October 10, 2001
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Paul Krugman's Ranting
continues in the New York Times. He draws an analogy between private airport security and privatizing the New York Fire Department. This is typical Krugman, at least recently. He draws a strained, but reasonable, analogy, then accuses those who disagree (Bob Barr in his cross-hairs today) of being "fanatics." Maureen Dowd does this too, constantly talking about the "radical right". Tax reform, lockboxes, new federal agencies, these are not issues that make the "radical right". It defies the definition of radical in this case, because Barr makes the argument for preserving the status quo. I've pointed out in earlier posts that Krugman has lost his grounding in economic reality (see "a note about sloppy economic commentary" below). Now he may need a refresher in language and labeling. Here's part of the rant:
Think about that for a minute. Terrorists board planes in Boston, and use those planes to kill thousands of innocent people in New York — and Mr. Barr still can't see why airport security is a federal function?Does Krugman actually think Federal employees would have caught our boxcutter highjackers? Fat chance. Krugman says Federal employee and thinks NYPD/NYFD, despite the fact that those are municipal employees. I think of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Tierney thinks of the Post Office. He also argues for nationalization because airport security personnel need to share sensitive information. There are lots of private companies that work with sensitive government information. Who manufactured all those Tomahawk missiles? Who designed the bombers and fighters that control Afghan airspace? Where does the bulk of technical innovation take place in this country? Krugman might just as easily and shamelessly argue that the CIA's failure to stop September 11 is an argument for privatizing our intelligence-gathering capabilities.
Krugman claims that the government can't "write a contract to cover all eventualities". Ever seen a government contract? They cover so much they don't achieve anything. Krugman even argues that private sector hiring and firing practices inhibit the effectiveness of airport security. Right, give them immunity from firing. That'll help. The point is a contract or byzantine public sector hiring practices won't get firemen to go into buildings or an airport inspector to stay up on his intelligence. Effective organizations can do that. Its more than an open argument as to whether the effective organizations are in the private or public sectors. Or does saying that make me a fanatic? Does it make John Tierney a fanatic for writing this piece in Krugman's New York Times on October 2nd?
Here's how Krugman winds up:
The story here is bigger than airport security. What's now clear, in case you had any doubts, is that America's hard right is simply fanatical — there is literally nothing that will persuade these people to accept the need for increased federal spending. And we're not talking about some isolated fringe; we're talking about the men who control the Congressional Republican Party — and seem, once again, to be in control of the White House.For the Bush administration, after flirting with moderation in the weeks following the terrorist attack, seems in the last few days to have returned to its conviction that the hard right — which is relentless, and bears grudges — must always be deferred to, even in times of national crisis.
When did "moderation" become synonymous with "anything Krugman or the New York Times agrees with" anyway? Doesn't the Times know they are in the minority in this country?
I can see a reasonable case for making this a federal function. But Tierney and Barr aren't "fanatics" for questioning the idea. Krugman is too blinded by his own grudges to debate rationally or effectively. Krugman is much more fanatical in his tormented ranting than someone who merely stops to question another use for our tax dollars.
Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at October 10, 2001 12:12 PM | Technorati inbound links