bettershorter.com

If it weren’t already abundantly clear, Paul Krugman has lost his marbles. Today, he descends into conspiratorial theorizing at its worst in the New York Times.

He argues that, because Republicans determine which lobbyists are hired, and because big, bad corporations (and the media, especially) only support the GOP, we’re heading toward “one-party rule” (emphasis added), a la Mexico throughout most of the Twentieth Century. The absurdity of the argument is plain on its face. To the extent Republicans do have any say in lobbying matters, however, I don’t recall Krugman complaining during the previous 50 years when the tables were turned. More telling, note that Republican control of the White House and Capitol Hill is not the result of, say, “superior Republican electoral strategy” or the “Democratic failure to craft a message at a time of peril.” To Krugman, the Democrats are so obviously right that it’s literally inconceivable that the Republicans are winning with anything other than dirty tricks and corruption.

If there’s a kernel of truth in Krugman’s column, it may be that some Republican leaders — e.g., Tom Delay — have wielded power arrogantly. But Krugman and other “intellectuals” making broader arguments like the one here (and there’s no shortage of examples) appear to have an increasingly tenuous grip on reality. In that respect, I think Krugman goes a long way toward demonstrating the poignance of David Brooks’s analysis, which I noted on Monday.

That some MIT economist unknown to 99% of Americans is so blinded by partisanship is of little matter, and wasting 2,500-3,000 words a week in the most influential publication in the country doesn’t amount to a tragedy. But it’s certainly a shame that someone with such a platform adds so little to the national debate.

FOLLOW UP: The New Republic agrees. Although a recent Washington Post analysis shows that Republicans are receiving 60% of corporate dollars, that’s no better than the Dems captured pre-1994. What’s going on here, obviously, is that money is following power. You’d think an economist would be able to recognize that concept and spare us the “neoconservative cabal” arguments.