This diary is intended to detail the anatomy of a coordinated smear and highlight the risk posed to those who participate in spreading those smears.
Last week, a letter was released by four economists (Alan Krueger, Austan Goolsbee, Christina Romer, and Laura D'Andrea Tyson) that consisted of three paragraphs. Those paragraphs cited not a single fact, but they did contain a surprising amount of concern and innuendo directed at the work (PDF) of another economist Gerald Friedman.
While the recipients were listed as Senator Sanders and Professor Friedman, the letter was reported immediately by the New York Times and tweeted by Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman*.
* Note, Krugman's tweet linked to a strange wordpress blog that contains nothing but the letter; the link was used above in this diary and in every other media reference that I found; it appears that the only publicly available source of the letter is that single purpose blog.
As it turned out, that letter and the subsequent elaborations were poorly sourced (to be charitable), without merit, and published in a fashion that speaks to a level of coordination. The weakness of the letter and resulting chorus have been pointed out by many, including economic greats such as James Galbraith (PDF) and Thomas Piketty. The outcome and headlines could have been predicted…
— Krugman and His Gang’s Libeling of Economist Gerald Friedman for Finding That Conventional Models Show That Sanders Plan Could Work
— Krugman and the Gang of Four Need to Apologize for Smearing Gerald Friedman.
A smear generally consists of three parts, perfectly reflected in the three paragraphs of the letter:
- The first paragraph contains essentially a claim to authority: they "have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy", "have applied the same rigor to proposals by Democrats" and "Largely as a result of efforts like these, the Democratic party has rightfully earned a reputation for responsibly estimating the effects of economic policies."
- The second paragraph introduces claims of concern and use of innuendo to disparage without fact: they are "concerned to see ... extreme claims" "that cannot be supported by the economic evidence" and "exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans".
- The third paragraph descends into claims of destruction and disaster that will result: "no credible economic research supports economic impacts", "Making such promises runs against our party’s best traditions", "undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic", "undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda", "make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims".
That was the letter in its essence. No reference to an analysis of Friedman's work supporting their claims, no specific statement of where the problem resides, no reflection on what areas can be improved. It is all assertion without a shred of supporting proof. The clear intent was to disparage the work without offering any constructive (or even substantive) criticism.
Krugman's choral contributions can be summarized similarly, although he went on at greater length and made explicit reference to magic, unicorns, gut feelings and voodoo.
What they all missed was that Friedman's analysis was based on standard models, standard assumptions and commonly accepted analysis methods. If they wanted to honestly criticize, they had plenty of firm ground to debate.
Instead, they based claims on their authority. They offered no objective fact or analysis, only subjective horserace commentary and dismissive innuendo. They attributed negative consequences not to the policy analysis details but to the very offering of analysis. Rather than contribute to the discussion, they attempted to discredit a colleague.
And those weak claims were spread with the speed of rumor by major news outlets, prominent pundits, accomplished academics and dear Kossacks.
The fact that each participant put their reputation on the line might not have seemed apparent at the time. After all, they were repeating what someone with the power of authority had said.
But the smear fell apart. The empty claims were exposed. The original author, Gerald Friedman, vindicated. A Nobel Laureate was shown to have failed to do his homework before opining about magical unicorns. Falsehoods and innuendo have been exposed for all to see, reputations diminished and the Presidential primary was taken a little further into the gutter.
To whoever is planning a smear today, recognize that it will be exposed and that it will reduce your candidate's viability. Recognize that your reputation and the reputation of those supporting or spreading the smear will be affected. Dealing in this way is short-sighted. Poison the well and you will be left thirsting.