What I’m reading

Posted on by

I’ve been a regular reader of Paul Krugman’s columns and blog posts for well over a decade.  Up until the past two weeks he’s been consistently excellent but most of his recent posts have been absolutely awful.  They’re awful not because I disagree with his conclusions, which I do, but because they’re devoid of the cogent analysis he usually brings to the table.  (See below for links to the columns and posts I’m referring to.)  Is willful ignorance on his part?  Honest-to-god ignorance?  I have no idea but either way it’s very disappointing.   If you’ve been reading him recently here’s an excellent rebuttal by Jedediah Purdy, Sanders and the Theory of Change: Radical Politics for Grown-Ups.  At this point I’m checking Krugman’s posts not to learn something new but out of morbid curiosity as to what the latest trainwreck looks like.  Hopefully he gets his act back together.

Somewhat related, I’ve come to favor Mark Thoma over Brad DeLong as an aggregator of economic analyses.  Thoma provides links to good material and an occasional commentary.  DeLong provides links to good material plus a lot of attitude.   I’ve developed “attitude fatigue”.

Mike the Mad Biologist is excellent.  If I could only visit one site it would be his.  If you haven’t been there today then go now.   He and I read a number of the same sources but he’s got at least a dozen links a day to things that are valuable reading and which I’d probably never encounter otherwise.   (Between sources in common and things I find there, if you make a daily visit to his site you’ll probably catch at least half of my Weekly Digest links before I post them.)   In addition to good links, his posts are spot on.  A few recent ones of note:

The Mad Biologist is consistently good.  I run hot and cold on Jacobin.  Right now they’re in the zone.  Their latest issue, “Up From Liberalism”, will be out this Thursday, Feb. 4.  We’ll see what it brings.  Two recent readings of note and two older ones:

On the other side of the political spectrum, I’ve also been reading The American Conservative.   Read The Weekly Standard or the National Review and you quickly discover that, with the exception or Reihan Salaam, that their writers and editors are just vile people – distortions of the other sides arguments, ad hominem attacks, you name it.  The Weekly Standard and NR are beyond redemption.  Don’t waste your time.  In contrast, most of the writers at AC seem honest and direct.  (Pat Buchanan is a goon but he seems the exception.)   They have a conservative worldview in the true sense of word – not in the “conservative” as shorthand for “right-wing radical” sense.   Read The American Conservative for exposure to reasonable people who think differently.  (Apologies if I’m being presumptuous but I figure that the majority of those reading here break liberal and that AC would be a change of pace.)   They had a piece climate change the last week which was an unmitigated disaster but it was the only complete bomb of the 8-10 pieces I read last week.  I’ll add that Daniel Larison’s views on foreign policy seem to overlap strongly with my own.   I appreciate Andrew Bacevich‘s commentaries on American foreign policy (he also writes for AC).  Larison’s are in a similar vein.

Next to last, I’ve been reading Strong Towns.  Their mission statement:  “We advocate for a model of development that allows America’s cities, towns and neighborhoods to grow financially strong and resilient.”   Their writers offer a lot of food for thought when it comes to planning and reworking suburban spaces.  My impression is that suburbia was imagined as an environment which would capture the best aspects of urban and rural life.  In practice, it captures the worst of both.  Strong Towns provides constructive suggestions for how we might turn that around.

Finally, I haven’t read The Dark Mountain Project in a while. I plan to do so.

As promised above, Paul Krugman’s recent disasters:

Wow, there are even more than I thought.  Some are worse than others – some just phoned in, others genuinely awful.  If you’re so inclined enjoy the trainwreck.

UPDATE 2/2/2016:

Krugman’s continues to puke up bad commentary.   The specious arguments that he’s been putting forward are exactly the kind that he’s beaten people up for in the past.  How can he not recognize that?  He can’t actually be that oblivious as to why Sanders’s supporters prefer him over Clinton, can he? He can’t actually be that oblivious as to why so many Democrats have no enthusiasm for Clinton, can he?  Does he think that she doesn’t have a record?  Does he think that we haven’t noticed what it is?  If his columns had conveyed reasonably accurate assessments of Sanders and Clinton followed by a statement that he prefers Clinton based on her record then I don’t think I’d find his posts so objectionable.  I’d disagree but they wouldn’t have left me seething.  It’s the absence of thoughtful analysis which bothers me so much.

UPDATE 2/8/2016:

Nope, Krugman’s columns aren’t getting any better.  Again, what gets me about them is that he’s using the same godawful style of argument that he’s shredded people for in the past. It wouldn’t matter if they’d all ended with “and that’s why I support Bernie Sanders.” They’d still be awful.  In a way though, if he’s going to write awful columns then I prefer that he not endorse my preferred candidate. Think about it, if someone makes a bozo argument and ends up endorsing your position then how do you handle that?  You want them to vote your way but… you listen to them and it’s painful apparent that they have rocks (or worse) in their head. Do you correct them and hope you don’t alienate them? Do you let it slide and hope that they don’t share their thinking widely?  The Sgt. Schultz approach has its downside.  If the opposition hears them then you know they’re going to make their front page “Look what the idiots on the other side believe!”  That would be bad, no?  In contrast, if an adversary makes a dumbass argument then there’s no question about the appropriate course of action. You hammer them.  I really hope Krugman gets his act back together. Or least just shuts the bleep up. Calling out a long time ally for buffoonery is no fun.