Jack, Krugman supported free trade back in the mid-1990s, this is true, and that put him at odds with the doctrinaire left-liberals of the Democratic Party such as Mr. Kuttner. Flash forward to present day, however, and the Democrats have completely been taken over by their protectionist wing (sadly, Bush is not better on this score), and Krugman -- like the rest of the Democratic Party -- isn't singing the praises of globalization anymore.

If you've followed the evolution of Krugman's rhetoric from his high-minded Slate days to now, and I assume you have, you have to admit that there was a marked shift in substance and partisanship when Krugman moved from discussing political economy to writing about American politics. I believe that Krugman demonstrates constantly that he never paid attention to American politics for years. Grover Norquist, a favorite Krugman bete noire, is a new, radical and dangerous figure? The "starve the beast" conservatives represent a break from Republican politics of the past? Please, they're Reaganites, and their agenda was Reagan's agenda, and their views are shared by roughly 1/3 of the country. But Krugman rants hysterically about them as if he was completely asleep -- or working as an accomplished economist -- during the Reagan years. Is this proof that Krugman isn't moderate? No, but it is proof that he is excessively partisan (as documented by Lying in Ponds) and more than a little aloof.

As for Krugman's move to the left, his favorite blogger is Atrios, and from Atrios he receives most of his political attack points as well as cues about tone. I think you would agree that Atrios -- at least his web persona -- is not exactly Mr. DLC. When Krugman opines that the Bush administration is creating an environment like Nazi Germany -- as he did when he compared a dumb radio station stunt in which Dixie Chicks CD's were smashed to Kristallnacht, and as he did when he ran with an Atrios talking point that Rumsfeld was engaged in Hitlerian "stab in the back" arguments -- Krugman is crossing the line from his DLC-friendly, neoliberal political economy theorizing of yesteryear into left-wing fringe territory. Some of this, again, is just excessive partisanship, with Krugman identifying so strongly with Democrats that anything Republicans say or do becomes instantly evil. That sort of Manichean worldview works well for children and sports fans, but it proves to be a poor analytical tool for moderates who thrive on nuance.

I submit that you cease to be a moderate once you decide that an opponent's position should be attacked simply because he or she is your opponent. And that is who Paul Krugman is today. That's not who he used to be, though, and given the dearth of readable economists writing in the medium, I hope that he steps back from the edge, takes a breather, and returns to telling Democrats and pander-minded Republicans alike why free trade and globalization are helpful for America. If he does that, then I'll agree with Kevin -- he's a moderate.

for one, I find it terribly odd that you consider Norquist and his fellow travellers to have broad support. 1/3 of the country is for privatising all social programs? I'm sorry but I think it is _you_ who fails to recognise the fringe. Certainly, the taxes=evil crowd has gained influence, but I find it somewhat ridiculous to suggest this happened by anything else besides a massive and ultimately fraudulent propaganda effort.
Your Hitlerian theory is also somewhat of a leap of faith. Frankly, I find your assumption of innocence behind the "dumb radio station stunt" an excellent case of wilful ignorance for the sake of ideological/argumentative consistency. Maybe these people were not playing with book burning imagery on purpose on your planet, though they did on mine, and I'd be interested to hear what reasons they gave on yours. Concerning stab in the back (SITB), well PK did not call the argument Hitlerian, perhaps because it isn't as I already told you. PK called it a SITB argument, and as various reactions even among conservatives showed, he was close to that. IIRC Rumsfeld allowed only for civil and reasonable criticism in his clarification, and IIRC just one or two weeks later, both civility and reason were said to be lacking from the remarks of Ted Kennedy (I'll google it up if you want). We needn't argue whether connecting the dots is justified here and Rumsfeld thus actually made a STIB argument, but to suggest PK was wildly of the mark seems ridiculous.

Finally, you might want to re-read Kevin's post and consider Jack's argument. PK basically kept his positions, e.g. free trade (for instance when it came to steel tariffs), (that aside, your assertion of protectionism within the Democratic part seems unfounded, whereas I could point to Cacun, steel tariffs and IIRC farm subsidies) but the GOP has moved. Do you remember the days when "fiscal responsibility" was synonymous with "fiscal conservatism"? Too bad - for all of us - they're gone.

Markus, Lieberman is the only Democratic candidate who has supported free trade throughout the Dem campaign. If you were paying attention to The New Republic's campaign coverage, you'd know that. All of the others have retreated from Clinton-era free trade positions or continued their anti-free trade stance.

The rest of your comment reflects debates we had elsewhere, and if you, as a German, really think a radio station smashing CDs -- bear in mind that this kind of publicity stunt happens a lot for non-political reasons -- is comparable to Kristallnacht, then I don't think you're worth engaging in debate anymore.

no thanks for not answering the points I raised.
Concerning "Kristallnacht": well I can see the book burning analogy which you apparently can't. Your insistence on calling this a "publicity stunt" for "non-political reasons" makes you equally unfit for debate IMO. Non-political? Guess they decided all of a sudden the music was bad, right? The event itself is of course not comparable in outcome to the Kristallnacht, but the mindset is not only comparable, it is actually similar if not the same.
(Don't believe me? Why would you want to destroy a book? What is it you are destroying, the paper or the idea? Why is there a need to destroy, instead of simply ignoring the stuff?)

I call myself "slightly left": free trade, not too concerned with gun laws, ambivalent on unions, think the retirement age will have to go up, preferred Clinton's rate of government growth (slow) to Bush's or Reagan's (fast), opposed to structural deficits and the tax cuts that cause them, pro-civil and reproductive rights, against regulation except when there are clear market failures (e.g., externalitities like pollution). The list could go on.

Here's my point: I'm virtually a communist when you put my views next to Norquist's or even next to the policies Bush actually enacts, which are markedly different than the ones he talks about.

So, No, Krugman is not leftist in his economic writings. And yes, he has become more political, because his solid economic points were being trumped by political arguments based on false logic (see the Laffer curve or Bush's budget numbers not adding up in the debates).

When you start making logical economic and political arguments against the current administration, you sound far left, even though you're arguing what were centrist positions in 1995.

And it's not just Krugman--see Akerloff and Stiglitz recently, as well as the 400 signers of the anti-Bush tax cut in 2001.

AB