Krugman - Stick to the Day Job!

This is a story about why those who are specialists in economics should not delve into the world of ethics (beyond the personal that is), why those who win the Nobel often have the award go to their heads and become experts in everything, and about a quack who has gone to the dogs.

Bad Krugman - bad, bad!

Is it me or do you think the Nobel committee really messed this one up? Does Paul Krugman, star columnist in the New York Times, really deserve the prize for Economics? If so, why doesn't he write on it? What is going on? Is the NY Times so desperate for readers that editors get up every morning begging Krugman to write and are willing to publishing anything he puts out there even if it is to their own detriment?

I love Op/Ed. I do. But all too many people who are given the power to write it, suck at it. Case in point (as I've pointed out previously) Rosie DiManno - next up seems to be Krugman. Call me one of high standards, but I like a good argument behind opinion especially arguments grounded in reality, legitimacy and thought. Not some mad raving.

At the height of the economic crisis when well explained writing on finance and economics was essential for the public to understand both how this crisis occurred and what could be done about it, Krugman was reduced to a regular weekly column series that should have been called "Pass the Stimulus. Trust me. I won the Nobel in Economics. I know best. Trust Me" with little to no argument to support his theories and opinions.

So this week when a friend of mine posted a FB link exclaiming Krugman's brilliance on this column, well, I nearly barfed. First because of the column, second because I knew someone who actually liked this schlock.

In "Reclaiming America's Soul" (NY Times, April 24/09, A23), Paul Krugman argues that the Obama administration should prosecute those associated with making key decisions at Guantanamo Bay because, well, attention must be paid and Americans love a good tar and feathering.

Well, that isn't exactly what he argues but it ends up feeling something like that.

Krugman actually argues that the Bush administration's actions with regard to GitMo exist as an aberration in the American moral fabric, and that the only means of moral retribution is prosecution whatever the (financial or moral) expense.

It's a noble idea. Unfortunately you can shoot holes through the concept more accurately than Dick Cheney can misfire a gun on a hunting trip shooting a friend (aka. it's not really that hard).

Now, I am not arguing that the actions of the Bush administration were just, fair or good. I am arguing that they were remarkably smart - knifing but smart.

Let's take a couple of perspectives on this.

Morality and Politics
Krugman states: "...America is more than a collection of policies. We are, or at least we used to be, a nation of moral ideas..." Incorrect. America was never built on moral ideas. In fact the traditional morals found in religious texts are explicitly separated from the concept of the state by the Constitution ('separation of church and state'). In the place of a state morally founded in religion, there exists a Bill of Rights which are Amendments to the Constitution stating the rights guaranteed to all citizens of the US. And that is the limit - to citizens. Not to vacationers, people wandering through the US and certainly not to foreign assumed terrorists. Are there international laws to protect people in the absence of a moral constitution? Yes, the International Declaration of Human Rights does this. The US is not a signatory.

GitMo as Historical Precedent
Krugman states: "For the fact is that officials in the Bush administration instituted torture as a policy...And during the march to war, most of the political and media establishment looked the other way." A student of history might inform Krugman about the difficulty of prosecution for a multitude of persons who carried out potential acts of torture. I wonder if Krugman is familiar with the cases of Adolf Eichman as well as the Miligram experiments of the 1950s?

During the trials of the Nazi war regime, Adolf Eichman a key SS henchman in the Holocaust argued as his defense that he was a military man simply carrying out orders on behalf of the regime. This defense was roundly rejected around in the world and in the US because, it was argued, an American would know the moral difference between right and wrong. Miligram, a professor at Harvard, conducted experiments showing in fact that Americans could be as immoral as everyone else. Experiment participants were sternly instructed to continue to electrocute subjects despite their pleas to stop and even to levels that cause death --- few American participants stopped.

So prosecution may not be so easy - really many of those actually doing the dirty work were only fulfilling the duties of their roles. That doesn't mean it was ethical. But neither was the creation and issuing of high risk mortgages, and we aren't going after those guys are we?

Prosecute from the Top
So then do we go for the big guys, the gold standard, the decision makers. Depends and perhaps. Let's start with the middle men decision makers. The unfortunate brilliance of the Bush policy with regard to GitMo was the status of the territory. Although US controlled and with US military installations, the land is not official US territory. Therefore, US laws, such as the Constitution, do not apply. Whether conventions such as the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, which the US is a signatory to, apply is also questionable because of the legal limbo the territory exists in. So prosecuting those undertaking the acts or authorizing them is difficult, because in a territory free of law it's hard to pin them down for something.

So then why not go right to the top - to Bush or Cheney? Well, here is where democracies encounter interesting ethical dilemmas. As a representative of the people, CEO of the USA, Bush was ultimately accountable to the people, as was Cheney. And as an accountable President and VP, they could have been officially called into question through an official process. That, of course, would have been impeachment. Impeachment would have been a way to call into question the ethics of the administration with regard to the War on Terror and GitMo. The process is well laid out and clear in procedure. Yet, that did not happen.

Which brings me to an ultimate point. The problem with prosecutions is that because none of the checks on government began turning their wheels to stop prison camps at Guantanamo Bay (for example the judiciary did not act), and because the impeachment process was not begun, then the acts of the Bush administration must be reckoned with in a wholly different way. Instead of as a politcal/moral abberation (the Krugman argument) Guantanamo has to be looked at in the perspective as an aberration among the American people, with the people as a willing accomplice.

It was the reaction of a people who were confused and upset and scared about horrible acts of terrorism against them. They were panicked and didn't know what to do. Guantanamo was a means to an end. It was an attempt to capture those who were threats to the US. It was an honest mistake.

Certainly not all Americans felt it justified, but they were the minority to a seeming tyranny of the majority - a majority felt Guantanamo was justified (either through their actions or in actions) and in a democracy what most people (the majority) want is what happens.

What must be done instead is the maintenance of the record and making that record public. The biggest and best thing that can come of this is not repeating it. The only way that can happen is through a reconciliation with the record among the American public. Accepting their collective mistakes is the strongest thing the American public can do. That's not easy either. It's probably easier to undertake the Krugman method of pointing fingers to abosolve one's self of their acts or inacts.

If Krugman had a political science, ethics or history degree he wouldn't, couldn't, have made the ridiculous argument he did. It is the argument of a man looking for a mob - not one excising his right to free speech by putting forward interesting and well thought out arguments as part of the democratic process. I realize the last 8 years weren't easy for Krugman, but his need to make the Bush administration pay for this isn't the best reason to write an Op/Ed piece.

I hope Krugman finds his mob. He'll still be in the minority. And no one will have learned a damn thing for it.