Paul says
So what the story of Romney and the auto bailout actually shows is something we already knew from health care: he’s a smart guy who is also a moral coward. His original proposal for the auto industry, like his health reform, bore considerable resemblance to what Obama actually did. But when the deed took place, Romney — rather than having the courage to say that the president was actually doing something reasonable — joined the rest of his party in whining and denouncing the plan.
And now he wants to claim credit for the very policy he trashed when it hung in the balance.
He also says
Cowen apparently wants me to make the best case for the opposing side in policy debates. Since when has that been the rule? I’m trying to move policy in what I believe to be the right direction — and I will make the best honest case I can for moving in that direction.
Look, economic policy matters. It matters for real people who suffer real consequences when we get it wrong. If I believe that the doctrine of expansionary austerity is all wrong, or that the Ryan plan for Medicare would have disastrous effects, or whatever, then my duty, as I see it, is to make my case as best I honestly can — not put on a decorous show of civilized discussion that pretends that there aren’t hired guns posing as analysts, and spares the feelings of people who are not in danger of losing their jobs or their health care.
This is not a game.
But, if this is not a game, and if consequences really matter, then why is it wrong or even cowardice for Mitt Romney to Say Anything to be elected.
Lets take this by its smoothest handle for those with Paul’s perspective on things. The conventional wisdom coming into the 2012 was that the economy was going to be in horrible shape and that it was highly likely that President Obama would lose based on “A Time for A Change” thinking.
That is, swing voters would conclude that the Obama administration has failed and vote for the alternative.
Mitt Romney says to himself, well look either I am the alternative or someone else is. I look around me and all of these other guys are freaking nuts. Much better if I am President than if they are. Unfortunately, to get there I have to do some unsavory things.
However, which is more important to me: avoiding sullying my hands with unsavoriness or preventing the country from being run by nuts.
Would it not be selfish to choose the former? Doesn’t Mitt Romney have a moral responsibility to Say Anything to become the Republican Nominee? If congeniality is not a shield against the moral responsibility of allowing millions of people to suffer then why is honesty?
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
Friday ~ January 13th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Joe
Except that Obama polls well ahead of every candidate but Romney. So it’s not a question of Obama or someone else. It’s Romney, or it’s Obama. He’s lying to become president, not to save the country from the nuts.
Friday ~ January 13th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
anon
Not if Romney also considers Obama nuts.
I don’t get Karl’s argument: if it’s valid to lie without limits, dishonestly and without consequence, just to get into the position to make a difference then us arguing in public is a null operation: it has no meaning whatsoever, as lies can always counter it.
Krugman obviously thinks that there’s limits to what you can say in public as a politician – and not telling blatant lies is as low a quality threshold you can define while still having a meaningful public discussion …
Friday ~ January 13th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Julian Rivers
Nice. The ends justify the means.
Friday ~ January 13th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Marcus
I think Krugman is just making his point in a more narrow window. He is saying on any particular issue, you should be morally obligated to advocate for the position that reduces the suffering of others, while I think the point you are making is more the “long view”. In other words, Romney could be thinking:
“There is a suite of issues that are necessary to avoid suffering and improve the world. Obama did the right thing on the auto bailout, but he’s doing the wrong thing on taxes/defense/regulations/etc., and the only way to improve those issues is to stop him, so I won’t acknowledge that I agree with him on this issue, or else it will be harder to stop him.”
I’d like to emphasize that this is all very charitable to Romney’s motives.
I don’t think you’re disputing Krugman’s specific point in this instance, but it would be interesting to see if he has advocated for Democrats to use “any means necessary” in the past.
Friday ~ January 13th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Mark
We should demand honestly because our decisions should be based on reality. Now, truth is subjective as we learned from 2001 through 2008, but sometime facts are just facts. If we allow politicians to lie for the greater good (or their notion of it), then we allow them to lie for whatever purpose they choose.
Anyway, it looks like Romney is putting your hypothesis to the test:
http://bit.ly/zGZyRM
Friday ~ January 13th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Andrew Hanson
Presumably, Krugman thinks that there’s a moral difference between “making the best case for the opposing side in policy debates” and lying or misrepresenting. Lying is not morally permissible to make your political/policy case. Making the best case for the opposing side in policy debates may be morally praiseworthy, but it’s not morally required of Romney to say “Here’s why Obama would make a great president”, but it’s still wrong for him to lie and misrepresent differences between them.
Friday ~ January 13th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
CJ
I think we’d need to see a little more argument that honesty is roughly the equivalent of congeniality in terms of the things we would be willing to throw overboard in our mad dash to what you seem to presume is Krugman’s only goal. Might it be that dishonesty has deleterious effects strong enough to make it worth forgoing, even in pursuit of a goal worthy enough to ditch congeniality for?
Alternatively, he doesn’t exactly say Romney’s wrong to be dishonest, depending on how one interprets the phrase “moral coward”. So Paul may agree with you, but pointing out Romney’s dishonesty so that voters aren’t fooled would be in line with Paul pursuing his own policy goals in an appropriately bareknuckled manner.
Alternatively, if he really does value his policy goals above all else and is willing to sacrifice all other values in their pursuit, then what’s wrong with a little hypocrisy?
Friday ~ January 13th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
meegan
The moral difference between honesty and congeniality should be obvious. To throw out a standard of honesty is to throw out democracy. Romney may be convinced that he’s the only man to run the country, but at the end of the day he’s supposed to defer to the people to make that judgment. Lying undermines that process.
The point I take Krugman to be making in the debate with Cowen relates to the same principle. In a marketplace of ideas (which have real world consequences), if people are allowed to lie and get away with it the market won’t function right. So it’s important to call people out, and concerns about civility should be a far lower priority. That’s a very different argument from the sort of ends justify the means thinking you seem to be attributing to him.
Saturday ~ January 14th, 2012 at 5:33 am
Tel
It is tempting to say that if Romney can successfully convince people to believe him (i.e. lie to them and get away with it) then he has proven himself worthy to be leader of those same people. Yeah, I know it’s a very cynical thing to say, but it’s also kind of hard not to be cynical about the whole political process right now.
Of course, since nothing is actually provable in macro-economics (not to any meaningful standard of proof) it all comes down to opinions, so nothing Romney says is really a lie… just a difference of opinion. If Romney says some tiny detail in his health care policy makes it fundamentally different and better than Obama’s almost identical health care policy then he is perfectly entitled to that opinion. If Romney claims he would have done a better job of bailing out insolvent banks or offering handouts to unproductive auto makers, he is also entitled to that opinion and no one can prove him wrong.
No one is about to run a controlled experiment to put both healthcare policies in parallel and demonstrate two different outcomes. No one can reset the world to 2008 and try a different strategy. Since it is impossible to prove that any of these people really have lied, the best we can do is point out that what they are saying is inconsistent seems implausible.
Friday ~ January 13th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Gepap
Krugman obviously believes in the importance of honesty, as the bolded section of the second quote shows.
By lying Romney might make it easier for himself to win the Presidency, but he undermines the ability to govern wisely by undermining the support for intelligent policy by lying about its efficacy, and what is the point of lying to get to be President, ie. to have the power to govern, if the method you used to get to that postion destroys your ability to actually govern?
Friday ~ January 13th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Th
You saved me a bunch of typing. Thanks
Friday ~ January 13th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Jason Thomas
Karl,
Are seriously asking this? I highly doubt Krugman is unaware of how politics, even primary politics, works. He’s jumping in the fray and yelling from the outside. Shouting by public intellectuals from national publications was factored into the very design of the system.
So the questions is not “gee, Paul, don’t you get how politics works? Don’t you know that Romney has to be a rhetorical conservative to get past the primary phase with it’s conservative base?” the question has become “gee, Karl, don’t you get that he gets that and is playing the role Madison had in mind when thinking out our system?”
I’m not exactly one of the Krugman fan-boys that Megan McArdle was alluding to the other day, but what’s wrong with playing the part AND pointing out that one of the guys vying for the presidency has a knack for saying what people want to here to get elected instead of what he actually thinks?
Friday ~ January 13th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Matt D
Richard Nixon called, he wants his moral argument back.
Saturday ~ January 14th, 2012 at 5:12 am
Tel
Only a Very Serious Person (VSP) would say, “This is not a game,” and when we are told that, “Economics is not a morality play,” we can conclude it isn’t worth fussing about the difference between a moral coward and a moral hazard. *shrug*
The Say Anything strategy does kind of presume that the audience has no memory and no ability to apply logic, so it will probably work for Romney about as well as it does for Krugman.
Saturday ~ January 14th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
anon
You are wrong to equate the two statements and you are wrong to accuse Krugman of a double standard.
The “morality play” argument is simple: policymakers should not implement harmful policies under the guise of moral judgements. Ireland does not deserve punishment for its foolish radical free market policies and Germany should not be punished for creating a debt trap for the rest of Europe.
But it’s perfectly right to call out Romney’s lies, as public lies are hurting our understanding of the universe and are thus almost always harmful.
There’s no inconsistency in Krugman’s position.
Sunday ~ January 15th, 2012 at 6:09 am
Tel
“… policymakers should not implement harmful policies under the guise of moral judgements …”
So you have decided that some policies are “harmful” based on what? This can only be a moral judgement on your part (or you are agreeing with Krugman’s moral judgement). All you have done is codify the belief that your moral judgements should take priority other people’s moral judgements… but anyone can play that game just like you and Krugman can and at the end of the day you still cannot escape the fundamental moral question (see also “The Golden Rule”).
Monday ~ January 16th, 2012 at 5:29 am
Paul Krugman and Mitt Romney: Honesty and Congeniality « M. Ulric Killion's space
[...] Paul Krugman and Mitt Romney: Honesty and Congeniality « Modeled Behavior [...]