PAUL KRUGMAN: FOSTERER OF ARGUMENTS BETWEEN THE ANGRY LEFT AND ANGRY RIGHT

I got into an argument with “reg� over at Marc Cooper’s blog today, and I learned something about myself & about the “angry left� and I didn’t exactly like what I learned about either.

The argument started in Marc’s posting about the good Dr. Dean. A topic I've written about as well here. and, like most arguments, it was fairly senseless. Considering how Marc's column was about Dean, it's sometimes hard to imagine how we "commenters" could get so far afield, but that is often the nature of arguments.

At any rate, back to my present topic. I'm not a big fan of Paul Krugman, in fact, I find him to be primarily a partisan hack who uses his understanding of economics to bolster the anti-republican pro-democrat side of any argument. I believe that he engages in ad hominim attacks with a significant consequence in that others mimic his style and think that that is sufficient to carry the day for the left and the right thinks it must respond in kind.

The paragraph above contains only three sentences, the introductory sentence of 8 words followed by a Type M argument and then a Type C argument. This is the subject of todays entry. Now, as to the Type M argument, it should be obvious to me that I have made a bunch of them over the years, sometimes with humor, sometimes with biting sarcasm, sometimes well done, sometimes poorly done. And I've usually made them with more than a tad bit of anger after either hearing or reading someone else's Type M argument. Not that I'm not owning my own behavior, I am - though I am embarrassed to do so. So embarassed, in fact, that I thought that I needed to write this post. A Web Log (Blog) is of course, not only a means of discussion about what is going on in the world of politics, economics, business, humor, etc., but an on line journal in which people can sort out thier thoughts and come to some sort of balance.

So what is a Type M and a Type C argument. I'll let one of Mr. Krugman's classmates at MIT Dr. Arnold Kling writing in Tech Central Stationdefine them very basically as

"Type C arguments are about the consequences of policies. Type M arguments are about the alleged motives of individuals who advocate policies."

Kling writes an "open letter" to Krugman and takes Krugman to task for his proclivity to make Type M Arguments. His lede:

Dear Paul,

You might remember me from graduate school at MIT. I would like to ask you a question about what constitutes a reasonable argument.

For example, suppose I were to say, "We should abolish the minimum wage. That would increase employment and enable more people to climb out of poverty."

There are two types of arguments you might make in response. I call these Type C and Type M.

A hypothetical example of a Type C argument would be, "Well, Arnold, studies actually show that the minimum wage does not cost jobs. If you read the work of Krueger and Card, you would see that the minimum wage probably reduces poverty."

A hypothetical example of a Type M argument would be, "People who want to get rid of the minimum wage are just trying to help the corporate plutocrats."

Paul, my question for you is this:

Do you see any differences between those two types of arguments?

As noted in the first quote from Kling, Kling is saying that a Type M argument is about "Motivation" and Type C is about "Consequences."

I've often wondered why the "angry left" (remember the "Angry White Male so derided by the MSM following the precedent setting elections of 1994?) can get me so riled up. Kling provides the answer, because they question my motivations rather than discuss the pro's and con's of consequences of my arguments.

In the parlance of the Blogosphere we call these people "Trolls" because their arguments are all too frequently Type M arguments and ad hominim attacks rather than Type C arguments. And, far too often, conservatives respond in kind to liberals and liberals respond in kind to conservatives. In essense then, "You aren't making a clear argument from the right, you are a nasty nazi in the thrall of the international corporate creepoids." That is a "Lefty Troll." Or, how about: "Your argument for not going to war means that you are probably an anti-american pro-Saddam commie-hippie-pinko slime bucket." And so it goes. On and on and on with no end in sight.

So, what are we to do about this conundrum? Let's turn back to Klein and Krugman. Klein goes on to say using "tax cuts" as his foil:

"Suppose that someone were to say, "The Bush tax cuts will increase long-term growth." You might raise various objections.

One possible type C argument would be that even if the tax cuts increase long-term growth, they will increase inequality. Thus, the consequences are not good. We could have a constructive discussion of that issue, although we may not come to agreement.

Another possible type C argument would be that the tax cuts will reduce national saving, thereby lowering the capital stock, thereby reducing economic growth. They will have the exact opposite of the consequence that is claimed for them. I think that this is an important argument. I have the discomfiting impression that many in the Bush Administration and its supply-side supporters fail to understand this argument.

A type M argument would be, "So what were the Bush tax cuts really about? The best answer seems to be that they were about securing a key part of the Republican base. Wealthy campaign contributors have a lot to gain from lower taxes, and since they aren't very likely to depend on Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid, they won't suffer if the beast gets starved." In fact, this is what you wrote in "The Great Tax Cut Con," which can now be found at The unofficial Krugman archive.

To me, this is not a helpful argument. Imagine that we could somehow prove that the motives of the supply-siders were pure, and that they really did want to improve economic growth. Would that purity of motive outweigh the argument that the higher deficits will actually have the consequence of reducing growth? I would hope not. Conversely, if the motives are wrong but the consequences are good, to me that would argue in favor of the tax cuts, not against them.

And indeed Krugman does infact make frequent Type M arguments. A Sampling with what I believe to be Type M arguments in red:

"The starve-the-beast doctrine is now firmly within the conservative mainstream. George W. Bush himself seemed to endorse the doctrine as the budget surplus evaporated: in August 2001 he called the disappearing surplus ''incredibly positive news'' because it would put Congress in a ''fiscal straitjacket.''

Like supply-siders, starve-the-beasters favor tax cuts mainly for people with high incomes. That is partly because, like supply-siders, they emphasize the incentive effects of cutting the top marginal rate; they just don't believe that those incentive effects are big enough that tax cuts pay for themselves. But they have another reason for cutting taxes mainly on the rich, which has become known as the ''lucky ducky'' argument.

Here's how the argument runs: to starve the beast, you must not only deny funds to the government; you must make voters hate the government. There's a danger that working-class families might see government as their friend: because their incomes are low, they don't pay much in taxes, while they benefit from public spending. So in starving the beast, you must take care not to cut taxes on these ''lucky duckies.'' (Yes, that's what The Wall Street Journal called them in a famous editorial.) In fact, if possible, you must raise taxes on working-class Americans in order, as The Journal said, to get their ''blood boiling with tax rage.''

So the tax-cut crusade has two faces. Smiling supply-siders say that tax cuts are all gain, no pain; scowling starve-the-beasters believe that inflicting pain is not just necessary but also desirable. Is the alliance between these two groups a marriage of convenience? Not exactly. It would be more accurate to say that the starve-the-beasters hired the supply-siders -- indeed, created them -- because they found their naive optimism useful."

Convincing yes? No?

Well, let's take a look at Klein's continued argument with a critical point emphasized by me of the consequences of Type M arguments:

Paul, your columns consist primarily of type M arguments. Either you do not see the difference between type C arguments and type M arguments, or you do not care.

I am not going to try to guess your motives for relying on type M arguments. However, I can tell you some of the consequences.

One consequence is to lower the level of political discourse in general. You have a lot of influence with those who sympathize with your views. When they see you adopt type M arguments, they do the same.

Conversely, many of your opponents are stooping to your level. I see type M arguments raised by many of your enemies on the Right. As horse manure draws flies, your columns generate opposition that is vindictive and uninformed.

Another consequence is to lower the prestige and impact of economists. We are trained to make type C arguments. Instead, you are teaching by example that making speculative assessments of one's opponent's motives is more important than thinking through the consequences of policy options. If everyone were to use such speculative assessments as the basis for forming their opinions, then there would be no room for economics in public policy discussions.

You could express your point of view using type C arguments and still take strong stands for what you believe is right. In fact, you might find that doing so would make you more effective. Even if that is not the case, even if there is a sort of media version of Gresham's Law in which specious reasoning drives out careful analysis, then that is a challenge for all of us who are trained as economists. I believe that we have a professional duty to try to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Now, Krugman also has his defenders (reg in the afore mentioned comment section of Marc Coopers blog is certainly one of them) So is Nicholas Confessore writing in the Washington Monthly here some two years ago. Confessore states that Krugman has a "Comparative Advantage" because

"Krugman's primacy is based largely on his dominance of a particular intellectual niche. As major columnists go, he is almost alone in analyzing the most important story in politics in recent years--the seamless melding of corporate, class, and political party interests at which the Bush administration excels."

There is also this:

"The tax cut, Bush's Social Security plan, Enron, the energy crisis, and Harken--all Krugman hobbyhorses--were widely covered in the media. But he has been the only prominent columnist to attempt to weave all of them into a single, continuing narrative about the Bush administration's policies, wealth inequality, corporate profiteering, and the ascendancy of crony capitalism."

Now, it occurs to me that Krugman hobby horses are less bout economics than about Bush using economics as the principal weapon. Is that good or bad? i don't really know, but I do know that it ticks off a number of people. According to Confessore:

"If Krugman's zeal is in part what makes him so appealing to liberal activists, it's also what makes him so off-putting to Republicans and conservatives--and a fair number of center-left journalists. Krugman is regularly attacked by fellow pundits, most exhaustively by former New Republic editor-turned-blogger Andrew Sullivan and former Washington Monthly editor-turned-blogger Mickey Kaus, each of whom inveighs against Krugman almost as often as Krugman inveighs against Bush. And like many partisans, Krugman can stir unruly passions."

Confessore is a journalist, and from what I've read, little though it be, a fairly good writer.

More Krugman:

"There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success."

Pure Type M argumentation. Pure indeed.

Krugman may well be an excellent (or perhaps merely adequate) economist, and, as Confessore notes "It's not immediately clear why [Krugman is popular with left leaning readers - ed.]. Krugman is a pretty good writer, but not a great one." So, from a conjectural perspective, perhaps because he arouses the dander of his readers, positive if you lean left and like the style of Type M arguments and negative if you lean right and dislike his Type M arguments and think they challenge your motivations (which of course they do being Type M arguments) and all too often the right then comes up with their own Type M arguments. And the Beat goes on, and the beat goes on.

Posted by GM Roper at February 12, 2005 10:54 PM | TrackBack