As many of you know, I used to read Paul Krugman. I read him because he's an intelligent and articulate person. I thought I might learn something from him, or even be persuaded to change my view about something. Eventually, it became clear that neither of these things would happen. What I learned is that Krugman has no interest in rationally persuading anyone of anything. To persuade, rationally, is to show your interlocutor that certain of his or her beliefs commit him or her to believing some further proposition. The arguer helps the interlocutor eliminate inconsistencies. The arguer's leverage is nothing more (or less) than the principle of noncontradiction.
I don't recall a single column in which Krugman attempted this. His premises are always contentious, by which I mean acceptable only to those who already share his conclusion. It makes one wonder why Krugman is read. He appears to have a large readership at the New York Times. Why? I think I figured it out this afternoon (while running). Everyone is insecure in his or her views. We hold onto them, but we're not sure we should, or would, if we had more time to reflect on them. We think our views might be false, contradictory, or muddled. When we come across someone more intelligent and articulate than we are, but who shares our views, we latch on, with gusto. We think, "If X, who is more intelligent and articulate than I am, believes that p, then I feel justified in believing that p."
Perhaps I've had Krugman wrong all along. I assumed, from the time I started reading him, that he was interested in rationally persuading people. Why would I think this? Well, he has a doctoral degree in economics; he teaches at a prestigious university (Princeton); he has won many awards for work in his field (including, now, a Nobel Prize); and he has a semiweekly column in the country's most prestigious newspaper. What a forum for making a difference! What an opportunity to help shape public policy, by explaining how economic processes work and by persuading people to adopt this bundle of goods rather than that! I guess I assumed that Krugman is interested in doing what I would be interested in doing, if I had his forum.
I now think that Krugman has no interest in rational persuasion. He views those who don't share his values as enemies rather than as interlocutors. (Witness his many personal attacks on Republicans in general and George W. Bush in particular.) His aim appears to be to buck up his comrades: to inspire and motivate them, to induce them to fight. Think of a general rallying the troops. That may give him satisfaction (not to mention sycophants), but it will not make any long-term difference in public policy. To make a difference, he must persuade those who don't share his views or values. He must reach out, as it were, to those who start in different places. He must do the painstaking work of finding common ground and reasoning therefrom. We have an expression for what Krugman does: "preaching to the choir." I can't imagine being satisfied doing that, but evidently he is.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 