Bridget Laas

Pd. 3
Feb. 5, 2018

Paul Krugman: The Conceited Liberal

Paul Krugman, the self proclaimed “Conscious Liberal,” uses Republican economic policy

to portray all Republicans as immoral. He paints himself as an open-minded, socially aware

individual, an “omniscient observer,” yet he remains stubbornly close-minded to opposing points

of view. His columns are constant offensives, mercilessly attacking Trump and the Republican

Party; however, he fails to differentiate between different types of conservatives, and by lumping

them all into one category, and labeling them all as hypocritical and immoral, Krugman shows he

is not interested in persuasion but only in polymics. He writes directly to middle class white

Americans who share his political and social views, writing to stoke their anger and frustration

with the current administration; and although he rarely ever offers specific solutions to problems,

he does leave his readers with a feeling of moral obligation to protest the status quo. Always

central to his argument are the moral implications of economic policy; that government has a

responsibility to help its citizens in need whether it is in the form of aiding the recovery effort in

Puerto Rico, or funding the Children’s Health Insurance Act. He strongly believes that the middle

and lower class people should come first, not the top 1%. Given that Krugman is an economist, he

supports his arguments with facts and statistics, but, the majority of his argument hinges on his

reader’s sense of morality.

Krugman's diction serves to allocate blame, villainize all Republicans, and appeal to his

readers sense of frustration and disgust with the current administration. Krugman opens his column

“Republicans are Coming for Your Benefits” by stating that “Republicans don’t care about budget

deficits.. only pretend to care… when…” it benefits them. This sweeping generalization of all

Republicans fails to distinguish between different sects of the Republican Party. Although it may

be true that many establishment Republicans play the budget deficit card to “block [the
Democratic] agenda” or “slash social programs that help needy Americans,” many Republicans,

especially economic conservatives, believe the budget deficit is a serious problem (“Republicans

are Coming for Your Benefits”). Right off the bat, his dismissive tone eliminates the possibility of

converting anyone who does not already agree with his point of view, leaving him preaching to the

choir. Similarly, when Krugman refers to the Trump’s response to the Puerto Rican crisis, as an

“utterly shameful” “betrayal and abandonment of three and a half million of our own people” (“Let

Them Eat Paper Towels”), his words are chosen to reinforce and amplify the repulsion and

abhorrence his readers already feel toward the current administration.

Throughout his columns, Krugman uses rhetorical questions to manipulate the reader’s

moral compass, leading them to a predetermined conclusion. In discussing the impending Tax Act,

Krugman asks his readers, “How can [eliminating the estate tax] be justified if it is supposedly too

hard to find money for children’s health care?” (“Republicans Are Coming for Your Benefits”). In

asking this question in such a way, Krugman paints the picture that eliminating estate taxes

directly impacts funding for children's health care. In reality, funding for federal programs such as

children’s health care is much more complicated and multilayered. Krugman leads the reader to

conclude that the Tax Act is immoral because it is taking away benefits from helpless children who

cannot fend for themselves. In “Let Them Eat Paper Towels,” Krugman poses the question: “How

can we be abandoning [the Puerto Ricans] in their time of need?” This question implies that the

United States is leaving the Puerto Ricans to die and causes the reader to feel a collective

American guilt and a collective American responsibility for our fellow suffering citizens; it is

morally wrong for us to allow suffering to continue when we have the means of stopping it.

Krugman concludes his columns, not by offering a solution, but rather by motivating the

selfishness of the reader to get them to take action. In “Let Them Eat Paper Towels,” Krugman
subtly accuses anyone who sits idly by enabling the current administration to keep withholding

funds from Puerto Rico of complicity in the injustice. He wants his readers to feel guilty, so that

they are motivated to take an active role in protesting the policy. Comparably, when discussing the

new Republican Tax Act, Krugman places a special emphasis on the personal implications to his

base. He insinuates that Republicans “are coming for your benefits” (“Republicans are Coming for

Your Benefits”). He speaks directly to the reader, emphasizing in foreboding language, the

negative impact of the Tax Act and Republican economic policy in general on the lives of middle,

to upper middle class Americans. In doing so, he hopes to provoke the readers into lobbying

against the bill. In both instances, Krugman relies on intrinsic, self-centered means to provoke his

readers into action. Krugman does not trust the logic or the morality of his readers as much as he

trusts their self-centered nature. He leaves them with something he knows will stick, the personal

consequences.

Krugman is clearly intelligent, and though his points are often valid, he severely limits the

scope of their impact through his close minded, arrogant attitude and accusatory tone. His visceral

word choice and sweeping indictments of all Republicans as amoral and heartless, alienate

moderate Republican readers who might be frustrated with the current administration and

sympathetic to his message. By simply toning down his harsh language, Krugman could appeal to

a wider variety of readers, readers who may not already agree with his opinions. Sadly, he has

chosen to be simply a polemicist and not a persuader.