridiculous statement. First, Krugman acknowledged the known fact that the election was not stolen, then he makes the claim that democratic norms were violated, which essentially means the election was stolen. Stolen from whom?
Why, liberals, of course. And there’s the problem at its heart. Krugman is willing to accept a black swan candidate, or a conservative candidate, provided that (a) they don’t win the election, or (b) they win, but they’re perfect and without blemish.
For liberals like Krugman, who are used to economic theory and metrics, liberty is just too messy.