The Paul Krugman column John cites today is a variation on a theme that’s been a staple of extreme left wing criticism of the war on terror since about Sept. 12, 2001. The theory holds that we have to understand that the terrorists hate us because we didn’t sign the Kyoto Treaty, we didn’t join the International Criminal Court, we support Israel, and our commitments to recycling, women’s rights, and affirmative action for all victim groups aren’t what they should be.
Krugman’s variation highlights an ideological obsession with state-run enterprises, attacking Bremer for even considering privatization of Saddam’s fascist machine:
By making Iraq a playground for right-wing economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration did terrorist recruiters a very big favor.
(It’s interesting that Krugman calls the terrorists “insurgents” until this paragraph, where he needs to demonize them to make his anti-Bush point of the day, but I digress.) Of course, we understand what Krugman’s beef with Bush is – he was the fair-haired economist of the Clinton/Gore machine, and stood to make mega-profits had Gore won the 2000 election. Instead, he’s relegated to an obscure teaching post and a part-time newspaper job.
In this piece, he effectively endorses a path to economic development that’s failed mightily throughout the third world in the last 50 years, giving rise to the hopelessness, poverty, and squalor from which terrorist (not “partisan”) movements arise.
Krugman either fails to grasp or chooses to ignore the fact that economic development in Iraq is a vital part of securing the region against terrorism. It’s not going to be enough to establish another permanent welfare state in Iraq, another Egypt or Saudi Arabia. If the new Iraq is to serve as a buffer against the terrorist movements it will need not only a secular and representative government, it will need a thriving, free-market economy.
The politics and the economics are intertwined there just as they are everywhere, so pursuing a capitalist, free-market aim in our nation-building isn’t a distraction, it’s a vital piece of work.
If Krugman weren’t blinded by hate and self-interest, he’d say just that.
UPDATE: Roger L. Simon has some insight into the people Krugman attacks today.
A minor quibble… Krugman is far more famous and influential because Gore lost. He has become the darling the bitter left and I understand that he is doing quite well financially as a result, even though he lost his Enron consulting gig when they flamed out.
Had Gore won in 2000 Krugman would have just been some obscure economic advisor. How many people know who N. Gregory Mankiw is?
That said, I don’t doubt that Krugman would gladly have given up the fame and fortune he now has in order to serve as Gore’s chariman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
Losing Enron was a hard blow for Krugman, but he was on a bit of a roll toward the end of the Clinton regime.