As we know, tensions at the higher levels at the New York Times have been a bit "elevated" lately. At the columnist level, though, there's more or less an unwritten rule that op-ed writers don't go after each other.
Sometimes, though, Paul Krugman can't help himself, and I don't blame him when you share space with the likes of David Brooks. For example, on April 25, PK and DB had dueling columns on inequality star Thomas Piketty, which I diaried in Krugman v. Brooks: No Contest. Brooks had downplayed wealth concentration, saying wealth dissipates quickly over generations. Dr. K was compelled to write a blog piece later that day destroying that idea:
First, "Piketty doesn’t just assert that fortunes will concentrate, he shows that they have in fact concentrated in the past." Second, whatever generational dissipation of wealth does occur will happen over four to five generations, "controlling a large portion of wealth for that time."
Yesterday, Brooks dredged up the rotting carcass of the Simpson-Bowles commission, advocating more like it to come up with "great" elite ideas like charter schools and privatizing government charity, then foist them, Singapore-style on the US.
Paul is too discreet to go directly after Brooks, and in a blog post today titled Extraordinary Elite Delusions and the Madness of Commissions he links to a piece by Matt O'Brien titled No, David Brooks, We don't need less Democracy.
But then, Krugman takes matters into his own hands:
And for what it’s worth, Bowles and especially Simpson are actually fairly ridiculous figures. If this is elite wisdom …
In both America and Europe, budget deficits have clearly come down too fast, perpetuating the slump while probably if anything worsening the long-run fiscal outlook. If there was pandering going on here, it was a case of pandering to elite deficit obsessions, not popular desire for a good time.
and
The idea that anyone would look at the past five years and declare that what we need is two, three, many Simpson-Bowles commissions is quite mind-boggling.
So, to review: Simpson, Bowles and Brooks -- ridiculous and mind-boggling. (Oh, and extra credit for the Che reference, Paul.)
Hope you read Krugman's blog today, David. (Hah.)
And yet for 30 years, somehow it's the Democrats who are the "elites" looking down on the "real Muricans."